From my understanding, the “attack the argument, not the arguer” rule is there to avoid incidents of using personal knowledge about one’s opponent to sour the discourse, eg. Two posters are arguing about fishing, after a heated rally, one says to the other, “Ah yes, but you shit the bed, so your opinion doesn’t matter!”
Now compare that with a situation where two people are arguing about football, Man United. in particular, and one person will not concede any fault in the team.
Is it not a fair question to ask the United defender who he actually supports? And if they unsurprisingly say “United”, does that not lessen the weight of said person’s arguments?
We already know Finn Again is an Israel fan, and some of us are fronting him on his fanboy wankery and would like him to consider the point of the other team, for a pleasant change.
I already gave you three cites of scholars - Israelis and Jews notably - that dismissed said testimony, scroll up or do a little bloody search on the page, the post with the cites to Lewis, etc. Or perhaps that’s not part of your game.
I’m through with this, that your behaviour is tolerated is really interesting.
If all you want to do is berate us, fine. Knock yourself out. Some people here actually want to *solve *problems.
And Bibi is Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. That you don’t know that extremely basic piece of knowledge pretty much disqualifies you from discussing anything pertaining to the Middle East, IMHO.
Captain Amazing: According to your post upthread, the expansion of settlements have religious/political/security underpinnings, correct?
This may sound stupid, but…is there a housing shortage for Jews in Israel? Are there other viable places to build more housing within the established Israeli borders if so?
It just seems to me that Israel should be the one to back down on this issue, and not because the USA says so, but because (to me) it would make the most sense. For one, it would be something of an olive branch towards the Palestinians. For two, it would lessen a lot of violence that invariably occurs as a result of disputed settlements.
If Israel already has enough land/resources to take care of its people, perhaps its time they realized that they, being the more powerful country, should take the first step if they truly want peace with their neighbors.
It seems to me that this would be the right thing to do.
The cynical part of me also happens to believe that even with the establishment of a Palestinian state that there will never be peace in the region. I think the religious hatred has simply gone on for far too long and that there are deep-seated prejudices on both sides that would take a millenia to go away.
Americans or Israelis? Hmm…what to do what to do? Well, as mentioned in the article and amply demonstrated in this and many other threads on this topic – criticism of Israeli policies – I guess for many the choice is…Israel can do no wrong. Period.
Really? OK then, what brand of cigarettes does Obama smoke? Don’t you know? INCONCEIVABLE!
Both Bibi’s nickname and Obama’s ciggies are irrelevant.
It sounds like a mess over there. Politicians trying to play both ends against the middle, moderates wondering what’s going to happen next, and hardliners who don’t care about anyone but themselves.
Putting a moratorium on new construction would be a gesture. It would send the message of “look guys, we want to talk, and we know these projects piss you off, so in the interest of peace (or at least in the interest of a little less killing), we make this opening gesture”.
If it gets talks going, great. If you get The Finger instead, at least then you’ve made a first move.
You can’t say you want to negotiate, and in the same breath say “we aren’t changing anything at all”. That sort of position sends the message of “don’t waste your time”.
Negotiation is Give And Take. You haggle. You reach a concensus, meaning you get something both sides can accept - you don’t go for “all or nothing”. You give something up, to get something else.
If it stops the killing, then it’s worth it. If the “radical right” or whatever it’s called won’t go along, and keep creating new settlements, send the police to arrest them in accordance with your law. No building is worth so many lives.
That’s worrisome. You’re saying Israel simply lacks leaders of its own who have the courage to take risks in the cause of a longer-term good. That you need to be told what to do by somebody a continent and an ocean away, but even that will only work if it’s what you want to hear, and it’s said in just the right tone. You’re telling us that Israel will never accept full responsibility for its own situation and its own future, but will always throw the blame onto others, either its neighbors or its subsidizers. Is that what you mean to tell us? That’s what it seems to be.
Thanks, but maybe I can:
Israel will get peace when Israel wants peace. Just as Israel will be a democracy when Israel accepts the responsibilities of democracy. Can that ever happen?
Using acid-core or resin-core solder? Acid-core gives a stronger joint, but electrical connections require resin-core to prevent corrosion.
Wait, I didn’t catch this part. I didn’t think Bibi was your PM because I’ve never heard of a modern Head of State having a cutsey nickname. I guess we’d do the same if Condoleezza ever got elected President, though. I will continue to discuss Middle Eastern politics as long as my federal withholding is continued to be wasted there. I tell you what, though. We reduce our funding for the Middle East to the paltry aid we give to the entire East African region and I won’t care what you guys do down there.
How very odd. Here is Finn, arguing The Truth, with impeccable logic and undeniable facts, presented with perfect clarity. And yet Dopers do not flock to his banner, he is not greeted with glad cries and hossanas. There is no flaw in his arguments, they are perfection itself, and yet! we are not unanimous in our admiration and agreement.
What can it mean? Really, there are only two possibilities here, no? The first is that we Dopers are mostly idjits who cannot recognize crystaline truth when it is presented to us in a form of perfect clarity. The other is that Finn is…no, one cannot say it, it is impossible, unthinkable. Perish the thought!
Meh, what’s the point XT? He already failed to understand how a syllogism, one of the most basic of logical constructs, works. Now he’s actually pulled out the bandwagon fallacy and coupled it with the false dichotomy fallacy, and as acting as if he’s made a point.
As if anybody reading along is going to be taken in anyways and think that the members of the Israel Can Do No Right Brigade (racist humor provide by Ivan) will suddenly change their minds when they’re shown that their facts are in error or what have you. The same people who have argued the same positions on the same issues aren’t and have had the same factual errors corrected and go on to repeat the same errors later in the same thread or in another thread aren’t going to be swayed by being shown that they’re wrong, we all know that. The same people who’ll see someone criticizing some decision or other of Israel a few posts up and then claim that poster never criticizes Israel.
Obviously, the inability to win such people over shows the lack of merits that an argument has. I mean… right?
It’s the same reason that Dick didn’t post a retraction of his claim that for years Israel refused to negotiate until violence ceased… and then when faced with the fact that not only was that not true but that Israel had engaged in major negotiations while violence was dramatically increasing, he remained mum and tried to change the subject. And nobody on his side of the fence took him to task. It’s just the way things go.
That there’s a cherry on top with ‘we must be total idiots or perfectly correct, and if we’re not dooling on ourselves then it’s proof that when a dozen of us agree and someone else doesn’t, he must be wrong, the facts be damned!’ is just, well, gilding the lily.
Or, more apt, one of the threads on nuclear energy…