Are Truthers' accusations against Silverstein based on latent anti-Semitism?

[Confuseling]

Claiming that debunkers are debunkers because they are racist against arabs or muslims is total stark raving lunacy of the kind that should be in a padded cell.

An inability to distinguish between prejudice and overt behaviour or 'some' and 'all' is indicative of not being startlingly bright.

 

[LashL]

If you want to jump into the fray and defend someone who recklessly makes charges of bigotry, don't be surprised when you get lumped in with such idiots.

Yet another lie.

I did not "jump into the fray and defend" anyone.

But I am not at all surprised to see you once again make unfounded accusations - against me, this time - and then refuse to retract them, and then try to tap dance your way out of your unfounded accusations with even more dishonesty.

It is not an admirable pattern of behaviour, but one that you have exhibited frequently. You would be better served by providing facts and evidence instead of repeated unsupported accusations, nefarious innuendo, and outright falsehoods.

This is a skeptics forum, after all.

 

[pomeroo]

Latent hostility pom. It's all in the latency.

What part of "Your evidence is nonexistent" do you fail to understand? In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, reprisals against Muslims were infrequent and few in number. Bush has slipped into incoherence more than once by being reluctant to identify the terrorism we fight against as Islamic terrorism. American politicians and pundits have bent over backward to avoid tarring all Muslims with the jihadist brush. Your thesis is untenable.

 

[Confuseling]

There are two types of people in this world pom. Those that divide people into two types, and those that think it's a grotesque overgeneralisation.

If you think the neo-liberal forces of Light and Justice are not besmirched by one mote of racism, however casual, then you're frankly being a doughnut.

If you actually, really, honestly want me to go hunting through quotes from American newspapers until I find something that could be construed as racist, I can do so.

It would, it seems to me, be more honest to just say "Yes, lots of people are racist everywhere - but there's much more of it in their house than in mine", a sentiment with which I could not possibly argue.

 

[pomeroo]

There are two types of people in this world pom. Those that divide people into two types, and those that think it's a grotesque overgeneralisation.

If you think the neo-liberal forces of Light and Justice are not besmirched by one mote of racism, however casual, then you're frankly being a doughnut.

If you actually, really, honestly want me to go hunting through quotes from American newspapers until I find something that could be construed as racist, I can do so.

It would, it seems to me, be more honest to just say "Yes, lots of people are racist everywhere - but there's much more of it in their house than in mine", a sentiment with which I could not possibly argue.

Well, you started out making an argument that won't stand scrutiny. Now, you've moderated your stance considerably. Are there people who are bigoted against Arabs? The trivially correct answer is that there are all sorts of bigots. I must return to my original contention that the fantasy movement contains a large and vocal contingent of Jew-haters and it is not coincidental. The suggestion that many debunkers are motivated by hostility to Muslims strikes me as unfounded.

 

[Confuseling]

Well, you started out making an argument that won't stand scrutiny.

I presume you mean this?

Well yes pom. I watch the BBC, and they're far left aren't they.

But if I am to hold you to your own standard, then baseless slanders against Islam propagated by right-wing American newspapers are definitive indicators of subliminal racism, are they not?

Or could it be that this whole thing's actually a little more complicated...

That was rhetoric, pom, something that ears shacked up that close to your acid tongue should be well placed to recognise.

Now, you've moderated your stance considerably. Are there people who are bigoted against Arabs? The trivially correct answer is that there are all sorts of bigots. I must return to my original contention that the fantasy movement contains a large and vocal contingent of Jew-haters and it is not coincidental. The suggestion that many debunkers are motivated by hostility to Muslims strikes me as unfounded.

I don't disagree with any of that.

My whole point was and remains that you cannot conflate a meme with racist connotations with a meme spouted by a racist, even a casual [ETA: latent, or subliminal] one. Culture is not that simple.

I didn't even accuse you of doing so - I just think you arguably walked a little close to the line. What do they call that? Ah, yes... rhetoric.

 

[LashL]

There are two types of people in this world pom.
Those that divide people into two types, and those that think it's a grotesque overgeneralisation.

Okay, now that was genuinely hilarious. (I'm assuming the humour was intentional, of course.)

 

[Confuseling]

I didn't coin it, more's the pity.

 

[applecorped]

There are two types of people in this world pom. Those that divide people into two types, and those that think it's a grotesque overgeneralisation.

If you think the neo-liberal forces of Light and Justice are not besmirched by one mote of racism, however casual, then you're frankly being a doughnut.

If you actually, really, honestly want me to go hunting through quotes from American newspapers until I find something that could be construed as racist, I can do so.

It would, it seems to me, be more honest to just say "Yes, lots of people are racist everywhere - but there's much more of it in their house than in mine", a sentiment with which I could not possibly argue.

overgeneralization.

 

[pomeroo]

I presume you mean this?



That was rhetoric, pom, something that ears shacked up that close to your acid tongue should be well placed to recognise.



I don't disagree with any of that.

My whole point was and remains that you cannot conflate a meme with racist connotations with a meme spouted by a racist, even a casual [ETA: latent, or subliminal] one. Culture is not that simple.

I didn't even accuse you of doing so - I just think you arguably walked a little close to the line. What do they call that? Ah, yes... rhetoric.

I'm having trouble coming to grips with your argument. It's impossible to contend that the fantasy movement isn't infested with Jew-haters because so many fantasists hate Jews. You can view that as a tautology, or you can acknowledge the manifest truth of it. By contrast, I can't think of a single rationalist here or anywhere else who evinces a dislike for Muslims. The jihadists are enemies of western civilization, but they comprise a minority, perhaps 10%, of Muslims.

 

[funk de fino]

Let me try, yet again, to explain. Your "simple question" represents, to me, the sort of question insisted upon by a thought policeman. (BTW, people like you would fit in very well in much of Europe. Did you know that it was illegal to tell a racist joke in at least one of the countries, there? I think it was Denmark or Holland. And I don't mean just in, say, the workplace, where employer rules leading to dismissal (only!) along these lines are fine by me. I find the existence of such laws repugnant. I'd rather put up with boorishness in my fellow citizens.) Your great interest in my intellectual purity is not matched, at all, by the subject of the thread, which, properly and fairly interpreted, is not about potential anti-Semitism in me, nor in RedIbis, but in the WTC7 aware portion of the 911 Truth Movement as a whole. The thread is entitled Are Truthers' accusations against Silverstein based on latent anti-Semitism?, after all.

I am from europe. We have some **** laws and some great laws. The anti racist laws are great IMO

You have called me a "coward", and in another thread, you said I was "disingenuous", based on your complete misreading of my intentions of what I had written there. Believe it or not, I think this does inform me of your character. I have seen you smack others with your quick-on-the-draw insults and false charges, also.

Oh really. I asked you an honest question based on the OP not the title and also relating to my opening post.

But on what subject? Am I the subject of the thread, or a huge subset of the 911 Truth Movement? Do tell.

You chose to join the debate, I asked you a question you ran away. Childish thought police remarks do you no favours. I am one poster who specifically asked you a question and you refused to answer. Note: I did not then accuse you of being anti semite for this.

I sincerely hope that lurkers who wonder why I have still not answered your "simple question" are paying close attention to my answers. I am far more concerned about thinking people, who are susceptible to reasoning, anyway. From a young age, I came to realize how completely irrational some people can be. Even nice people, who, when asked for reasons for some belief or statement, would often say the most unlikely things. I frankly don't care that much about the irrational, since there's not much I can do or say that will change their minds.
Thus, e.g., my interaction with pomeroo has nothing to do with a mistaken belief on my part that he will suddenly see the light. Now, that would be irrational.

They will be loking and wondering why you cannot answer a fellow poster a simple question without resorting to waffle about thought police.

I'm concerned about it even in small numbers, mostly because it allows "debunkers" to make anti-Semitic hay. This makes it only too easy for the shallow of mind to imbibe the smearing being liberally applied by the likes of pomeroo.
Unfortunately, there's not much I can do about it. And no, passing a purity test by thought police will not make a dent in, say, the junk that appears in pomeroo's mailbox.

Once again with Pom? Are you obsessed? You brought in the amount not I.

If you had a holier-than-thou type of friend, would you oblige his/her purity tests, whenever he/she felt a compulsion to apply them to you? Would you not, eventually, grow tired and insulted by such tests? And if a member of your family failed such a test, would you allow your holier-than-thou-thought-policeman-of-a-friend to smear your entire family?

Holier than thou? Do you mean religious? I am not interested in smearing the rest of anyones family. If someone asks me a question I will answer it to the best of my ability. If they feel the need to repeat it they will be told not to. I asked you one question based on your attack on debunkers. Talk about smearing someones family?

Well, at least we agree on something.

Not too difficult for me to admit this or even to have answered any of your questions. You have displayed a frankly strange attitude in this thread IMO

 

[LashL]

I didn't coin it, more's the pity.

Ahh, too bad.
It cracked me up, nonetheless.

 

[Confuseling]

overgeneralization.

Merkins.

I'm having trouble coming to grips with your argument. It's impossible to contend that the fantasy movement isn't infested with Jew-haters because so many fantasists hate Jews. You can view that as a tautology, or you can acknowledge the manifest truth of it. By contrast, I can't think of a single rationalist here or anywhere else who evinces a dislike for Muslims. The jihadists are enemies of western civilization, but they comprise a minority, perhaps 10%, of Muslims.

It was the bit after "my whole point was"

 

[metamars]

Your deceptions are transparent. Would it be "smearing" A-Train or MaGZ to point out that they are virulent Jew-haters?

If A-Train and MaGZ are virulent Jew-haters, pointing this out would not be smearing them. OTOH, as you well know, the topic of this thread is
Are Truthers' accusations against Silverstein based on latent anti-Semitism?

If you claim that the WTC7 aware subset of 911 Truthers that believe it's collapse was CD is due to anti-Semitism, based on the status of A-Train and MaGZ, then I'd say that your self-celebratory proclamation of yourself as a "triumphant rationalist" should be re-visited. Pronto. You would be making an unwarranted extrapolation from a miniscule subset of a population that is likely in the 10's of millions, if not 100's of millions.

Your stance reminds me of a well-intentioned, but hopelessly confused liberal girl on a campus many years ago. A conservative student had inveighed against an upcoming appearance by the unreconstructed Stalinist Angela Davis. The sweet young progressive protested that calling people communists was "McCarthyite. The conservative reminded her that Davis was running for Vice-President on the communist ticket. Yes, replied our heroine, but you still can't say such things.

I see. So let us conclude - at least the "rationalists" amongst us - that all progressives at this young ladies' campus also thought it smacked of McCarthyism to call a Communist, well, a type of Communist. Based on one data point. Is that it?

This would be a ludicrous assertion. (Unless, of course, she were the only progressive on her campus.)

This reminds me of an argument I had with a mushy headed liberal who insisted that Jesus must have been crucified through His wrists, not His hands (as recorded in scripture). When I looked into this, I could find one instance, based on skeletal remains, that showed a nail through the wrist.(and no evidence for nailing through the hands). From documentary sources, it was clear that the Romans employed a number of variations in their sadistic execution method, including those involving tying the arms to a cross with rope. Ergo, no need to nail through the wrists, as the upper body would have been supported via the ropes. Meanwhile, slitting wrists is a well-known method of suicide. It stands to reason that nailing through the wrist would cause bleeding to death faster than nailing through the hand. (No, I'm not sure about this.). If so, it's clear that nailing through the hands is a superior way to go about things, if your goal is prolonging dying.

Now, should I ever aspire to the lofty status of "triumphant rationalist", I suppose that I could just blithely go ahead, anyway, and make a general proclamation, that indeed all crucifixions (including Christ's) must have had nails going through the wrist, since I can cite a single bit of data to that effect. Maybe many mushy headed liberal would have my back. Especially those who loathe Christianity. But is that a good thing?

Tell me, who has your back?

Another question - have you ever taken a course in probability and statistics? Some of your improbable (pun intended) pronouncements, which you mistakenly assume to be rational, would be more understandable if we got a good idea on what you know about this subject.

It would also do you well to take a course in mathematical logic.

Tell us who is being smeared. Larry Silverstein is being smeared by Jew-haters when he is accused of crimes that can't be expressed in words. Please clarify this matter for us: a person's irrational attitude toward Silverstein either is or is not a manifestation of anti-Semitism.

If a person has an irrational attitude towards Larry Silverstein, it could indeed be due to their being anti-Semitic. However, if they're not anti-Semitic, to begin with, then it can't be anti-Semitism.

Does this make logical sense to a "rationalist", such as yourself?

Why can't the person under suspicion resolve all doubts by simply stating in clear language what he accuses the man of doing?

I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Apparently, some 911 Truthers accuse Larry Silverstein of having ordered the CD of WTC7, but they can't give details, such as the names and addresses of the people carrying out the CD, nor can they name the CD agents definitively (even if they suspect thermate) nor can they state exactly on which locations CD agents were placed.

Is this what you mean? Something like this?

Of course, if this is what you mean, I expect no 911 Truther would be able to give such details.

What "light" should I see? Your uninformed guess that anti-Semitism is not widespread in the fantasy movement is wrong--wrong in an obvious-to-anyone-with-eyes sense. Explain why it is "irrational" to ask someone who slanders an innocent man, an innocent man who happens to be a Jew, to provide some assurance that his animus is rooted in something other than the world's oldest and most poisonous bias.

Maybe you can't see what I have clearly put in front of your eyes because you don't know the meaning of the word quantitative. You seem to be ignorant of even common sense notions of statistics, so this may also explain your continuing failure to "see the light".

 

[Dabljuh]

Are Truthers' accusations against Silverstein based on latent anti-Semitism?

Why yes, anyone who makes 4.4 billion dollars profit in a day by ways of a "terrorist attack" causing the death of some 3000 people, will only then become a prime suspect if he's a dirty jew.

 

[CptColumbo]

Why yes, anyone who makes 4.4 billion dollars profit in a day by ways of a "terrorist attack" causing the death of some 3000 people, will only then become a prime suspect if he's a dirty jew.

Do you have proof that he made 4.4 billion dollars in profit?

 

[SDC]

Why yes, anyone who makes 4.4 billion dollars profit in a day by ways of a "terrorist attack" causing the death of some 3000 people, will only then become a prime suspect if he's a dirty jew.

Pomeroo, Confuseling, I think you have just flushed one of the best examples out into the open.

I'd ask that you redirect your fire. Just a suggestion. I'll go mow the lawn.

 

[Dabljuh]

Do you have proof that he made 4.4 billion dollars in profit?

Lets see, if I remember correctly:
He bought the lease for 50 million
He insured it for 15 million
The court awarded him 4.4 billion from the insurance company Swiss Re - 2.2 per tower.

Close enough.

And if the buildings hadn't collapsed, he would have faced an extremely expensive renovation of the place to remove the asbestos.

Proof? On the internets? Go back to college. All you can do here is appeal to authority, like, hope the NY Times gets the figures more accurate than me.

 

[gumboot]

Let's be honest, if you're a westerner and you're not Jewish, you only have to go back a few generations to find your Jew-hating ancestors. Some people just don't evolve as quickly as others.

 

[CptColumbo]

Lets see, if I remember correctly:
He bought the lease for 50 million
He insured it for 15 million
The court awarded him 4.4 billion from the insurance company Swiss Re - 2.2 per tower.

Close enough.

And if the buildings hadn't collapsed, he would have faced an extremely expensive renovation of the place to remove the asbestos.

Proof? On the internets? Go back to college. All you can do here is appeal to authority, like, hope the NY Times gets the figures more accurate than me.

What is your source for those figures? Are they all the expenses that LS had in regards to the WTC?

I did not appeal to any authority. I merely asked you to back up a claim with proof, which you failed to do (simply writing figures without a source is not proof) and admit that the information that you do have may be inaccurate.

Do you have a NY Times article in mind?