# Ignorance fights back; or, december, please EXPLAIN yourself? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 7, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808 "2003-03-07T22:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/301 "2003-03-14T14:22:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by S. Mussberger \* > OK, just for the slow. I have no tolerance for the use of terrorism. I can understand why it occurs but no matter what side is the culprit I find it despicable. > > Your question implies that you are uncertain if I do. **S. Mussberger** , I didn’t mean to impute your morals or your opposition to terrorism. I was uncertain, because you appeared to be unaware that some of your tax money was being used in this way. My point about the “ocean in which you swim” is that this misuse of EU donations may not have been much attention by your political leaders and your media. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/302 "2003-03-14T14:44:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I don’t want to get into a hijack, but Sweden gives more than moral support to killing. \*\* Too late. The Pope has been forgotten. [Weebl] “How handy.” [/Weebl] \*\* > [@](#): > > And, \*\* S. Mussberger\*\*, Sweden does give moral support to Arafat. They evidently consider him the proper ruler of the Palestinians. Compare the Swedish policy with Bush’s statements, that a Palestinian state is not possible until Arafat is replaced.\*\* Given that we can’t talk to every single Palestinian, is there someone else we should be speaking to as a representative of the Palestinians? How else should we attempt to discourage acts of terrorism and aggression by that group, if not by talking to them? Do you think strongly-worded public statements from the rest of the world would sway them? Should we impose heavier sanctions, thus making their situation even more desperate? Or should we give Israel more tanks and weaponry to “take care” of the problem? After all, we can see how well **that** approach is working. Go ahead – I’m open to suggestions. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/303 "2003-03-14T14:49:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jr8 \* > **…december** can safely disregard anything you and all other Europeans say. Which, of course, he does. > \*\* Hey! Let’s not be so exclusive! He ignores everything said by anyone else. In the sense that he doesn’t actually think about it. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/304 "2003-03-14T14:56:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jr8 \* > \*\*Given that we can’t talk to every single Palestinian, is there someone else we should be speaking to as a representative of the Palestinians? How else should we attempt to discourage acts of terrorism and aggression by that group, if not by talking to them? Do you think strongly-worded public statements from the rest of the world would sway them? Should we impose heavier sanctions, thus making their situation even more desperate? Or should we give Israel more tanks and weaponry to “take care” of the problem? After all, we can see how well **that** approach is working. > \*\* Well, by the _il Papa_ argument, you can’t talk to heads of state acknowledged by the US and UN, so how can you talk to the democratically elected head of an occupied territory? Clearly, the way to deal with the Palestinians is to continue killing and oppressing them until they see that peace is the way. There is no Palestinian to talk to-- those people are all Anti-semites and Jew-Killers! I never thought I’d exhaust my taste for sarcasm… ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/305 "2003-03-14T14:59:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jr8 \* > is there someone else we should be speaking to as a representative of the Palestinians? How else should we attempt to discourage acts of terrorism and aggression by that group, if not by talking to them? Do you think strongly-worded public statements from the rest of the world would sway them? Should we impose heavier sanctions, thus making their situation even more desperate? Or should we give Israel more tanks and weaponry to “take care” of the problem? After all, we can see how well **that** approach is working. > > Go ahead – I’m open to suggestions. I will assume “we” refers to the EU. Here are some ideas for consideration:[ul][_]Apply proper accounting and controls on Arafat to stop him from using any part of EU donations to support terrorist groups.[_]Use those donations as leverage to prevent Arafat from giving any PA money to terrorist organizations. That is, demand a review of all of the PA’s accounts as a condition for donating money.[_]Get the UN to do a better job of supervising the refugee camps, so as to prevent terrorist groups from using them as staging grounds. The UN says this is not their responsibility; they merely provide financial support. But, their job definition could be revised.[_]Back up the US demand that Arafat be replaced with a real democracy. Note that Arafat just appointed a PA prime minister, Mr Mahmoud Abbas. But, Abbas is a puppet of Arafat; Arafat continues to retain all the power. The EU could make it clear that this sort of phony reform is inadequate. Real democracy is required.[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/306 "2003-03-14T15:02:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by S. Mussberger \* > \*\*Unbelievable! So, our prime minister here in Sweden has met representatives for both the Palestinians and the Israelis! I guess that our country provides supports for the killing of both peoples. Huh, and all the time I thought that we were trying to talk to them to see if there was any hope for the situation down there… Guess we encouraging them to kill each other off so we can move in afterwards. > > Oh oh oh oh, we had Bush Jr. here not so long ago so I guess we are giving support for the murdering of the Iraqis. Oh no! We are showing the Iraqis talking on the news all the tim these days. I’m so sorry I never realized that we were lending support for the murdering of Americans! > > Damn come to think of it, our foreign minister was going down to Yugoslavia this week. Guess we lend support for the killing of the Muslims in Kosovo to! > > \*\* Oh, stuff it. Why don’t you read what I wrote instead of what you want to see? I said: > [@](#): > > the statement “The Pope supports a regime that murders the Jews” is factually correct. It is also not that big a deal, all nations ally with or recognize governments that do things they themselves might not support, it doesn’t mean they support all of the actions of that government, just the government itself. This last point is key, because saying that The Pope supports a regime that murders the Jews is most emphatically NOT the same as saying “The Pope supports the murder of Jews” All countries support regimes that do bad things. They may support two governments that are at war with each other, and that dosen’t necessarily mean they support the war, it may be that they feel the best way to end the war is by suporting the two governments engaging in it because they can get them to talk. The U.S. supported groups that murdered nuns because it felt at the time that a larger issue ( opposing Communism ) was more important. That dosen’t mean that the U.S. was in favor of the killing of nuns. I was very careful to make the destinction, and here comes S. Mussberger, reading what he wants to read. Was this intentional, accidental or simply unfettered ignorance at work? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\ ***Weirddave** , your argument leaks like a seive, as **S. Mussberger** points out. > > On the one hand you advocate that the Vatican “should be energetically offering it’s [sic] services as a mediator between opposing sides”, but at the same time, you use the fact that they are already trying to mediate as proof that “The Pope supports a regime that murders the Jews”. Guess the Pope is just damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.\*\* See the above response to S. Mussberger > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\* > You also say that “The Vatican should be loudly calling for reform”. Others would say that the Vatican is in fact doing that. Apparently the Vatican just isn’t doing it loudly enough for your satisfaction, or else you are wilfully ignoring what the Vatican is in fact saying. > \ > I could generate any number of such bullshit “proofs” that **Weirddave** supports murder, drug abuse by children, bashing of elderly people, anything at all. > > \*\* That was clearly stated as my _opinion_. You do not have to share it, but don’t go on about how I attempted to “prove” anything. I offered an opinion and labled it as such. You don’t agree. I find it hard to care. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, your style of argument does have a certain naive charm, Offering facts, diferentiating them from my opinions and clearly stating which is which? I should hope so. > [@](#): > > Example: > > **Weirddave** supports pedophilia. > > a) I’ve never read anything written by **Weirddave** that _opposes_ pedophilia. > b) Even if someone else points out something **Weirddave** said opposing pedophilia, it just wasn’t worded strongly enough for my liking. > c) Regardless of anything **Weirddave** _says_ about pedophilia, he isn’t pro-active enough in opposing pedophilia, so therefore, **Weirddave** supports pedophilia. > > \*\* Pretty funny that when december tries to offer an analogy to support his points it is dismissed out of hand, but that’s the first thing you do to “prove” that I’m saying something that I clearly did not say. ---
**Author:** ![S.Mussberger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@S.Mussberger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/S.Mussberger)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/307 "2003-03-14T15:20:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > > * * * My answer was directed towards **december** acctually… ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/308 "2003-03-14T15:35:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by S. Mussberger \* > \*\*My answer was directed towards **december** acctually… \*\* Ahh. Fair enough, I apologise then. I was right after my post and I thought it was directed at me. I’m sitting here going “How much clearer could I be”? So, Desmostylus, S. Mussberger wasn’t talking to me, it appears that you’re the only one having trouble diferentiating between fact and opinion. Wanna try again? ---
**Author:** ![S.Mussberger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@S.Mussberger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/S.Mussberger)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/309 "2003-03-14T15:50:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*Ahh. Fair enough, I apologise then. I was right after my post and I thought it was directed at me. I’m sitting here going “How much clearer could I be”? \*\* No sweat, mea culpa. I should have made it clear to which post I was replying. Bit of rookie misstake… ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/310 "2003-03-14T15:57:22Z")
[Link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=130527&perpage=50&highlight=israel&pagenumber=1) to december’s august thread on the EU and Arafat. Just so we don’t get distracted. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/311 "2003-03-16T08:39:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\* > > So, Desmostylus, S. Mussberger wasn’t talking to me, it appears that you’re the only one having trouble diferentiating between fact and opinion. Wanna try again? \*\* Oh, Desmostylus, where are you??? Can’t stand up to reasonable facts when people present them, can you? Hmmph. About what I expected. Pissant. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/312 "2003-03-16T09:28:57Z")
I’m back. What reasonable facts? You’ve taken mere _recognition_, added, “calling on the world not to attack”, _presumed_ no desire for change (i.e. “presumably by doing so continue to exist under its current structure”), and called that your proof. I mistook **S. Mussberger** ’s response as being to you, apologies to **S. Mussberger**. > [@](#): > > …but that’s the first thing you do to “prove” that I’m saying something that I clearly did not say. Of course you didn’t say anything about pedophilia. My example was to demonstrate how easily such proofs are generated by failing to consider or denying any evidence to the contrary, and how meaningless the resultant proofs are. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/313 "2003-03-16T18:17:52Z")
#1. Absent any calls for a regime change, it is reasonable to assume that the current regime is just fine with The Vatican as long as they comply with U.N. regulations. #2 You continue to persist on labeling my opinion as if I presented it as some kind of fact, which I did not. I stated my opinion, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/314 "2003-03-17T00:07:11Z")
Dave, I think that shows you up as more rational than december, as you say that it is your opinion, whereas december insists that his opinion is fact 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2003, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/315 "2003-03-17T11:09:38Z")
[QUOTE] _Originally posted by december \* \*\*I will assume “we” refers to the EU. Here are some ideas for consideration:[ul][li]Apply proper accounting and controls on Arafat to stop him from using any part of EU donations to support terrorist groups.[_]Use those donations as leverage to prevent Arafat from giving any PA money to terrorist organizations. That is, demand a review of all of the PA’s accounts as a condition for donating money.[_]Get the UN to do a better job of supervising the refugee camps, so as to prevent terrorist groups from using them as staging grounds. The UN says this is not their responsibility; they merely provide financial support. But, their job definition could be revised.[_]Back up the US demand that Arafat be replaced with a real democracy. Note that Arafat just appointed a PA prime minister, Mr Mahmoud Abbas. But, Abbas is a puppet of Arafat; Arafat continues to retain all the power. The EU could make it clear that this sort of phony reform is inadequate. Real democracy is required.[/ul] \*\*[/li][/QUOTE] A good list. Now, if we could just figure out how to do all this without actually _meeting_ with him… ---
**Author:** ![Estilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Estilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Estilicon)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2003, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/316 "2003-03-17T13:52:07Z")
Nice December, on page 15 you changed the issue from the Pope to Arafat. Well done you managed to fool us all over again. I ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/317 "2003-03-17T17:06:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > **#1. Absent any calls for a regime change, it is reasonable to assume that the current regime is just fine with The Vatican as long as they comply with U.N. regulations.** I question the logic of that assumption. It assumes an affirmative stance based upon absence of evidence. The first rule of logic is that NOTHING can be assumed based upon absence of evidence. Logic REQUIRES propositions to work on. The arguement you have presented runs thusly. P1 Regimes MUST be spoken against unless the speaker wishes the regieme to continue. P2 The Vatican has not called for a regime change in Iraq. Conclusion: The Vatican wants the current regime to continue. Now, P2 seems true, and the rules of logic say this conclusion is valid. The problem is P1. MUST we speak against everything we DON’T support? I’d say no. No one would ever have time to do anything but denounce the things they oppose if this was required. I’d say people, and even world leaders like the Pope, have the right to choose their own battles. The issues he chooses to speak on does not imply ANYTHING about his stance on other issues. Absence of evidence is not evidence. **Estilicon** no, the **december** bait-and-switch didn’t work here. If you read the thread **hawthorne** linked to you’ll find that the “The EU supports Arafat, and therefore supports Terrorism” premise has been pretty thoroughly trashed. Basically all he’s going on is an accusation by some Israeli groups who say Arafat may be diverting some of the EU’s aid to Palestine into either his own pockets. Although there isn’t evidence, he’s trying to make his case because the accounting controls on the funds sent to Palestine aren’t as tight as he would like. Supporting evidence is the general confusion on the part of the EU on how to handle it’s finances. **december** has no cite for Arafat’s personal wealth coming from embezzled humanitarian aid funds. Arafat was from a wealthy family and probably paid himself handsomely as the leader of the PA, much like US Congressmen voting themselves pay raises every so often. If he tries to resurrect that horse so he can beat it again all it will take is some copy-pasting from the previous thread to put it to rest again. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/318 "2003-03-17T17:41:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*#1. Absent any calls for a regime change, it is reasonable to assume that the current regime is just fine with The Vatican as long as they comply with U.N. regulations. > . \*\* as **Mtgman** spells out, this is a problematic premise. For example - can you find any examples of the Vatican calling for regime changes ever? another possible interpretation of their failure to ‘demand’ a regime change (or ask for, call for, whatever verb you like), is that the Vatican may in fact prefer to deal w/current reality, vs. what they would hope for. If you’re having to deal w/another entity and you don’t like their leader, find them difficult/problematical to deal with, yet **must** (for other reasons) deal with the entity, it may be counterproductive to _current_ dealings with that entity to demand/call for/suggest/ask them to change leaders. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2003, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/319 "2003-03-17T20:00:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mtgman_ > **Basically all he’s going on is an accusation by some Israeli groups who say Arafat may be diverting some of the EU’s aid to Palestine into either his own pockets.** should read: Basically all he’s going on is an accusation by some Israeli groups who say Arafat may be diverting some of the EU’s aid to Palestine into either his own pockets **or to terrorist groups, instead of going to relieve the displaced population’s humanitarian needs**. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808/320 "2003-03-17T20:56:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > \*\*I question the logic of that assumption. It assumes an affirmative stance based upon absence of evidence. The first rule of logic is that NOTHING can be assumed based upon absence of evidence. Logic REQUIRES propositions to work on. The arguement you have presented runs thusly. > > P1 Regimes MUST be spoken against unless the speaker wishes the regieme to continue. > P2 The Vatican has not called for a regime change in Iraq. > Conclusion: > The Vatican wants the current regime to continue. > > Now, P2 seems true, and the rules of logic say this conclusion is valid. The problem is P1. MUST we speak against everything we DON’T support? I’d say no. No one would ever have time to do anything but denounce the things they oppose if this was required. I’d say people, and even world leaders like the Pope, have the right to choose their own battles. The issues he chooses to speak on does not imply ANYTHING about his stance on other issues. Absence of evidence is not evidence. > > \*\* See, I have a problem with the way you’ve phrased P1. Let me ask you, which is more logical, given a call for reform of the current regime and a lack of calls for a regime change: A: That you want the regime to continue or B: That you want the regime to change I can’t see how you can say that “B” is more likely than “A”, because B requires a proactive step-a change in policy from dealing with the current regime to calling for it’s termination-while A dosen’t-you’re already dealing with the current regime. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ignorance-fights-back-or-december-please-explain-yourself/159808.md?page=17)