Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Would someone who was anti-abortion because it was murder kill someone to stop it? I can't believe they would either.
Just as someone who will wage war to end war is not truly anti-war, so would someone who murders to stop abortion (because it is murder) not truly be against murder. Are you "implying" that one is right because of the other? What is your point?
I don't think I've ever said they weren't motivated by socialist philosophy. There are a lot of parallels to the Occupy movement today. Then as now there's a vein of truth to the perceived injustice...I don't think this makes them less American.
Being a socialist is anti-American in the founding sense of what an American is. In the current sense, which has been constantly shifting leftward, being socialist is quite American.
And just because hippies eschewed bombs for fornication doesn't mean that a mass of the entire generation wasn't swept up in counterculture. It's all related...
The "counterculture" generation was internally "related" in tangential ways. But in the main, it was a very mixed bag. The hippies and the violent radicals had much that appeared to be in common, but in terms of violence they were eons apart. And so were they distanced from each other in the fundamental transformation of society from one of the personal pursuit of happiness to one whose happiness was granted by an all-powerful central government.
Is Ayers considered more "mainstream" because of his radical views or because of his moderated social work? I think people are judging his position based on his recent work product rather than past actions. Or are you implying that giving credibility to his educational work is a defacto endorsement of his radical past?
-spence
|
Different "people" are judging from different points of view. The progressive left are judging his work product as it relates to its agenda which is fundamentally similar to his expressed ideology, which has not changed much from the past.
Threaded Mode