What EXACTLY did you mean december?

The BBQ Pit
1

december,

In this thread you ruined your own debate by raising a strawman already in the OP, when you stated:

You have hid behind the second paragraph saying that this should show that you don’t really believe that of any members at the SDMB. That won’t do. It’s like pressing somebody up to the wall and saying; “You didn’t really mean what you just said just there, did you? Huh? I know you didn’t.” To boot it’s offensive, it’s unfounded, it has nothing to do with the debatable part of your OP and it looks a lot like support pandering for Israel by polarizing the issue.

So what exactly did you mean december? What was the point? What is your basis for claiming that this seems to be the case, although that you hope it’s not?

Now, december I would very much like an answer, and note that I am asking you relatively kindly considering how incensed I was last night and this morning. I’m giving you a chance to rescue at least some face here, use it wisely.

Sparc

**NOTICE Read before posting

**Rules for this thread:[ol]This thread is not a free for all december bashing party. Take that elsewhere if you must.

I do not wish for a debate on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, use december’s tread in GD or any other thread of choice for that.

Special rule for december: ‘read what I said,’ is not counted as an argument from your side, since that is the question: ‘what did you mean with what we all can read?’

And no gratuitous drive by posts or ‘og smash!’ inserts if you would please.

If you wish to chime in with opinions towards the factual truth of december’s statement, or if you wish to debate other possible nuances of the above statements, that’s fine, go ahead as long as you stick to the previous rules.[/ol]If we can’t stay within these confines I’ll just ask the mods to close the thread.

2

Fair questions, Sparc. I just responded to them at some length in in GD (8-6-2002 9:45 AM) I will add:

The UN General Assembly is considering a one-sided anti-Israel resolution regarding Jenin.

Where are the complaints from those who claim to be unbiased in their condemnation of atrocities by both sides?

3

That’s where I’d like to come in from.

Often, when you hold a view that, to you, seems like the patently obvious and eminently reasonable view to hold, you might iterate any number of possibilities that, to you, seem necessary to hold a view that is opposed to yours. I recently endured the same sort of rhetorical device: “Why did you make that comment, Lib? Was it because you’re a racist? You wanted attention? You sought pity?” And so on and so on and so on.

December isn’t really talking about what other people think; rather, he is talking about what he thinks are certain preconditions that are required to bash Israel. December states plainly that, since he’s convinced that no one fits within his list, there must be some other explanation. And he would like to hear it.

Given his perspective, he cannot fathom “why do they support people who represent positions that they detest?”. It’s a perfectly legitimate question that ought to offend only those who are fitted by the list.

4

Sparc,

I don’t agree with everything said (including, for example, the relevance of the preceding post). But the general principle goes like this:

  1. I think position A is irreconcilable with Position B.
  2. Yet many who apparently hold to Position A also hold to Position B
  3. Question therefore is: how do they reconcile the two positions?

I don’t see where this is insulting.

5

Sorry - the “preceding post” meant december’s, not lib’s.

6

I should also add that I am impressed with the tone and content of your OP.

:slight_smile:

7

Sparc…

You seem to have a problem with a fairly common rhetorical device known as erotema. People have been using this technique for thousands of years. Get over it.

Do you realize that as of 8:00 AM, PST, 8/6/02 you have responded to the thread in question seven times and in six of those responses you seem to have little to say other than to kick and fuss because, being in GD, you can’t resort to the silly, childish tantrums and namecalling which you appear to require in order to make whatever point it is you think you’re going to make.

Great Debates is supposed to be for reasonable, adult discussion. You might want to try some of the other forums for a while.

8

That’s another strawman, but now directed at this question.

I’ll play along for minute. The UN cannot condemn Palestine the same way they can condemn Israel (since one of them doesn’t exist), and yes member nations try to use the UN for their adopted causes - sometimes in a very, very biased way, but that’s another story. I am debating you on the actual issue in the other thread as it is. Minute over.

re this thread: In the other thread you only said that you should have made the base for your accusation wider than the SDMB and then you dove in to the topic. Does this mean that you reaffirm the position quoted in this OP, with the addition that it applies to people outside of the SDMB?

In addition you request ‘the opposition’ to take sides in a debate we never had, and were not having until you started it, which is fine - but does not justify what I have quoted above. To boot you know that I for instance have stated many times that I do not support the policies of the PA.

Are we to understand that your answer is that you stand by your guns, or what? If so, once again I kindly request an explanation as to how we deserve this.

Or those that have been outright accused of exactly what december posits by December himself, even after repeatedly trying to show him that this is not the case.

zigaretten; december and I have a history on this one, I think you might want to stay out of it if you can’t have the same civil tone that we are trying to hold in spite of some pretty serious animosity in the past. I’ll be the first to admit that I was blowing it in the other thread, as a result of what I perceived as a return of december’s attacks. That’s why we are in here and not there.

Sparc

9

december - This apparent obsession of yours with the presentation, the ‘bias’, the terminology of the conflict is most curious.

I’m happy to concede it’s important – and goodness knows, the pro-Israeli lobby have had their fair share of ‘friendly’ reporting over the years – but why do you shy away so much from debating the substance ? - you surely know it detracts from eradicating ignorance ?

BTW, I agree with (what I think is the essence of Lib’s post), when viewed from a such a radical perspective as december’s, everyone else’s view seems unreasonable.

10

december
Sigh

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=321966

The UN have condemned the terrorists on many occasions and you know well they have but you’re too pig ignorant to admit it. You are a close minded fucking bigot, end of story.

You also know that in the report on Jenin, Israel while being cleared of the accusation of massacre was criticised for withholding medical help to the injured and causing food shortages that led to 1 in five people in Jenin being short of food.

When will you get it through your think skull. Yes there are horrible things being done to the people of Israel, yes there are mad bad bastards who want all Jews wiped out but there are also offenses that the Israeli Administration are responsible for both should be talked about. Both should be dealt with.

Your way is the way of the terrorist. Demonise the other side to a degree that you loose all perspective. If you were a Muslim you’d be trying to justify why Sept. 11th happened. You’d be justifying suicide bombers with a list of Israeli actions. Your kind (on both sides of these debate) makes me sick. I’ve seen pricks like you all my life (except they were Catholic/Protestant and talking about Northern Ireland). The Israel / Palestine problem will be solved one day but it won’t be people like you that solves it. It will be fair thinking people not blinded by hate and prejudice.

Muppet!

11

In case the previous post wasn’t clear in this regard I’d like to clarify that I agree with what Izzy and Lib said in general, that’s not the question I am posing, and I have joined the other debate again to address that issue.

12

Some reading for you BTW just to cheer you up. Take out that dick of yours break out the KY and go to work.

UN highlights uncomfortable truths for Arab world

13

These statements appear somewhat contradictory.

Yes, yojimbo, the UN has sometimes condemned Arab terrorists. And, I am pleased by the report you cited above.

14

The same way, means that they have to use different means in as much as that for instance they cannot adopt a resolution against a nation that doesn’t exist.

yojimbo gave you an example of how they do it. See my point?

But we are way off topic. You still haven’t addressed my question.

Sparc

15

I thought I gave a pretty full answer on the related GD thread posted -6-2002 9:45 AM.

BTW, the OP finds an insult that was’t intended by misquoting my OP.

Sparc’s OP: What is your basis for claiming that this seems to be the case, although that you hope it’s not? (underline aded)

My OP: I certainly don’t think so. Quite the reverse.

I didn’t say that I* hoped* they didn’t have these bad values. I said it was quite the reverse.

I will concede that the thread title might have been a bit clearer, had it begun with the word “since” rather than “if”

16

december, though you claim that isn’t a straw man, it clearly is. The relevant paragraphs, in full:

So if it isn’t you who’s claiming all these bad things, who is actually making the claim? Though in your second paragraph you make a vain attempt to let yourself off the hook, you’ve raised speculation without source. It’s an old, piss-poor lazy tabloid journalist’s trick, and does you no favours at all.

17

No go december. You’re brushing up against breaking the rule of the thread that says that you can’t backpedal and say; ‘but hey, read what I wrote.’

Moreover your answer in the other thread addresses the issue overall in the world. I am asking you about your opinions about us, as in the moderates at SDMB that you implicate in your OP.

You say there is reason to suspect that we could hold such opinions, yet you are certain enough of our innocence to give us the benefit of the doubt, I am grateful for that at least. Explain why you make tis statement, independent of what you qualified it with, what you base it on and how you came to conclude that we were anti-Israel.

If you have no answer or feel that you insulted us inadvertently you can also make a full (I mean full as in 100%) retraction or clarification on that viewpoint, skedaddle over to the other thread and post a link to the apology, and we shall never mention again (that includes you making such accusations). That works with me as well.

Sparc

18

Rule of the thread? :confused:

I repeat:[list=1][li]Yes, there is reason to suspect that certain people hold such views. The reason is their support for regimes that practice those values.[*]No, I did not just give these people the, “benefit of the doubt.” I explicitly said that their views were “quite the reverse.” [/li][/quote]

My wife’s ex-boss Dr. Donald Louria is an eminent research physician. For some reason he has supported crackpot groups who oppose food irradiation. Don has a valid (albeit not strong) scientific reason: Food irradiation removes some nutrients. The crackpots have scientifically invalid reasons for their POV.

Well, Don got criticized in a Wall Street Journal editorial, even though he had only expressed scientifically valid points. Was that fair? It’s reality. He supported the crackpots, so he got tarred with their nonsense.

Certain posters and certain liberals reflexively oppose Israel and support Arab POVs. It seems reasonable to observe that many vital aspects of these countries’ cultures contradict the moral values of these posters. I made that point in dramatic fashion, using color and using overblown rhetorical questions.

I know what you’re talking about. On a thread some years ago, I defended some aspects of the Pinochet regime. Naturally I was accused of not being sufficiently sensitive to his atrocities. One might ask the same question of those who defend or excuse Arafat – a leader who can match Pinchet atrocity for atrocity.

There was no insult in my OP. It’s a fact that certain people give support to Arabs against Israel, even though they support Israel’s values and oppose the Arabs’ values most moral issues. This is an apparent contradiction, for which I have requested an explanation.

Many posters understood this question, including Apos, who offered a possible answer on that thread. I would welcome your answer, too.

19

Fair enough, that’s an answer december, I don’t like it, but it’s an answer. I just want to see that I have understood you correctly.

You remain convinced that:

Which makes you feel justified to say what you said in the OP of your thread.

I guess that means you retract the ‘many posters’ in your OP?

Off the top of my head I only know of one such poster and he is not a liberal, but you’ve been around longer so YMMV.

Last question: Am I one of ‘those’ posters in your opinion?

Sparc

PS I have answered in your thread; it was short, but it was an answer DS

20

** This sounds suspiciously like trolling in my book.

**
I disagree.

** And it’s also possible, likely etc, that said posters find much to abhor in both sides, and that saying that the Arabs have a legitimate gripe is not the same thing as “giving support to Arabs against Israel” and certainly not the same thing as favoring one over the other. and to pretend continually, that suggesting that Israel’s tactics, actions etc are at times morally questionable does not imply anything about the Arab side, and certainly not that the Arabs are totally innocent. This point has been repeatedly made. and repeatedly ignored.

It’s a tactic that the inmates used to attempt to use on me all the time at the correction center : “Betty, I’m writing you up for being late” (Betty) “But Karen’s much later than me, how come you’re focusing your attention on me and not her?”.
Didn’t work then, either.