[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar
Jan. 30th, 2003 08:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bryantI think I've pinpointed the problem with Bush's drug addiction treatment voucher proposal, and can explain it in fairly unmistakable terms. Here goes.
Under Bush's proposal, federal money for drug treatment could wind up going to Narconon.
Don't look at me like that. They're faith-based.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 07:18 pm (UTC)"I don't think you're remotely correct with your characterization of all faith-based initiative supporters as Christian Right, if by that you mean fundamentalists."
Neither do I. Here's what I said:
"I'm assuming that successful Narconon treatment which results in the subject converting to Scientology would be disturbing to the Christian right which currently supports this initiative..."
Not: "To the Christian right which are the sole faith-based initiative supporters." Pointing out that the Christian right supports this initiative does not imply that they are the sole supporters of this initiative.
You keep reading these weird things into what I say, and you're generally right -- if I was saying what you think I'm saying, I'd be wrong. But I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. Sometimes I'm even agreeing with you.
I dunno. I guess what I'm saying is feel free to comment, but if I don't respond, it's because I don't think you'll actually take the time to read what I'm saying, and frankly, I have better things to do than to write responses which are only gonna be misconstrued anyhow. Part of discussion is the effort to understand what the other guy is saying. You don't seem to want to do that, and whether you flat out misunderstand me or you cloak the deliberate misunderstanding in condescending advice on the proper way to argue... either way, it's not worth my time.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 09:47 pm (UTC)