From: zeborah@gmail.com   
      
   David Friedman  wrote:   
      
   > In article <1im4i3o.egkklmuzoo6xN%zeborah@gmail.com>,   
   >  zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:   
   [quoting Suzanne]   
   > > "Whether there is a pan-Eurasian society, whether the Woodland Indians   
   > > formed a society that is harder to figure out.  I am inclined to go for   
   > > the broad scope society because, for instance, China & Europe have the   
   > > same kind of land tenure systems, because of the conquests that middle   
   > > Asians made in both directions & so on & on."   
   >   
   > That is, she is inclined to include in Western Civilization all or   
   > almost all of Eurasia.   
      
      
   Er, no:  that is, she's inclined to say that there exists a pan-Eurasian   
   society which includes China and Europe.  She doesn't name this society   
   "Western Civilisation".  In fact:   
      
   > > You then rephrased this as "The pan-Eurasian society of which Western   
   > > society is a part", and Suzanne agreed that this was a fairly accurate   
   > > characterisation of her argument.   
      
   > > And now somehow this has mutated in your mouth to the idea that "Western   
   > > Civilisation includes Japan, Mongolia and Ceylon".   
      
   > I don't see why you have difficulty following the logic, or illogic, of   
   > the argument she is making.   
      
   Do you not see how:   
      
   "Western society is a part of pan-Eurasian society"   
      
   is not equivalent to:   
      
   "Western society includes [various Asian countries]"?   
      
      
   I'm not here addressing whether or not Suzanne's argument is accurate.   
   I'm saying that when you mischaracterise her arguments, I have no   
   confidence in yours.   
      
   Zeborah   
   --   
   Gravity is no joke.   
   http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/   
   rasfc FAQ:  http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)