• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rocks VS. Acid

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HA!

rikzilla said:
Darn! David Irving too!!! :eek: Next you'll be telling me not to attend that diversity lecture with David Duke!!! :confused:

LOL! Using an infamous anti-semite as an authority on Jewish customs is hiring Fred Phelps as a grief counselor. :hit:

Not getting down on you Mephisto,...you seem to be the honest vicitim of a quick mouse finger. Trust me, I've been mortified myself to have been caught in just such a faux pas.

Live and learn man, live and learn.... ;)

-z
Click to expand...

Thanks Rik,

You're absolutely right about the quick mouse finger. I had so many sources in front of me, I forgot to check their legitimacy. Not being familiar with them shot my whole argument right in the ass.

Still, I stand by my original assertion that the Israeli government disarmed their soldiers because they suspected there might be violence. I also stand by my claims that Israeli settlers threw acid at the soldiers (and not something acidic as Jocko suggests).

In spite of my gross ignorance of the English language, "throwing acid" at someone carries much heavier connotations than throwing orange juice, salad dressing, soda, hot coffee, thinned paint-thinner or anything else "acidic." Do we question the viewpoint of the media for using the term acid over acidic, or do we question, "why diluted paint-thinner?" Which brings to mind another tangent. Since my original post, my knowledge of the language has been questioned, my intelligence has been questioned and I've been accused of various unsavory things, but I've yet to hear any discussion over the disarming of the Israeli military responsible for moving Israeli settlers.

I'll concede the argument regarding paint thinner (as opposed to something a little more acidic - you know a little more threatening) because of my rhetorical gaffe. Maybe I'll see if Faurisson has anything to say about paint thinner?

Mephisto
 
Cleon said:
So we have a thread about the Middle East.

Rikzilla intervenes and it becomes an "illogical outpouring of niceness."

And all of this is happening on the Politics board.


And next, seven angels will play seven trumpets...
Click to expand...

Does this mean I'm a uniter?

:D
 
Mephisto:
"It's been awhile since we've heard from the Israeli apologists so I thought I might mention the fact that protests regarding the relocated settlers in Israel turned extremely violent recently."

Well, what do you expect?
They are thieves and murderers. Not only that they get compensated for leaving somebody else land they ****ing stole whilst the Palestinians are booted out alive if they are lucky or just simply buried alive if possible. That`s what you get from racist zionist shitbags

But of course, it`s Israel with all its hundreds of missiles and billions of dollars of protection that is feeling pain not the Palestinians living in slums surrounded by Israeli barbed wire and taking pot shots at little kids. The Palestinians must love to live under occupation and to have their houses demolished and groves destroyed. They are also overjoyed to have their water supply stolen to supply zionist settlements and to line up for hours to be humiliated at checkpoints.

Incidently, were any of our resident Israeli apologists disgusted by the clown show of Gaza "settlers" plastering their kids with stars like the Nazis did to the jews in Germany? What an insult to those who suffered in the holocaust that was. I didn`t hear any criticism of this, maybe I missed it or maybe it`s more fun to go after the likes of Ken Livingstone for being anti-semitic.
 
Last edited:
I'm definitely on the acid side. Rock is just nasty stuff all around, it kills your brain and seriously f--ks up your body. Only idiots smoke rock. Acid, on the other hand, if used in moderation, can be a very useful creative tool; and doesn't have cause significant long-term harm (again, in moderation).
 
Can't we just say that this ongoing conflict is turning both sides into unfeeling, tribalistic monsters and get along with one another?
 
Melendwyr said:
Can't we just say that this ongoing conflict is turning both sides into unfeeling, tribalistic monsters and get along with one another?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. The divisions are too deep, the injuries too cherished, the stereotyping too ingrained, the grievances too profound and the refusal to see the other point of view too absolute. This Forum started out as a idealistic dream, but frankly it was always going to end this way.
 
CapelDodger said:
No, I don't think so. The divisions are too deep, the injuries too cherished, the stereotyping too ingrained, the grievances too profound and the refusal to see the other point of view too absolute. This Forum started out as a idealistic dream, but frankly it was always going to end this way.
Click to expand...

That sounds very noble and all, but for those of us who don't seek to put extra drama in our lives, we might prefer to point out that Melendwyrs position reeks of the fallacy of middle ground:

Description of Middle Ground

This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
3. Therefore C is the correct position.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.
Click to expand...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html
 
There are a number of people on this thread whom I would enjoy squirting with lemon juice.
 
The point I was trying to make is the fact that there are few physical differences between the Palestinians and the Israelis and that SOMEONE must have realized that, which is why I believe the Israeli soldiers were unarmed.

Oh, dear.

a). The settlements in Gush Katif were 100% jewish, without Palestinians.
b). Maybe there aren't many physical differences between the israelies and Palestinians that you can see, but most israelies (and Palestinians) can easily see them.
c). israeli soldiers do not, as you seem to suggest, routinely shoot at unarmed Palestinians.

The logic here is the same as claiming that most US soldiers walk unarmed when in New York City because "they" realized Iraqis and New Yorkers look similar, so they don't want the soldiers "forgetting" they are not in Iraq and deciding to shoot people randomly in the street.

You make no sense.
 
Mycroft said:
That sounds very noble and all, but for those of us who don't seek to put extra drama in our lives, we might prefer to point out that Melendwyrs position reeks of the fallacy of middle ground:
Click to expand...
It's fallacious to say that the average of two positions is always the correct one.

That, however, is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that both sides in this "debate" are becoming increasingly similar, inhuman, jingoistic, tribalistic, and all-around stupid; if I were in charge, I would probably ban everyone involved just to get some peace around here, only letting them return on the condition that they never speak of the matter again.

In a conflict between rabid anti-Israel, anti-Jew maniacs and rabid anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab maniacs, there is no moral high ground.
 
Melendwyr said:
That, however, is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that both sides in this "debate" are becoming increasingly similar, inhuman, jingoistic, tribalistic, and all-around stupid; if I were in charge, I would probably ban everyone involved just to get some peace around here, only letting them return on the condition that they never speak of the matter again.
Click to expand...

I see precisely what you're saying and believe that the key word is "moderation." If both sides would just "give a little" they might find it a little easier to see themselves through each other's eyes.

However, I agree with Mycroft; it's not going to happen because of all the years, all the blood, all the bad feelings and all the inequalities that continue to feed this conflict. As I've often said, the main contribution of religion to mankind is allowing stupid and insensitive men to draw a line between "us and them."

If I were in charge, I would ensure non-violence by sending Israeli schoolchildren to Palestinian schools (and allow Israeli teachers to ALSO teach - then it would behoove Israel to invest in the Palestinian school system), and I would send Palestinian children to Israeli schools. Such a program proved somewhat successful in Northern Ireland (despite the objections of the older generations) when Catholic children and Protestant children were intermixed and allowed to see that neither were the monsters their parents led them to believe.

I feel that the children are the key to overcoming this ingrained conflict. They are the future and if we could just intercept the fallacies their respective cultures apply to the opposite side, they would see each other as human beings.
 
Mephisto said:
If I were in charge, I would ensure non-violence by sending Israeli schoolchildren to Palestinian schools [and vice versa] ... Such a program proved somewhat successful in Northern Ireland (despite the objections of the older generations) when Catholic children and Protestant children were intermixed and allowed to see that neither were the monsters their parents led them to believe.
Click to expand...
There were always such schools in NI, in areas that weren't rabidly sectarian (which is most of NI). Efforts were made in the sectarian areas, but they faced entrenched and dangerous opposition and schooling is still segregated in (for instance) North Belfast. I read of a study that concluded that children who were exposed to such cross-over schemes were far more likely to leave the Province in adult life (to Britain, to Ireland, to the US, anywhere but that benighted society). For what that's worth. I don't have any references but it seems plausible. Something similar might result in Israel.
 
CapelDodger said:
You'll certainly find anti-zionist sentiments expressed here, quite forcefully in my case, but I've not seen any Jew-baiting.
Click to expand...
I've seen certain people (names withheld to spare the guilty) declare that certain other people (names withheld to spare the guilty) are anti-Semitic - specifically, anti-Jew. Are they really? I don't know.

The only thing I really know for sure is that whenever this issue comes up, certain people's forebrains seem to shut down.
 
Here's an example, taken from hammegk's signature file:
If the Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world HE does not exist, the Jews' greatest accomplishment was convincing the world The Protocols are a forgery ....
Click to expand...

I think that counts as evidence of such wooery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom