Subject:
|
Re: jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:21:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1499 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
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.
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 as the terrorists themselves.
Here's an image for you: Palestinians dancing and celebrating in the streets
after 9-11. No sympathy here, buster.
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.
How big of you to allow a country to defend it's borders and to exist. You are
one step ahead of the Arab world....
>
> 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
Guilty as charged-- I haven't time to go searching around for your views on
things-- as if I cared.
> > > 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 "
Would you say that my performance piece "man shooting dog in head" is 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?
The double standards is (sic) that BPS's work is seen as legitimate, while Dan's
is "in jest". Perhaps he *is* being serious. Why would you assume the former?
-John
>
> Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) *sigh* (...) In 1953, a unit under command of Ariel Sharon, attacked the village of Qibya in Jordan 60+ were murdered. The day after the attack a UN observer said that the IDF had forced civilians to stay in their homes whilst they were (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
