1
   

Taking out the terrorists

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 03:35 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
Quote:
And to be fair I suggest the revision that Israeli leadership hates Palestinians.


You can suggest it, but I don't agree with it. Show me the Israeli school lessons where they teach their kids that Palestininas are pigs and infidels. Do Israeli teachers teach their kids that Palestinians kill little Jewish boys and use their blood to make pastries? I don't think so, but the Palestinians teach their kids just that. I think that might be a good indicator of who hates who: what they teach their children.


Unstated premise: If the schools do not teach these things Israeli leadership does not hate.

This is a false premise.


Are you aware of any Israeli document of manifesto or official policy that equals or even approaches the Hamas guidelines?

I would dare say that you can't, but then you do seem to have an in-exhaustable supply of knowledge...
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 03:41 pm
Quote:
Unstated premise: If the schools do not teach these things Israeli leadership does not hate.

This is a false premise.


That was not my main premise but only one in many observational circumstances where one can see hate in one but not the other. How about another, the Hamas Charter vs the Israeli Constitution. Are there any references in the IC where they say it is the moral duty of Jews to kill Palestinians? I bet I can find some references like that in HC about it being a moral duty for Muslims to kill Jews.
Oh but wait, just because the IC doesn't say they hate them, doesn't mean they don't. Is that right? Is that another false premise?
So in other words, there are no pieces of evidence, no bits of fact, no type of behavior, no lessons taught to kids, etc that will convince you that the Israeli leadership does not in fact hate the Palestinian people. Would your response be along the lines of:
"Unstated Premise: If evidence suggests the IL doesn't hate the PP, then they don't hate them
This is a false premise"

Quote:
They not only hate Palestinian leadership, they go and kill them. That must be the ultimate hate.


What evil bastards to go kill the leaders who plot and plan civilian deaths.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 03:46 pm
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
Quote:
Scrat,

Are you suggesting a genocide?
If you are suggesting genocide, have the guts to come right out and say it.
This sounds an awful lot like a final solution.


That's quite a leap ebrown. No where in Scrat post did he/she advocate genocide of the Palestinian people.

Quote:
The problem is that short of genocide, it is impossible to win a war to subgegate an occupied population.


I not sure about that. Germany and Japan seemed to handle our occupation of their lands without resorting to children suicide bombings, and we didn't have to exterminate their populations. So I think this point is invalid.


This comparison is juat silly. These are Completely different situations

We "handled" our occupations without building settlements, use of torture, random assassinations or collective punishments. A primary goal of each of our occupation was a withdrawral leaving the occupied people a dignified way for self-governance. In both of these occupations it was clear that the US was not interested in land.

I think the implication you are trying to make is that somehow there is a character defect in the Palestinians (obviously not in the Japanese or the Germans) that makes it necessary to subjugate them for 50 years. If this is this case, it is pure racism.

If this is not what you are trying to say, then please explain why the German and Japanese occupations lack the brutal oppression that Israel seem to feel is necessary.

I would say the occupiers and nature and purpose of the occupation make all the difference.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 03:46 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Are you aware of any Israeli document of manifesto or official policy that equals or even approaches the Hamas guidelines?

I would dare say that you can't, but then you do seem to have an in-exhaustable supply of knowledge...


Yes I am. But not of the Israeli government but rather some of their more misguided zealots.

Of course, the scope of their actions is such that I don't really consider it relevant.

Hamas, BTW, is not the Palestinian government either, despite their strong standing in Palestinian society.

The Israeli government has political parties that reject peace outright and who wish to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian territories ("no Palestinian state west of the Jordan"). In fact Sharon's own party went against his wishes and voted for a resolution to never allow a Palestinian State west of Jordan.

Both governments make similarly idiotic moves, and your comparison of Hamas to government is misleading as Hamas is the enemy of the Palestinian state too. You will not find such idiocy in the PA's inception.

You seem to be wanting to compare one side's idiots to the other side's government. Israel's ability to quell their idiots is due to the control they have over their territor and population. Such control is something they go out of their way to deny the PA. So they destroy PA structure while demanding that they reign in militants.

There are few people who think the PA in its current weakened state can reign in the militants yet Israel is determined to keep the PA weak.

Israel goes out of its way to destroy PA infrastructure as when they do so, Palestinian zealots give them a pretext to continue their occupation and delay a final settlement while they strategically settle the Palestinian territories.

But ultimately this is not relevant to the issue of hatred. Are you saying that you need a comparable document to believe that there are Israelis who hate the Palestinians?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 03:50 pm
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:

How about another, the Hamas Charter vs the Israeli Constitution.


Apples and oranges. If you want to compare governments do so. You have jury-rigged this comparison by trying to compare a terrorist organization with a well-established government.

Quote:
Are there any references in the IC where they say it is the moral duty of Jews to kill Palestinians?


Just as there are no such references in the establishment of the PA.

Quote:
I bet I can find some references like that in HC about it being a moral duty for Muslims to kill Jews.


I'm sure you can, you are indulging in a fallacious basis of comparison.

Quote:
Oh but wait, just because the IC doesn't say they hate them, doesn't mean they don't. Is that right?


Yes, that is right. Would you like an explanation?

Hate does not have to be documented in expression to exist.

Quote:
Is that another false premise?


Yes. You are catching on slowly but surely.

Quote:
So in other words, there are no pieces of evidence, no bits of fact, no type of behavior, no lessons taught to kids, etc that will convince you that the Israeli leadership does not in fact hate the Palestinian people.


I said nothing of the sort, you seem to enjoy fallacy as this is a straw man.

Quote:
Would your response be along the lines of:
"Unstated Premise: If evidence suggests the IL doesn't hate the PP, then they don't hate them
This is a false premise"


You must love straw people, this is a shoddy and intellectually bankrupt level of debate.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 03:54 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Are you aware of any Israeli document of manifesto or official policy that equals or even approaches the Hamas guidelines?

I would dare say that you can't, but then you do seem to have an in-exhaustable supply of knowledge...


Yes I am. But not of the Israeli government but rather some of their more misguided zealots.

Of course, the scope of their actions is such that I don't really consider it relevant.

Hamas, BTW, is not the Palestinian government either, despite their strong standing in Palestinian society.

The Israeli government has political parties that reject peace outright and who wish to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian territories ("no Palestinian state west of the Jordan"). In fact Sharon's own party went against his wishes and voted for a resolution to never allow a Palestinian State west of Jordan.

Both governments make similarly idiotic moves, and your comparison of Hamas to government is misleading as Hamas is the enemy of the Palestinian state too. You will not find such idiocy in the PA's inception.

You seem to be wanting to compare one side's idiots to the other side's government. Israel's ability to quell their idiots is due to the control they have over their territor and population. Such control is something they go out of their way to deny the PA. So they destroy PA structure while demanding that they reign in militants.

There are few people who think the PA in its current weakened state can reign in the militants yet Israel is determined to keep the PA weak.

Israel goes out of its way to destroy PA infrastructure as when they do so, Palestinian zealots give them a pretext to continue their occupation and delay a final settlement while they strategically settle the Palestinian territories.

But ultimately this is not relevant to the issue of hatred. Are you saying that you need a comparable document to believe that there are Israelis who hate the Palestinians?


Your original statement said:
Quote:
And to be fair I suggest the revision that Israeli leadership hates Palestinians.


Not that some Israeli's also hate the Palestinians. I would agree that there are plenty of Israeli's who hate Palestinians, just as there are white people who hate black people, like Muslims that hate Christians, like Indians that hate Pakistani's.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 03:56 pm
Yes, I believe that there has been Israeli leadership who hate Palestinians. The Likud has voted for what is tantamount to enthnic cleansing. Israeli government is proportional and there are, indeed, parties who are extreme enough in their expression that asserting hatred is not too outlandish.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 05:28 pm
To assume that hate is only taught and learned in a school environment is naive. Look at all the "love" taught in christians schools, but many end up killing people too!
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 05:54 pm
Quote:
I think the implication you are trying to make is that somehow there is a character defect in the Palestinians (obviously not in the Japanese or the Germans) that makes it necessary to subjugate them for 50 years. If this is this case, it is pure racism.


That's it. You got me. I'm a racist. Rolling Eyes

Have you paid attention to anything I've said. The main problem with the Palestinians is the Palestinian LEADERSHIP. But I suppose accusing someone of racism is easier than address the argument.

Quote:
If this is not what you are trying to say, then please explain why the German and Japanese occupations lack the brutal oppression that Israel seem to feel is necessary.


I just did. It's called the Palestinian LEADERSHIP. But go ahead and leap to your conclusion that I'm a racist if you must.

Quote:
You have jury-rigged this comparison by trying to compare a terrorist organization with a well-established government.


They are both bodies of people with political agendas. They are in conflict with each other. They both have a "charter" if you will. They both employ the use of force for their ends. The comparison is perfectly valid.

Quote:
I'm sure you can, you are indulging in a fallacious basis of comparison.


No, because as mentioned above, the comparison is valid.

Quote:
You are catching on slowly but surely.
you seem to enjoy fallacy as this is a straw man.
You must love straw people, this is a shoddy and intellectually bankrupt level of debate.


Spare me your elitist condensation. I'm trying to comprehend your abstract ideas by applying them to alternative particulars. My point is, if there is a pattern of behavior that can be deemed hateful being practiced by one group of people (like I mentioned earlier), then it's reasonable to conclude that they hate the people against whom the behavior is displayed.
Now if you don't see a similar pattern of hateful behavior by the hated group (in fact you will see quite the opposite for the examples I listed- ie no blood libels propoganda, no official charter calling for the genocide of the other), it's reasonable to conclude that they might not hate the other. Is it a 100% certain conclusion? Of course not, not many conclusions are.
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 05:56 pm
Quote:
To assume that hate is only taught and learned in a school environment is naive.


That was but one example, not the be all-end all of my argument.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:19 pm
ConstantlyQuestioning,

It is not "elitist" to prefer discussions devoid of fallacious straw men. If that's your cup of tea that's fine, don't expect me to sup from it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:23 pm
It is, however, elitist to say "devoid", "fallacious"and "tea" in the same sentence though. :wink: Laughing
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:23 pm
Good thing I didn't do so huh? ;-)

2 sentences.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:24 pm
not if the tea is "saucered and blowed"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:25 pm
My keyboard is acting funky. I had to change batteries...
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:28 pm
Please explain how this is a straw man: It pretty much sums up the points I was trying to make to you.


I'm trying to comprehend your abstract ideas by applying them to alternative particulars. My point is, if there is a pattern of behavior that can be deemed hateful being practiced by one group of people (like I mentioned earlier), then it's reasonable to conclude that they hate the people against whom the behavior is displayed.
Now if you don't see a similar pattern of hateful behavior by the hated group (in fact you will see quite the opposite for the examples I listed- ie no blood libels propoganda, no official charter calling for the genocide of the other), it's reasonable to conclude that they might not hate the other. Is it a 100% certain conclusion? Of course not, not many conclusions are.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:32 pm
You just made another straw man. I called two of your arguments straw men, I did not call the text you just reposted a straw man.

You are again constructing a straw man by the implication that I'd called that piece of text a straw man when I did nothing of the sort. In doing so you ironically made a straw man out of what wasn't a straw man and ask to have your straw creation pointed out to you.

Debators who are sloppy like to debate against arguments of their own creation rather than actually address what WAS said to them. It's this that you persist in doing.

When you support your assertion that all Palestinians are retarted and deserve to die I'll explain to you what a straw man is.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:35 pm
apples hate oranges
some bananas hate some blueberries
ergo ?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:37 pm
Is 'tea' one of Craven's new debating words? Laughing
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 06:40 pm
Quote:
When you support your assertion that all Palestinians are retarted and deserve to die I'll explain to you what a straw man is.


Now who's building a straw man. That's complete absurd to think that that is my position. You are debating against an argument of your own creation rather than actually addressing what was said to you.

Quote:
You are again constructing a straw man by the implication that I'd called that piece of text a straw man when I did nothing of the sort.


That piece of text was just a summary of the other two arguments you condemned as straw men. Summarization=staw man?

Quote:
Debators who are sloppy like to debate against arguments of their own creation rather than actuallya ddress what WAS said to them.


I am addressing what you said. You're not addressing what I'm saying.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:20:37