Steven-
False on a number of accounts. I've never suggested declining to "engage" China. By insinuating that I seek isolation of China- perhaps behind some great wall?- you simply provide a false (intentionally, I suspect) restatement of ideas I have expressed. Lawrence's idea of "paraphrasing", no doubt. The question is the form that engagement should take. Sorry, but when you make a specific allegation of improper behavior on my account, I consider the response "I haven't time to go dredging up old posts to go looking for others" to be rather weak. But at least you were man enough to agree that you did in fact make an "absurd extension" of my ideas in an attempt to discredit them- something I do not think I have done to you.
Now, as to the specific example you cited. Yes, I referred to you and those of your persuasion as "apologists" for the current regime in China. You and Lawrence seem to think this serves to indicate my low character: My American Heritage dictionary defines "apologist" as follows: "A person who defends or justifies something, such as a doctrine, a policy, or an institution". I'd hardly say that is a stinging indictment- have you not done exactly that with respect to contemporary China, or have I misunderstood you? What exactly is your problem with being called an apologist- you've made a show of it, but what exactly is your complaint?? What word, may I ask, would suit your delicate sensibilities??? Without a good explanation of: 1) where my description of you is in error, and 2) what is so untoward about the word "apologist", I will consider your complaint to be so much empty posturing.
Larry
|
