You don’t seem to grasp that almost every poster who finds fault with some of Israel’s (or Sharon’s depending on the specific subject) behavior (I can only think of one exception in the history of this board) also finds fault with Arafat and the PA. This doesn’t make us all pro-Palestinian, homophobic, anti-Christian, militaristic male chauvinists.
If there were large numbers of posts, news reports, editorials, etc., proclaiming that Hamas is perfect and every action they or their ilk make is justified because they are “at war”, you would like find many of the same posters arguing against them. Since I have yet to read such a thread, article, etc., I’ll have to stick with arguing against those who feel that Israel can do no wrong.
Although it has been made clear to you in many threads, you still seem to think everyone should be judged by the following questionairre:
*Which side do you fully support in everything they do?
A. Israel
B. Palestine*
You seem to fail to grasp that many of us would answer the question if you added:
C. Neither, they are both led by warmongering assholes.
D. Both, but they each have major faults.
E. Israel, but they need to change their stance if they truly want peace.
F. Palestine, but they need to get their extremists under control.
G. None of the above adequately conveys my particular stance.
H. I don’t know enough about the facts to make a decision.
Until you stop using the “you’re either for us or you’re against us” argument, you’ll be hard pressed to have an healthy debate on the subject.
I can’t bear to write a full reply in this thread - let alone in the original bigoted monstrosity - other than to say all support to you, Sparc and again asking the question to december - will you EVER get over this absolute paranoia you have about Arabs/Muslims/anyone who dares to so much as question the actions of that murdering fucking lying bastard Sharon?
…and I should just jump in again to avoid the inevitable accusations of “anti-semitism” for that last comment.
Yesterday, talking politics with an expat Palestinian business associate, I expressed the view that hopefully Sharon and Arafat would BOTH soon pass away peacefully of some old-age ailment, preventing either of them from becoming martyrs by assassination, and leaving the floor open for (younger?) more reasonable, more moderate, more forward-looking leaders to take charge of each country.
So I like neither of them. I guess that makes me anti-semitic and and anti-muslim/Arab and pro-Palestinian and pro-Christian and pro-Jew and pro-bigotry and anti-bigotry and god knows what else by december’s reckoning.
Greek: “a questioning”
An erotema is defined as a rhetorical question.
Example: Do you think you could get to work on time? ; “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” --Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice”
See Also: Rhetorical Question
Rhetorical Question
To ask a question to differ or to assert something, but not expect am answer. They are usually stated to make a point.
Example: How can we understand our racial problems when we can’t even understand each other? http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/tropes.html
Let me see if I’ve got this straight…you aren’t able to follow the rules or maintain civility while you’re in Great Debates, so you open a thread in the Pit where you lay down a bunch of rules and ask me to maintain a civil tone.
You’re right, I do, indeed, want to “stay out of it.”
Actually december uses a rhetorical style called proslepsis. To do so he uses erotema to build a pysma which he then negates arguing in utrumque partes.
The result is a strawman that serves only the purpose to vilify the opposition without giving them a chance to properly defend themselves. Thereby the point is supposedly made and irrefutable. I’m calling him on that very basis instead of debating, which is the only possible way to debate once that road has been taken.
It is a form of invention not recommended if you do not have a very good foundation in the first place. It is to be avoided at all cost if the opposition is advanced enough to be liable to see through it and has the possibility to take you to task on you form rather than your content. That’s why we are here as I said.
Although apparently blunt it’s in reality quite refined rhetoric, but is generally considered bad form and is liable to originate from a severe case of borborygm – if nothing else his application of rhetoric is liable to create dyspepsia.
zigaretten, you’re way out of line. This has gotten very, very ugly in the past from both sides. I am trying to stay away from that, don’t infect the situation.
Ain’t it a bitch how, when you’re trying to hold a private conversation on a public message board with 24,000 members, there’s always some son-of-a-zeugma who just has to butt in with his unwelcome opinions?
Have you considered starting your own message board? I’ll bet you could find plenty of privacy then.
Just knock it off. It’s not a question of censoring you. As you say you can say what you want as long as you stay within the board rules. The only thing that I can do is to ask you kindly to follow the form that I have requested for the thread and if you don’t, I can only ask the mods to close the thread. I don’t mind you bringing a case against me, go ahead, for instance I’ve already conceded that I was out of line in the other thread.
In general given how deep this conflict runs I would like everyone, you included, that take part to ry and stay within the boundaries of reason. Last time we went here it deteriorated to no less than four Pit threads and so much ire, bitterness and vile accusations that it took a week to weed out.
Further, it’s not just between me and december, it just only happens to be that for reasons of my nationality I ended up being the target of some of his worst slurs at one point. I didn’t react as reasonably as I should have and as a result I rather inadvertently took on the role of his worst prosecutor. I’m trying to get beyond that, and I am asking everybody else that took part in the past, or take part now to try the same approach.
Thus far the criticism raised against december has been held at a passably polite level, there were maybe one or two items that made me jerk, but they were contained in fairly sound argument so I let it pass without comment.
Criticism raised against me has been held at a very polite level, save by you.
If you feel that you have no part in this other than that you think I should piss off out of Great Debates for reason of my tempered approach in the other thread I suggest that you take your case to the administration, since that would be equal to banning me, or open another thread and take me to task on my debating style.
That was interesting. You win the use it in a sentence award. I think december created an epiplexis myself. Thank all of you for the vocabulary lesson.
Just as a comment fro the audience, this one of the reasons why the SDMB is the Ferrari of message boards: even in a spite-filled discussion, one gets an education in the vocabulary of rhetorical analysis.
I’m happy to see that you credit me with some reason. As regards my leaning in one direction or the other I have told you over and over again what my position is. If you like to have it in a new way; I support the right of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people to gain the rights laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I oppose anyone on any side that opposes that for their own people, or for the people on the enemy side.
I might point out to you that even if the philosophy of Human Rights in its modern form has been formulated in the west, it leans back on the moral and ethical traditions of Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism. We generally refer to them as universal principles.
Now, in the other thread you are continuing the onslaught on a member to member level.
This and your previous reply makes me understand that you do indeed stand by your guns and that’s OK, it is you prerogative. I must however (truly without any condescension intended) express my concern. You are as Tom indicated in the other thread becoming increasingly irrational. So much so that Israel’s strongest supporters on the board are turning their back on you, and you seem to fail to see this. Alessan, an Israeli citizen in Israel pointed this out to you;
To which you responded:
This indicates that you have either not understood Alessan’s point, or for reasons beyond my comprehension you are ignoring the consequence of your position.
As a supporter of Israel as a nation with sovereign-principles, and the right to self-determination and freedom of the Israeli people, and the same for the Palestinians, I have to express my dismay. You are polarizing the issue in such a way that you are in fact forcing an otherwise fairly pro-Israel majority on the board to take sides against you. Thereby you are managing to give the illusion that the proposal quoted in this OP has real value. In fact, judging by the responses you are getting it seems not to be the case.
If I may attempt give you some advice, I would suggest that you reconsider the way you argue and follow the examples forwarded in your thread by Alessan, IzzyR, and DSeid, and many others at other instances who you should be able to feel secure are on ‘your side’. I think that Collounsbury, istara, Tamerlane, Tomndebb, wring, yojimbo, jjimm , myself and many, many more have expended our credibility with you and I don’t expect you to listen to us at this point, but maybe, just maybe we will be able to gain a level of mutual understanding somewhere down the path, if you can only calm your rhetoric down and stop attacking us. I hold the same hopes for Israel although it looks pretty bleak at the moment.
Now I might tell you why I bother with this. First of all I think that the SDMB and especially Great Debates has so many good qualities that we shouldn’t tear it part with senseless animosity, that being said I value the need for conflicting opinions that is sometimes only afforded by members like yourself who hold pretty polarized views on certain subject matters. I think it would be pity if the rift that presently separates you from a large portion of the board would become a canyon.
As an end note I would like to tell you about something that happened to me last night and has been on my mind quite a bit in the last 20 hours or so.
I was at the movies last night. While waiting for my friends to show up I was standing in front of the theatre. There were three twenty-something kids speaking Hebrew to each other. While we stood there a young Muslim couple showed up. The three Hebrew speaking kids and the couple didn’t see each other at first. I stood there and it struck me what remarkable fortune we all were in to be able to stand there without immediate fear for our lives.
Suddenly one of the young men in the Hebrew speaking crowd noticed the Muslim couple and broke out in a smile and the young Muslim man smiled back and they greeted each other in a familiar way, shook hands and fell into conversation. They spoke German to each other so I could follow what was being said. As it were the Muslim guy was from Turkey and the Hebrew speaking youngster was rather expectedly from Israel. I gathered that they both attend the same courses at university here in Munich. In a quite touching moment the young Turkish man expressed his dismay at the most recent wave of suicide bombings and his concern for the Israeli’s family back home. I thought about you then december, and quite frankly I was a bit shaken.
As to the somewhat relevant sidetrack which is analysis of december’s rhetoric:
I would tentatively agree with Beagle that the quote by december could be qualified as an epiplexis, if the argument is made in pathos and not in contradiction.
It is however a bit strong to just be an epiplexis and I would rather qualify it as an argument inter se pugnantia, which uses an epiplexis, to form a somewhat more accusatory statement. This is especially evident through the appeal to the audience to help expose the proposed phenomena, which is the essence of pathos.
However, seen that the argument is made to not only pander support but also to prove a specific point I still believe that the whole construct builds to proslepsis, but YMMV.
