Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

I don't think you need to censor that, baffler. It was on the news and in the paper, after all. The resolution has been vetoed as "intolerant", and the parent organization of the group behind it (Students For Justice In Palestine) is known for assaulting Jewish students at other campuses, and is very close to being an anti-semetic hate group.

[Descan]

(Students For Justice In Palestine) is known for assaulting Jewish students at other campuses, and is very close to being an anti-semetic hate group.

This is one of those "Damnit guys, STOP SUPPORTING ME!" moments... :/

[Sirus]

(Students For Justice In Palestine) is known for assaulting Jewish students at other campuses, and is very close to being an anti-semetic hate group.

This is one of those "Damnit guys, STOP SUPPORTING ME!" moments... :/

I'm pretty moderate on most things, so I feel this way in almost any debate on almost any issue :/

[Flying Dice]

One of the worst parts is that the nutjobs give the Zionists running AIPAC an excuse to pull out the old bucket of anti-semetism tar to slather over anyone in U.S. politics who objects to completely ruining U.S. relations with most of the Middle Eastern states that don't already hate us by continuing to provide military aid to the conservative, hawkish government of a nuclear power that has already successfully demonstrated its ability to win a war of aggression against every state it shares a border with-simultaneously, in less than a week, back when they still had Soviet backing.

The pro-Israel lobby is as heavily entrenched as the NRA and AARP, but even more difficult to dislodge, to the point where nobody with serious aspirations for getting elected will openly oppose their interests. Oh, and the racist fucks can go die in a ditch too, because they're even worse, albeit less influential. :|

[Lord Shonus]

a war of aggression against every state it shares a border with-simultaneously, in less than a week, back when they still had Soviet backing.

This statement perfectly illustrates just how rhetoric-filled the entire situation has become. Egypt's actions in 1967 (expelling all UN peacekeepers from the country, massing troops on Israel's borders (on false intelligence reports deliberately provided by the USSR to spark a crisis), closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (Israel had repeatedly stated for years before this that doing so would constitute an act of war), and signing military alliances with Israel's other neighbors) were exactly the actions that would be taken before launching an invasion. When you're outnumbered, surrounded, and clearly about to be attacked, shooting first is the only option you can take. I can't think of another region on the planet where the same situation would be called a "war of aggression."

There's plenty of room for criticism of Israel's current actions regarding their domestic and foreign relations.

[Flying Dice]

They still started the war. I'm not arguing that it wasn't justified, or that I wouldn't have advocated for it, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel attacked first. Which was, incidentally, damned fine work -- they prosecuted that war damned near perfectly. However, you're missing the point I was driving at. Not only did Israel manage to pull that off, they did it in six days with absurdly imbalanced losses. They're also an unofficial nuclear power. Things are well past the point where Israel's survival as a state is in question. That's all more or less irrelevant to the real issue.

I don't really have anything against Zionism in principle (though it's laughable to call what happened after the last, successful revolt against British rule anything but ethnic cleansing). But AIPAC is arguably the strongest lobby in the U.S., which is a pretty damned strong statement, considering how much weight a number of interest groups have. And that's what it comes down to; I don't particularly like home-grown interest groups and lobbyists having that much power, but when they're explicitly working for the interests of a foreign power? Hah, no. Can you imagine the fucking uproar if there was a successful, public lobby for supporting, say, Russian interests? (There wouldn't be one, because a lobby which enjoys that degree of success can suppress a hell of a lot.)

[Lord Shonus]

They still started the war. I'm not arguing that it wasn't justified, or that I wouldn't have advocated for it, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel attacked first. Which was, incidentally, damned fine work -- they prosecuted that war damned near perfectly. However, you're missing the point I was driving at. Not only did Israel manage to pull that off, they did it in six days with absurdly imbalanced losses. They're also an unofficial nuclear power. Things are well past the point where Israel's survival as a state is in question. That's all more or less irrelevant to the real issue.

I don't really have anything against Zionism in principle (though it's laughable to call what happened after the last, successful revolt against British rule anything but ethnic cleansing). But AIPAC is arguably the strongest lobby in the U.S., which is a pretty damned strong statement, considering how much weight a number of interest groups have. And that's what it comes down to; I don't particularly like home-grown interest groups and lobbyists having that much power, but when they're explicitly working for the interests of a foreign power? Hah, no. Can you imagine the fucking uproar if there was a successful, public lobby for supporting, say, Russian interests? (There wouldn't be one, because a lobby which enjoys that degree of success can suppress a hell of a lot.)

I wasn't responding to you so much as I was working out frustration over the number of times I've heard people with a tiny bit of knowledge of the issue declaring the Six Days War an unprovoked massacre of the poor, innocent. defenseless Arabs by Big Bad Israel, or denying that Israel ever was (at any point in history) in any genuine of being overrun and destroyed. It's an example of what I call the "Might Makes Wrong" fallacy that seems to lead a lot of people assuming that the stronger party in any dispute is automatically in the wrong, because "obviously" the weaker party wouldn't start things, never mind that the stronger one might be stronger specifically *because* of the dispute in question.

[Putnam]

Just saw someone try to argue against the Monty Hall problem.

[IcyTea31]

What kind of arguments did they have? Considering the solution can be empirically proven, I don't see how one can argue against it.

[Putnam]

By the looks of it, they seem to have thought that the host opened the goat door before the contestant picks, which is Very Wrong.

[Sergarr]

What kind of arguments did they have? Considering the solution can be empirically proven, I don't see how one can argue against it.

To some people, empirical proofs only makes them more determined in their views.

Among these people were most Greek philosophers.

[hops]

There are also some people who disagree with logic itself to justify their view, which is the argument equivalent of flipping a chessboard then beating your opponent to death with it.

[Lightningfalcon]

By the looks of it, they seem to have thought that the host opened the goat door before the contestant picks, which is Very Wrong.

What the hell would even be the point of having that door then? 

[IcyTea31]

Greek philosophers.

According to legend, a bunch of Greek philosophers were once debating on how many teeth a horse has in its mouth. A farmer happened by and suggested they get a horse and count its teeth. The philosophers got angry and chased the farmer off.

[Putnam]

By the looks of it, they seem to have thought that the host opened the goat door before the contestant picks, which is Very Wrong.

What the hell would even be the point of having that door then?

"Red herring" (direct quote)