A reply

The BBQ Pit
1

This is really no big issue in as much as that I would be raving mad at anyone including milroyz. It’s just that the debate in question was slowly turning into quite the sandbox forum and the ad hominems were slowly building up to a level were they were more the issue than the issue, so I prefer to explain myself in this forum rather than pollute GD with hijacks about my opinions as they be.

This is what I would like to reply to:

Lay off it milroyj, will ya! Your comments are frightfully offensive and you seem to be wearing horse size side blinders while you read, or as I have posited before you’re not reading at all. I might remind you that this whole exchange between you and me started with me making the point that you had a certain basis for one of your comments while also pointing out that there was some basis for the opposite view. You immediately turned around and became defensive, plus chucked me into your imagined or real or whatever opponent’s camp. Is that a sensible way to debate?

Further; it’s intellectually morbid to accuse people of bigotry while making generalizing statements about the same people starting sentences with terms like; ‘the majority…’ that’s what bigotry begins with; judging whole groups of people by what the famous majority ‘says’ and ‘thinks’.

Next thing, read the cite I gave you instead of reiterating the same crap in different words. Comment it and maybe add something other than fast and easy opinion, I’m sure it would be appreciated and lauded by at least a few members on the board.

As for me being apologetic of anything whatsoever. Sure! Of course! No question! Naturally! Indeed! T h e r e i s n o d o u b t about it!

Get real will you! I set the record straight on some sweeping generalizations that you made and now I am suddenly apologetic of terror? Tell you what, had anyone posted anything semi-founded like you did about the Palestinians about the Israelis I’d be making the same effort to balance their argument. I agree with your statements about the Israel/Palestinian conflict about as much as I do with for instance Olentzero i.e. hardly at all. On the other hand Olentzero’s rhetoric stays on a level were I can respect him and to boot others are countering his arguments far better than I could, so I leave that be. It’s left to me and my feeble abilities to sweep up in the debating sty were the most simplistic hogwash appears.

For the umpteenth time; it is getting a little more than tiresome with the amount of ostrich mentality rampant in debates on this issue, especially when it comes to yourself and others labeling me and pigeon-holing me to one side.

For the last time: I’m a rabid moderate and as neutral as a Swiss on this one, which you might have realized had you (once again) bothered to read my posts before you reply to them in part. I despise and abhor terror, it’s just that I happen to get the world in Trinitron HD on my little reality TV, while some others obviously still need to upgrade from the good old black and white set.

Before you say it: I am aware that you said ‘apparently’… and now you have been corrected as to where I do stand and in what I do believe.

Sparc

PS Truly amused about the little Sparky opening jab, that’s a pretty high level of wit I must say DS

2

Um, I used the word “majority” based on the definition of the word, not from any bigotry. Last I checked, 52% of a group is a “majority”, being more that 50%. So if 52% of Palestinians want to eliminate Israel, I’m bigoted for refering to that fact? Because I said “majority”?

What I find intellectually morbid is people sitting around on an internet message board trying to explain murderers. YMMV.

3

Obviously you fail to appreciate that while arguing ad populum (in this case to make a negative point) you commit a logical fallacy. I am not implying that you really think that all Palestinians want to kill all Jews, but that is easily inferred by your statements. Since I chose to believe that you don’t mean this I point out where you rhetoric errs. I didn’t say that you were bigoted. In the original thread you threw those labels around re the Palestinians. To then argue the possibility of peace in Israel based on Palestinian popular sentiment isn’t quite symmetrical if you ask me.

As for the second part methinks you are letting your outrage get in the way of your intellectual faculties. No one in the thread where this started was condoning the suicide bombings. No one was trying to explain them away as justifiable. No one was saying that it was acceptable. Various people were trying to understand the reasons for some Palestinians to carry out these acts of horror and the popular support they are currently getting.

Meanwhile there was also a parallel debate going on regarding how to best stop them and what part the actions of the Israeli administration and the IDF has in either stopping or bolstering these murders. People expressed understanding or lack of understanding on a sliding scale. Some unfortunate remarks were felled that were easily misconstrued as outright support for suicide bombings, those were mostly cleared up. Then a couple of posters (you being one) decided to lash out at amongst others me and claim that trying to understand was equal to supporting.

Although this is a rather tired debate by now I’ll say it once again; to understand is an essential part of stopping the violence. Or are you claiming that we need not understand, but just be firm in our (our as in those who think it is not acceptable) absolute condemnation of terror, because our high moral ground will eventually prevail? IMHO it is by understanding that you can truly go after the bad guys with justified prejudice and snip the popular support they have at the roots.

Maybe you are partially right and we are cooks and weirdoes for trying to understand and debate what could be done to stop the violence on an Internet MB, especially given our lack of immediate influence on the situation. But hey, you know what? I think we all do have a chance of influence in the world however minute. If not, I find it very healthy for my open mindedness to hear the views of a few others that differ or agree with me.

What little I have gotten of your views so far I think to discern that you are all for a hard-line approach of ‘budge not a centimeter’. Unfortunately I can’t even say if that is correct since instead of debating you have focused on condemning other posters views and serving up arguments based on popular belief.

And maybe in the least I think that what some of us might be doing is trying to deal with something that troubles us deeply by sharing our views on it.

Now would you please desist in implicitly accusing me of voicing support of murder, I truly don’t appreciate it.

Sparc

4

I get it, you’re part of the let’s understand crowd.

Should we have tried to understand Hitler (sorry, Godwin), Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot? Should we try to understand John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or Chuckles Manson? Maybe, in an after-the-fact sort of way, after they are incapable of further crimes, whether that be through war or imprisonment or execution. But never as a reason to justify.

Anyway, the fact remains that a majority of Palestinians want to kill Jews, and I find it quite fair to condemn them for that. It’s racist, and a moral outrage. For you to lend even a modicum of support is equally racist and outrageous.

Now would you please desist in accusing me of bigotry, I truly don’t appreciate it.

5

Yes, heaven forbid someone not shed a tear when the country that invades them every other week gets attacked by a few nutcases. I bet a majority of Americans wanted all Arabs dead on September 12th, are you gonna condemn all Americans? Your “Everyone should consider things from my point of view” additude is pathetic. Stop talking, as each post you put up only validates the other side.

6

I’m all for understanding people. The police so it all the time - they call it “profiling”. It’s a useful forensic tool.

7

No. After 35 years of living as a subject people, the last 10 of which have been marked by repeated refusals by multiple Israeli governments to set a timetable for independence accompanied by continued government supported incursions by Israeli settlers, the Palestinians have reached a point where, if someone sticks a microphone or notepad under their nose and asks “Do you want Israel destroyed?” or “Do you support the suicide bombers?” a majority will answer that question “Yes.” This is not too far removed from polls taken around September 12 showing that a majority of Americans wanted the U.S. government to wander across the Mid-East wreaking indicriminate havoc and destruction–a sentiment that still has a sizable minority support even with calls by President Bush to focus our anger only on the terrorists.

You have looked at opinion polls taken among people who are desperate and angry and chosen to believe that they reflect the long-term choice and commitment of those people. You have joined Sharon in holding both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples hostage to a minority who choose to engage in terrorist acts and a contrived opinion spoken by a majority in anger.

Opposing that view is not the same as lending even a “modicum” of support for murder. It is a call for a rational review of what it will take to end the violence.

8

Yes I am, are you suggesting I had better come over to the let’s stay ignorant crowd?

From the back:

Why is it that you’re so pigheaded about thinking that someone or anyone is trying to justify murder and terror? You’re still not reading or not understanding what you read.

Not only after the fact should we try to understand, but before the fact so that we might attain a level of understanding in our society that enables us to stop things like that from happening again preemptively. In the case of the mass murderers you count up; previously made point regarding profiling is a case in point.

You seem to consistently equate understanding with passivity. It’s a classic and quite scary way to reason.

As in:
Mr. Extreme says; “I say we shoot first and ask second. We know he’s a homicidal maniac and that he’s dangerous. We better take no risks.”
Ms. Moderate says; “Hang on there a minute honey, are you sure you didn’t mean ask first and shot second? Because how sure can we be that he is ‘he’ and that ‘he’ is guilty in the first place?”
Extreme protests; ”So! You agree with what he did and on top of that you want to let him get away with it? Not only that, he murders people and now you want us to take risks while stopping him? That’s sick! Then again you’re always such a weak-hearted little woman. Now get out of my way, I need my gun!“

Would you be so kind as to apply your limited skills of understanding to that example and tell me where Mr. Extreme was in the right, if you can.

I devote part of my life to understanding some of the gentlemen you start your list with. I don’t support any of them. Many others do as well and we do because we believe that their victims deserve that we understand so that we (humanity) can make sure they aren’t joined by another score of victims at the hands of a new madman of their caliber. If you like it’s a way of making sure that they didn’t suffer in vain.

Side note: Godwin is not invoked just because you bring up Hitler or the Nazis. Godwin’s law is invoked when you accuse an opponent in a debate of reasoning like a Nazi or being Hitler, or that his/her opinions can be equated with Nazism or Hitler’s views without being exactly that. It can be argued that Godwin is invoked when you compare an opinion by a third party being debated as Nazi, but that’s slightly more iffy.

This nonsense has now been addressed multiple times by various people, if you don’t get it by now I can’t do much for you.

I didn’t. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and pointed out that your arguments of majority regarding the Palestinian people could be construed as bigotry. Since you insist on continuing that line of argument I’ll do it now: You’re being bigoted milroyj, but I’m glad that you’re finally standing up to it so that your misinformed, lowly opinions and advocacy of intolerance can be met with sensible arguments.

Sparc

9

Hmm…

Well, I don’t believe that the majority of Palestinians really want to kill all Israeli’s (people will say anything when there’s no consequences to their words)… what I’m worried about is the small number that really, really do. It’s unfortunate that these few nutcases are making the rest of 'em look bad, especially since Israel does have a legitimate fear of them continuing the attacks against innocents even if they do pull back.

Probably explains why I tend to avoid the Israel/Palestine debates… I see it as a No Win situation for either side.

10

Tom, dammit, remind me to buy you a beer or two should we ever meet. This is the exact point I’ve been trying to make in various threads on the matter (admittedly, I tend to avoid posting in these threads). My dozen attempts so far have used possible a hundredfold of the words of your post, and they had about .5% of the effect.

Thanks.

11

Not to sound like a dick, because I am lurking in that debate and it is a real shitstorm, but of course someone is going to be defensive when you tell them that the opposite of their opinion has legitimacy. I mean, hello? Berkeley’s claims that reality is only in the mind have some friggin’ legitmacy, too, and I might expect a materialist to get a little hot under the collar.

I’m not going to speak for milroy because I’m neither pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, or hardline moderate on the issue. My solution is what I think is going to naturally evolve from the situation anyway, so I could give a rat’s ass about either of their causes. But it seems to be a far cry from a leap of faith to think that someone who holds opinion A will be defensive when someone tries to tell them ~A has validity.

The method of becoming defensive is something else entirely, but I hear moderates always cry this out like they are martyrs to the great cause of “being rational and civil”.

“Gee, Jehova, can’t ya just see Lucifer’s side? I mean, have a little rationality, wouldja?” The ability to entertain a hypothesis rationally does not make the hypothesis rational.

I do agree with most of the rest of your rant, however, lest you worry that I find the opposite of your premise to have validity, too :wink:

12

Good point erislover. I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t ok to be defensive of my ‘balanced’ view, which obviously would be opposed to any of the two polar extremes. I do however maintain that it is absurd to chuck me into the other polarity because of that. As a moderate I expect to have my moderate view countered, not my non-existent extremism.

You’re right though, moderates me included do have a tendency to overlook that in the views of the extreme opposites we will alternately come across as being one of them. We’re so boring and colorless that way, it’s a drag to be rational.

Sparc

13

Yeah, there’s nothing sexy about moderation. I’m thinking of ditching the whole gig - Extremists always seem to get more dates :D.

  • Tamerlane ( What do you mean, it’s just me? :stuck_out_tongue: )
14

Don’t sweat it. I doubt that I have persuaded anyone, either.

The sad thing is that I do believe Israel has a right to exist, safe from attack, but that I see Sharon’s absolutist demands that he will have no discussions as long as any wild individual or small group continues the attacks as simply prolonging them. There is no justification for the suicide bombings, but they are more likely to be stopped (by pressure from family and neighbors, not by some ineffective PA police organization) when Israel begins to bargain in good faith with a will to establishing the independent Palestinian state. As with Northern Ireland and the Basques in Spain, there will be individuals who continue with their attacks. So what is more likely to eventually bring the attacks to an end? Which action reduces the number of people who will volunteer to murder innocents for their cause? Keeping an entire people in a state of hopelessness where they believe they have nothing to lose? Or giving them genuine hope that they will have something to live for?

Does Sharon “let them win” if he chooses to negotiate despite the depredations of a tiny minority and the hostility of the overwhelming majority? Or does he “let them win” by allowing that tiny minority to dictate his actions–painting himself into a corner where he can never negotiate because there will always be some individual capable of carrying out a terrorist attack? In the former scenario, he dictates his own actions; in the latter scenario, he allows a few dozen people to hold all his actions hostage.

15

milroyj, your attacks are juvenile, absurd, willfully ignorant, and disastrous.

-The ‘Sparky’ and ‘Squishy’ stuff: juvenile
-The “Jews aren’t capable of genocide or genocidal actions simply because they’re Jews”: absurd
-Your failure to get my point that, were Israel’s actions undertaken by any other religious groups, Palestinians would be targeting that group because of their actions and your constant shrieking of, “Racism!”: willfully ignorant

  • Those who do not understand history, or learn from it, are condemned to repeat it. You refusal to understand or learn: disastrous.
16

You have any cite that a majority of Americans wanted all Arabs dead on Sept 12th? No, you don’t, because it is simply not true. Try again.

17

And I agree. To profile terrorists, with the intention of stopping them, is all good.

To engage in what amounts to mental masturbation, blaming here, justifying there, blah, blah, blah, is horrific.

18

  1. Sparky and Squishy was junvenile, I admit.

  2. Jews aren’t capable of genocide, I never said that.

  3. The fact remains, the murderers are trying to kill Jews, not Isareils, as you DISENGOUNSLY suggested.

  4. We all know what happend the last time people murdered Jews, so why do you try to justify it?

19

Sorry, i forgot the big love-insthat went on between America and its Arab communitythat week. And since when did we need a cite for an opinion? And wheres your cite for proving it’s not true? Now, if you had bothered to read the poll data provided in the thread (which i know you didn’t because the actual number is 51.1%, not the 52% you keep repeating off of zev’s guess. Here was the link and Here is the most recent poll. now scroll down some and get to question 15, about how the Isreali Occupation has affected the support of extremest groups. Notice the sudden increase, like how suddenly everyone seems to be supporting people the used to condemn? Now, say your town was invaded by Eritreans and they were killing your friends and family left and right. You’d support ANYBODY who was fighting back, even if they had to kill innocent Eritrean citizens. If you claim otherwise, you a damn liar.

I’m sorry you hate your father the psychologist. He didn’t mean to keep you in the Skinner box that long! That was a long time ago! Let it go, man, it isn’t healthy!!! :wink:

20

I apologize; it was Monty who implied that.

Um, if you’re going to put a word in all caps, you should spell it right (disingenuously). Let me ask you point-blank: if Israel was the home state of the Baptist religion, would Palestinians still be trying to kill Jews, yes or no?

Because I can understand and sympathize with the plight of a people who have suffered what the Palestinians have suffered for over 50 years. More importantly, because what the Israelis have done and are doing to the Palestinians falls in the same vein as massacres, oppression and brutality throughout history.