[QUOTE=RedFury]
No shit. And he obviously uses most of said free time to make a complete ass out of himself on the SDMB.
Must say, he’s doing a wonderful job doing just so.
[/QUOTE]
Criticism of Finn’s logorrhea aside, I sorta wish you wouldn’t agree with me. It makes me feel very dirty.
When I chew out my students for something, I make sure I’m not angry, because when emotion enters, the anger can turn into a tantrum. And if they notice, I lose. To effectively reach them I need to keep a cool head.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
First off, if you don’t have the time to double check his claims, you could at least look at his obvious lies in this very thread. And if you don’t know if he was lying to stir up shit, then you can’t know if he was trolling, right?
Moreoever, I can’t see how you can call debunking spoke-'s bullshit assertion “thread shitting”. And then ignore that his response to a factual challenge was to resort to pure ad hominems.
And just in case you were commited to an honest appraisal, you’d notice that RTF posted to me first, and started with his baiting in his very first phrase about “Ay-rabs”. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
I know **RTF ** responded to a post of yours before you engaged him. However, it’s quite obvious from the context of the thread what he meant by “Ay-rabs” and baiting you was not what was happening.
And you call it “debunking spoke-'s bullshit” and I see this:
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As that isn’t true either, I am left wondering why you need to make up falsehoods like that. (leaving aside that “AIPAC did it!” is way, way over simplistic and ignores factors which counters its influence) Do you want people to call you an anti-semite? Does it somehow make your argument stronger?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see any debunking at all. I see a lot of empty rethorics and use of word from the logical fallacies index, but no actual debunking. Remember that **spoke- ** supported you. And BTW, when you enter a thread, which had been civil up to that point, with this:
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
No no, you are confused. See, facts are true things, not things you make up in order to give your argument a nifty strawman to fight against.
[/QUOTE]
you’re in effect thread shitting. You’re no debating the value of the facts **ralph124c ** asserted, you’re just being condescending.
As you well know, when one opens a pit thread, one also opens oneself up to scrutiny from fellow Dopers. If you want it go go your way, being precise, presenting your case well and keeping calm is de rigeur. Pit OPs that are shrill never go well.
I really don’t care if RTF uses a Magic Eight Ball to come up with his arguments. For me that’s not the point. The point is behaviour and yours is less than stellar in this and that thread. He might lie, or be confused about facts, and if that’s the case, more people than you will pick him apart (and it seems to me that John Mace was doing that, without shrieking). You’re, OTOH, being a jerk.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Criticism of Finn’s logorrhea aside, I sorta wish you wouldn’t agree with me. It makes me feel very dirty.
[/QUOTE]
Time and a place for everything. And feeling dirty at the right time…whoaaa!
There. We disagree. Trust you’re now content. And clean.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
I know **RTF ** responded to a post of yours before you engaged him. However, it’s quite obvious from the context of the thread what he meant by “Ay-rabs” and baiting you was not what was happening.
[/quote]
He knew that the distinction was not ethnic, cultural, or racial, but national. He pretended he did not. He also use of the word “Ay-rab” is nothing but baiting. It’d be like talking to someone in a debate on racial relations in the US and saying “What up them neegroes?”
Besides, if you recognize that he started posting to me, why not retract your claims that I came after him?
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
And you call it “debunking spoke-'s bullshit” and I see this:
[/quote]
I debunked spoke’s buillshit by pointing out that he was full of it. Rather than even attempting to justify his lie, he simply personally attacked me.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
I don’t see any debunking at all. I see a lot of empty rethorics and use of word from the logical fallacies index, but no actual debunking.
[/quote]
What? Was I supposed to prove a negative? I pointed out that he was making things up. After that was pointed out, his only possible response was to sling ad hominems. Ad homs including, but not limited to saying that a statement specifically saying that something was not necessarily indicative of something was really inuendo accusing him of it. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
And BTW, when you enter a thread, which had been civil up to that point, with this:
you’re in effect thread shitting.
[/quote]
Not true at all. First off, there is no such thing as civil lying, which is what ralph was doing. Second, pointing out that someone is making things up is perfectly allowed when they are, in fact, making things up. The people thread shitting are the liars, not those who say “um, you’re lying.”
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
You’re no debating the value of the facts **ralph124c ** asserted, you’re just being condescending.
[/quote]
Pointing out that he’d made up his “facts” was indeed debating the ‘value’ of them. I see no reason to be nice with someone who is shitting in a thread by lying. “sorry, a fact has to be true, but you just made something up.” is not only not wrong… but odd if you view that as wrong while the person lying is given a pass.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
I really don’t care if RTF uses a Magic Eight Ball to come up with his arguments. For me that’s not the point. The point is behaviour and yours is less than stellar in this and that thread.
[/quote]
Lying in order to troll a thread is behavior. That you don’t care about that, and instead focus on those who call out a troll or a liar… well, it’s odd.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
He might lie, or be confused about facts, and if that’s the case, more people than you will pick him apart (and it seems to me that John Mace was doing that, without shrieking).
[/quote]
Funny, the ad homs, aren’t they? “shrieking”, via text. And, evidently, you can at least admit that RTF was full of crap and John called him out on it. Did RTF retract any of his bullshit? Did he keep trolling on?
You don’t care that he was trolling, or that others were lying, and you choose to focus only on the person who called them out because I was too “angry”. Well, those are your priorities, but I think they’re really screwed up.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
You’re, OTOH, being a jerk.
[/QUOTE]
I’m being a jerk… by calling out people who lie, and/or calling out a troll. The troll, on the other hand, whose trolling you don’t really care about, gets a pass.
Evidently RTF’s calm trolling is okay, because it was calm?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I don’t. Does he live there? Have relatives there? (I don’t think just being Jewish would count as a “personal stake,” though I’ve known Jews who would argue fiercely to the contrary.)
[/QUOTE]
He’s related to one of the two Israeli soldiers whose kidnapping by Hezbollah raiders across the Lebanese border touched off Israel’s invasion of Lebanon this past summer. To be fair to Finn, he doesn’t use that as a club with which to beat opponents, but from what little he has said about it, the anguish is great and deep. I keep that in mind when he blows up in debates involving the Mideast.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
State-sponsord terrorism is no better than what Hamas and/or Hezbollah do. BTW, neither one of which is considered a “terroririst organization” 'cept by Israel and a few of its unwavering supporters – with the US of A at the forefront of course.
[/QUOTE]
That is untrue.
The following governments consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization:
Austrailia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Hungary
Japan
Jordan
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
UK
US
That’s hardly “a few”, and almost none of them can be considered Israel’s “unwavering supporters”.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I debunked spoke’s buillshit by pointing out that he was full of it. Rather than even attempting to justify his lie, he simply personally attacked me.
[/QUOTE]
No he didn’t.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
FinnAgain is right. Merely questioning Israel doesn’t get you labeled an anti-Semite.
[/QUOTE]
You then proceeded to attack him:
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As that isn’t true either, I am left wondering why you need to make up falsehoods like that. (leaving aside that “AIPAC did it!” is way, way over simplistic and ignores factors which counters its influence) Do you want people to call you an anti-semite? Does it somehow make your argument stronger?
[/QUOTE]
BTW, saying that you’re shrieking like a banshee is not an ad hom. It’s the very reason I think you’re being a jerk, not your arguments.
I see that **ETF ** offers an explanation to this, which I found odd (and which was why I questioned you about it earlier in this thread). It doesn’t give you a free pass, but I can see why you’re so upset. And clearly very emotional about this subject. You really ought to stop posting when you’re that aggitated, becaue you alienate other Dopers, including me, and I never had an opinion about you before, except ‘cool dude, nice poster’.
ETF, yeah, pretty much. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by the Gaza border, not Lebanon, but the situation is much the same, and we’ve not gotten any news recently.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
No he didn’t.
[/quote]
And by the way, that was backhanded “support” if ever there was.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
BTW, saying that you’re shrieking like a banshee is not an ad hom. It’s the very reason I think you’re being a jerk, not your arguments.
[/quote]
Actually, that’s the textbook definition of an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of discussing an argument, you attack the messenger. Moreoever, if getting pissed off at a liar or a troll is a “jerk” thing to do in your book, I can’t say that bothers me overly much.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
but I can see why you’re so upset
[/quote]
I don’t need a free pass, nor do I need any other reason to be upset at a liar or a troll than that they’re a liar, or a troll. What boggles my mind is that you seem not to care whether or not RTF was lying, is lying, or what his purpose was behind lying. You care more about the fact that his lying pissed me off. I simply can not understand that.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
And clearly very emotional about this subject.
[/quote]
I hate liars, and I hate trolls. I pitted Bible Man for exactly the same reasons. Because more people were familiar with the subject material, and knew he was lying, that thread got support. Because many people aren’t familliar with this subject, and/or don’t recognize the egregious level of dishonesty that went on with RTF, they don’t care. The only different between Bible Man and RTF is the subject over which they chose to stir up shit.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
You really ought to stop posting when you’re that aggitated, becaue you alienate other Dopers, including me, and I never had an opinion about you before, except ‘cool dude, nice poster’.
[/QUOTE]
If your opinion changes about me because I called out a liar and a troll, but got angry in the process, ah well. You care more that I got angry at a troll, than that the troll was trolling. That’s your right, but it’s not a viewpoint I am going toworry about much to be honest.
I have said all I have to say, the record is in black and white, with RTF’s lies continuing on into this thread.
DSeid was right. Those of us who know about the topic, and tried to get RTF to debate honestly know what he is. There is nothing to be served, besides venting, by calling him out. A troll doesn’t stop trolling just because he’s unmasked or realizes that he’s pissing people off. And time spent in convincing people who don’t even care about the issues involved is wasted time.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Actually, that’s the textbook definition of an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of discussing an argument, you attack the messenger. Moreoever, if getting pissed off at a liar or a troll is a “jerk” thing to do in your book, I can’t say that bothers me overly much.
[/quote]
Since you were the one who started this thread, you may have noticed that we’ve moved from GD to the Pit.
This entire thread’s about the messenger, or messengers really. Because while you intended it to be about me, it seems to have revealed much more about you.
Even if I was a lying troll, it doesn’t justify your behaving like a raving banshee. Tu quoque and all that.
It’s got nothing to do with the topic of the linked thread, or the issues involved there. You have never even attempted to demonstrate that a generalist’s knowledge of the issues is insufficient.
You know how many posts I made in the linked thread after you joined the thread, and before your “Sorry, but I won’t take your bait” post? (That was the entirety of the post, you recall. #120.) Three. That’s all. Three. Posts 112, 118, and 119. Anyone can take a quick look at those three posts, and conclude the obvious: that I was debating more or less fairly, and you ran away, later claiming that I’d somehow demonstrated in those three posts that I was a troll.
That’s so obviously bullshit that there ain’t no wiping the brown off you.
And then you compound the bullshit by claiming that actually backing up your bullshit “Hamas charter” nonsense would have been feeding a troll, but all the other posts you made there, plus this whole thread, wouldn’t be.
Don’t you feel the least bit embarrassed by this completely unjustifiable attempt to win by slander?
And you’re a serial liar to boot. And when you’re called on your lies, you do your best to muddy the waters, change the subject, anything. People like you should stay at places like Free Republic where that sort of nonsense works. Just looking at the posts in this thread by people who weren’t involved in the other one after we started tangling, you can see how much credibility you’ve lost, and for very good reason.
There’s a lesson here. (A whole pile of them, really.) Wonder if you can figure out what it is.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
This.
[/QUOTE]
BG I am disappointed in you. This kind of drive-by comment, made after it has been responded to without comment back in the original thread, is not up to the level of decency I’ve generally come to expect from you. As was pointed out in that thread, Israel is hardly “rampaging” in Gaza, in fact she is observing a cease-fire in spite of ongoing Qassam attacks from Gaza. Cite was provided. And even RTF has gone on record as stating “Nobody here is claiming that anything remotely apartheid-like exists on the Israeli side of the 1948 cease-fire lines” To make such a charge by dropping in a cite to a Nation bit, into a thread in which responding to it fully would be a significant hijack, then not coming back to defend having done it but instead linking to it in now two seperate other threads, is no style sir. None at all. Disappointing.
Finn, happy to hear it. Look, I agree with you that RTF was jerky, heck it started with his snide intimation about my use of “she” in referring to Israel (eventually explicitly accusing me of some “damsal in distress” imagining), and continued with his using “Ay-rab” as a way to imply racist attitudes on your part. But getting snarky back (which we both did to various degrees) just feeds that behavior. I recall a similar Pit thread of yours about Der Trihs and Sev (I think it was a two-fer) and then as now, it isn’t only not worth it, it is counter-productive: afterall if he is a troll what he wants more than anything else is attention. If you are right then all you are doing by venting is feeding the troll. Nothing more.
It is just a message board.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
afterall if he is a troll what he wants more than anything else is attention. If you are right then all you are doing by venting is feeding the troll. Nothing more.
[/QUOTE]
Once again, the one form of ‘attention’ I kept on asking for, was for Finn to back up his silly claim that the Hamas charter had some relevance to the discussion at hand, by, y’know, actually quoting from it or something.
Gotta admit that’s a rather atypical form of trollery.
And if demanding that a poster make a vague claim (if you haven’t read the Hamas charter, you shouldn’t be posting in this thread) more specific (by giving quotes) is trollery, then bring on the freakin’ trolls!! In fact, consider me an enlistee in their army! 
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Oh, and just to show that much like RTF, you are an ignorant motherfucker who can’t read before he posts:
What do you think has been going on now in Gaza, you tool?
[/QUOTE]
Does this answer the question of whether there needs to be internal checkpoints? No, it does not, you misdirecting cunt.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Advice: Look up “appeal to authority”.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, fuckwit, it’s only a fallacy if I don’t know what I’m talking about on the subject. Lived through apartheid, know all about it from the wrong side, so yes, I guess you are really are that stupid. Fuck You.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Being that you had to lie in order to make your comparision, it looks like you’re not only an idiot, but a liar.
Let’s start, shall we? Hamas is not a liberation movement, it aims at the destruction of the entirety of Israel.
[/QUOTE]
…thereby liberating the people of Palestine. Fallacy of false dilemma, you can be genocidal maniacs & a liberation movement at the same time. Jesus, you’re not even trying, are you.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Hamas’ charter calls for genocide, on a global scale, and there is doctrinal uniformity in the entire party. A comparison missed either because you’re too lazy to do the reading (most likely) or deliberately dishonest.
[/QUOTE]
So sorry, I was unaware that there had to be an exact match in all facets for me to draw comparisons. You missed the fact that Hamas is an Islamist movement while the ANC was a secular Marxist one, too. Gosh, all those differences adding up, I guess I was completely wrong to think there were still points of similarity in two liberation movements struggling against Western-backed oppressor states. Silly me. You stupid fuck.
Just to answer one point - that it isn’t apartheid because it’s not racial, a couple of fun facts:
Japanese and Chinese are indistinguishable to your average white South African, and can generally be said to be of one “race” in as far as such doctrine holds any water. Yet one nationality was classified as White, and the other as Coloured, on purely realpolitik grounds.
When Taiwan became a major trading partner, there were suggestions that Mainland Chinese be classifies Coloured, while Taiwanese be classified White. Recall that plenty of Taiwanese have Mainland relatives, even brothers and sisters.
So this should let you see that while Apartheid is at heart a racist doctrine, it isn’t purely one, and arguments that “It isn’t really Apartheid if it’s not purely racial” don’t hold any water, because even the architects of South African Apartheid weren’t purists. Nationalist Apartheid can be just as easily found in the historic model as the racist kind.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Does this answer the question of whether there needs to be internal checkpoints? No, it does not, you misdirecting cunt.
[/quote]
Just because you don’t know enough about the situation to know why Israel requires security doesn’t mean I’m “misdirecting”. Ignorance on your part is not deception on mine.
Perhaps they require security because the “liberation movement” which aims at the genocide of the entire Israeli people is armed and financed and has a habit of lobbing rockets at civilian centers? Perhaps they require security because they attempted to give the OT’s back, but were rebuffed with The Three Noes? Perhaps they need security because your “liberation movement” does not actually care about a two state solution that would free the OT’s, but in continuing their genocidal campaign? Nope, couldn’t be. Obviously my not bringing up a painfully obvious fact is “misdirecting”.
See, what’s really funny here is that if your genocidal “liberation movement” (and their ideological cousins) would quit trying to ethnically cleanse Israel, then there would be peace within the very near future. They could liberate themselves by coming to the negotiating table rather than strapping on suicide belts. But their goal isn’t liberation, and it isn’t peace, and they still don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist.
So, most folks can figure out why one might just need security checkpoints when you have an enemy whose desire is to ethnically cleanse your population, or who lob rockets at your civilians, or who send suicide bombers to target your civilians. You could’ve figured that out too, if you’d chosen.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
it’s only a fallacy if I don’t know what I’m talking about on the subject.
[/quote]
No. First, your claims either fail or stand on their own merits. Your background has nothing to do with it. Just like an ad hominem fallacy is a red herring, so is standing on ceremony like you’re doing. Or if someone else from SA said that you were wrong… see why we have to judge claims on their merits, not the backgrounds of those who make them?
Further, even if we were to accept the fallacious premise that since you lived through it, you are automatically right in everything you say about it… you haven’t lived through Israel’s situation. So by your own ‘logic’, any Israeli person could come in and say “no, you’re wrong about our situation here.” and then, by your own ‘logic’, they could tell you
So in any thread where Alessan has disagreed with you, you’ve admitted you’re wrong? An Israeli is an absolute authority on what’s happening in Israel, just like you’re not only an absolute authority on what happened in SA, but how it applies to Israel? Or are you intellectually dishonest?
Obviously, your claims stand or fall based on their merit and logical coherence. The fact that you are pitching a fit over the fact that your appeal to authority has been called out is… interesting.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
…thereby liberating the people of Palestine
[/quote]
“Yeah I drank all the water in the canteen. I had to drink through both of your thirds before I could get to mine.”
If their goal was the liberation of the OT’s, that would be one thing. It isn’t. It’s the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people. Pretending that a movement that is about ethnically cleansing an area is really about “liberation” should be rather obviously silly.
It’s like saying that I’m going to set off a nuke in downtown Manhattan, with the goal of killing everybody there. But I’m a “parking space seeking” movement. And isn’t that benign? I deserve support, much like your liberation movement. They’re seeking liberation, and I’m seeking a parking space. Sure I set off a nuke, killing millions but … thereby I got a parking space.
Just like the whites in SA who wanted to run the country were really a “self determination movement”, right? Because, of course, even though they were vile racist bastards who attempted to make citizens of their country non-entities… thereby they got to determine their country’s future for a while.
I suppose that the Serbs were a “liberation movement” too?
Right? Or do you disagree with those, and simply hold your position on Hamas because you’ lack intellectual honesty?
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
So sorry, I was unaware that there had to be an exact match in all facets for me to draw comparisons.
[/quote]
No, you can draw comparisons between an apple and a hand grenade. What you cannot do is use the fallacy of false analogy to ignore their massive differences and focus only on the similarities. What you cannot do is pretend that because an apple has many similarities to a hand grenade, that they’re the same thing. Or that the apple is the “fruit version of the metal style hand grenade.”
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
You missed the fact that Hamas is an Islamist movement while the ANC was a secular Marxist one, too.
[/quote]
Hrmmm… secular marxism vs religious ethnic cleansing. Naw, that’s not an important distinction.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Gosh, all those differences adding up, I guess I was completely wrong to think there were still points of similarity in two liberation movements struggling against Western-backed oppressor states. Silly me.
[/quote]
Being that one aimed to liberate their own country, while another aims at destroying someone else’s country and slaughtering all their people… yeah. It’s pretty silly to overlook massive differences in order to commit the fallacy of false analogy.
Now as I’m sure that I won’t get anything else out of you that’s more valuable than “Grrrrrrr, I don’t know enough to understand why a country might defend itself from people who want to destroy it. You’re misleading!”, I think I’m done with you.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Just because you don’t know enough about the situation to know why Israel requires security doesn’t mean I’m “misdirecting”. Ignorance on your part is not deception on mine.
[/QUOTE]
Still misdirecting - just because Irael is justified, does not mean the justified tactics they use does not amount to Apartheid.
Are you under the misapprehension that I take Hamas’ side in this?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Perhaps they require security because the “liberation movement” which aims at the genocide of the entire Israeli people is armed and financed and has a habit of lobbing rockets at civilian centers? Perhaps they require security because they attempted to give the OT’s back, but were rebuffed with The Three Noes? Perhaps they need security because your “liberation movement” does not actually care about a two state solution that would free the OT’s, but in continuing their genocidal campaign? Nope, couldn’t be. Obviously my not bringing up a painfully obvious fact is “misdirecting”.
[/QUOTE]
No, you just commit the fallacy of two wrongs…
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
See, what’s really funny here is that if your genocidal “liberation movement” (and their ideological cousins) would quit trying to ethnically cleanse Israel, then there would be peace within the very near future.
[/QUOTE]
You can’t be that naive as to think the only problem in Israel/Palestine is Hamas and its ilk.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
They could liberate themselves by coming to the negotiating table rather than strapping on suicide belts. But their goal isn’t liberation, and it isn’t peace, and they still don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist.
[/QUOTE]
Of course their goal is liberation. They just happen to want to liberate a place that Israelis consider theirs.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
So, most folks can figure out why one might just need security checkpoints when you have an enemy whose desire is to ethnically cleanse your population, or who lob rockets at your civilians, or who send suicide bombers to target your civilians. You could’ve figured that out too, if you’d chosen.
[/QUOTE]
*Internal *checkpoints in a country that you try to claim is a separate state from Israel? Surely border posts are all you need if you are really a separate state?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
No. First, your claims either fail or stand on their own merits. Your background has nothing to do with it. Just like an ad hominem fallacy is a red herring, so is standing on ceremony like you’re doing. Or if someone else from SA said that you were wrong… see why we have to judge claims on their merits, not the backgrounds of those who make them?
[/QUOTE]
Someone else from SA is free to claim that I am wrong, or lying, in my experience of Apartheid. The onus is, however, on them to show where I have made false claims, not just to shout “Appeal to Authority” like that settles it. Like I said, Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the claimed authority is irrelevant. Relevant experience certainly counts.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Further, even if we were to accept the fallacious premise that since you lived through it, you are automatically right in everything you say about it… you haven’t lived through Israel’s situation. So by your own ‘logic’, any Israeli person could come in and say “no, you’re wrong about our situation here.” and then, by your own ‘logic’, they could tell you
[/QUOTE]
No, I wouldn’t trust an Israeli. I would trust a Palestinian. See, the relevant experience is not just about Apartheid, it’s about being a victim of Apartheid.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
So in any thread where Alessan has disagreed with you, you’ve admitted you’re wrong? An Israeli is an absolute authority on what’s happening in Israel, just like you’re not only an absolute authority on what happened in SA, but how it applies to Israel? Or are you intellectually dishonest?
[/QUOTE]
See above. I’ll bow to Alessan when it comes to the Israeli experience, but he knows jack about being a Palestinian in the OTs, I’m afraid.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Obviously, your claims stand or fall based on their merit and logical coherence. The fact that you are pitching a fit over the fact that your appeal to authority has been called out is… interesting.
[/QUOTE]
The fact that you get all :dubious: when I point out that what you consider a fallacy…isn’t, is not interesting at all, in fact it’s banal.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
If their goal was the liberation of the OT’s, that would be one thing. It isn’t. It’s the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people. Pretending that a movement that is about ethnically cleansing an area is really about “liberation” should be rather obviously silly.
[/QUOTE]
You still haven’t shown that the two goals are mutually incompatible. Your “parking space” analogy is just…weird. And the rest of it just stupid.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
No, you can draw comparisons between an apple and a hand grenade. What you cannot do is use the fallacy of false analogy to ignore their massive differences and focus only on the similarities. What you cannot do is pretend that because an apple has many similarities to a hand grenade, that they’re the same thing. Or that the apple is the “fruit version of the metal style hand grenade.”
[/QUOTE]
If I was talking topology, then yes, an apple is laike a grenade. If I’m talking liberation movements, then yes, the ANC is like Hamas. You can throw any liberation movement that uses violence in that mix and make comparisons.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Hrmmm… secular marxism vs religious ethnic cleansing. Naw, that’s not an important distinction.
[/QUOTE]
Not when it comes to the actual effects of the movement. Remember, we came to this by my comparing Hamas and ANC on a purely tactical level - both used civilian bombing as a tactic. Now, Nelson Mandela has a Nobel Peace Prize. Who know where Hamas will be in 27 years. But you have yet to show how the ideological differences matter a damn to your argument.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Being that one aimed to liberate their own country, while another aims at destroying someone else’s country and slaughtering all their people… yeah.
[/QUOTE]
Wait, according to the government in power at the time, black ANC members weren’t citizens of South Africa, they were citizens of their Bantustans. So I guess that makes them filthy terrorists hell-bent on destroying *someone else’s country *too, doesn’t it?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
It’s pretty silly to overlook massive differences in order to commit the fallacy of false analogy.
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty silly to overlook the similarities because it destroys your argument, isn’t it, cunt?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Now as I’m sure that I won’t get anything else out of you that’s more valuable than “Grrrrrrr, I don’t know enough to understand why a country might defend itself from people who want to destroy it. You’re misleading!”, I think I’m done with you.
[/QUOTE]
Wait, what’s that?
“LA, La, La, I can’t hear you!”
Surely not, you’re the Master (De)bater, you won’t just duck out of an argument, will you.
At least call me a troll before you go, will you…It’ll make my day.
Once again, Finn is showing his inability to talk about Israel like a mature adult. What a big surprise. I’ve long ago classified him as one of those rare breed of posters who completely lacks even the slightest smudgen of self-awareness. To overuse (and misappropriate) phrases and words like “intellectually dishonest” and “troll” is bad enough. But he just plain sucks at debating.
Finn, I wouldn’t even be weighing in on this thread if you hadn’t slathered with me your rabies-laden foam back in this thread. I suggest you take a hiatus from threads dealing with Israel because almost without fail your participation creates an atmosphere of animosity where there should be none in a board that prides itself on open discourse. Honestly, if anyone should be called a troll, it is you. You have a pattern of stomping into Israel-oriented threads and stifling rational debate with elementary school-level vitriol. Which means that not only are your posts lacking in substance, but they are woefully thin in the entertainment department as well.
You should listen to John Mace. I happen to disagree with his position in that thread, but since he agrees with your argument, look to his reaction to see how your behavior might alienate other people who could be persuaded to your view.
FinnAgain has unfortunately not abandoned the original thread. In post 166 there, he makes up
which
The difference between giving something away, and trading it for something else, is basic and fundamental. In the case of the occupied territories, if Israel would trade land for the right combination of recognition and security guarantees, there would be nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
But it would be a trade, not a giveaway. With giving away, there is no try, just do. Just walk out, and you’ve given away the land. Israel has not been trying to do that, for one year or thirty.
In fact, the settlements that have been built over the past 28 years are a move in the opposite direction: they make it harder to give the OTs away, by creating a constituency of people who live there whilst considering themselves residents of Israel.
In addition, many persons involved in the governance of Israel over that period have considered the OTs part of Israel proper, calling them “Judaea and Samaria,” an attitude that flies in the face of trying to even trade the territories, let alone give them away.
Lies. That’s all Finn has for us.
In breaking news:
[QUOTE=DSeid]
BG I am disappointed in you. This kind of drive-by comment, made after it has been responded to without comment back in the original thread, is not up to the level of decency I’ve generally come to expect from you.
[/QUOTE]
What, this post, with this link? No, I don’t think that debunks or even contradicts what Gideon Levy was saying in Ha’aretz. Levy, I think, was talking about the whole record of events in Gaza since June 2006. The cease-fire has only been in place a month, and the Israelis are about to resume fighting. And the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza remains as bad as ever, fighting or no, and is mostly the work of Israel (though the Palestinians don’t help matters any by fighting each other).
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
In breaking news:
First Settlement in 10 Years Fuels Tension
[/QUOTE]
:eek: The Jordan Valley?! That’s not only east of the Green Line, it’s east of the Wall! How can they do this and expect anyone believe they have any intention of allowing “independent” Palestine an open border with Jordan?!
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
See above. I’ll bow to Alessan when it comes to the Israeli experience, but he knows jack about being a Palestinian in the OTs, I’m afraid.
[/QUOTE]
Really? I wouldn’t say that. Unlike you, I’ve actually been there. Seing something with your own two eyes may not be as good as actually living it, but it’s better than watching it on TV. I’ve visited the Territories as a civilan and as a soldier, I’ve known Palestinians, and I even speak a little Arabic.
More than that - we Israelis are not like Americans in Iraq (sorry, guys). We make every effort to understand everything about the Arab world, be it culture, politics or religion. I assure you, our legislators know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.