Foxfyre wrote:
See? No discussion or speculation is allowed of the opinions of those who report on a book they have read. To do so is 'parroting others accusations'. I wonder if you criticize those who discuss George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfield or other more conservative figures with as much enthusiasm when they are accused without substantiation?
I wonder if you ever get tired of this rhetoric. We're not talking about discussion or speculation, we're talking about accepting someone else's analysis of a book you haven't read when that someone is likely to have or clearly does have a bias. And having accepted it, repeating it as if it is fact, even going further in condemnation at times than the person who wrote the review.
And who am I to tell you what you are and are not allowed to do? Feel free, but expect to be challenged.
Quote:I don't have any problem with Jimmy Carter basing some observations on his religious faith. You have said that you do.
No, I said I have a knee-jerk revulsion when I hear it.
Quote:Based on your take on this, is it not inappropriate for you to speculate or assume anything of his intentions re that?
Well, the parts I was speaking about are the parts of the book that I read so, even though I haven't speculated as to his motives I could do so. But it would still be speculation. If I accused him of being anti-semitic because of it, that's not speculation.
Quote:But to accuse those discussing a book review of a popular political figure of malfeasance or some other icky term because they use the words the reviewers use is a bit extreme in itself.
What I'm accusing you of doing is parroting someone else's opinion about a book you haven't read, and I find the practice of doing so unseemly, though I guess "icky" works too. I believe I said that was "my opinion". But here is what I'm talking about.
Foxfyre wrote:
But to stay with the integrity of the thread, when we say Jimmy Carter was no great shakes as a President and that he is either extremely dishonest or extremely ignorant in much of what he says in his new book, that's exactly what we mean too. And it is opinion just as is our opinon re the best place in the world to live.
Foxfyre wrote:
That is the implication I got from Dershowitz commenting on Carter's book; and, knowing something of the history of Israel, Palestine, etc., I think Dershowitz is telling it exactly as it is. Stein went further to say that much of the book was also factually incorrect.
Foxfyre wrote:
I won't dispute that Carter has a right to be heard. I think, though, it is fair game to question whether something disingenuous or incompetent 'deserves' to be heard.
Foxfyre wrote: He probably is a very decent man. But a rewrite of history born out of anti-Israeli or worse, anti-Semitism, is not a decent act.
So, how do we solve this seeming contradiction -- that a decent man would commit an indecent act? Hmm, well Dershowitz says he did so it must be so.
Quote:
I maintain that Jimmy Carter is a former President of the United States, he is still entitled to the title, he actively inserts himself into current affairs of state, and he is as fair game for criticism as any other political figure. To declare him off limits while heaping all matter of criticism and accusations on others just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Nobody declared him off limits. You are entitled to your opinions about other people's opinions and everything else under the sun, and I am entitled to ridicule the way you arrive at your conclusions.
