Subject:
|
Re: jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:08:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1421 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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.
lol sorry, guess I didn't parse that too well through space:-)
>
> 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.
lol again, if it were that easy to shut down Scott, it would be employed *more*
often>;-)
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.
I would certainly say that to a reasonable person; he was just pushing buttons
and I tired of it. I'm getting tired of the whole argument (with him).
>
> 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.
The "resolution" was clear from the start-- "agree to disagree".
> 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.
No, the sickening part is that he is *ordering* it. These aren't random people
deciding one day to go murder civilians-- they are groomed and released.
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.
That's the problem, IMO. We *need* to take sides here. Just saying "both
parties are at fault" gets us *nowhere*.
>
> 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.
Well yes and no. True, there are Palestinians who are sickened (I'd hope) by
the idea of homicide bombers (at least the Christian Palestinians). But if they
remain silent, if the whole population supports, either implicitly or
explicitely, terrorism, then how should one deal with that?
This is the point I was trying to make with Scott-- although all Palestinians
may not actually *be* homicidal terrorists, if they all support them and their
actions, then what is one to conclude?
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).
That's why Koresh isn't analogous, unless we all in the States believed in his
cause. (which of course we didn't, and perhaps we botched his capture-- hmmm,
dealing with fanatics isn't so simple...)
> 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).
How will God do that if we don't act on His behalf?
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.
Again I say to you, Dave, in all sincerity: what if one party doesn't *want*
peace? This is the dirty little secret we in the West are having such a hard
time understanding. Of course everyone wants peace, right? That's the goal of
any civilized society. But we are not talking about "civil" people; we are
talking about people who murder innocents randomly and for what? What do they
want? Peace? They want something, but peace isn't it. I'll let you connect
the dots.
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) John, Your whole thesis appears to be: 1) Arabs/Palestinians are uncivilised troublemakers. 2) Israel is a peace loving nation. 3) There is an international anti-Israeli media conspiracy which distorts reality. However, to date, you have (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) 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, (...) (22 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
