Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:51:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
547 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > Yep, completely closed minded, that's me.
>
> You said it, not me.
Sarcastically. (1)
That's distortive because you snipped the cite. At the same time you were
composing your post accusing me of being closed minded, I was composing a
post acknowledging a serious hole in the argument I advanced. That's not the
first time I've done that and it demonstrates I am not closed minded. (1)
> > Oh wait, you were talking about yourself there, and not me, weren't you,
> > since you've never ever changed your mind about anything significant, and I
> > have.
>
> How grand of you, we're truly blessed (sniff sniff)
What does sniff sniff mean? Some sort of insult? I didn't say it as
aggrandizement, merely to point out that your charge of rigidity applies to
yourself more than to me.
> . And what exactly am I
> supposed to change my mind about?
Oh, anything you might have been wrong about in the past. If perchance you
believe you've always been 100% right in everything you say here, never mind.
> > So by those lights, the words "Palestine", "Israel", "US Oppressors" and
> > most especially "Racist Zionist" need never be uttered by you again here, as
> > you've said all there is to say about that.
> You jump, I jump.
What does this mean?
> Each time somebody wants to throw support toward Israel,
> I'm here for the reality check. Israel is NOT our friend and deserves the
> harshest criticism.
Harsher than every other country in the world?
> > Ditto but x10, based on your track record. Do look at my DebateCard(tm)
> > score...
>
> Not sure what you're talking about here.
See the post by David Eaton scoring me and "that chump" on debating skills.
I coined DebateCard because someone called the scores "collectible"...
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13749
> > I *do* change my mind, and admit it without prevarication, if the
> > case is made strongly enough. Cite where you've ever changed your mind about
> > anything substantive, will you? Admitting you were wrong in phrasing
> > something (but not about the central idea) after 17 back and forths of
> > increasingly disruptive nature doesn't count. (meta: I bet you won't admit
> > you're wrong about this either... but if you produce a cite, I will)
>
> What do you want me to change my mind about?
Oh, anything you might have been wrong about in the past. If perchance you
believe you've always been 100% right in everything you say here, never mind.
But in this particular case I'm saying you're rigid and even when you
misphrase something (never mind being wrong about something substantive) it
takes a range war for you to recant. And I'm saying that I am betting you
won't even admit THAT or try to produce a cite where you admitted you were
wrong. And I'm saying that if you do produce such a site I will quickly
admit I am wrong about you not admitting you're wrong.
> > (gee, maybe we could get Dave to do one for all the major players here. I'd
> > love to see LFBs... is there a category for being able to overwhelm with
> > correct, relevant detail???)
>
> You've lost me here. What are you referring to?
Same as before. http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13749 It was an
aside for the other readers. I think it would be tres fun to produce these
for more than just me and "that chump".
> > They were like, not that far back. Not sure why Dave's searches failed.
>
> Have you tried finding them yourself?
No, which is why I wasn't sure why they failed. I tend to not search, I go
back and look at the list of posts if I think it was recent. But searching
IS more efficient.
> > OK, is the Intifada morally justified? (first under your statement that only
> > soldiers are targeted, and then under the reality of what actually happens)
>
> If targeting the Israeli military, YES, of course!
But of course that's not what actually happens, is it. Civilians get
targeted all the time. Targeted and killed.
> The uprising of ordinary
> Palestinians against Israeli occupation forces IS morally justified, yet how
> effective are stones and Malatov Cocktails against machine guns and tanks?
> Take a look at the body count, pal. And you YOURSELF said you support
> citizens raising up against a crooked government, I can't think of a more
> open-and-shut case. Why the double standard?
Well the circumstances are a bit different than the american revolution I
think, but you do have a point there. We can dig into that a bit further if
you like, in a different thread.
> > Are the actions of Hamas morally justified?
>
> Only if they targeted Israeli occupation forces and not civilians.
So then you condemn Hamas and will support taking action against it for its
attacks on civilians, then? What sort of action would you support to stop
their civilian attacks?
> > Of Hezbollah?
> Ditto.
So then you condemn Hezbollah and will support taking action against it for
its attacks on civilians, then? What sort of action would you support
against Hezbollah to stop their civilian attacks?
> > Of the PA in voicing support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and not trying very
> > hard to stop them?
>
> Like I said, only if they targeted the Israeli military and not civilians.
So then you condemn the PA for voicing support for Hamas and Hezbollah and
their attacks on civilians, then? What sort of action would you support
against the PA?
> > Israel *is* the evil racist Zionish occupier of the oppressed Palestinians
> > after all...
>
> What the hell is Zionish?
A typo. No need to swear, foam, carry on, etc. Calm yourself.
> Is that like Jewish and Zionist combined or
> something? I hope that was a typo because I've never said "Zionish" anyware
> and never heard of such a term. Either way, even though you're being
> sarcastic, that statement sums up the truth of the matter.
> The Zionists ARE
> racists,
How so? I would like a little more clarity on this charge. What makes them
racist?
> they ARE occupying Palestine, they ARE killing the native people,
> so what's to support? Why do you keep defending Israel? Can't you tell wrong
> from right, who's the aggressor and who's the victim?
You are correct. I cannot tell wrong from right in this case. That's the
point Richard M makes as well and he's right. I cannot tell who is the
aggressor and who is the victim. Both sides are aggressors, both sides are
victims.
You accuse me of "supporting Israel". But all I do is point out the bad on
one side to balance you. When your statements are balanced you will see that
mine are too. But now, your eyes are shut tight against that idea, or any
idea that doesn't have Israel=100% bad and PA (or whoever) = 100% good. Or
so I perceive, because while you pay lip service to the idea you do nothing
to show true balance.
> I'm assuming this what I'm supposed to change my mind about... or are you
> referring still to something else? Quit jerking me around
You jerk yourself around.
> and get to the
> point.
See above, it's in there.
> For the record: Do you support the Israeli occupation--yes or no.
For the record: I don't know. Not enough facts to decide.
I'll tell you this, I consider it an open question: If a democracy is
attacked in open warfare that it did not start, does that democracy get to
exercise soverignity over territory it conquered from its enemies in the
war? I honestly don't know.
The history I read is that Israel was attacked several times by states
opposed to it and that Israel took control of territory from those states to
reduce the intensity of further attacks.
Another history says that Israel is the usurper and the states around it are
perfectly justified in trying to eradicate the state and return sovereignty
to the land to themselves or to Palestinians.
Don't know which of those is right either.
I know this, I don't support taking title to land away from those that
peacefully are in possession of it and giving it to someone else, whether as
spoils of war, or to raise money for the state, or to satisfy expansionist
goals, etc. This is something that Israel has done. This is something that
the US has done. In both cases it needs to be undone. Don't know how. Won't
be easy. But needs doing.
Please note, I make a strong distinction between title and sovereignity.
(the following is a hypothetical example) If the US suddenly turned into a
repressive evil regime and attacked Canada, if Canada fought back and
conquered Michigan, I would expect that I would have a new government, but I
would expect that I still would have title to my land, even if I owed
allegiance to a new state. (end hypothetical example. The US has issues, and
is usurping freedom with anti terrorist measures, but is not currently a
repressive evil regime)
So taking territorial control is way different than usurping land. I can see
Israel's justification for the former, if in fact they were attacked rather
than the war starter, in every case where they did this. But I totally
reject the settlements as usurpations unless someone can show how clear
title was legally obtained. Which Israel has not done. Neither has anyone
else in the region but that is no excuse.
I think the above is pretty balanced.
But this is a thread about Hiroshima. Tying it back, if you support
organizations that consistently and deliberately target civilians in an
undeclared war, I am wondering how you can condemn civilian loss of life in
a declared war, and further, in one in which the entire civilian population
attacked is working as hard as it can to stoke the war machine of an evil
empire. Make no mistake, WW II *was* about good vs. evil. Unfortunately we
had some of the evil on *our* side as long as we were allied with the USSR.
1 - things not to use when debating Dan:
- sarcasm without a sarcasm warning, as he takes the words as true
- irony in any form, warned or not, as he doesn't get irony
- stating something counterfactual without immediately saying NOT, even
if a cite refuting the statement immediately follows, because he skips the
cite and attacks the counterfactual
- reductio ad absurdium, as he will attack the example without examing
whether the premise it's based on is valid, thus missing the point of the
reduction. (the example is SUPPOSED to be absurd, that's the crux of this
rhetorical device, to show that absurd results come from the premise)
- hypothetical examples without careful disclaimers
There may be more, but that's a start list. I will try to remember to avoid
all of these standard rhetorical devices when talking to you because they
confuse you, so I am happy to avoid them if it will reduce the likelyhood
that you misunderstand my arguments and fly off on rants. However I may
still use them in replies to others, so do be cognizant of that.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) no argument there from me - one question though. what if, fearing the canadians, you abandon your land for 30 years? do you still own it, and everything that has been built on it since? it's possible to contend that whoever settled the (now (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) But you did once say one side was “far worse”. You never retracted that comment, but you never justified it either. As far as I can remember? (...) I hear what you are saying Larry, but I'm sure to most people it does look like you defend (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) No, you said "completely" closed minded, not me. I don't recall saying "completely." (...) Sobs of utter appreciation, my friend, that the Great and Powerful Lar would so generously grace us with his fair hand of understanding. I am beset with (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I've gotta pull you up on that one, Larry. Just as not all US citizens are "good" or support the current war, I see it as impossible to make such a huge generalisation about Japanese civilians (no matter where they happened to live / work) in (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) You said it, not me. (...) How grand of you, we're truly blessed (sniff sniff). And what exactly am I supposed to change my mind about? (...) You jump, I jump. Each time somebody wants to throw support toward Israel, I'm here for the reality (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
