Until you have something to cite (promised, but not delivered), there is nothing to debate. Once again - where’s the evidence of a campaign demanding that your* side of the debate be placed off-limits?
I see you resorting to name-calling (despite your initial appeal to civility), vague references to “common” knowledge, and unsupported opinion, not evidence.
Facts…concrete examples…real world instances…going once, going twice…
*and in part, my side of the debate. But this gets overlooked in the heat of extreme partisan bickering.
Of course! The scales fall from my eyes, repressed memory comes boiling to the surface! Mrs. Perkins!
With he water buffalo legs, the industrial strength support hosiery, the shoes that would send a fashionista screaming from the room…
(I was very short then, I noticed the lower halves of people a lot more…)
As she dragged us through the living hell of multiplying fractions and drubbed us mercilessly with cursive writing…
She was an Anti-American subversive! A sleeper agent assigned to Waco, Texas, from the Dark International Conspiracy, sent to undermine the red-blooded American values of such as I!
**
OBL regularly refers to America as the “head of the infidels.” Read his comments, and he seems extremely intolerant of any religious belief other than Islam. He’s become very fixated upon Palestine and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as well:
Osama on the Israel-Palestine conflict:
(from a 1999 “Esquire” magazine interview, linked here.)
He also cites American support of Israeli actions against Palestinians (ignoring that no other nation on the planet Earth has worked harder than the USA to bring peace between the two). He cites American sanctions’ affect on Iraqis (guess Saddam Hussein has nothing at all to do with that).
From the Esquire article, on U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia:
Also from the 1999 article:
The story concludes by noting what a bin Laden spokesman told an ABC news colleague, following Clinton’s missile attack on a bin Laden camp after the bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa, a message supposedly directly from OBL:
“The war has just started. The Americans should wait for the answer.”
That the answer came several years after the event should, hopefully, shut up people espousing an incredibly misguided viewpoint such as that expressed earlier in this thread by elucidator. So, where’s all the Al-Kayda destruction? Be careful what you wish for, pal.
As for OBL’s views on Western Decadence, do a Google search on his name and Wahabbism (or Wahhabism).
A pretty good analysis of the man, his message and his intentions was featured in The Atlantic this January. link
I would be very interested to know what anyone thinks the United States can realistically do to cause the terrorists to back down. (And/or, while you’re at it, what Israel can realistically do to stop the suicide bombings against its people.)
As it is my pit thread that apparently inspired Xeno’s great debate, I feel compelled to note a few things for the record:
I must have said 10 times in that thread that a message that denounces attacks on civilians within America as a result of Sept. 11, because they are Arabic or Muslim, is a good one.
The problem was that in this particular set of teacher guidelines, there seemed to be an encouragement to expound upon past American misdeeds that struck me and some others as somewhat inappropriate for a lesson plan designed as a Sept. 11 remembrance. Is this the same America that detained Japanese-Americans in the 1940s? Of course not.
I also had a problem with the fact that the list-writer expressed that speculation and relaying of news accounts should be DIScouraged in classroom discussions, regarding aspects of who was at fault for Sept. 11. Then, mere sentences later, the list-writer states AS FACT that no other nations were involved. and that the terrorists worked independently of any governments.
That is demonstrably false with regard to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and is in the process of being proven false with regard to Iraq. (There’s a Washington Post link in the Pit thread. Someone else has made mention of a PBS Frontline on the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.)
The list-writer appeared to want to push a particular ideology that seemed inappropriate to a public school classroom, which I think should be as straight-down-the-middle as possible.
The analogy has been made repeatedly, in various forms, in the Pit thread and here, that dwelling upon past American misdeeds in a remembrance of Sept. 11 is somewhat akin to talking about a woman who has been gang-raped’s flirty past and record of breaking men’s hearts. That has not once been adequately addressed by those in the Pit thread who instead preferred to mock my intelligence or lack thereof, and to attack me personally and professionally.
Is it a bad analogy? Why?
The list accessible via the NEA website notes that teachers should take pains to not find any group responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
A great many believe this refers to ethnic groups or nationalities, other than Al Qaeda - American Arabs and Muslims in particular. Jackbatti has listed reasons in this thread why that is not slam-dunk obvious.
I think the list in its controversial places is at least poorly worded. I think some of the other eyebrow-raising points from that list make the “no group is responsible” point less-than-clear.
Who, since a month or so after Sept. 11, has accused American Arabs or Muslims in general of being involved in the attacks? Got cite?
I have no problems with a teacher lesson on the subject of America’s history of race-relations. It strikes me as a bit offensive as part of a lesson plan on the remembrance of the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001.
I won’t sit here and debate my positions yet again. I’m merely outlining them, because it heretofore hasn’t been done correctly, or really at all, in this thread. (And the other thread has ground to a halt with each side similarly going around in circles with their positions, ignoring certain points, declaring victory, calling other people stupid, etc.)
Am I to understand that you have interpreted my remarks to mean that I would be pleased, that is to say, I wish for an attack on America by its enemies?
Is it possible that you fail to perceive the blind idiocy of such a interpretation? Or is it merely that no shot is too cheap, no blow to low, if you might squeeze some rhetorical advantage from it?
You shame yourself, sir, and you reduce your already weak argument into jingoistic claptrap.
“1. I must have said 10 times in that thread that a message that denounces attacks on civilians within America as a result of Sept. 11, because they are Arabic or Muslim, is a good one.”
Yep. You made it pretty clear what you think the limits involved in conveying that message should be, too. But I’ve admitted that the message itself is palatable to almost everyone, and I apologized for saying differently.
“2. The problem was that in this particular set of teacher guidelines, there seemed to be an encouragement to expound upon past American misdeeds that struck me and some others as somewhat inappropriate for a lesson plan designed as a Sept. 11 remembrance. Is this the same America that detained Japanese-Americans in the 1940s? Of course not.”
Were you not paying attention the dozen times it was pointed out that Lippincott’s list is not a lesson plan?
“3. I also had a problem with the fact that the list-writer expressed that speculation and relaying of news accounts should be DIScouraged in classroom discussions, regarding aspects of who was at fault for Sept. 11. Then, mere sentences later, the list-writer states AS FACT that no other nations were involved. and that the terrorists worked independently of any governments.”
This was in a paragraph headed “Address the issue of blame factually.” The author made no cautions against repeating factual newscasts. But I’m sure you understand what “speculation” means, so let’s move to the “worked independently” part, which actually followed the sentence: “Further, we have no reason to believe that the attacks on our country were part of an organized plan of any other country.” This is factual, and follows the aim of this point in the list, which is to discourage discriminatory behavior based on speculative beliefs about Muslim groups. Since you’re such a champion against discrimination, I’d have thought this would be crystal clear to you.
*"4. The analogy has been made repeatedly, in various forms, in the Pit thread and here, that dwelling upon past American misdeeds in a remembrance of Sept. 11 is somewhat akin to talking about a woman who has been gang-raped’s flirty past and record of breaking men’s hearts. That has not once been adequately addressed by those in the Pit thread who instead preferred to mock my intelligence or lack thereof, and to attack me personally and professionally.
Is it a bad analogy? Why?"*
It’s a horrible analogy. That’s mostly why it hasn’t been “addressed” in the Pit thread; it’s designed the same way as the question “have you stopped beating your wife?” But I’ll take a crack at it, just to illustrate how poorly suited simple minded analogies are at capturing the essences of complex situations: Sitting in a police station, waiting to collect their victimized sister who is going through mugshots, one brother says to another “I wish she hadn’t insisted on walking through that neighborhood every night.” The other brother nods, and grabs his brother’s arm. Neither brother mentions this to the sister, as they are there for her support and comfort. One year later, the woman is taking self-defense classes and is told by her instructor that a wise course is to avoid dangerous areas. She bursts into tears and shouts “How dare you blame me for being raped!”
(NOTE: At no point does the analogy even approach congruency with the events of September 11 or with the international situation before and after that day.)
*"5. The list accessible via the NEA website notes that teachers should take pains to not find any group responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
A great many believe this refers to ethnic groups or nationalities, other than Al Qaeda - American Arabs and Muslims in particular. [Jackmannii] has listed reasons in this thread why that is not slam-dunk obvious."*
No. He hasn’t. He’s made bald assertions that the meaning is different than the one obviously intended by the author. He’s been no more successful at that than you.
“I think the list in its controversial places is at least poorly worded. I think some of the other eyebrow-raising points from that list make the ‘no group is responsible’ point less-than-clear.”
Most of the people arguing with you have agreed that the list is poorly worded. Personally, I’m puzzled at the raised eyebrows. I was hoping you or someone else could explain why you find a list of psychological advice to teachers, linked to a website with an overwhelmingly patriotic message, of such import, simply because it sticks to its own scope by stressing the importance of teaching the American principles of diversity, tolerance and cooperation while offering no specific facts regarding terrorism.
I don’t think there can be any question that the Washington Times article, and the controversy that it inflamed, were fraudulent. I boggles the mind how anyone could possibly argue differently. The idea that the list, which itself is just an ancillary link to a huge lesson plan that includes countless references to Al Queda, Osama, and the War on Terror, demonstrates that the NEA is against placing blame is utterly ridiculous. The list itself contains several references to the terrorists and their actions of “blind hatred,” and indeed contains the statement “explore the issue of who or what is to blame factually.” How can ANYONE read that and claim that what it is saying is “avoid placing any blame on anyone, avoid discussions of who did it.”
As to the reference to Japanese iternment, it is one point out of many, and is pretty clearly in the vein of having kids consider the history of U.S. domestic responses to attacks by other nations, and underscore WHY it is important to be tolerant now.
Describing this item 10 as “blame America first” is beyond the pale of reasonable discussion. It makes absolutely no intimations about America being to blame for 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or anything. It is clearly something for a teacher to keep in mind in the face of the possibility that kids may think ill of Muslim Americans, and is a perfectly reasonable example by which to respond to such charges: that attacking the rights of people just because they share a race or religion with terrorists is wrong, and America is supposed to have moved past that sort of thing.
To take this one item off an already ancillary list that is dwarfed by tons and tons of other information, and claim that the NEA’s main focus is to castigate America, is the height of dishonesty.
If there was a table here, I’d bang my fist. This is exactly the sort of disgustingly dishonest rhetorical spin that I wish both liberals and conservatives would rid themselves of. I’m sick of it.
I don’t think there can be any question that the Washington Times article, and the controversy that it inflamed, were fraudulent. It boggles the mind how anyone could possibly argue differently. The idea that the list, which itself is just an ancillary link to a huge lesson plan that includes countless references to Al Queda, Osama, and the War on Terror, demonstrates that the NEA is against placing blame is utterly ridiculous. The list itself contains several references to the terrorists and their actions of “blind hatred,” and indeed contains the statement “explore the issue of who or what is to blame factually.” How can ANYONE read that and claim that what it is saying is “avoid placing any blame on anyone, avoid discussions of who did it.” Just because it doesn’t repeat the material that is already all over the NEA’s site about the War on Terror and Al Queda: all of it the obvious “facts” that the list reffers to (in opposition to speculation, which is it’s cheif concern)?
As to the reference to Japanese iternment, it is one point out of many, and is pretty clearly in the vein of having kids consider the history of U.S. domestic responses to attacks by other nations, and underscore WHY it is important to be tolerant now.
Describing this item 10 as “blame America first” is beyond the pale of reasonable discussion. It makes absolutely no intimations about America being to blame for 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or anything. It is clearly something for a teacher to keep in mind in the face of the possibility that kids may think ill of Muslim Americans, and is a perfectly reasonable example by which to respond to such charges: that attacking the rights of people just because they share a race or religion with terrorists is wrong, and America is supposed to have moved past that sort of thing.
To take this one item off an already ancillary list that is dwarfed by tons and tons of other information, and claim that the NEA’s main focus is to castigate America, is the height of dishonesty.
If there was a table here, I’d bang my fist. This is exactly the sort of disgustingly dishonest rhetorical spin that I wish both liberals and conservatives would rid themselves of. I’m sick of it. Maybe this sort of thing is okay in the BBQpit, for fun, but I think most people demand a higher quality of arguement in GD.
What can people be thinking of, promoting the discussion of facts in the classroom?
Unless, of course, the facts are properly seasoned. Come the first anniversary of 9/11/01, if some pupil brings up the Taliban and al-Queda, I’d gently steer them to a discussion of this subject instead.
Well, as one of many American’s who are proud to bear a smattering of Cherokee blood, I find some merit in your proposal, at least as much merit as I find in your argument (so to speak).
Clear something up for me: what grinds your gonads more here. That the NEA is reluctant to name names when it comes to the guilty parties? Or that the NEA has the temerity to mention various misdeed on our part?
Do you fault the NEA for an oversight, or for some deliberate scheme to undermine American patriotism? Or, put another way, are you merely somewhat overcritical, or tin foil hat paranoid?
Scout’s Honor, No Kidding, Honest Native American…Do you really believe that the NEA is engaged in anti-American activities?
And if so, why? Is the NEA the willing tool of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Comintern? Brainwashed and controlled by the Illuminati? What is the motive behind this apostasy? To what end to they conspire, sir? To what end?
(Off the immediate subject, I would be curious as to your reaction to a book I recently read, Lies My Teacher Told Me, which is a critique of currently used history texts from high schools across the nation.)
When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school
Its a wonder I can think at all…*
Paul Simon, Kodachrome
Just doing there jobs, I guess. You… were referring to the explicit language in the list you so revile which specifically recommends promoting discussion of facts, right? Or to the numerous links to factual informantion, and numerous instances where teachers are urged to use those links for classroom discussion, on the NEA website?
Or were you just, yet again, lamely attempting to falsely portray my words, or the position of the NEA?
Jack, an incorrect assertion is an honest error only so long as it’s done from ignorance. Knowing that what you mean to imply is incorrect and implying it anyway is a lie. Repeating a lie over and over is being a jerk.
In the post I’m about to cite, however, you appear to be pooh-poohing concern about future possible attacks by terrorists in America. And/or the effort against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
You don’t exactly make it easy for people to know what your point is, if you even have one.
Xeno:
This is going to be fun for you, because I’m going to respond to your response to me ONE TIME, and then you get the last word! Congratulations!
**
I didn’t say it was a lesson plan above.
It is supposedly “Tips for teachers and parents” on teaching re: 9/11. It is included in a number of materials designed to help teachers formulate lesson plans for 9/11 remembrance, as packaged and accessed through the NEA’s website.
Is it your contention that the list-writer doesn’t want his ideas to go into teacher’s brains, and then into students’ brains?
**
That’s factual? WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE that the attacks were an organized plan of any country?
Had he said we have no conclusive evidence that the attacks were the organized plan of any country, I’d have agreed with him. Were nations complicit in the attack? We CERTAINLY have reason to believe that’s possible. The U.S. government believes Iraq is harboring Al Qaeda terrorists and leadership. If they’re helping them after the fact, would that give us as least some REASON TO BELIEVE that they helped them before? And what kind of quibble is that, anyway? If you’re harboring the accomplices of murder of 3,000 American civilians, you’re complicit.
And did you leave the last sentence from Lippincourt’s section there out because it was inconvenient to your point? Here, let me help you out: “The terrorists acted independently without the sanctions of any nation.”
Where did he get that gospel, that he’s passing along as INDISPUTABLE FACT, mere sentences after saying not to do that? It’s an already disproven statement. You agree – right?
**
Did the people in the World Trade Center deserve to die? Or in the Pentagon? Or on any of the hijacked aircraft?
Did any U.S. policy, anywhere, ever, justify such an attack upon civilians?
On a day that you are commemorating in public school classrooms an unjustified attack on America, in which innocent Americans were slaughtered, it strikes some as inappropriate to talk about bad things America has done in the past that have to be gerrymandered to even be relevant to a Sept. 11 discussion.
It is inappropriate in the same context as talking about the gang-rape victim’s bad habits. Or speaking ill of someone at their funeral, or a family gathering to honor their memory.
Save it for another day.
**
You’re willing to extrapolate meanings from other than what is written. You’re willing to do it several times, because the list-writer makes it necessary to do it several times. Have at it.
(Sorry about botching your name “Mr. J.”)
**
Go back to late in Page 2 in the Pit thread, and review my hyperbolic farming example. (Or don’t.) The “thrust” of those comments are that farming is an important part of American history and culture. Right?
And then if you don’t get it, you’re never going to.
I have conceded that it is possible that he’s just a bad writer. I have also pointed out in the Pit thread that all the examples of supposed bad writing appear to point in one ideological direction, which is curious. And other portions of the list are very eloquent, which is more curious.
Apos:
**
Read the first two paragraphs of the Washington Times story. And then tell me what is factually inaccurate about them.
(I conceded the point in the Pit thread that the Times story appears to erroneously paint that list as representative of all that’s available on the NEA website. Doesn’t make the few spots on the list that cause Coke-spitting any less Coke-spittable, however.)
**
What is your evidence that the person who wrote that list meant it as ancillary to a big compendium of other stuff? The list writer wants the things he has written to go into teacher’s brains, and then into students’ brains. Period.
Some of what he has to say is appropriate, and good. A few things are objectionable.
If I say, “Women should be shackled to their stoves,” but thousands of others say women have as many rights as any man, does that somehow make my statement inoffensive?
**
Sigh.
READ the Washington Times article.
READ what was written in the Pit thread. Or don’t. But don’t misrepresent it.
Neither the Times, nor I, nor anybody I’m aware of, said the list encourages teachers to blame America for September 11. The Times said, and I said, that point 10 encourages taking a “blame-America” approach to teaching on 9/11 Remembrance Day. Merriam-Webster’s second definition for the word “blame” is “to find fault with.”
Talking about Japanese internment camps and attacks on Arabs after the Gulf War a decade ago is not finding fault with the USA?
**
Then start by looking in the mirror, and stopping misrepresentation of people’s positions.
You owe the Washington Times an apology. Bet that makes you mad, doesn’t it?
elucidator again:
**
Anti-American is a very strong term. There is a certain ideological group that is so uncomfortable with the position of America-as-victim that they feel an almost irresistable impulse to find fault, even when it means shoehorning it in a bizarre context into a discussion about the Sept. 11 tragedy.
I urge you to review threads in various SDMB fora on Sept. 11 and subsequent days, and I have no doubt you’ll see examples.
I don’t think it is a public school’s place to push any ideology. That’s why I take offense to statements from that list such as: "we have no reason to believe that the attacks on our country were part of an organized plan of any other country. The terrorists acted independently without the sanctions of any nation. " When they are said only a few sentences after, "Use non-speculative terms. Do not suggest any group is responsible. Do not repeat the speculations of others, including newscasters. "
That’s spin.
But, maybe Lippincourt is just a poor writer, in certain spots.
Xeno again:
**
Do the facts include that the Taliban provided “sanction” for Al Qaeda?
—On a day that you are commemorating in public school classrooms an unjustified attack on America, in which innocent Americans were slaughtered, it strikes some as inappropriate to talk about bad things America has done in the past that have to be gerrymandered to even be relevant to a Sept. 11 discussion. —
I don’t have any problem at all with calling you dishonest. You know full well that the reference to the Japanese internment is included because the particular article is discussing ways to deflect children’s wish to blame racial groups. It is not something the author is advocating is central to any discussion. It’s one point out of many, in a sheet designed to give parents and teachers guidelines for how they can deal with intolerance, perhaps using examples from America’s past to highlight how we can do better this time. Only a truly devoted mangle of thought can twist this ONE ITEM into a organization-wide “blame-America approach.”
—Read the first two paragraphs of the Washington Times story. And then tell me what is factually inaccurate about them.—
First of all, there are three stories in the Times about this. Second of all, in the one I assume you are speaking about, they grossly distort the article they quote, in order to score a cheap attack on the NEA! What they are doing in that first paragraph is no better than saying that President Bush thinks we need to “destroy” Factual? Yes: a factual quotation of a word that came out of Bush’s mouth. Honest? Not in the frickin least.
—What is your evidence that the person who wrote that list meant it as ancillary to a big compendium of other stuff? The list writer wants the things he has written to go into teacher’s brains, and then into students’ brains. Period.—
What is dishonest, as even you seem to concede about the Times story, is taking a list that focuses primarily on one issue (tolerance of racial minorities) and claiming that it represents a wildly unbalenced picture that doesn’t discuss the terrorists enough, and mainlines a “blame-America” approach.
The article then contains quotes from critics who claim that the NEA is presenting a Marxist, anti-Western approach to things (is this even SANE given what’s there?): and that there is no such thing as peaceful Islam.
—Neither the Times, nor I, nor anybody I’m aware of, said the list encourages teachers to blame America for September 11. The Times said, and I said, that point 10 encourages taking a “blame-America” approach to teaching on 9/11 Remembrance Day. Merriam-Webster’s second definition for the word “blame” is “to find fault with.”—
What the hell? What’s the difference from “blaming America,” and taking a “blame America approach”? It’s all the same damn thing, and you know it, and your despertate dictionary backpeddling beside the point. Regardless of which definition of “blame” you use, it’s STILL wildly dishonest to claim that that item represents any sort of “blame America” approach.
It’s even more telling because the Times writer knows that it’s exactly the sort of accusation that gets people, especialy those who read the conservative Times, all fired up about people who supposedly think that the attacks are our fault. It’s no less of a nasty code word of pure rhetoric than calling someone who thinks that Medicade should cover prescription medication better a “Marxist.”
Not at all. If you go back to my last post, and read it very, very carefully, you will find that I am quoting…you. It’s hard to believe that you find your own words so distasteful.
Then again, there’s ample evidence that you do find your own statements objectionable, or at least “inoperative” (in the words of a former White House press secretary).
You started out in this thread to expound on what you claimed was a “very popular” American idea, namely that raising questions about past American policies in the light of 9/11 was held to be “off-limits” or “proscribed” by those who disagree with such an approach. When I suggested this was a false premise and requested specific examples to back it up, you responded:
xeno: “I acknowledge that the burden is on me to produce evidence that demonization occurs more than sporadically.”
However, you did not provide evidence for “demonization” or attempts to suppress unpopular ideas. Instead, you distorted statements made by opponents in a previous thread to cast them falsely as bigots, a tactic you found it necessary to retract and apologize for, albeit with poor grace.
You have still not backed up the negative stereotyping you indulged in in the OP with anything resembling fact, despite repeated requests to do so.
In lieu of documenting your claims, you’ve fallen back on restating your Pit remarks on the N.E.A. controversy, complete with name-calling when faced with continued disagreement. Apparently you have jettisoned this pledge:
xeno: “I will refrain totally from insulting language in this thread.”
If you have anything worthwhile to contribute, I suggest you get on with it.
When I first heard about this whole “War on Terrorism,” I called Bush a god-damned idiot. I did this a lot anyway, but this was one a much more serious scale. It is Internationally and Constitutinally impossible to declare war on anything but an established state. Surely our President, Congress, and Intelligent Newspeople understand this, right?
Unfortunately, no. Our country is led by nothing but god-damned idiots. So, therefore, let them do what they want about the whole 9/11 thing, just don’t involve me.
Elucidator: *Oh, really? You are privy to some information as to the membership rolls of Al-Kayda? And from whence, pray, comes this information? Does Al-Kayda have formal membership policies, lists of dues paying members, etc? And it has fallen into your hands? *
“Very amusing Mr. Bond, but I’m afraid that may be your last bon mot.” ::Pulls lever::
I base that claim on the previous pace of attacks on the Kenyan Embassy, the USS Cole and last September’s attacks.
I am not alone. www.Stratfor.com (5/8/02) characterizes Al Qaeda’s operations as follows:
"Al Qaeda chooses from a global target set, carefully selecting the attack that will have the greatest impact on the United States, the international Islamic community and U.S.-Saudi ties. It then carefully and meticulously plans the operation, a process that in the past has often taken more than a year. "
(Stratfor also notes that Al Qaeda’s horizontal organizational structure makes it difficult to control the attacks of local regional militants in Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.) To summarize, “Although al Qaeda’s actions are not entirely predictable, they are highly intensive and require much time to plan and execute. While local groups taking advantage of the global campaign against al Qaeda will continue to operate on a narrower scope, their attacks will be more frequent and harder to prevent.”
The grotesque distortions of the left’s position by the right, the outright lies about the left’s position by the right, and the craven manipulation of the situation as whole by our delightful rightwing administration goes beyond the telling of it.
There was a moment in time when being on this board had begun to give me hope that maybe it wasn’t quite as bad as I thought. Then 9/11 happened and proved that it was worse.
And ** gobear, ** I can’t even believe you said that. “The subtlety escapes me”. Really? Let’s see if this is just too subtle for you: Joebob Jones comes home to discover Mrs. Jones getting roundly pounded by Billybob Burns. Joebob has got a temper and poor impulse control, and he gets his huntin’ rifle and blows Billybob’s naughty bits TO bits.
Now, I don’t know many people who would say that Billybob deserved to be neutered for giving the lady what she wanted, but most the people I know would also recognize that he sure as shit * provoked * Joebob with his bad behavior.
One can behave provocatively, badly. and find oneself being punished to an unreasonable degree, as poor ol’ Billybob did. Doesn’t mean Billybob wasn’t stickin’ his wick somewheres it didn’t belong, now does it? It also doesn’t mean that Joebob should be let off the hook.
Both parties have to take responsibility for ** their ** behavior. It isn’t like the second wrong makes the first wrong right, they are both still wrong. It’s just that the second wrong shines a light on the first, and that’s pretty much the distinction.
Jackmannii: “If you have anything worthwhile to contribute, I suggest you get on with it.”
That’s rich, coming from you. I’ll continue to respond substantively here, where appropriate, but don’t expect any furtherance of your grade-school style of argument. And BTW, I have refrained from insulting you in this thread (you’ll know it when I start); I’ve merely identified your lies as such. In fact, I’ve given you several chances to raise the level of your own debate. Since you seem to prefer a “Sneer, Smear and Steer Clear”* strategy, I’ve been giving you far more consideration than you deserve. Your entire contribution to this thread, aside from a brief substantive post dealing with a portion of Part 2, has been to distort my position and snipe at me. Grow up or please get out.
(*sneer at your opponent, smear him by associating him with an extremist viewpoint, then steer clear of any facts which reveal your dishonesty)
Milosarrian: Please review Apos’ excellent response to you. I’ll let his words serve in place of my last word to you. Like me, he has refrained from insults. He’s merely observed, and truculently commented upon, your dishonesty.
