Subject:
|
Re: jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:41:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1535 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > You say so. Hatred exists because of intolerance. This whole thing started
> > > because the Arabs couldn't tolerate a Jewish state.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > You idiot. We will *never* stop supporting Israel. *Their* allegiance could be
> > > argued to be more valuable than yours (England).
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > -John
> >
> >
> > I just thought that those two lines should be viewed together.
> > No reason...
>
> No reason? I think you definitely had a reason. But if it is to imply that I
> hate Scott, you're wrong. I disagree with him, and I called him an idiot
> because what he proposed was idiocy-- that's all.
I was kinda going for a tongue-in-cheek thing there. It was a 'Hatred
exists because of intolerance, you idiot!' thing--saying 'you idiot'
expressing hatred and intolerance.
You go on to say that what you should have sid in the first place, that his
proposal was idiocy, not him. When someone says 'you idiot' they're
slamming the *person*. When someone says 'what you did/said/believe is
idiocy' they're slamming what the person did/said/believes.
Some might say it's a moot arguement. However, I am not wone of those
people. I wouldn't ever use terms that harsh in the first place, but you
did so let's work with it.
'You idiot' shuts down the person. There's no 'wiggle room', room for
improvement.
'What you propose here is idiocy' says to the person that they are not an
idiot--but mayhaps they didn't consider C & D when they factored A & B into
their proposal, and here's how C & D could make their proposal less desirable.
Hate the sin, not the sinner. Hate the situation, not the person.
Labelling people as idiots is just going to get 'the idiots' pissed at you
and they won't want to work at a resolution.
I try to go one step further and *hate* no one, but try to convey why I
disagree with what they said/did/believe.
> >
> > Just because the atrocity is sanctioned by the government, it doesn't make
> > the atrocity right. To me it doesn't matter who started the war, now, over
> > 50 years later--if *both* sides of the war are committing heinous 'war
> > crimes' that's just what they are, heinous crimes against humanity.
>
> Which "heinous war crimes" is Israel committing? And this isn't a war. It's
> one country trying to defend itself against another group's attempt to
> extinguish it.
> >
> > The axiom 'hatred exists because of intolerance' is absolute truth. And it
> > won't be until both sides stop hating each other that there will be real
> > resolution. Telling the PLO that they have to cease their 'holy war'
> > because they started this mess is like telling the Americans to go back to
> > Europe 'cause the natives were here first. It's history. Get over it.
> > What do we do now to solve the situation now so that there is no more
> > killing now (and hopefully into the future).
>
> But Dave, what if one party doesn't *want* peace? You assume too much when you
> think that the PLO wants this. They want nothing of the sort. You can tell by
> their actions. They can talk peace and promise peace until they are blue in the
> face-- I want to *see* peace. Instead I see more reports of homicide bombers.
I'm not coming down as pro-israel or pro-palestine here. I am absolutely
appalled when I read that someone strapped bombs to themselves and walk into
buildings, blowing up women, kids, houses and villages. Whazzizname Arafat
doing nothing, *nothing*, to stop it sickens me. They're religious
fanatacism which drives them to the point where they can do this 'cause of
whatever rewards they get in the afterlife--hey, that's not *my* God.
Saying they are against a wall and that's why they're doing this is absolute
tripe as well. There is no 'wall' that justifies this type of heinous crime.
However, a few fanatical elements does not write off an entire nation
either. If we were to write off a nation because of fanaticism--hey, look
down and across that 49th my friend. *Anyone* who believes in a piece of
paper above the safety of their own people--whatever (Koresh et al, in case
you thought I was referring to most Americans--just talking the extemists here).
But isn't Israel sending 'dozers int refugee camps? Or did I get that
wrong. I'll be honest--I haven't followed this situation as closely as I
should and I only came in because in *any* war, there is enough blame to
spread around on both sides, and I just wanted to state that, as well as my
belief in attacking the problem, not the person. That tangent over, sending
tractors into camps and tearing down ad-hoc villages where people are
already scared, frightened and terrified, is completely baseless as well.
That's going to spread just as much terror as a person with bombs strapped
to themselves.
> > Both parties are to blame. Both parties must stop the violence.
>
> Any violence inflicted by Israel has always been in retaliation for terrorism.
> For the PLO to say that any violence they commit is in retaliation for Israeli
> retaliation is disingenuous. The PLO is the aggressor, not Israel.
>
>
> Both
> > parties must stop the hatred.
>
> But can they? Will they? What is the basis for the hatred? For the Israelis,
> it's the fact that the Arab world keeps trying to exterminate them. For the
> Arabs?
>
> >
> > And we must stop sending money to the people who sanction *any* form of
> > terrorism.
>
> ??? "Terrorism" is a specific term which only has one form-- the targeting of a
> civilian population to induce terror. Israel does not engage in this practice.
> Israel has made mistakes (as every country has), but "terrorism" was never one
> of them.
>
> -John
I don't want the Israel nation to fade into history (it's my personal belief
that God won't let that happen, but that's another story). We must work at
finding peace. Real peace only comes with understanding, via education, not
with supplying guns and ammo to either side to escalate the violence.
Anyway, my 2 coppers.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) lol sorry, guess I didn't parse that too well through space:-) (...) lol again, if it were that easy to shut down Scott, it would be employed *more* often>;-) There's no 'wiggle room', room for (...) I would certainly say that to a reasonable (...) (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) No reason? I think you definitely had a reason. But if it is to imply that I hate Scott, you're wrong. I disagree with him, and I called him an idiot because what he proposed was idiocy-- that's all. (...) Which "heinous war crimes" is Israel (...) (23 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
