Helen Thomas resigns over remarks

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I often disagree with skeptigirl on many things, but I always thought she was at least rational and decent.

I never, never expected that I would have to put her in the same category as MaGZ, 9/11Investigator or E.J. Armstrong.

I'm truly astonished by this revelation.

Do they also believe it's possible to create a human/sheep hybrid?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why are you so astonished? "Israel must be destroyed" is a de facto dogma in many, many so-called "progressive" circles. ...

What a pile of crap this claim is.

 

[Pardalis]

Often disagree? Ha! We disagree on almost everything political.

Yes, but until now, at least I could respect your opposing view, since you always provide evidence and ponder your arguments rationally.

Now it's all gone.

I'm truly disappointed.

I mostly respect your difference of opinion, but not when you resort to this kind of ad hom instead of sticking to the actual debate issues.

Skeptigirl, asking an entire people to be removed from their state is appalling. The very idea should be rejected, not considered and thought through.

Instead of rejecting it as a despicable view, you are defending it.

Why is it irrational to have empathy for the Palestinians?

And what about the Israeli? What would mass deportation feel like you think?

Have you ever even considered their perspective? Ever look at a map of Palestine before 1947?

Yes, and I also looked at a map of New France in 1645. I wished we could go back to that era and start over. But unless Stephen Hawking found the way to travel back in time, there is nothing we can do about it.

This is 2010. Let's move on from 1947, shall we?

Israel is there now, there is a people called the Israeli now, their country is their home now.

 

[Skeptic]

What a pile of crap this claim is.

Sure, sure. My memory must be playing tricks on me, as I recall all those pro-PLO, Mao, Che Guevara, North Vietnam, etc., etc., etc. demonstrations by "progressives" where they claim to be be REALLY ANGRY at "human rights violations".

Remember all those "progressives" on college campuses holding up Mao's "little red book"? What is exactly the difference between holding up that pile of steaming nonsense as an illustration of who one's hero is, and holding up Hitler's Mein Kampf piece of nonsense as a declaration of whom one supports?

Only, so far as I can tell, that Mao killed a lot more people.

Then again, I'm speaking with someone who thinks Israel should be destroyed -- only it's currently "impractical" (though Hamas & co. disagree) -- so there isn't much point to the discussion.

 

[Skeptic]

Do they also believe it's possible to create a human/sheep hybrid?

That's what Jews are, isn't it? My mother...

...but I've already said too much.

 

[Pardalis]

Skeptigirl, just for good measure, could you provide me an example of a claim or statement that you would consider outrageous.

 

[Skeptic]

Nothing said about killing / expelling / murdering / etc. Jews would count.

That's just, er, "resistance".

 

[Pardalis]

This conversation with Skeptigirl reminds me of this scene from the Office:

Gareth: Anything else?

Keith: Wet t-shirt competition.

Tim: Keith, we cannot have a wet... He's writing that down as well. What, is that something for the old people, Gareth?

Gareth: No, definitely not. That's a good point actually: "No OAP's in wet t-shirts."

Tim: Sorry, the wet t-shirt competition's going ahead?

Gareth: Look, it's a democracy, alright? That's the point. Everyone can get their ideas on the piece of paper.

Tim: Gareth, Gareth, we cannot have a wet t-shirt competition.

Keith: You can. You just need a bucket, and a t-shirt.


But in this case Skeptigirl's only problem with it is that she agrees the bucket is too "impractical".

 

[Fnord]

Who says she doesn't have a right to free speech? She just doesn't have a right to not be criticized for her free speech. Nobody is putting her in jail. She simply lost a job because her free speech showed her to be a disgusting idiot without any shred of objectivity.

Correction: She retired. About time, too.

As far as "disgusting" ... her pic ... shouldn't she be wearing a pointed hat and threatening your little dog, too?

 

[firecoins]

It seems Skeptigirl believes nothing is outrageous about deporting Jews back to Europe. I have yet to hear a rational answer for this.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I know, she just said that Jews should get out of Israel and go "back" to the country that tried to exterminate them. It's not like she said she's against illegal immigration or something insane like that.

Or 2 trillion dollar deficits (ZOMGRACISM!!!).

 

[Pardalis]

It seems Skeptigirl believes nothing is outrageous about deporting Jews back to Europe. I have yet to hear a rational answer for this.

She can't even answer the simple question "is Israel is a sovereign state recognized by the UN?", because if she did answer, she would inevitably have to answer the logical next question: "How is it not outrageous to ask the inhabitants of said sovereign state to leave it?".

She prefers not to engage in that line of thought, because the cognitive dissonance would be too great.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm guessing that all those that agree with her are currently packing their bags and leaving the occupied USA to head back to Europe so that the land can be returned to the remaining members of the Native America Nations.

 

[Mycroft]

Are you lacking basic vocabulary here? Understanding a position is the same as agreeing with it in your dictionary? It's not the same in mine.

I'm sorry, but your only objection to a call for ethnic cleansing was that it's impractical.

Impractical?!

I understand her position too. I understand it's ignorant and filled with hate.

Helen Thomas is a batty old lady who should have retired decades ago. I can understand if she just had a "senior moment" and said something stupid she wouldn't normally say. What I don't understand is looking at the ugliness of what she did say and not finding anything more objectionable to it than "it's impractical."

 

[Kopji]

When other posters make Ginger's arguments for her they have a higher straw content than when she expresses them herself. I fully expect to hear that she also boils children in a kettle. :|

The idea of a modern 'sovereign nation-state' is a fairly modern development in history, only a few hundred years old. Certainly within the realm of discussion.

I could for example, rationally argue for the elimination of all national boundaries. Corporations could exist in a free flowing market based economy that does not know or need political or religious entities. Each person could be a shareholder. Emigration and immigration would not be issues because people would be free to work where they wanted or could. There would be no Israelis, Iranians, Syrians, Americans, Mexicans, etc. The argument, while perhaps extreme, impractical, or even wrongheaded - looking at different perspectives do not make the arguer irrational or a terrorist.

phamtomwolf et al

There is a common misconception that the Israel/Palestinian conflict is in some way similar to the relationship of the United States to Native Americans. It is not.
First, we are generally friendly toward each other.
There has been horrific bloodshed. We know what we are.

But we are allowed to intermarry - not so Israelis. Regardless of where they choose to live, they are fully AMERICAN. American Indians have full rights to vote, and also participate in their separate nation and be governed by different laws. (The weird term "USAian" is not only incorrect, it marginalizes an entire population of people who live here that are not technically part of the United States.) Considered in many ways a separate nation inside the United States, we are one larger thing - Americans.

While yes, the idea of 'sending everyone back home' is outrageous, it is more so when people have suffered and struggled together and have a degree of unity. As long as isolationism instead of a concern for the larger common good of the Mideast is a common theme - there will continue to be people who see removal of the isolated segments - Israeli or Palestinians - as potential simple solutions to a complex but continuous conflict.

I really think that the anger over people like Helen Thomas is misplaced. They are merely another symptom of being encouraged to view the Mideast conflict as isolated cells that can be separated or moved - rather than a single complex entity.

 

[marksman]

FYI: I posted a link to the full interview (it's only two minutes) and wrote up a transcript here.

 

[Beerina]

No. Impractical, yes, but outrageous, definitely not.

I think you're deliberately putting on blinders in her defense. It was an extremely callous remark.

 

[Pardalis]

When other posters make Ginger's arguments for her they have a higher straw content than when she expresses them herself. I fully expect to hear that she also boils children in a kettle. :|

She could have chosen any word to describe Thomas' comment, "appalling", "callous", "abhorrent", "despicable", "reprehensible", "thoughtless", "inconsiderate", "insensitive"...

She chose "impractical".

No straw here.

While yes, the idea of 'sending everyone back home' is outrageous,

Then you and Skeptigirl need to have a little chat.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

ITT: Slippery Slope Fallacy; Straw Man Fallacy; Poisoning the Well; Ad Hominem; Red Herring.

 

[bobdroege7]

They should get out of Palestine, it's not their land.

Named by the Romans with borders decided by Great Britain and the allies after the first world war, totally a European construct.

When was Palestine ruled by its own inhabitants?

Helen Thomas as a reporter should stick to the facts, not her misguided and wrong opinions.