From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!rabbit!jj
Newsgroups: net.college
Title: Re: Re: J. Kirkpatrick at U.C. Berkeley - (nf)
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1146
Posted: Fri Feb 18 14:05:22 1983
Received: Sun Feb 20 02:13:46 1983
References: ucbcad.629

	Well, Mr. Turner, I think you missed the point.
The behavior of the crowd that was described in the first article
on the subject demonstrates EXACTLY a grevious violation of human
rights.  I would argue, using your own ideas, that support for
the students at the rally should be terminated, due to their 
bad record on human rights.  While I must grant that there is
a difference in the severity of the violation, I would question
you as to the differences that you perceive between the
Cubans and the current Guatamalan regime.  The question of
severity can be used in exactly the same fashion.

	I won't argue about what was said, although I do suspect
that there exists some misundertanding between the crowd (or at least
part of it) and the speaker.  Having been a part of such crowds in
the past, I can imagine that the misunderstanding could be
deliberate, at least for some.  (Possibly on both sides)

	If you ever see the movie (or show) Cabaret, pay close
attention to the scene that I mentioned in my original article,
the one in the ?bar? where the song "The Future Belongs to Me" is introduced.
I equate the described behavior with that scene, and I fear the
same sort of results.  

	You should notice that I have not taken a stance on the
political issue, since that is NOT the point of the original
article.   I note that you have taken a stance, at least as
far as making the judgement that the Cubans are better
able to govern Guatamala than the Guatamalans.  While I might
(and do) differ with your stance, that is immaterial to this
argument. (Notice I do not use the word discussion, since
emotional references and sophistry have run rampant throughout.)

	I intend to let this article be my last word on this subject,
as it has been my experience that such arguments tend to degenerate
into name-calling and deliberate misinterpretation of the other's argument.
I urge readers of the following discussions to bear this fact in mind.

rabbit!jj