Subject:
|
jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:49:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1383 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > I agree with this, but I think he meant it to be rather negative.
>
> That is a result of your pre-conceived notions. You sympathize with PLO
> terrorists and so you feel it comes off negative. I abhor PLO terrorists and
> not coincidently, I found it amusing.
I would love to see the cognitive process your mind went through to reach
(jump to) that conclusion. Although I do support the right of self defence,
I am fundamentally a pacifist in nature. I believe strongly that we should
uphold human rights and have respect for international law. These beliefs
mean that I oppose the actions of both "PLO terrorists" and the Israeli
state. My views on human rights and international law, together with my
understanding of recent middle-east history, leads me to sympathize with the
Palestinian people, not with "PLO terrorists". I hope you understand the
distinction between the two. However, you should understand that I do not
blindly oppose Israel – far from it: I believe it does have the right to
exist, and it was correct to defend itself in the '67.
I would be grateful if you would review your comments above and either
retract or substantiate them.
>
> In the same way, I find mockery in the Brick Testament. You
> probably find the BT hilarious.
Again, I would love to see the cognitive process your mind went through to
reach (jump to) that conclusion. If you had taken the time to look, you
would have seen that I have made my views known on BPS's work:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14636
I suppose you would rather that the bible was only available in the
“original” Latin handwritten on parchment? ;)
> >
> > For the record, I think Scott was not quite correct. In my opinion, the
> > Holocaust sets can be considered to be "art", whereas I feel Dan's intention
> > was a jest.
>
> Again, your bias shines through. IMO, the holocaust sets are nowhere near art.
That's correct, they are not Van Gough's... but my kids are not convinced by
his work either. But read my words, I said:
" can be considered to be "art" "
*NOT*
" are art "
It is my view that they are art, but I'm not about to make you agree with
me. I'm willing to respect your view.
> Your defensive attitude towards your perceived ideas of Dan's intentions also
> betrays your bias. Typical Liberal-- hypocrisy and double standards.
Is this the best you can do? Where is the hypocrisy? Where is the double
standards?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: These beliefs (...) Sorry, there isn't one. The PLO represent the Palestinians. Whatever the PLO does, the Palestinians support them. Anyone who supports the actions of terrorists is just as culpable (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
| (...) That is a result of your pre-conceived notions. You sympathize with PLO terrorists and so you feel it comes off negative. I abhor PLO terrorists and not coincidently, I found it amusing. In the same way, I find mockery in the Brick Testament. (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
