Israeli airstrikes in Gaza kill more than 200

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:
msolga wrote:
Can't say for certain, Fountofw ....

Doesn't sound all that much different to "collatoral damage", or "friendly fire", (& etc, etc, etc) to me. The folks who used those ridiculous terms to mask atrocities weren't exactly being satirical.

The terms are not ridiculous, and are not atrocities.

Your penchant for making declarative assertions with no material support marks you as a foolish poster.

Cycloptichorn

No it doesn't.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
oralloy wrote:
msolga wrote:
Can't say for certain, Fountofw ....

Doesn't sound all that much different to "collatoral damage", or "friendly fire", (& etc, etc, etc) to me. The folks who used those ridiculous terms to mask atrocities weren't exactly being satirical.

The terms are not ridiculous, and are not atrocities.

Your penchant for making declarative assertions with no material support marks you as a foolish poster.

Cycloptichorn

No it doesn't.

You're a self-fulfilling prophecy of fail, Oralloy.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Do you agree that commenting on a poster's character or style of posting adds nothing to any counter argument based on logic/morality/ethics to support one's position?

The ad-hominem arguement is a false arguement - period. It just adds to the proverbial anguish of a poster's argument, I believe. In effect, only those that agree with each other can bask in the warm feeling of a mutual admiration society, I believe.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Do you agree that commenting on a poster's character or style of posting adds nothing to any counter argument based on logic/morality/ethics to support one's position?

The ad-hominem arguement is a false arguement - period. It just adds to the proverbial anguish of a poster's argument, I believe. In effect, only those that agree with each other can bask in the warm feeling of a mutual admiration society, I believe.

DOUBLE

Oralloy is not presenting arguments but assertions. I am not attempting to make a counter-argument to his baseless assertions. Only pointing out his problems, because it brings me pleasure to do so; the same way it brings me pleasure to point out your bigotry and lack of intelligence.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Do you agree that commenting on a poster's character or style of posting adds nothing to any counter argument based on logic/morality/ethics to support one's position?

The ad-hominem arguement is a false arguement - period. It just adds to the proverbial anguish of a poster's argument, I believe. In effect, only those that agree with each other can bask in the warm feeling of a mutual admiration society, I believe.

I agree with Foofie here. Name -calling is at best a poor substitute for a real argument, and at worst a distracting and destructive practice here. It certainly adds nothing to the conversation and raises as many questions about those who do it consistently as it does about those to whom it is directed.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Nice to see you back on A2K, George.

I think that you may be suffering under the mistaken presumption that the end goal of posters is to, in fact, advance any sort of argument whatsoever. Given the fact that said arguments lead to anything meaningful on an extremely rare basis, it's odd to me that people would feel this way.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Nice to see you too.

Perhaps we come here for different reasons. For me the pleasure is in encountering different perspectives and points of view. Occasionally I learn something new! I'm not above mere arguing - as you know, but it was the endless invective and name-calling that led me to take a holiday from the site for a while. I think that stuff enlightens no one and offers no rational satisfactions I can appreciate.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Thank you, Sir.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Nice to see you too.

Perhaps we come here for different reasons. For me the pleasure is in encountering different perspectives and points of view. Occasionally I learn something new! I'm not above mere arguing - as you know, but it was the endless invective and name-calling that led me to take a holiday from the site for a while. I think that stuff enlightens no one and offers no rational satisfactions I can appreciate.

Sure; but then again, neither do naked assertions of truth, such as the poster I originally addressed is fond of doing.

Imagine if I merely answered every post I disagree with by stating 'no, you're completely wrong.' And refusing to provide supporting arguments as to why. At the end of the day it has the exact same effects as the ad hominem attacks.

I have always maintained a very simple rule when it comes to A2K; I post entirely for my own satisfaction and for no other reason whatsoever. So if I feel like saying something to someone, I say it. It is the liberation of the internet, the removal of restrictions from one's psyche. I think that I have engaged in more than enough substantial conversation to convince the people I like to talk to, or get a response from, that there is merit in the majority of my postings and that I endeavor to support my assertions with actual arguments when asked to do so; however, I don't feel that this should limit my ability to express my true feelings on whatever or whoever I please.

In this case, I merely pointed out that naked assertions make one look foolish and the poster in question has a repeated habit of using them in lieu of argumentation; how better to respond to such a situation? It is unsatisfying to spend large amounts of time responding to someone who isn't willing to spend an equal amount of time responding to you.

Please consider the length of this explanation to be a mark of my respect for you, sir.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Nice to see you too.

Perhaps we come here for different reasons. For me the pleasure is in encountering different perspectives and points of view. Occasionally I learn something new! I'm not above mere arguing - as you know, but it was the endless invective and name-calling that led me to take a holiday from the site for a while. I think that stuff enlightens no one; offers no rational satisfactions I can appreciate; and makes the site a disagreeable place..

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If one believes in one's assertions then they are valid for that person. It is like arguing, I believe, with a bible believing Christian; they quote chapter and verse as to why they are correct. So, I believe, one cannot argue with a bible believing Christian about religion. One cannot argue with many Zionists, since they may also quote the bible (Old Testament). I do not know what motivates Oralloy's posts; however, the only anti-Israel argument I have seen on this forum is based on the horrors of war (paraphrasing Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now), and the opinion is that Israel has no right to be the cause of that horror.

You do appreciate the reality that the U.S. has a military. If a country has a military, how does it avoid the horrors of war? A country that will not fight a war, I believe, is eventually taken over by a stronger, more aggressive nation. Nature abhores a vacuum.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

If one believes in one's assertions then they are valid for that person. It is like arguing, I believe, with a bible believing Christian; they quote chapter and verse as to why they are correct. So, I believe, one cannot argue with a bible believing Christian about religion. One cannot argue with many Zionists, since they may also quote the bible (Old Testament). I do not know what motivates Oralloy's posts; however, the only anti-Israel argument I have seen on this forum is based on the horrors of war (paraphrasing Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now), and the opinion is that Israel has no right to be the cause of that horror.

You do appreciate the reality that the U.S. has a military. If a country has a military, how does it avoid the horrors of war? A country that will not fight a war, I believe, is eventually taken over by a stronger, more aggressive nation. Nature abhores a vacuum.

A retreat to the 'might makes right' argument is a sign of failure. There are other methods of dealing with disagreements besides force or the threat thereof; and in fact these methods often work much better than force.

The problem with those methods is that they require a certain amount of swallowing one's pride; and I must say that the Zionists have displayed zero ability to do this whatsoever, which reinforces the perception that they truly do believe that they are better than those they oppose.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem with those methods is that they require a certain amount of swallowing one's pride; and I must say that the Zionists have displayed zero ability to do this whatsoever, which reinforces the perception that they truly do believe that they are better than those they oppose.

Cycloptichorn

I hate to get personal on a thread, but your statement above, since it implies that perennial canard that Jews think they are chosen/special/smarter/better, makes me think that you do not, nor ever had, any Jewish friends, or the Jews you met were authority figures (teachers), or you had reason not to be friendly? At least that is the impression I get, whether that is the case or not. Regardless, I believe, you are just a product of your environment, which is 3,000 miles from where I am, and a very unique culture. Enjoy your environs.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem with those methods is that they require a certain amount of swallowing one's pride; and I must say that the Zionists have displayed zero ability to do this whatsoever, which reinforces the perception that they truly do believe that they are better than those they oppose.

Cycloptichorn

I hate to get personal on a thread, but your statement above, since it implies that perennial canard that Jews think they are chosen/special/smarter/better, makes me think that you do not, nor ever had, any Jewish friends, or the Jews you met were authority figures (teachers), or you had reason not to be friendly? At least that is the impression I get, whether that is the case or not. Regardless, you are just a product of your environment, which is 3,000 miles from where I am, and a very unique culture. Enjoy your environs.

Hardly an actual response to the content of my post, but instead an observation about me personally. This is the very thing you were complaining about above, yet you engage in a similar behavior yourself. It only took ten posts for you to resort to the very same behaviors you complained about earlier. Very funny Laughing

You know nothing about my life, or my relationship with Jews I know here in America. But we both know plenty about the attitudes of the Zionists who run Israel. Your inability to separate those two groups displays an ignorance of the diversity of modern Jewish opinion; likely due to the fact that you are yourself a Zionist.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I agree with Foofie here. Name -calling is at best a poor substitute for a real argument, and at worst a distracting and destructive practice here. It certainly adds nothing to the conversation and raises as many questions about those who do it consistently as it does about those to whom it is directed.

It is a type of bullying, which is going to go on to some extent but when it overruns a community as it has at times here it shows that the grown-ups are not in charge, and those who are constant bullies certainly are compensating for their lack of confidence in their intellectual abilities.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

"I have always maintained a very simple rule when it comes to A2K; I post entirely for my own satisfaction and for no other reason whatsoever"

equals

"I don't give a **** bout nobody but me"

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

A Zionist is just someone that believes that Jews should have a homeland. Since that homeland has been determined to be Israel, then a Zionist is someone that believes Jews should have a homeland in Israel. I guess that makes me a Zionist. That does not make me an Israeli, since I would not like their culture, climate, or language or even the national character. Plus, I would get claustrophobic in such a small country. And, I do like the diversity of people in the U.S., as an American. I also only care about Americans. That means the life of one American is worth the lives of <infinity sign> foreigners. I am just an American that believes Jews should have a homeland in Israel. Since there are American Christians that have the same belief, it is algebraically incorrect to call me a Jewish Zionist. I am just an American Zionist when the topic of Israel comes up. Otherwise I am just another American that will be buried in a veteran's cemetary.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

When was the determination made that Jews 'should have a homeland?' Why was that 'homeland' determined to be in the middle of their sworn enemies? Who the hell thought that would be a good idea? Why do they deserve a homeland, but other groups do not? If it turned out that your home was on a Native American former homeland - and if you live on the East Coast it probably was - would you quietly suffer your removal from that land?

The inconsistencies with the creation of Israel are unanswered to this day; it is not a product of logic but of emotion and a desire on the part of the US and Europe to avoid having to deal with Jewish refugees that they didn't want. It has become the US' proxy in the region and truly serves as our cats-paw; do not pretend that Israel exists for something as silly as providing a 'homeland' to a group of people.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

"I have always maintained a very simple rule when it comes to A2K; I post entirely for my own satisfaction and for no other reason whatsoever"

equals

"I don't give a **** bout nobody but me"

I certainly don't give a **** about bigots, Hawkeye10.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
oralloy wrote:
msolga wrote:
Can't say for certain, Fountofw ....

Doesn't sound all that much different to "collatoral damage", or "friendly fire", (& etc, etc, etc) to me. The folks who used those ridiculous terms to mask atrocities weren't exactly being satirical.

The terms are not ridiculous, and are not atrocities.

Your penchant for making declarative assertions with no material support marks you as a foolish poster.

Cycloptichorn

No it doesn't.

You're a self-fulfilling prophecy of fail, Oralloy.

Cycloptichorn

Liar.

0 Replies

Israeli airstrikes in Gaza kill more than 200

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know