Natanyahu Lowers the Boom

[william.scherk]

Marc asserts some people in this thread harbour hatred of the Jews, but dishonestly hide that hatred. I've highlighted his very strong claims.

The real issue though is when hatred comes out ... via threads like this . Hatred against the Jews for whatever reasons people have .

I have seen this numerous times on this thread .

[Naomi] was simply the only one who did not disguise her views , she was very straight forward , as others ( 3-4 folks ) simply have a better vocabulary and are able to run ridiculous circular arguments.

I respect her and Arafat more than said posters because they are being honest .

"Said posters" being who, Marc? I think you should name them, or identify or quote their dishonest gambits. Otherwise you run the risk of slurring more than just 3 to 4 of us who are heretofore nameless.

It is very evident to anyone who reads through all the thread . There are a tremendous amount of points that are factually incorrect here . Do your own homework , read , then you will clearly see what I am speaking about .

-- 'points that are factually incorrect' is entirely different from Jew Hatred. It is fallacious to plunk in a new criteria to your argument post facto.

[...] [Naomi] at least stated her hatred openly . There are a few folks here who are hiding behind word games , and thats all right . What is not all right is that I simply accept it , I get to state the truth . Thats my right .

I object to your reticence. You assert a claim and then reverse the onus of providing warrants for it. You state that three or four OLers signaled hatred for Jews in this thread, that they have hidden behind word games in so doing -- but instead of demonstrating instances of said hidden hatred, you suggest it's someone else's job to provide them!

Marc, if your ugly contention is actually true then it should be easy for you to point to particular posts that rankled. But that your personal 'Jew Hate' detector may have pinged does not mean anyone has to accept those instrumental readings -- especially when you will not share that information!

So, waving hands at a 530-odd block of comments and saying "there's your evidence of Jew Hate!" is doubly insulting. It maintains the existing slur of Jew Hate over everyone who contributed comments, and it shows contempt for inquiry. In other words, you insult not only your readers but also Reason.

Edited August 10, 2014 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Wow...

Now do just the Goyem* have to do a Jewish loyalty oath, or, the self hating Jewish also?

*

goyem

Means "non-jewish"...or not belonging to the jewish community...

note that it is the plural form of "goy"...which is one non-jew

Sorry reverend, I dind't mean to embarass you in front of the goyem

[moralist]

a chosen people perspective

Such an oddly popular, widely shared idea. John Winthrop's Pilgrims, the Nazi Ayrans, Haile Selassie, the Zulus, Mohammed...

From your view of moral equivalence it would naturally appear that way.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

The real issue though is when hatred comes out in the media, or via threads like this. Hatred against the Jews for whatever reasons people have.

I have seen this numerous times on this thread ... ( 3-4 folks ) simply have a better vocabulary and are able to run ridiculous circular arguments.

Never good to make veiled accusations. Man up. Who hates the Jews?

[moralist]

I do apologize for my scattered thoughts but I did not want to quote 20 posts here , so I am just writing what comes to mind after reading the whole 6 pages of this great discussion .

For anyone who does not really understand the area or population , this is for you .

Israel land area: 8,000 sq miles.

Arab land area: 5,120,000 sq miles.

Israeli total population is 7,116,200, ALL people who live in Israel, BUT 1,413,500 or 20% are Arabs (Muslim & Druze).

Israel is surrounded by 270 million Arab Muslims.

Thanks for providing the useful context of scale, Marc.

It begs the question:

Why have the Muslims (or the rest of the world for that matter) been in a constant hissyfit for so long over just one teeny tiny little country?

Hmmm?...

Greg

This is the quote that better explains my issues about this thread . If you would like to start somewhere , then answer this for me please ? To the last few posters who have an issue with what I stated .

There is one simple answer to that question, Marc:

The Jews are God's chosen people.

That is the only possible explanation how the tiniest nation on the face of the earth could possess the immense power to capture the attention of the whole world.

I am not a Jew. I'm what Brant would call a goyem. However, I came to a pragmatic realization early in life. Even though I am not a Jew, I can still bless Jews with my service. So that is exactly what I did. When I started my own business my very first client was a Jew. He recommended me to his business associates so that my whole business was built solely on word of mouth reputation. Today over three decades later, I have never spent one cent on advertizing, and I never have to worry about money for the rest of my life.

Being a Christian, the promises made by God as recorded in the Bible have relevance to my own life, even though they have been rendered totally useless to others by their own free choice. This is one of them. And it is so absolutely true, I staked my whole life on it:

"And I will bless those who confer prosperity or happiness upon you

and curse him who uses insolent language toward you;

in you will all the families and kindred of the earth be blessed

and by you they will bless themselves."

(Genesis 12:3)

I am blessed.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Is Brant a Jew?

--Brant

the world wants to know

[moralist]

Maybe Adam knows...

[william.scherk]

We are Primates Mark II. We do have our limitations.

Well, that's a key point where we each differ in our views, Bob.

You use monkeys as your behavioral model... and I don't.

Greg

Bob uses the most general term, primate, that describes a vast range of animals who share ancestry. Humans are classified along with the 'great apes' as the most intelligent of all the primates. Our closest relatives include the chimpanzees, the gorillas, and the orangutans. We are much more distantly related to the 'monkeys' ...

The great findings in paleontology tell us that our species is a very special remnant of a very special instance of primate evolution, the only surviving species of miraculous adapters, Homo, man, the last survivor or the great vanquisher. We stand astride the world in every way, all other animal life utterly under our command and control.

In other words, as Primates Mark Two, we are profoundly human in distinction to other primates, having things like language, culture, religion, invention, logic, mathematics, science that are absolutely absent in even our nearest relatives.

Although we may style ourselves gods, in our humanity we retain much of our ancestry -- what we share with lesser primates are our lusts, our aggressions, our jealousies and our kin structures. It is this indisputable independent reality that Bob remarks upon. Translated to religionese, this could also indicate an original sin, a base nature. And that would tie in nicely with your views, Greg.

Yes, you agree with Bob, yet still mark yourself off as more informed and holy. Funny that.

I expect you have no truck with evolution, and likely little understanding of it.

[BaalChatzaf]

We are Primates Mark II. We do have our limitations.

Well, that's a key point where we each differ in our views, Bob.

You use monkeys as your behavioral model... and I don't.

Greg

Bob uses the most general term, primate, that describes a vast range of animals who share ancestry. Humans are classified along with the 'great apes' as the most intelligent of all the primates. Our closest relatives include the chimpanzees, the gorillas, and the orangutans. We are much more distantly related to the 'monkeys' ...

The great findings in paleontology tell us that our species is a very special remnant of a very special instance of primate evolution, the only surviving species of miraculous adapters, Homo, man, the last survivor or the great vanquisher. We stand astride the world in every way, all other animal life utterly under our command and control.

In other words, as Primates Mark Two, we are profoundly human in distinction to other primates, having things like language, culture, religion, invention, logic, mathematics, science that are absolutely absent in even our nearest relatives.

Although we may style ourselves gods, in our humanity we retain much of our ancestry -- what we share with lesser primates are our lusts, our aggressions, our jealousies and our kin structures. It is this indisputable independent reality that Bob remarks upon. Translated to religionese, this could also indicate an original sin, a base nature. And that would tie in nicely with your views, Greg.

Yes, you agree with Bob, yet still mark yourself off as more informed and holy. Funny that.

I expect you have no truck with evolution, and likely little understanding of it.

Thank you for expanding on the point I made.

As clever and smart as we are, we are not (yet) gods.

Our godhood will have to wait for the next evolutionary jump. Maybe Primate Mark III will get it right in the end.

As things stand we are clever enough and smart enough to render ourselves extinct. We are not yet wise enough to totally integrate our moral intuitions with the rest of our drives. Which is why evil still prevails and peace is elusive. Perhaps the next great evolutionary jump will finally give us the self control we need to live in peace and prosperity and not learn war any more.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Bob uses the most general term, primate, that describes a vast range of animals who share ancestry. Humans are classified along with the 'great apes' as the most intelligent of all the primates.

While you ignore the fact that humans solely possess the unique quality of moral accountability... I affirm that fact.

But since so many people behave like monkeys' uncles, it's understandable from where your view originates.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob uses the most general term, primate, that describes a vast range of animals who share ancestry. Humans are classified along with the 'great apes' as the most intelligent of all the primates.

While you ignore the fact that humans solely possess the unique quality of moral accountability... I affirm that fact.

But since so many people behave like monkeys' uncles, it's understandable from where your view originates.

Greg

Humans possess the gift of gab and can count past seven. Any rumors you have heard about moral accountability are not necessarily true.

Auschwitz, Belson, Berkenou, Sobibor .... Where was the moral accountability there?

Why do we have so many laws and so little justice. I think you are under an illusion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

Too many ? not enough ? when it comes to justice.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Bob uses the most general term, primate, that describes a vast range of animals who share ancestry. Humans are classified along with the 'great apes' as the most intelligent of all the primates.

While you ignore the fact that humans solely possess the unique quality of moral accountability... I affirm that fact.

But since so many people behave like monkeys' uncles, it's understandable from where your view originates.

Greg

Humans possess the gift of gab and can count past seven. Any rumors you have heard about moral accountability are not necessarily true.

Auschwitz, Belson, Berkenou, Sobibor .... Where was the moral accountability there?

Why do we have so many laws and so little justice. I think you are under an illusion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I hesitated before intruding on this duel of ... let's say poo flinging, as monkeys are wont to do. However, it's a neat occasion to recite Miss Rand's great achievement, that evil requires the sanction of the victim. Bob mentions Nazi death camps in a peculiar frame, connecting the gift of gab to "so many laws and so little justice." Were the guards at Auschwitz morally or legally culpable for obeying what they believed were obligatory wartime orders?

[the following is adapted in part from Wikipedia: Superior Orders with additional comments of my own]

Nuremberg Principle IV (applied retroactively in 1945-46) held: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." I think what Bob said was that our gift of gab and the ability to count past seven does not show moral accountability. If true, then Principle IV makes no sense as a legal test of guilt or innocence, because the question is moral choice -- and in Randian terms, the moral choice that matters is that of victims, not prison guards who put them to death. However, if you conceive that at least some prison guards were victims of higher authority who ordered them to commit atrocities which they knew to be wrong, then Nuremberg Principle IV is a cogent legal test to punish guilty victims. There's no possibility of punishing dead people, so we'll skip over the question of whether those victims were guilty, too.

In 1957, the Israeli legal system established the concept of a 'blatantly illegal order' to explain when a military order (or in general, a security-related order) should be followed, and when an order must not be followed. Soldiers do not have the obligation to examine each and every order in detail as to its legality, nor were they entitled to disobey orders merely on a subjective feeling that it might be illegal. On the other hand, some orders are manifestly illegal, and these must be disobeyed. Is torturing an enemy prisoner manifestly illegal?

In June 2006, during the Iraq War, Ehren Watada refused to go to Iraq on account of his belief that the Iraq war was a war of aggression for territorial aggrandizement, which he believed could make him liable for prosecution under the command responsibility doctrine. In this case, the judge ruled that soldiers, in general, are not responsible for determining whether the order to go to war itself is a lawful order, even if defenseless women and children will be killed or maimed as a result. The complaint about Israel's recent operations in Gaza is -- yep -- noncombatants being killed and injured.

It leaves me shaking my head about two matters in particular. First, that 1943-44 is trotted out as the worst moral failure in human history, which it clearly wasn't. Stalin and Mao (and millions of moral agents obeying their edicts) victimized many more people than Hitler did. And more importantly, the sanction of their victims cannot be ignored, except in the case of women and children.

Twenty-five years ago, Robert Heinlein addressed the cadets of Annapolis -- future U.S. naval officers, at least some of who are senior active duty Navy commanders today. Heinlein impressed upon them the imperative of national survival contained in an ancient aphorism: "Women and children first!" He explained that a nation can sacrifice the lives of numerous men, nearly all of them, and yet survive as a viable society if their women and children remain unharmed. It is undeniably true, that men are properly warriors and breadwinners, to safeguard and nurture the next generation.

While we hope that men, too, might be spared from peril, the primary meaning and unequivocal horror of "war crime" refers to war on civilian women and children, who are almost universally deemed noncombatants and exempt from battle. Death and dismemberment of defenseless children is categorically evil at all times and everywhere on earth.

[Laissez Faire Law, p.139]

There is no excuse for crimes against women and children, and their welfare is not served by ignoring the meaning of justice.

Definitions of justice proffered by others have been lengthy, covering hundreds of pages, intertwining dozens of terms. However, logic is an exact science. Verbosity indicates lack of understanding or deliberate obfuscation. That's why my definition of justice is succinct. A complete theory of justice is presented in one proposition, consisting of one object, one action, and two qualifiers: Justice = armed defense of innocent liberty. The qualifiers are necessary for precision. Verbal defense of liberty isn't justice. It must be armed defense. Not all liberty, just innocent liberty, e.g., the liberty of women and children, who are often unable to defend themselves. [COGGIG, p.121]

[moralist]

Bob uses the most general term, primate, that describes a vast range of animals who share ancestry. Humans are classified along with the 'great apes' as the most intelligent of all the primates.

While you ignore the fact that humans solely possess the unique quality of moral accountability... I affirm that fact.

But since so many people behave like monkeys' uncles, it's understandable from where your view originates.

Greg

Any rumors you have heard about moral accountability are not necessarily true.

That's because the shallow only look at the outside.

If you were to examine your own life, you'd find that every time you did something wrong, you paid for it in full right out of your own hide.

Auschwitz, Belson, Berkenou, Sobibor .... Where was the moral accountability there?

Moral accountability came at the hands of the Allied forces of course.

I thought everyone knew that. Guess you didn't. So now you do.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

Moral accountability came at the hands of the Allied forces of course.

Dresden? Yalta? Potsdam?

[moralist]

So Wolf...

Do you believe that you can do what's morally wrong

without getting exactly what you deserve

as the consequences of your own actions?

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

So Wolf...

Do you believe that you can do what's morally wrong

without getting exactly what you deserve

as the consequences of your own actions?

 

Broadly speaking, evil consists in the refusal to think, willful blindness, vanity, cupidity.

I often make mistakes, but I'm fairly certain you are incapable of moral progress.

 

Let's agree to ignore each other.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Let me interrupt your self-righteous anger for a second and get in a good word for Marc.

I know how rhetorical games are played since I run a forum. And I know how easily this "name names" turns into bullying and howls of victimization. Note, I am not saying you do this (others do it), but when passions flare, it is extremely easy to fall into the trap of the double standard without realizing it. My intent is bring this point into relief.

After reading everything Marc wrote in this thread (I presume you did), here is what you wrote. I will only quote the end even though you repeated the essence of this meaning several times in your post, as self-righteous anger is wont to lead one to do.

It maintains the existing slur of Jew Hate over everyone who contributed comments, and it shows contempt for inquiry. In other words, you insult not only your readers but also Reason.

That's a lot of insulting and contempt you are attributing to Marc. Not just everyone on this thread and the readers, but both Inquiry and Reason in their anthropomorphic states.

But maybe you missed the following comment?

If my " 3 or 4 folks " comment offended anyone , or everyone , I really do apologize though .

The man apologized.

Where are your manners? Don't you accept an apology when it is proffered?

I certainly didn't see you mention this. All I saw was you trying to nail his ass.

I can almost hear you think, gimme a break. That was not an apology to be taken seriously.

Yet those were Marc's words.

Apologize.

Preceded by "really do."

Preceded by "I."

I can pick this thing to death if need be, but those words do not change. Based on those words and the fact you ignored them in your self-righteous anger, I could start slinging accusations against you for cherry-picking passages, claiming this represents all kinds of evil intents on your part, dishonesty, yada yada yada, but I don't like that kind of thing. (To me, this gotcha form of attributing motives to people that they don't actually believe is nothing more than discursive masturbation in public. It's not even good propaganda. All that crap does is bore readers and discredit the authors, that is after the charm of the food-fight wears off.)

Now, let's turn to someone--among those who still remain unnamed--who makes a slur (implied or otherwise) against Jews, then backs off. Then does it again, then backs off. And so on. Which words are the true ones, the slurs or the backing off? We ALL know which ones will be quoted by the person if he or she is called out.

So it's a game. Kind of like verbal hide and seek with poison in the middle.

To make a proper case to expose this is a humongous pain-in-the ass, both research-wise by sifting through all this stuff, and in writing it in a persuasive form so it doesn't sound like pettiness and nitpicking. (You've read me for a few years, so you know I've actually done this several times on different topics.)

But here's the rub. Nobody's mind will change. People's behavior will stay the same. This only leads to bickering and more bickering. Snark. The kind of bickering this entails is simply not worth the discussion. (One again, I speak from several years of experience.)

Nothing else will come of it. Nothing ever does. Nothing.

I've seen it too often to believe otherwise.

Do I sound redundant?

And in your self-righteous anger, is it your position that these last get a pass on acting that way, but Marc must not? That he must be exposed and subjected to God knows what punishments you have in mind? Why is your anger only at him and not at the others when they do this against Jews?

To be clear and put words to the concept, I am talking about using euphemistic rhetorical devices that embed CYA, but still promote an agenda.

That is what you think of Marc's apology, is it not? If that is what you think, then why the double standard by ignoring others when they do similar? Maybe they don't apologize, but back off instead. It's still the same concept.

You see how easy it is to miss this when you get angry? (For a further comment on experience, I speak from lots of experience committing this error--and I try to fix it in myself when I detect it.)

So why don't I step in every time I see these rhetorical games? Well... ham-handed moderation is not my thing. So long as offensive posts are few, I believe flexibility is a lot more healthy than going all school-marm on folks. Regarding the young lady I banned, it ate a ton-load of crap from her before it got to that point.

But I just don't see a hostile hypocritical accusation coming from Marc like you do in your self-righteous anger. I merely see him saying, "I see you" to those who resort to rhetorical games to express and anti-Jew agenda. He's had a lifetime of looking at this crap.

Also, I happen to believe his apology is sincere because I know him. But I can see how others would not. And I also admit that the unnamed people could be sincere when backing off, although in my experience, this is usually not the case when the pattern keeps repeating.

You can ask me to name names if you like, but I won't right now. You know if things get bad enough, I will. Also, when I get to the point of writing long posts full of quotes pointing this crap out (like I did with the young lady and a couple others in the not too distant past, including that crazy lady), I am near restricting the person. I can justify to myself putting in that amount of effort as a warning. I just don't see any value in doing it to prompt bickering that goes nowhere.

I humbly suggest if you want to get people to go along with your impassioned crusade to expose hypocrisy, your standard and passion should be equal for instances on both sides, not just one. Otherwise, it doesn't come off to the reader as passion against hypocrisy per se.

I speak as one who has stood against both antisemitism and anti-Islamic bigotry--right here on OL. And I speak to you as a kindred spirit in this regard. I believe you post in good faith. You're a good man, William.

Michael

[Marc]

The real issue though is when hatred comes out in the media, or via threads like this. Hatred against the Jews for whatever reasons people have.

I have seen this numerous times on this thread ... ( 3-4 folks ) simply have a better vocabulary and are able to run ridiculous circular arguments.

Never good to make veiled accusations. Man up. Who hates the Jews?

I think that my issue is with the media and how they have covered Israel over the years . Using this cartoon as an example . I do not like 2 things . I detest when the media or anyone sarcastically writes ( not saying the author of the post , but the media ) about Islam being " the religion of peace " . Out of all the Muslims in the world , obviously it is the interpretation of the Koran that leads to peace or violence . Muslims , like Christians , Jews , , Bhuddists , etc are people who want what we all want . To live , be with family , eat , be safe , etc . Humans are all the same . When the self appointed leaders of these folks do not allow them to vote , and force them to do whatever such as throw rocks or blow themselves up , or rape young girls then sell them then murder them - well , it is the leaders and where they live . I think it is the small majority of all religions .

This cartoon though has 6 boxes , and I see the world media focused not at all on Isis and Boko Haram .

My concern is about the UN , and the media not focusing on them as much as Israel .

ISIS is systematically gang raping , selling and murdering children yet Israel is front and centre day after day .

Why ?

Honsestly , why ?

[Marc]

William,

Let me interrupt your self-righteous anger for a second and get in a good word for Marc.

I know how rhetorical games are played since I run a forum. And I know how easily this "name names" turns into bullying and howls of victimization. Note, I am not saying you do this (others do it), but when passions flare, it is extremely easy to fall into the trap of the double standard without realizing it. My intent is bring this point into relief.

After reading everything Marc wrote in this thread (I presume you did), here is what you wrote. I will only quote the end even though you repeated the essence of this meaning several times in your post, as self-righteous anger is wont to lead one to do.

It maintains the existing slur of Jew Hate over everyone who contributed comments, and it shows contempt for inquiry. In other words, you insult not only your readers but also Reason.

That's a lot of insulting and contempt you are attributing to Marc. Not just everyone on this thread and the readers, but both Inquiry and Reason in their anthropomorphic states.

But maybe you missed the following comment?

If my " 3 or 4 folks " comment offended anyone , or everyone , I really do apologize though .

The man apologized.

Where are your manners? Don't you accept an apology when it is proffered?

I certainly didn't see you mention this. All I saw was you trying to nail his ass.

I can almost hear you think, gimme a break. That was not an apology to be taken seriously.

Yet those were Marc's words.

Apologize.

Preceded by "really do."

Preceded by "I."

I can pick this thing to death if need be, but those words do not change. Based on those words and the fact you ignored them in your self-righteous anger, I could start slinging accusations against you for cherry-picking passages, claiming this represents all kinds of evil intents on your part, dishonesty, yada yada yada, but I don't like that kind of thing. (To me, this gotcha form of attributing motives to people that they don't actually believe is nothing more than discursive masturbation in public. It's not even good propaganda. All that crap does is bore readers and discredit the authors, that is after the charm of the food-fight wears off.)

Now, let's turn to someone--among those who still remain unnamed--who makes a slur (implied or otherwise) against Jews, then backs off. Then does it again, then backs off. And so on. Which words are the true ones, the slurs or the backing off? We ALL know which ones will be quoted by the person if he or she is called out.

So it's a game. Kind of like verbal hide and seek with poison in the middle.

To make a proper case to expose this is a humongous pain-in-the ass, both research-wise by sifting through all this stuff, and in writing it in a persuasive form so it doesn't sound like pettiness and nitpicking. (You've read me for a few years, so you know I've actually done this several times on different topics.)

But here's the rub. Nobody's mind will change. People's behavior will stay the same. This only leads to bickering and more bickering. Snark. The kind of bickering this entails is simply not worth the discussion. (One again, I speak from several years of experience.)

Nothing else will come of it. Nothing ever does. Nothing.

I've seen it too often to believe otherwise.

Do I sound redundant?

And in your self-righteous anger, is it your position that these last get a pass on acting that way, but Marc must not? That he must be exposed and subjected to God knows what punishments you have in mind? Why is your anger only at him and not at the others when they do this against Jews?

To be clear and put words to the concept, I am talking about using euphemistic rhetorical devices that embed CYA, but still promote an agenda.

That is what you think of Marc's apology, is it not? If that is what you think, then why the double standard by ignoring others when they do similar? Maybe they don't apologize, but back off instead. It's still the same concept.

You see how easy it is to miss this when you get angry? (For a further comment on experience, I speak from lots of experience committing this error--and I try to fix it in myself when I detect it.)

So why don't I step in every time I see these rhetorical games? Well... ham-handed moderation is not my thing. So long as offensive posts are few, I believe flexibility is a lot more healthy than going all school-marm on folks. Regarding the young lady I banned, it ate a ton-load of crap from her before it got to that point.

But I just don't see a hostile hypocritical accusation coming from Marc like you do in your self-righteous anger. I merely see him saying, "I see you" to those who resort to rhetorical games to express and anti-Jew agenda. He's had a lifetime of looking at this crap.

Also, I happen to believe his apology is sincere because I know him. But I can see how others would not. And I also admit that the unnamed people could be sincere when backing off, although in my experience, this is usually not the case when the pattern keeps repeating.

You can ask me to name names if you like, but I won't right now. You know if things get bad enough, I will. Also, when I get to the point of writing long posts full of quotes pointing this crap out (like I did with the young lady and a couple others in the not too distant past, including that crazy lady), I am near restricting the person. I can justify to myself putting in that amount of effort as a warning. I just don't see any value in doing it to prompt bickering that goes nowhere.

I humbly suggest if you want to get people to go along with your impassioned crusade to expose hypocrisy, your standard and passion should be equal for instances on both sides, not just one. Otherwise, it doesn't come off to the reader as passion against hypocrisy per se.

I speak as one who has stood against both antisemitism and anti-Islamic bigotry--right here on OL. And I speak to you as a kindred spirit in this regard. I believe you post in good faith. You're a good man, William.

Michael

That being said , I will take another opportunity to state that my comment should not have been posted , it was wrong and I do see how a comment like would most certainly have bothered me if someone made such a blanket statement . It will not happen again .

[Brant Gaede]

The real issue though is when hatred comes out in the media, or via threads like this. Hatred against the Jews for whatever reasons people have.

I have seen this numerous times on this thread ... ( 3-4 folks ) simply have a better vocabulary and are able to run ridiculous circular arguments.

Never good to make veiled accusations. Man up. Who hates the Jews?

I think that my issue is with the media and how they have covered Israel over the years . Using this cartoon as an example . I do not like 2 things . I detest when the media or anyone sarcastically writes ( not saying the author of the post , but the media ) about Islam being " the religion of peace " . Out of all the Muslims in the world , obviously it is the interpretation of the Koran that leads to peace or violence . Muslims , like Christians , Jews , , Bhuddists , etc are people who want what we all want . To live , be with family , eat , be safe , etc . Humans are all the same . When the self appointed leaders of these folks do not allow them to vote , and force them to do whatever such as throw rocks or blow themselves up , or rape young girls then sell them then murder them - well , it is the leaders and where they live . I think it is the small majority of all religions .

This cartoon though has 6 boxes , and I see the world media focused not at all on Isis and Boko Haram .

My concern is about the UN , and the media not focusing on them as much as Israel .

ISIS is systematically gang raping , selling and murdering children yet Israel is front and centre day after day .

Why ?

Honsestly , why ?

Media are controlled by left-wing scalawag liberals, here and in Europe.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

So Wolf...

Do you believe that you can do what's morally wrong

without getting exactly what you deserve

as the consequences of your own actions?

Greg

It's time for Hitler: If Hitler got what he deserved for what he did he got it, and is still getting it, in hell. Chewing on a rug at the end and putting a bullet into his head needs to be repeated about 100 million times, then repeat to be sure, then repeat again and again and again. Something like that, with variations.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

William,

Let me interrupt your self-righteous anger for a second and get in a good word for Marc.

I know how rhetorical games are played since I run a forum. And I know how easily this "name names" turns into bullying and howls of victimization. Note, I am not saying you do this (others do it), but when passions flare, it is extremely easy to fall into the trap of the double standard without realizing it. My intent is bring this point into relief.

After reading everything Marc wrote in this thread (I presume you did), here is what you wrote. I will only quote the end even though you repeated the essence of this meaning several times in your post, as self-righteous anger is wont to lead one to do.

It maintains the existing slur of Jew Hate over everyone who contributed comments, and it shows contempt for inquiry. In other words, you insult not only your readers but also Reason.

That's a lot of insulting and contempt you are attributing to Marc. Not just everyone on this thread and the readers, but both Inquiry and Reason in their anthropomorphic states.

But maybe you missed the following comment?

If my " 3 or 4 folks " comment offended anyone , or everyone , I really do apologize though .

The man apologized.

Where are your manners? Don't you accept an apology when it is proffered?

I certainly didn't see you mention this. All I saw was you trying to nail his ass.

I can almost hear you think, gimme a break. That was not an apology to be taken seriously.

Yet those were Marc's words.

Apologize.

Preceded by "really do."

Preceded by "I."

I can pick this thing to death if need be, but those words do not change. Based on those words and the fact you ignored them in your self-righteous anger, I could start slinging accusations against you for cherry-picking passages, claiming this represents all kinds of evil intents on your part, dishonesty, yada yada yada, but I don't like that kind of thing. (To me, this gotcha form of attributing motives to people that they don't actually believe is nothing more than discursive masturbation in public. It's not even good propaganda. All that crap does is bore readers and discredit the authors, that is after the charm of the food-fight wears off.)

Now, let's turn to someone--among those who still remain unnamed--who makes a slur (implied or otherwise) against Jews, then backs off. Then does it again, then backs off. And so on. Which words are the true ones, the slurs or the backing off? We ALL know which ones will be quoted by the person if he or she is called out.

So it's a game. Kind of like verbal hide and seek with poison in the middle.

To make a proper case to expose this is a humongous pain-in-the ass, both research-wise by sifting through all this stuff, and in writing it in a persuasive form so it doesn't sound like pettiness and nitpicking. (You've read me for a few years, so you know I've actually done this several times on different topics.)

But here's the rub. Nobody's mind will change. People's behavior will stay the same. This only leads to bickering and more bickering. Snark. The kind of bickering this entails is simply not worth the discussion. (One again, I speak from several years of experience.)

Nothing else will come of it. Nothing ever does. Nothing.

I've seen it too often to believe otherwise.

Do I sound redundant?

And in your self-righteous anger, is it your position that these last get a pass on acting that way, but Marc must not? That he must be exposed and subjected to God knows what punishments you have in mind? Why is your anger only at him and not at the others when they do this against Jews?

To be clear and put words to the concept, I am talking about using euphemistic rhetorical devices that embed CYA, but still promote an agenda.

That is what you think of Marc's apology, is it not? If that is what you think, then why the double standard by ignoring others when they do similar? Maybe they don't apologize, but back off instead. It's still the same concept.

You see how easy it is to miss this when you get angry? (For a further comment on experience, I speak from lots of experience committing this error--and I try to fix it in myself when I detect it.)

So why don't I step in every time I see these rhetorical games? Well... ham-handed moderation is not my thing. So long as offensive posts are few, I believe flexibility is a lot more healthy than going all school-marm on folks. Regarding the young lady I banned, it ate a ton-load of crap from her before it got to that point.

But I just don't see a hostile hypocritical accusation coming from Marc like you do in your self-righteous anger. I merely see him saying, "I see you" to those who resort to rhetorical games to express and anti-Jew agenda. He's had a lifetime of looking at this crap.

Also, I happen to believe his apology is sincere because I know him. But I can see how others would not. And I also admit that the unnamed people could be sincere when backing off, although in my experience, this is usually not the case when the pattern keeps repeating.

You can ask me to name names if you like, but I won't right now. You know if things get bad enough, I will. Also, when I get to the point of writing long posts full of quotes pointing this crap out (like I did with the young lady and a couple others in the not too distant past, including that crazy lady), I am near restricting the person. I can justify to myself putting in that amount of effort as a warning. I just don't see any value in doing it to prompt bickering that goes nowhere.

I humbly suggest if you want to get people to go along with your impassioned crusade to expose hypocrisy, your standard and passion should be equal for instances on both sides, not just one. Otherwise, it doesn't come off to the reader as passion against hypocrisy per se.

I speak as one who has stood against both antisemitism and anti-Islamic bigotry--right here on OL. And I speak to you as a kindred spirit in this regard. I believe you post in good faith. You're a good man, William.

Michael

The apology of Marc's first apology was couched in a non-apologetic context (I reviewed the whole thread and it doesn't support what Marc said)--read the preceding paragraph--which I suspect is what ticked William off, but he apologized again--cleanly--and it's time to spike this whole thing and move on.

--Brant

I'm talking to you, William; you've had your say and so has everyone else--that is, everyone else has spiked it and if Michael was too much re you you were too much re Marc just as Marc was too much re what he claimed and just as I'm too much re everything (for me there's no hope, of course [save yourselves, everybody!; I've gone on to my next post on another thread])

[Wolf DeVoon]

My concern is about the UN , and the media not focusing on them as much as Israel .

ISIS is systematically gang raping , selling and murdering children yet Israel is front and centre day after day .

Why ?

Honsestly , why ?

I worked as a print journalist and TV news editor, so maybe I can offer some ideas.

No one cares about the U.N., unless it's the Security Council, and it's seldom newsworthy as such. What can they do?

If it bleeds it leads. Israel is always newsworthy because Israel is a nuclear power, surrounded by enemies, and "the Holy Land."

We're expecting an attack on Iran any day. Or another battle with Hezbollah. Christians/Jews are deeply worried about Israel.

Atrocities and civil war in Iraq are "old news" and there's nothing to be done about it. We're not going back in.

[moralist]

So Wolf...

Do you believe that you can do what's morally wrong

without getting exactly what you deserve

as the consequences of your own actions?

Broadly speaking, evil consists in the refusal to think, willful blindness, vanity, cupidity.

I often make mistakes, but I'm fairly certain you are incapable of moral progress.

You did not answer the question, Wolf.

You had claimed that others do what's morally wrong and escape getting what they deserve as the consequences of their actions...

...but see how that question takes on a whole different light when it's brought home to your own life?

Evading the answer is the answer.

If you've ever honestly examined your own life, you already know that you cannot to what's morally wrong and escape getting what you deserve as the consequences of your own actions... and if you can't... nobody else can either.

Let's agree to ignore each other.

That's your own free choice.

Greg