I won’t. Just make sure you make a list of all the truths he told also, you know, for the sake of a balanced perspective, n that.
Seriously, where? Can you point me to it?
See, this is how deluded you are, fella. You really think that some Dopers want to hook you in, when really the vast majority are hoping and praying that you don’t show up. Seriously, FA, go and write a book about your perceptions of the ME conflict and go and peddle it somewhere where people actually give a fuck what your opinion is. If you can find such a person.
Hey, Malthus and Alessan might buy a copy, or at least let you send them a freebie!
I wouldn’t nitpick like that. If someone called me an anti-semite, I would know what they meant.
How the hell should I know? The question turned on the phrase “violent rape” that keeps cropping up in the reportage. I presume that the Haaretz article accurately reports his charges, neither of which were “violent rape”. Indecent assault may in fact require violence, but I don’t know enough to say one way or another. That’s all.
I am a big Obama fan but I think everyone in the world was :dubious: about awarding him the nobel prize.
Carter on the other hand HAD done stuff. “In 2002, President Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work “to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development” through The Carter Center.”
Was there anyone else in the world that you could argue had done more… probably but Carter’s wasn’t a joke.
I have no doubt there are inaccuracies but when you call them lies, you add a patina that assumes intent on the part of the writer.
Not telling both sides of the story might also be considered a type of dishonesty. Intentionally stating facts that are undercut by other facts without pointing out those other facts might be considered dishonesty.
I think the suspicion is that if had been Jewish and married, he would not have been arrested for a philandering one night stand while if he had been Palestinian and single he would have been.
If the term bigot is to be interpreted so broadly then why couldn’t we use the exact same term for Finn Again’s attitudes about Israel and the Palestinians?
Well then it wouldn’t look as bad and we can’t have that.
If the law doesn’t actually call it violent rape then I would guess that this is a translation error from an article where a writer was trying to distinguish between forcible rape and rape by fraud.
So you think the identical twin switch thing doesn’t require consequences. Its funny so its okay?
Let me tell you that for many women, who they permit to share their intimacy with requires meeting certain criteria over and above looks. One deal breaker is a liar. Most of us respect a womans right to control what she does with her body and respect her choice as inviolate.
You might not think its a big deal to be fucked by someone who deceived you in order to do so but I’m sure a majority of women would disagree with you.
I’m thinking how would a Westboro Baptist get into Guin’s pants .
He was convicted of Rape by Fraud. Which, like Statutory Rape, uses “Rape” to mean “Sexual Intercourse Without Consent of One of the Involved Parties” as opposed to the popular meaning of “Rape” as “Beat the **** out of a girl and have your way with her”.
In other words, you’re a liar. You can’t cite me calling anybody an anti-Semite because you simply made it up. You can’t cite me calling "half " of anybody anti-Semites because you made that up too. And you’re claiming that I said something else (roughly equivelent, you swear!) to anti-Semite, but you can’t cite that, either. And of course pointing out that you’re a liar is “nitpicky” but slandering me is cool.
Of course, I didn’t think you had the guts to answer why it is that the lies you tell don’t go pointed out by others. You just admitted to lying when you claimed I’d called you an anti-Semite, and nobody pointed that out. There’s your answer right there; you can admit you were simply making shit up, and not one person on your “side” says anything to you about it.
That was my point, you are not only a bigot, you are the kind of cowardly little shit that blames his bigotry on other people. Yes, I’m the puppet master, I made you into a bigot. Kay. And as for your claim that people are okay with admissions of bigotry as long as the bigot is arguing with me, well… that says a lot about them. And you that you’re stupid enough to believe that’s acceptable.
But again you serve as an object lesson. If it was bigotry against a ‘protected’ minority, people would be up in arms and your defense would sound like the standard bigoted asshole’s apologia. “Oh, a black man was really annoying, so I’m justified in having a knee-jerk anti black reaction!” But no, Finn was a meanie to you, so people nod and say sure, you can be bigoted against Israel.
And you’re not honest enough to realize that’s not a good thing.
Standard dishonesty from you. Carter has been shown to have been systematically and reliably totally ‘honestly wrong’ about dozens of facts. And yes, despite your defense of a fellow anti-Israel crusader (yet again, ask yourself if you’d be fine with an anti-Palestinian liar, and why or why not). The issue isn’t “gee, we can’t tell intent!” because in some cases Carter admitted that he was wrong before going on and publishing the same fictions, again. In other cases he absolutely had to know and then the question becomes if he’s a deliberate liar or merely senile. Championing a senile bigot is hardly better than a lying bigot, though.
And that’s the point you are deliberately missing.
Although you’ve refused to honestly discuss why you continually lie about me or why you think your fellow travelers accept it, this against shows what you’re about. Sure, Jimmy Carter’s polemics against Israel, provably, contain dozens of major factual inaccuracies that undermine his premise as he uses them as main supporting details that are often in diametric opposition to the actual facts. In many cases, Carter either should have known the truth or did know and then still chose to publish lies.
But that’s not important, because in looking at how Carter’s argument is build on “honest errors” and outright lies, you still want it to “not look at bad”. Sure, Carter can’t get basic facts straight and wrote things he knew weren’t true, but can’t we do something to make him not look so bad? After all, he’s [fill in the blank].
A) A snappy dresser
B) got a divine singing voice
C) a killer vuvuzela player
D) anti-Israel, like the people who want to champion his writings on the subject
Of course, we all know what would happen if someone published a massive polemic laying into Palestine and exonerating Israel, you’d go berserk. Hell, you go berserk when the actual facts are cited and claim that they’re not being used “objectively” enough for you.
The term is accurate. But what a service liars and bigots get from some folks here, all you have to do is consistently lie or be bigoted, and if someone points it out when you’re doing it, why, you get off the hook.
Idiots are free to call me an asshole for minding liars and bigots.
Of course, they’re generally the actual assholes as they don’t mind lying or bigotry, but do mind someone pointing it out.
And, of course your question is rather disingenuous. How about: at least ever, at all. Most of the folks whiniing about how bigots get called bigots or liars get called out for lying haven’t posted, even once, ever, to challenge that shit since either it’s on their “side” or they don’t care about the facts but boy oh boy the accusations annoy them.
Getting annoyed by stylistic rigidity is your perogative, of course. As you’ve admitted that you’d care at all if my accusations are true or not, I really don’t care whether or not you think true accusations are being made more often than you’d like.
You see a topic with one admitted bigot and another obvious bigot posting, and it’s horrible, just horrible that I pointed it out. Obviously that’s a mighty good deal with some of the more rabid anti-Israel crowed. They can post with as much bigotry as they’d like, and they have folks ready to defend them, while admitting that they don’t care about the charges, simply because the word “bigot” was used.
Same old same old. he was convicted of rape by deception, which has been clarified numerous times in this thread, over and over and over.
Why did you post something that you know not to be true and that was, in fact, debunked by your own quote right above it? Another case dealt with, for instance, a man pretending to be a neurosurgeon to make women think he was more desirable than he was. It’s in your own cite. You couldn’t have missed it.
Why is it that you’d post something that your own cite says isn’t true?
And, of course, the Anti-Stylistic Rigidity Warriors couldn’t be bothered to notice that ‘honest error’ either. Totally unexpected.
Partially true. If he was Palestinian and single, the woman may or may not have sued, depending on what exactly pissed her off. If he was Jewish and married-Same thing. But, if she would not have slept with him if he was married and Jewish and she did sue him, he would have gotten convicted too. If he was Palestinian and unmarried, and she sued him, he would once again be convicted. If he claimed he was a giant-squid hunter, and the woman had earlier made a pledge to never sleep with anyone who has not killed at least 5 giant squid, he could very well be convicted again. (Or she would go to a mental assylum).
Er, what? If I am accusing someone of murder, should his defence attorney show all the people that the murderer has ever met that he didn’t kill? Should a thief’s attorney show all the items the thief has seen that he did not steal?
No? Then why is it different for liars?
Don’t try using logic on Ivan. He’s one of our posters who is an actual anti-Semite (the usual suspects can now go bonkers on schedule while ignoring that Ivan actually does hate Jews). The last time a bunch of his quotes were posted talking about how Jews love money and the Mossad is global Judaism’s secret terror weapon, and what have you, his answer really was something along the lines of “…well, look at all my posts where I’m not saying racist things. So don’t call me a racist.”
He probably would argue that for anti-Israel liars, we also have to look at all the times they weren’t lying in order to demonize Israel.
Hey, maybe our juries should think this way!
Damn it, I am so tired of people being charged with “Armed Robbery”. I know the guy did it, but “Armed Robbery” is so unoriginal. How about “Weaponized Borrowing Without Meaning to Return the Item”? or “Theft with a potential to escalate to murder but it didn’t even though the thief had a weapon”? Alright, I know what I’ll do.
Not Guilty!
HEY! If he was anti-semetic he’d hate anyone who speaks a Semetic languge, not just Jews! So there!
If I thought every jew was like Froth Again, I’d gladly be an anti-semite… while still sticking up for those poor Palestinian semites, obviously.
Disingenuous? Go piss up a rope.
There’s a lot of factual inaccuracy floating around the SDMB. If only there were time to swoop in and correct all of it. I don’t challenge most of the Israel shit because I don’t even read it. This is your crusade, about which you are transparently fanatical. I have my own tables to wait here. I am more personally interested in other things, so god forbid, I have to let inaccuracies in one small corner of the SDMB go unchallenged.
You might have arrogated to yourself the role of calling bigots bigots and racists racist, but anyone else can call an asshole an asshole. People are more inclined to argue with you than call out shit beneath the radar because quite frankly, you piss people off. Even people on your side. Congratulations for rising above the noise.
Called it in one. What’re the odds?
Of course, here are some of Ivan’s greatest racist hits.
I’m pretty sure that Damuri would feel that “in context” they were okay as long as Ivan says that [del]the devil[/del] FinnAgain made him do it.
Yep.
If you require more verbiage: a disingenuous gloss of my post in order to toss out your flippant inanity while acting as if you’d responded to my point.
The same people who take me to task for correctly stating facts (or, like you, because you have a personal grudge and you’re an asshole, so you don’t like me), never can seem to spare a word for blatant dishonesty, racism and bigotry. Your response was to ask just how often they had to bother to condemn vile behavior (when my point was that they never, ever do). Maybe four times? Lol, har-d-har-har. Yuck yuck.
When, of course, people don’t care at all to challenge blatant bigotry and dishonesty, but they do care enough to challenge calling it out…
Which was the whole point.
“Finn’s an asshole.”
“Well, why?”
“He calls people bigots and liars a lot.”
“Well… are they saying bigoted things or being dishonest?”
“How am I supposed to know? But I am am totally prepared to start spazzing the fuck out about it!”
I’m glad to see that you’re willing to speak for people and tell me who “on my side” (we have sides now, idiot?) feels what. I’m sure that they aren’t posting that because, well, just because. But you, Kreskin, you know what they really think even though they haven’t said it. Mind reading is awesome.
And of course “bigotry” and “lying to demonize a nation” are “below the radar”, but calling them out is goddamnawful! Says a lot about you. Just like most of the folks who’ve objected to calling bigotry bigotry and dishonesty dishonesty admitted that they don’t care about the facts, at all.
Think about the stupidity inherent in your argument a little bit.
“There are a bunch of people who admit they don’t care about the facts but don’t like heaving the truth about things if it’s too harsh and/or if it’s repeated too often because it keeps happening. These people who admit they don’t care about the facts? You totally need to win them over.”
So, yeah, you’re disingenuous.
You understand full well why it’s important that the folks who’ll ignore bigotry and dishonesty as long as it’s coming from someone who’s also anti-Israel, or why they’ll decide that bigotry, racism and lying are “totally below the radar” but noticing them is horrible. Someone who can’t or won’t challenge vile behavior but spazzes out when someone actually does is not the kind of person who matters in any intellectual sense.
… still waiting.
Wow, Kreskin, you sure know what’s going on in my mind. It’s too bad you can’t use your extraordinary mental powers to answer my question honestly, without dodging. Obviously people aren’t going to spare a word for what you suppose is bigotry and racism if they don’t think your accusations are deserved. Instead they’ll just call you out. This causal chain is not complicated, yet apparently it eludes you.
If only calling people bigots and liars were the sole symptom of the personality defects you exhibit in writing, it might be easier for you to correct. Tell us, how has your personality worked out for you in your life?
Only one person appears to be spazzing out in this thread. I’ll give you a hint: it’s not me.
“Side” is an obvious shorthand, you cretin.
All I have to do is read what people write. How many people have to tell you you are an ass before you check your ears? You have people telling you they are sympathetic to your point of view but think you do more harm than good.
It says a lot of what I think about your mewling accusations.
That would be a great summary if it weren’t completely disingenuous.
What I said is that life is to short to correct every inaccuracy on the SDMB.
Someone who spazzes out in the presence of any perceived factual inaccuracy and presumes the basest possible motivations is not someone who matters in any intellectual sense. You have plenty of people here challenging vile behavior, but as it turns out, its your vile behavior and your spazzing that is objectionable.
Do you have intellectual accomplishments outside the SDMB and a video game? Perhaps you aren’t exactly the best person to determine who matters.