--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:13 PM > Subject: Re: Bitter Melons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:41 PM > > > Subject: Bitter Melons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable > > view. > > > > > > > & other posts on this topic to boot. > > > > > > > > 1) Your doing it again, and this time, you are smothering a > > perfectly > > > > reasonable discussion on this human reaction which needs a name, > > with > > > > a frivilous and debatable discussion on WWII. (yet again) > > > > > > Nah, one post cannot smother a reasonable discussion. The fact of > > the > > > matter is that you have not been successful in persuading people to > > accept > > > some of your main premises. Thus, there is no discussion on how > > and why > > > those premises are true. Indeed, your postulates require the > > dismissal of > > > a large body of information; which makes them empirically suspect. > > > > I was not refering to the anti-semetic macro-thread, but rather the > > point that most people seem to jump to knee-jerk asumptions ... (what > > this thread was originaly about.) > > But, your arguments really didn't support that. Take states rights, for > example. Historically, it originated with the Southern apologist school of > history arguing that the Civil war was fought over states rights. There > are a myriad of reasons why this is a smokescreen. Recently it was point > out, I think by Gautam but I won't swear by it, that the South supported > the most overwhelming pre-war abridgement of states rights by the federal > government: the Fugitive Slave Act. During the argument over segregation, > the segregationists relied heavily on States rights. One of the main > apologists for segregation later admitted it was not a question of states > right. Given this, it is very > reasonable to be suspicious when "states rights" is brought up in American > political discussions. Thus, this doesn't qualify as a knee jerk reaction.
I disagree. you are making no argument other than "it fits my pre- concieved notions". Anyone seriously arguing for statest rights today could not possibly intend to return to segrigation. Either that or they are 80 years old and living in the past. So even your argument is't very appealing. Never mind your argument though, becouse it isn't really an argument, it is simply an example. Here is an example of a possible conversation: SR: I think states should have more atonomy. X: In what way? How do you mean? SR: States should have the right to decide if they want to recognize game marriage, outlaw abortion, etc. That way the people who want things one way can live in a state that matches their lifestyle. X: What about racial segrigation? SR: Isn't that unconstitutional X: Maybe but I think that states rights might lead to one state brinign the idea back. Etc: Personaly reasonable conversation. Now for the counter example: SR: I think states should have more atonomy. Y: That's rediculous, segrigation will never come back. SR: Of course not, I am only saying that States should have the right to decide if they want to recognize game marriage, outlaw abortion, etc. That way the people who want things one way can live in a state that matches their lifestyle. Y: Your idea of states rights is hurtfull to African Americans, you sould read some history. SR: I know that States Rights was used as an attempt at racial segrigation at one time, but I think that racial segrigation is unconstitutional, I am not a racist and I am not for racial segrigation. I simply think that it would be good for stats to be more atonomous. Y: I think your an idiot and a bigot. I am saying that Y happens far too often. So much so that, some very good ideas (maybe not SR) might be compleatly overlooked or taken with so much taboo that they are not attempted or even discussed. I believe that not discussing such topics openly is a bad thing. > Since we've been covering Israel extensively, I'll only lightly touch of > this. First, let me point out that everyone that I know of who has > defended Israel on the list has also registered disagreement/disapproval of > the policies of the government of Israel from time to time. This should > indicate that not all criticism of Israel is considered anti- Semetic. > > Second, if you look at the unreasonable public criticism of Israel, you > will see that there is an extremely high correlation with the expression of > that criticism and other typical anti-Semetic expressions. Look at the > folks who voted to call Zionism as a form of racism (ignoring much more > xenophobic places like Japan, or France or Germany) and you will see many > of them have embraced historical anti-Semetic big lies, like blood libel, > "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and denying the existence of the > Holocaust. We obviously have some differnce of opinion here. I dont personaly find xenophobicness necisarily raceist. It can be, but it isn't allways. Sometimes it is simply a desire to maintain a particular culture. Now, if that were to be taken to the point that caused anyone harm, (of any sort) based on a persons appearace, or genetic heratige that would be raceism. In my experiance some Australians can be Xenophobic to an extent, but it is refreshing that they are so, culturaly, and not ethnicaly. (i.e. they do not care who your parents were, so long as you intend to visit and leave, or assimilate.) That to me is not raceism, but it is zenophobic. If we are to discuss the existance of zionism, I would not be qualified to give an opinion, but from what I know of the concept, zionism is definaly raceist. It may be a big lie, but I have seen no evidence one way or another to it's ixistance. There is the whole "chosen people" thing, but, once again, I only know of that what I have read in the Tora. None of my "Jewish" (using mother def) friends are "practicing", but I have nown very few who I knew to be jewish to think that all jews were better than everyone else. Of course I have met Germans, and East Indians, and Americans, skinheads and .... etc. So It would not supprise me if there were a few zionists out there, and yes, I would say that they are raceists, but that doesn't mean that I think they are a good example of the majority of people having, or who mother was having, the jewish fath. > I don't see how it is reasonable to call the noting of these strong > correlations as knee jerk reactions. It isn't the noting, it is to take it the step further and assume that becouse there is a corolation that the reverse implication is true. ..she's a witch, burn her. > > > > > The fact that some people of the same ethnicity were at war with you > > does not give you the right to force them into concentration camps. > > Sorry, but that is "exactly like". > > Why do you keep on insisting what didn't happen happened? Who tried to > wipe out Israel, a number of Arabs _including_ Palestinians who later lived > in refugee camps. Who pushed the Palestinians who remained in Israel to > leave? Mostly the Arabs who suggested that loyalty meant that the needed > to leave. What happened to the Palestinians who stayed? They became > citizens of Israel. Who set up the refugee camps? Egypt and Jordan. Who > kept them in the camps for the first 20 years? The Egyptians and the > Jordanians and the other Arabs who refused to let the refugees settle > elsewhere in their lands. The reasonable criticism one could level at > Israel was the failure to work hard enough to improve the conditions in the > camps while they were under their control. But, that is not exactly like a > program to kill all Palestinians. I'm sorry, but if these people left willingly, then why do they want to go back? Why is that the one point in all of the peace talks that allways causes them to fail? There is definatly 2 versions of history out there. I hapen to not beleive everything form every one of them. There are questions, like the US ship that got destroyed, who fired the first shot, all of these reports of arabs being rounded up and taken to camps. The fact that if all the arabs that want to go back, were allowed back (and alowed to vote) the country wouldnt really be a "Jewish" one any more. Settlements? The fact that Isreal was the only country to stand behind South Africa back in the apartide years. The malicias who seem to be functioning without fear of leaal recouse. These things make me question. They just don't sit right with Isreal as the victem. Of couse neither does a long long..long list of things the palastinians have been doing. The question is, are we looking at a mugger and a vic or two muggers. I honestly can't tell. I can tell you that the average person on both sides is probably so wrapped up in the mess, that they are being controled one way or another. And that the average person on both sides aren't bad people, and many of them would probably prefer that history had been differnt. > > >We did the same thing to the Japanese in WWII as well, didn't we? > > What we did to the Japanese-Americans was different from both what Israel > is doing and what the Nazis did. It is exactly like neither. What we did > to the Japanese-Americans was intern them. If you look at the original > concentration camps you will see that what was done there was significantly > worse than what the US did to the Japanese-Americans, and not nearly as bad > as what the Germans did to the Jews: I think you are getting way to hung up on the use of the word "exactly". Dan, i know you are keen with words and that they hold ...well...rather -exact- meanings for you, and that you are not so keen on taking in the whole of a statment and understanding the intended meaning. sometimes I think that you are very acusdomed to "reading between lines" or something, like, that is where a good deal of the information you get from some source is comeing. But i am sorry, most people do not have the kind of Database recal and word precision you have. People use figures of speach. They use the wrong words, they shorten meanings to the point where they are grose exagerations 9when viewed with precision) becouse explaining the whole thing would take too ling and they are not able to pull up the right set of words to quickly provide the intended consept. They feed higher order words for lower order meanings becouse they are entangled with emotion. Sorry, but for most people words are slopy. Maybe I have a keener sense of this becouse for me, they are REAL sloppy, but you seem to have no sense of it what so-ever. I'm not ridiculing you mind you. I have simmilar issues with non-verbal stuff. The point is if you was read the whole in... scratch that, many people I have talked to, and muself, after reading more of that interview did not get the sense that he ment "exactly" in the way you are taking "exactly". Not only that, but I do believe he was refering to the malitias, and not to the government. -> the action on which you are trying to apply the term "exactly" is not consistent with the speakers reference. > What Israel did was accept the refugee camps as they were without trying to > solve the problem. On the plus side, during the extended time of relative > peace, they handed control of many/most of these camps over to the > Palestinians and provided jobs for a number of the residents. So, we the > actions of Israel were far better than the actions of the US during WWII, > which were significantly better than the actions of the British during the > Boer war which were far far better than the actions of the Germans during > WWII. see above, but just to prove a point: People rounded up put in camps. rotten apples, and rotten apples. One may be more rotten than the other, but put them all in a barrel and you still have a barrel of rotten apples. BTW, if you want an examle of an even more rotten apple, look into what happened to the native americans. Trail of tears ring a bell? (most of whome with cohesive cultures are still in gheto camps of a sort.) What about the Potato phamon? Cases of genocide by starvation. Is it really any diferent if you take 2 or 3 centuries to destroy a people, or just try and do it all at once? Is one not "exactly like" the other? > >I would also say that is "exctly > > like" What was done in Germany. Now, there was much -MORE- done in > > Germany, and MUCH WORSE! > > But, "much much worse" isn't "exactly like." One might argue that there > are similarities and not be anti-Semetic, which you seem to do. I would > differ with this, but not label it anti-Semetic. So, that's an example of > being critical of Israel without being anti-Semetic...from your own > writings. :-) ....dare I say..exactly? > > > Besides, you Dan, quite often do this, you twist words to mean what > > you want them to mean, context be dambed, knowing full well what the > > original speaker ment. > > Huh? I usually try to look that the plain and simple meaning of text to > understand what is written. Sorry, most people don't write that way. So the meaning you get, isn't the meaning they intended. > I don't doubt that my understand can, from > time to time, vary from the author's intent. But, I really don't think I > twisted the words "exactly the same" to any unusual meaning. Ok, so you didn't so it with malace. I was preturbed when I wrote that, I appologize. Of course you didn't do that with malace, it's just that I have come so accustomed to it that I have began to find logic of intent where there is none. > The strongest example of exactly the same is one like > "two electrons are exactly the same." > > They are literally identical; there is no way to tell one electron apart > from another. So, in electron scattering, there is no way to determine > which is the incident electron, and which was the electron that was static > to begin with. > > The weaker understanding can be seen in an example given by the son of a > friend of mine when he said > > "these two puzzles are the same" > > His dad didn't see at first, because the pictures were quite different. > His young son then pointed out that all the puzzle pieces fit together in > exactly the same way, it was the same puzzle, just different pictures. > > If someone were to say that was exactly the same puzzle instead of just > saying they were the same, it wouldn't be literally true, but I wouldn't > quibble. The differences are in the accidental properties of the puzzle, > the essential properties are the same. > > How is this understanding twisting the words? I've given other examples of > how the words are normally used in early posts if you don't like these > examples.. > > >Arguemnt for arguemnt's sake, not to find > > truth, not to understand a disagreement, not to proswade, simply to > > win the argument. Often an argument that you yourself have created. > > Well, you make statements that I differ with. I didn't realize that you > found it offensive for people to differ with you and to back up their > opinions with facts. No, I get preturbed when the differing is on something...:) "compleatly" differnt than what I intended. The reason it preturbes so much is that (now in hindsight) you seem to get fixed on the original wording and are unaccepting of clarifications which lead you to the original intent. It's like you shut off the feedback loop and are only accepting of the first input. I do not find much...."exacness" in words at all. I could spend several days going over all the subtle variances of, well, "exact". You on the other hand have (to my view) a vary narrow allowence of the bonding of consepts and words. You are more...exact. It's like we are opposits.. (working "theory"...errr "hypothesis".. I know, but hear me out). So, while you read something and automaticaly get a very narrow...exact understanding of what it means, when I read I am confronted with hundreds, of not thousands of possible exactnesses. I tend to ask lots of questions, read paragraphs over, find clues to narrow the origial intent, but I don't think I ever get as "exact" as you do. I prefer verbal discussins becous they allow for very fast feedback loops. That's my new opinion, and what is more, I think most people are somewhere in-between you and me. > > You can acuse me of Anti-Sematism, but it doesn't make me an anti- > > semite. It stands that disagreeing with the policies of a nation, > > does not make one a raceist. > > I thought that we were discussing the professor's comment. I did not mean > to directly accuse you of anti-Semitism. I was merely pointing out why his > statements fit so well in the pattern. After a re-read I think I was responding at that point to more than just you, but to many on the list. Yea, cool we are back to that. I don't like to accept that it fits so well in "the pattern". Looking for and fitting small statments into a patern, seems to me to be dangerous. It seems like it would be a handicap to be constantly fitting statments into patterns. You might miss something. You might misunderstand. What if you misunderstood like that in a case were uderstanding had high consequences? > If you look at the history of anti-Semitism, which goes back over 2000 > years, you will see that "the big lie" is part of the pattern. Blood > libel, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Jews poisoning the wells are > but three examples of this. I don'know what any of this is. I have experienced situations with individuals though, and it may be simplified but if you boil it down that way, I think it tels you somthing. If you have ever ben around a person who tells you how they have always been a victem, you start to feel sorry for them, and you start giving them allowences you wouldn't give everyone. After a while, they are walking all over you, and taking advantage. To avoide this you can treat everyone equaly based on the actions they take devoide of history...maybe not devoide of recent events mind you), to many I guess, The holicost is still thought of as a recent event. I tend to think of it as history. So maybe I don't give alowences. It's not a touchy subject to me. Isn't part of the healing process when people stop treating you differnt after a traatic event? Isn't being touchy about..worrying about being anti-semetic just as raceist as being anti-semetic? > But going back over your post, I think that our interpreting a statement of > yours in two different ways may have resulted in my writing something that > you interpreted in a manner different than I intended. > > Your statement was: > > "2) No one, even the professor we were discussing in the previous > topic, ever compared Israel to Nazi Germany on an equal scale. The > comparison was based on an axis, and suggested that both Israel and > Nazi Germany in WWII are on the same side of the origin. Exaggerating > another's concept and then debating the exaggeration is akin to lying > about hearsay. " > > When you referred back to #2, later in your post, I thought you were > referring, again, to the professors comments; which I hold to be > anti-Semetic. I pictured you as arguing the point "his views are not > anti-Semetic", not arguing for anti-Semitism. Things you have written > subsequent to that post (in fact in the post to which I'm responding right > now) have > increased my confidence in this picture. So, I consider your posts to be > in error, but not anti-Semetic. > Yea, I see, your response, seemed to tie a logical conlusion. But you were responding to a differnt part, becouse you thought that was what I was refering to. > But, I'll be happy to accept that the words I wrote were too ambiguous, and > wish I was clearer in my word choice when I wrote. Indefinite specifics > are often the cause of this, and we were both using them. So, my criticism > of you posts is: > > "Jan's analysis in his posts is flawed, thus rendering the arguments he > makes invalid" > > rather > > "Jan's posts are anti-Semitic." > > There is nothing wrong with criticizing posts, IMHO. We still differ on appoach to the solution. I have always accepted variance and assumed that acceptance of variance. You have always favored exactness. My solution is to accept the variance, and but to strive not to assume the acceptance of the variance. Your solution is to be more exact. :) gafa You see it was becouse I believed you to be accepting of the variance that I was preturbed. Can I suggest that you incorporate the "not assume" protion as well? ...Of course, if you do, you might want to revisit my analysis. > > > > 3) The information you have provided about Hitler is a bit > > > > questionable. There is evidence that he was appaled at what was > > going > > > > on but could not stop it. > > > > > > Cites? > > > > Whenever you get backed into a corner on some arguemnt or another > > Dan, you scream for cites. I can finde cites, I can dig up history > > books that talk about there never being any direct link between > > Hitler and the orders. I could also find cites for the oposite. > > Well, I guess we have a fundamentally different understanding of how one > can understand the empirical world. Your posts appear to put you in the > Aristotelian camp; one need not look or consider data, one can handle > things from first principals. Aristotle was brilliant, but his views that > wind cannot be moving air (because they are in different categories) or > that heavy objects must fall faster are so obvious that a gentleman need > not dirty his hands by actually performing experiments is faulty...IMHO. No. I am a positivist...a ...dreamer, but a positivist none the less. > I usually call for cites when I think someone is posting unsubstantiateable > points. Its for those times when, if what the poster argues is accurate, > there should be some data that strongly supports this viewpoint. Ok, but you always seem to ask for cites on the most unimportant data to the conversation. And usualy on things that one would have learned, but not the sort of stuff one would necisarily be able to produce cites without exostive research, and what is more, somthing that is so unimportant to the original poster, that they would hardly want to go digging around their library or video files for that one titbit they care so little about. What is more, in this particular case, the point didn't even matter to what I was saying. You seem to put a lot of creedence to things that are recorded. I do not believe the recording of a thing to corilate well to reality. Especialy when history is concerned. You have to know the source to trust it, and you have to trust the source to believe the data. I don't have enough bandwidth to do that with everything, maybe you do. maybe you read faster than I do, maybe you remember the exact cite for all of the info you assimilate. Not everyone does that. In the case in question I was saying, I've heard X but even if X is ture, it doesn't matter, it might as well not be true. You then asked for cites for X as if I was supporting X as if the reality of X made a differnce to my argument...as if my argument was X instead of ~X. And you reoved the procedeing paragraph where I stated ~X. Why would you do that if not to make it look like I was saying X? > > But you know exactly what you have done here. > > > > You removed the next paragraph where I say that not stoping it at > > least not as the leader of an impire, trying to stop it, is just as > > bad as if he did give the order. You are once again making a non- > > argument. Notice I said "a bit" questionable. I was not stating as > > you would have the reader believe a factuality, but rather stating > > that there are differing opinions among historians. > > I've read a bit on this, including primary source material. I've discussed > this with folks who've done more extensive reading in this area. In all of > this work, both personal and the work of others, I have not seen the > premise that Hitler tried to stop the Holocaust supported. I've never seen > in put forward by anyone serious. You need to go back and read the original post man, cuz that's not what I was saying. Once again, you have flipped my statments, to the negative. You have inverted the meaning. You have read the opposite of what I intended. Maybe all that talk above about exactness.....? > > I've noted a pattern in your posts containing strong claims that are > inconsistent with both a number of analysis and a number of facts that I'm > aware, all without strong backing for those claims. An example of this is > your claim that anti-Semitism was the result of Jewish control of banking. > It is extremely hard to reconcile this with the 1000 year or so difference > between the recording of anti-Semitism in writings that are preserved to > this day and the beginning of significant Jewish participating in money > lending in Christian Europe. If you want cites on this, I'd be more than > happy to provide them. :-) Another example was your comments on Israel > setting up the equivalent of concentration camps. Once again, I don't think I need to give you cites on the money lending thing. No that doesn't cover 1000's of years of events but it does give insite into the mind of the average european at -the time-. . Actualy, I think that Marcs might almost be a source for this if my memory serves me correctly. If it's really that imortant to you to get cites on this I suppose I can spend some time digging it up, but the thing is I know that if I do, you will just ay that my source is AS. So be it, that's my point anyway. Yes it's AS. Yes sources for it are going to be AS. At that time it was an AS point. (and still is in part of the islamic middle east I belive). As far as the isreal thing goes, I am sure we can find cites for that, but what if they are palistenean? will you believe them? For crieakes man, If your taking a few minutes out of your day to chat, it's not like your in for writting a history term paper on a topic you don't really care that much about to begin with. Geeze, if you are so inteested, and so sure, why don't you find counter cites? hu? You know what you allways want sites for the most mundane information. it's like we were talking about rugby and someone sais that it comes in part from galic footbal and you want a cite. Or were talking about helath and someone sais that you need your Omega-3's and you want a cite. I feel like saying, "that's in the pre-rec, you'll need to look that one up off line if you like." It reminds me of this guy on my HOA, he wanted a redearch paper showing that mounting a satalite dich on the roof would be safe...since no one could find one we commishened it. $1800 and 6 months later it was safe officialy "safe", but now there was the issue of the hole drilled for the cable being watter proof after cawked. He didn't realy want a study on the "safeness" he just wanted the whole satalite dich issue to go away. > Given that pattern, I wanted to see your basis for the comments on Hitler. > I realize that you weren't trying to argue that Hitler was really a swell > guy. I cut that part where you made that clear because I had no real > differences with it. I wanted to know where you got the idea that Hitler > may have tried to stop the Holocaust. Yea, well you cut the part where I said the ->opposite<- of that. I'm > >From other posts, I found you saw something on the History Channel. As > Damon has pointed out, that's not really much of a reference. SEEEEEEEEEEEEEE told you! Only Dan sanctioned cites please. Got a cite? Dan must first approve it before it is Brin-L worthy. Like I'm going to waste my time finding the damb cite, if your just going to knock the source, and why wouldn't you if you don't agree with it? For example, > there was a piece on that channel that claimed that LBJ was behind JFK's > assassination . They will put provocative stuff on for ratings that are > not > well vetted. Thus, seeing something on the History Channel is really a > poor > reference. Actualy your making my oriiginal point again. Are you sure theywere not asking -> IF <- LBJ was behind the JFK assasination? Not ~claiming~ he was. Or didn't you watch the whole thing? Besides I saw something on aoras on the scince channel as well, so I guess that means the other show on how the appolo missions were NOT faked was all just bunk as well. So we know for certain that hittler gave the order to start up the furnaces in auswitz, and the whole neil armstrong steping off onto the moon bit was filmed in hollywood. > > Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That > doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely, > unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the > Civil War was fought over states rights. Actualy it was. It was fought over the states rights to be a differnt country. Seriously though, do you think that the average foot soldiure in the confederacy did not believe in the retoric of the time? > If this sort of argument were valid, then creationism and evolution would > just be two scientific theories...without any way to decide between > them...because biologists who have done solid work in the past are > creationists. There is a way to check technique on an argument and > separate the wheat from the chaff. Yes, but there are also differing opinions when it comes to theories that have not yet been tested. You know what I think now, I am back to thinking Dan that you get real exact when it suits you, and you get real not exact when it suits you. If you don't believe me, go back and read what you snipped again, and then tell me you are being exact. You know what I think? I think you read what you thought you were going to read, not what was written. I think you are personifying my very complaint. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
