Someone has to specifically state they are against killings now? I thought that it was assumed so unless specifically stated otherwise, since we are mostly decent people. What about the 20,000 some odd posters that have not posted that they are against killing, do you count them as against you too? For what it’s worth, i put that i deplore killings in my profile, so now there will be no questions.
Sparc……
If I really wanted another poster to please go away and leave me alone, and he did go away and leave me alone; I would most assuredly not drag that posters name back into my thread.
But then, I’m not stupid enough to equate the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Associated Press, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem and Washington, Human Rights Watch, the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, Dr. Howard Sachar (Prof. Of History at George Washington University and author of 10 books about the Middle East) and Peace Movement Aotearoa
with “Internet………pages claiming that alien abductions happen all the time.”
(OK…Peace Movement Aotearoa I’m not so sure about.)
**
Well, which is it Sparc quantity over quality or quality over quanity? Can’t you even maintain consistency for one post?
**
With the possible exception of mathematics, you will never see anything “proven” on this board. All you will see is evidence. And in that other thread I have provided evidence that:
1….numerous experts agree that hundreds of Palestinians have been killed at the hands of other Palestinians since the 80s, many without benefit of any legal protection.
2….at least one organization with a reputation for non-bias (Human Rights Watch) believes that many of the victims are being chosen on the basis of insubstantial dealings with Israel which could reasonably be called “moderate” behavior.
3….at least one Middle East expert (Angelo Codevilla) believes that these killings are concentrated on “Moderate Palestinians”.
You and yours, on the other hand, have so far shown evidence that the people who are behind the killings (who might reasonably be suspected of some slight bias, I might add) are in the habit of justifying themselves by claiming that the victims are “collaborators.”
We are all of us, of course, entitled to our own opinions (even rowdy, uncivil and impolite folks such as I), so you will of course forgive me if I maintain the opinion that my evidence is better than yours.
I’m not really certain why I’m having to spell all this out though. I mean, you did actually read all these cites before pronouncing on them, right? Right?
Ron
No, D “I condemn both sides” and G “My stance is different than anything already presented” are both legitimate responses. I is different. “I concede your point, but x, y, and z are just as bad, if not worse” doesn’t seem logical to little old me.
Very silly example:
Poster A: Florida has a great climate! The growing season is long, there is sunshine aplenty, and you can swim in the ocean on Christmas Day.
Poster B: No, Florida’s climate sucks, crops die on the tree during unseasonal frosts, the humidity is too high, and hurricanes cause massive damage and loss of life.
Poster C: Yeah, Florida’s climate is good, BUT it’s really cold in Alaska! Sub-zero temperatures, blinding snowstorms, and lack of daylight for much of the year.
Poster B is debating Poster A, Poster C is, I dunno, comparing oranges to grapefruits.
What does the “Yes, BUT” post add to the debate?
[quote]
I condemn suicide bombings’ is not equal to ‘I condemn the Palestinians’.
AND
‘I condemn suicide bombings’ is not equal to ‘I fully support the Israelis’.
[quote]
No kidding. (rolleyes smiley omitted by popular request)
[quote]
**]The reason you aren’t seeing moderates regularly take the same stance vis-à-vis the PA as vis-à-vis Israel is simply that there is only one known rabid anti-Israel member on the board and he usually doesn’t join the discussion.
Meanwhile december, you and a few others frequently display a strong bias against the Palestinians, which leaves us moderates with only one side to argue against. Basically you could put it this way, it’s not opposition to Israel, it’s not opposition to the Palestinians, but it is opposition to bias.**
[quote]
Lux fiat! You’re a moderate, so you don’t agree with either “side” in any given issue. Since you disagree with both sides, they’re both wrong, leaving you to always be right! Absolutely brilliant, Sparc, you’re a genius.
Ah, milroyj, you always make me laugh at your lack of reading comprehension. Are you a DJ? You seem to spin statements as a hobby. How many Twist dance contests have you won?
PS you forgot to ask for a cite in your last post! I’ll go put on the Chubby Checkers, as you’ll undoubtedly be back!
OK so I guess this is not a closed issue…
milroyj,
Are we at the reading comprehension again? Are you sure you have the right strength in your glasses?
I’ll try again. Now read this three or four times before you reply please. Do not read it as isolated lines. Try to connect the whole post into one concept. Then read it all over again. Repeat this several times before you reply.
Ready?
OK, slowly now….
Being opposed to bias is not equal to thinking that everyone is wrong. It’s equal to thinking that equating one good or bad aspect of something with the totality of that something is not reasonable, and that this is especially unreasonable when choosing sides in a conflict that this something might stand in.
If you tell me that Arafat is right, I will disagree with you.
If you tell me that Sharon is right, I will disagree with you.
If you tell me that both of them are wrong, I will agree with you.
If you tell me that the Israeli people have the right to live in peace I will agree with you.
If you tell me that the Palestinian people have the right to live in peace I will agree with you.
If you tell me that the Israeli people are the scum of the earth I will question your sanity.
If you tell me that the Palestinian people are the scum of the earth I will question your sanity.
If you tell me that both those people are lost in a complex conflict that they will have a hard time to work away from I will agree with you.
If you tell me that that Israel is better at adhering to the universal principles of the UDHR than the Palestinian Authority is I will also agree with you.
If you tell me that this makes Israel all out right and the Palestinians all out wrong I will scream NON SEQUITOR at you.
Being Moderate is a position in itself, it’s not opposed to everything and it is not in agreement with everything. It’s the piss boring, emotionally cold, parchment dry and reasonable middle road, and might come across as somewhat of a dickhead position to take. You might find it somewhat dispassionate and cowardly, but it doesn’t have to be. For instance; challenge the UDHR and you’ll get a Sparc out that rants and raves like the most passionate patriot does over desecration of the flag.
See my point?
Not sure? Then go back to the top and read it all again. Think before you post.
Just for safety I think you might want to read that at least one more time.
Ready?
Really ready?
Nah, read it one more time, just in case….
Sparc
Could you possibly try to answer the question?
Here we go:
Poster A: Florida’s climate is great, because it’s warm…
Poster B: Yes, BUT Alaska’s climate sucks, because it’s cold…
B does NOT follow A
Poster C: Suicide bombing is wrong, for many reasons…
Poster D: Yes, suicide bombing is wrong, BUT Israel sucks…
D does NOT follow C
C & D may very well both be true, as they are independent statements, but D is NOT a logical rebuttal to C.
So where is my error?
One of the reasons that grey is my favorite color is that it comes in an infinite number of shades.
milroyj,
I’m trying to make sure I understand the type of debate in which you find fault. If I understand it correctly, and to put it into issues surrounding another hot button topic in Great Debates, presidents, it would go something like this:
*Poster A: I notice that George W. Bush has a powerful concealment fetish
Poster B: Kinda like Senator Clinton’s “misplacing” Rose Law Firm documents in the White House residence?*
Is that the type of response you’re objecting to?
Yes there are multiple shades of grey.
But yes, I think you’ve hit it on the head. If A is arguing that Bush is concealing things, shouldn’t B post evidence for or against, rather that bringing in anything about Clinton?
ugh that = than
I guess you’ll have to ask Poster B that question. Poster B is you, by the way.
How am I Poster B, and in what way?
I never said, as Sparc implied, that condemnation of terrorism was indicative of condemnation (or praise) of either side.
We can only go by what people post. I agreed that your example of Bush vs. Clinton was an illustration of the problem.
Why then, do some people excuse the same construction in terms of "Terrorists are bad, BUT X is worse?"posts?
You’re Poster B in this way.
Petards… hoisting…
Gad, this is fun.
Hee hee.
Egg => Face.
Damn that search function!
Funny thing how memory works - some have it and some don’t.
I guess it’s a question of how you read, or? Lucky thing we cleared that out in the above case!!!
Sparc
I just had to do that.
For everyone’s entertainment, (no really, I’m seriously glad that I entertain you so much), I’ll say a couple things.
DMC, ya got me fair and square on that one. Kudos! But it doesn’t change the point I was trying to make. I’m getting tired of the A-B-C posts, so I’ll just say that posting “Israel is bad too” or “Israel is worse” in response to a supposedly anti-Palestinian thread or post is completely ludicrous.
Some people claim to be moderate, but manage to argue against anti-palestinian posts, by posting anti-israeli posts. I’m sure you can see this?
Unless, of course, we are all dancing around the issue. Maybe some supposed moderates have a different agenda, I don’t know.
The problem is that the OP in question, december, didn’t post a purely anti-Palestinian post. He posted a pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian post. Since most (all?) of us agree that certain Palestinian groups are indeed committing horrendous atrocities, there isn’t much to argue there. On the other hand, when the poster in question talks about how wonderful the Israeli side is, including their wonderful treatment of the Arabs who happen to be citizens (that’s a stretch when paired with my concept of citizenship) of Israel, the same country who’s cabinet floated around a bill authorizing Jewish-only cities, it’s a quite proper debating tactic to attack those falsehoods. The he decides to “not”:rolleyes: tar those of us who disagree with him as homophobic, militaristic, anti-Christian, wife abusing, first amendment haters.
The day december posts an OP that says:
“Would you agree that Hamas is a violent organization that is committing atrocities against Israel?”
I’ll simply respond:
“Yes, I certainly would agree.”
Unfortunately, even if he actually attempted to do that, I have a feeling something would go “click” in his brain and it would come out:
“Since none of you are bigots, I know that you agree that Hamas is a violent organization that is committing atrocities against Israel, while that poster-child of peace and tolerance, Ariel Sharon, is being rejected by Arafat in negotiations in which he offered 95% of Israel’s land and the first born of every Jewish citizen, correct?”