People are asking questions about the Ron Paul curriculum and when the answers turn up "Gary North", then they ask more questions, they are getting turned off.
Is Gary North really a Reconstructionist as described in this article or has he been taken out of context? Is there some kind of widespread misunderstanding of what Reconstructionism is? If he ever was a Reconstructionist, has he denounced it?
I can see someone who is against the death penalty pointing out about how a stoning was a community affair as a way of mocking how we consider ourselves to not have blood on our hands when we vote for supporters of it. Is there an underlying argument like that involved? Yes, the text is right there in the article-writer's link, but ya'll know how it can be reading an idealist's writings sometimes...layers upon layers of assuming the reader has been following along for enough years to understand the real context.
I've come across this issue with Gary North before, where Ron Paul's association with Gary North was counted as a reason to completely dismiss his judgement. The article cited in that case was full of logical fallacies and just seemed like the author was begging himself for an excuse not to consider Ron Paul's views so I took it for that at the time. There will always be people like that, whether Gary North is a problem or not, but I'd like to know more about whether this Gary North association is really a problem.
Content of posts