|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2006 : 22:16:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
don't need to list the Islamic extremist brutality. We get all that on the news. So [if] you think I'm only noticing Israel. You are wrong.
Perhaps...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 23:48:57 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
Unless you misinterpret the logic and incorrectly assume a fallacy where there isn't one.
I don't know who your remark was aimed at but don't confuse facts with logic. You think you found exculpatory evidence Israel recognizes the Palestinians on the whole. I haven't replied yet. So if that was your reference, you are mixing up contradictory facts from two sources with a fallacious argument which is different. We can still resolve the contradiction in facts. If you're referring to something else then never mind.
Your posts in this thread are riddled with bad logic and fallacious arguments. Do I need to go line by line and illustrate them for you? I'm not usually up for that style of argument, because it generally shows weakness in your own position when you spend excess time pointing out the wealness in your opponent's position... but this may be a case where it could be the best way to illustrate a point.
I'd much prefer that you just go back and critically analyze your own posts though.
Hell, just read through them.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 01:35:06 [Permalink]
|
I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget.
And then I realized--like I was shot--like I was shot with a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment, without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us.
It's a way we had over here with living with ourselves. We cut 'em in half with a machine gun and give 'em a Band-Aid. It was a lie. And the more I saw them, the more I hated lies.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/04/2006 01:39:07 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 09:55:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Your posts in this thread are riddled with bad logic and fallacious arguments. Do I need to go line by line and illustrate them for you?
Dude, I have presented no fallacious arguments nor bad logic. I think those who have read my posts for the last few years know that. Why don't you just list one or two you think the most egregious and we can go from there. At the least, we can deal with the difference in a factual error verses one of logic.
You may have a disagreement over facts. I think I can support any I have posted but always allow for the sources being incorrect. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 10:06:32 [Permalink]
|
Is there a point, HH?
What did it take for the Hutus to hack up a million Tutsis in Rwanda? What did it take for Germans to kill so many Jews? What did it take the Khmer Rouge to kill anyone with any education in all of Cambodia? Sierra Leone rebels to hack off limbs daily? And so on and so on.....going back through most of recorded history.
Humans under mob mentality do that. So do soldiers under orders in some circumstances. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/04/2006 10:07:34 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 10:33:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So you choose the alternative, to say that they are wrong and not say why?
Don't quite see how that helps any discussion.
The point is twofold:
A person who professes to be an advocate of critical thinking and skepticism should be capable of evaluating their own thinking for these fallacies before they present them. They should also be capable of honest self evaluation in order to recognize bias and emotional investment in themselves.
Second, the line by line disection of others posts is a very agressive method of debate, which is not especially usefull when talking to somebody who is obviously emotionally invested and biased on a particular topic. It is all fine and dandy if your actual audience is (as with bill scott and verlch) the lurkers and actual undecided people.
But its looking like it may be needed here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 11:10:08 [Permalink]
|
| Name one fallacy Dude. You don't have to go line by line. I suspect you cannot and are now backtracking. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 12:19:47 [Permalink]
|
I'll just take the liberty here, Dude, because I think it is an important issue. I don't care if you make ad hominem attacks against me, my skin is thicker than that. But my original point does matter.
Beskep: "I don't think either side recognizes the right of the other to exist no matter how they mouth the words. How often do you hear that Israeli leaders in the past and currently have said such things as Golda Meier saying, "There is no such thing as a Palestinian."
I used the first link I found on Google since I would have had to hunt for my original source.
Citation quote: Golda Meier, a former Israeli prime minister, "went so far as to assert that there are no Palestinian people. She believed that the Palestinians possess no national identity and are undeserving of any regard by the international community."
Beskep added: "I've been looking into the history of the conflict and several forum members on JREF parroted this same propagandist sentiment."
And asked Dude: "What did you think of Golda Meier's statements there is no such thing as a Palestinian?"
Dude replied, "Well, she'd be fucking crazy if she actually said that. To bad that 5 minutes using google is now apparently to much to ask of you before you decide to perpetuate a particular lie.
http://www.mscd.edu/~golda/Norm%20Stuff/CENTER%20FAVORITES.html
quote:34) There is no Palestine people. There are Palestinian refugees . (Meir wrote in “The New York Times” on January 14, 1976 that the often cited and controversial “There are no Palestinians” statement attributed to her is a misquotation, the “London Sunday Times” of June 15, 1969.)
Sounds alot like a commentary on the state of a Palestinian state (or lack of) to me, rather than the insane bigoted tirade tirade you are making it out to be.
But so what?
Is Golda Meier in chage of Israel now?
Is anyone in Israel, in a position of political or military authority, saying anything like this now?
Has anyone in the 28 years since her death said anything like what you are making her out to have said?"
What Golda Meir's attitude was is doubted by Dude so here is some more on the historical perspective and Meir's quote:
The quote from Dude's previous link which played down Golda Meier's statement to the effect there is no such thing as a Palestinian.
quote:
34) There is no Palestine people. There are Palestinian refugees . (Meir wrote in “The New York Times” on January 14, 1976 that the often cited and controversial “There are no Palestinians” statement attributed to her is a misquotation, the “London Sunday Times” of June 15, 1969.)
35) How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to. We can't send it to Nasser by parcel post . (March 8, 1969.)
My information began with the following article, Do Palestinians Exists, or Don't They? That's The Question?
quote:
In an interview with the the Sunday Times Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969:
"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist." (Iron Wall, p. 311)
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian Arab nationquote:
Palestine is a name the Romans gave to Eretz Yisrael with the express purpose of infuriating the Jews . . . . Why should we use the spiteful name meant to humiliate us?
"The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity."
Golda Meir quoted by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, 25 November 1995
Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.
Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.
from "Myths of the Middle East" <../septoct00/myths.html>, Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist, WorldNetDaily, 11 October 2000
Wiki on Proposals for a Palestinian statequote:
Historical Israeli views
The traditional Israeli view has been that there is no such thing as a separate Palestinian people, distinct from other Arabs. As there are already several Arab nations, it is therefore unreasonable to demand that Israel should have any responsibility or part in establishing a nation for them. This is summarized by the famous statement of Israeli Prime Minister (1969-74) Golda Meir: "There was no such thing as Palestinians ... It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist." This view was also expressed by some Arab leaders. Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader said to the Peel Commission, "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
Dude had a legitimate point asking is that the current attitude of anyone in the Israeli government or military today. Here is some information on that point:
There Is No "Palestine" And There Are No "Palestinians" (Conclusion); (Originally published by JTF.ORG on September 8, 2004)...quote:
Yet even the PLO never called for an independent "Palestine" state in Yesha when Egypt and Jordan controlled Yesha. Only when Israel liberated Yesha in the 1967 Six Day War did the PLO, Egypt, Jordan and the rest of the Muslim world suddenly "discover" that Yesha Arabs are "Palestinians" who mu |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/04/2006 12:27:33 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 12:24:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
beskeptigal:
don't need to list the Islamic extremist brutality. We get all that on the news. So [if] you think I'm only noticing Israel. You are wrong.
Perhaps...
As in perhaps the Palestinian Arab initiated brutality is well covered on the US news, or perhaps I don't know my own position on this topic? |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/04/2006 12:24:39 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 18:03:09 [Permalink]
|
See, here is an example of my problem, beskeptigal, with your claim that you don't have a bias. You used this as your first example of Israel historically attacking civilians in response to my questioning your pretty much saying that they are doing that now:
quote:
Why did Israel allow and assist the mass slaughter of almost 1,000 people, mostly women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? Surely that publicity was some of Israel's worst.
It was. And Israel was very embarrassed by the incident. Heads did roll including that of defense minister Ariel Sharon. (To bad they didn't cut his freaken head off, but that's another story…) In any case, to say that Israel allowed the massacre is like saying that the United States allowed the My Lai incident as if it was part of the plan and okay at the highest levels of government. And while I will grant you that both governments created the conditions that made such atrocities possible, and did their best to smooth it over and are therefore culpable, I would be very hesitant to conclude that such massacres and the targeting of civilian populations was the official, or even the unofficial policy.
And before we talk about bombing the homes of terrorists, causing the deaths of civilians, remember that that stinkingly bad idea is much more surgical then simply dropping bombs on civilian populations…
So, yeah, I would need some convincing to conclude that you are not biased. I will give you the benefit of the doubt however. And that is what I meant by “perhaps.”
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 18:03:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Is there a point, HH?
Yes. Earlier you had said:quote:
Israel continues to bomb Lebanon targets. Hezbollah continues to send off rockets. Why? Isn't it obvoius? Because the more basements full of 60 women and children crushed, the more cities flattened, the more UN Peacekeepers killed in the crossfire (or deliberately, take your pick), the more terrorist join the cause.
That's only true if one makes an attempt to spare non-combatants, as I believe Israel is. But it does nothing to address popular support.
During World War II, the last war that resulted in a US victory, allied planes firebombed Dresden and dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of 214,000 people in those two cities alone. It makes death counts of a few dozen seem trivial by comparison.
Now of course one can argue that the price of victory is often too great, human lives too precious. That's completely valid and I agree with it. I just don't think a country should ever enter a war unless they possess the necessary conviction to win it. Trying to beat an enemy "just enough" so that they give up while sustaining minimal losses has never worked in the history of warfare, because as you say they will just regroup and fight again. In order to win a war, you need to utterly break a people's will to resist.
So I agree with you that Israel's current strategy can never achieve victory, but probably not for the reasons you hold.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/04/2006 18:08:26 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 19:26:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Name one fallacy Dude. You don't have to go line by line. I suspect you cannot and are now backtracking.
Or, perhaps, I am away from home and don't have the time to respond in such a way at the moment.
Or, maybe, in addition to that, I was fucking serious when I said I didn't care to disect your posts in the hope that you would give them a serious second look yourself.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 22:35:32 [Permalink]
|
| Dude, you ignored my whole post addressing your claim of fallacious arguments. Take your ball and go home, I'm not playing your game. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2006 : 22:51:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
See, here is an example of my problem, beskeptigal, with your claim that you don't have a bias. You used this as your first example of Israel historically attacking civilians in response to my questioning your pretty much saying that they are doing that now:
quote:
Why did Israel allow and assist the mass slaughter of almost 1,000 people, mostly women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? Surely that publicity was some of Israel's worst.
It was. And Israel was very embarrassed by the incident. Heads did roll including that of defense minister Ariel Sharon. (To bad they didn't cut his freaken head off, but that's another story…) In any case, to say that Israel allowed the massacre is like saying that the United States allowed the My Lai incident as if it was part of the plan and okay at the highest levels of government. And while I will grant you that both governments created the conditions that made such atrocities possible, and did their best to smooth it over and are therefore culpable, I would be very hesitant to conclude that such massacres and the targeting of civilian populations was the official, or even the unofficial policy.
And before we talk about bombing the homes of terrorists, causing the deaths of civilians, remember that that stinkingly bad idea is much more surgical then simply dropping bombs on civilian populations…
So, yeah, I would need some convincing to conclude that you are not biased. I will give you the benefit of the doubt however. And that is what I meant by “perhaps.”
So you are taking my trying to put the whole perspective out there and claiming it shows prejudice in my discussion of only the most recent events? I am confused, Kil, about this view.
So let me recap, if I may.
My main point is the tactics of Israel from 1948 through today have been to send in an overwhelming overkill response. Fine, except it hasn't yet worked. When your policies fail for 60 years, they aren't likely to succeed by continuing to repeat them.
This is not judgmental as to who started what, who's fault which civilian's death is, who is right and who is wrong...except the current military strategy is a failed policy.
My second point is there have been wrongs on both sides. As long as Israel doesn't address the wrongs they themselves are committing, they will continue to wonder why their military strategy has failed yet again.
So how does that make me biased or on one side or the other?
If you have time, look at this post I wrote today on JREF.
If you don't have time, just read this opinion piece, Madness unlimited in the Mideast. Here is an excerpt.
quote:
From one point of view, the Israelis are right: The whole Arab world is against them, wish that their state would disappear, and are inclined to cheer any nation, political faction or terrorist group that tries to give the Israelis a bloody nose.
Now more than 50 years of age, the state of Israel has never known a day of tension-less tranquility. It will never have any sense of security, much less any genuine peace, until it is accepted by |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
