----- Original Message -----
From: "rhinoceros" <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: virus: Dear Hermit: You Constitutionally Can\'t Admit When You
Lose
>
> [Jonathan Davies]
> Dear Combatants,
>
> Regardless of exact figures of how many Palestinians have been butchered
by their own people, some things have been firmly established by this
thread:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> [rhinoceros]
> You haven't read much of these threads, Jonathan, have you? While a
discussion over an exact number may appear somehow lacking merit, many of
the general >assertions you make here have already been addressed along the
way and we already have a much more "real life" picture of the situation
than before this >discussion.
Your general criticism (that I have not read much of these threads) is
mostly true. To say that this topic has generated [insert cliche] of posts
would be an understatement. Hundreds of thousands of words and reasoning
from some of the cleverest people I know, all going nowhere. This is not a
debate, it is a quarrel. I started deleting mails with certain subjects
because I could no longer be bothered with the discussion as it had
deteriorated to things like the exact proportion of collaborators murdered
in the occupied territories.
This was to me a symbolic of the faults with our whole debating structure:
Nothing is taken in good faith, consequently no one feels they can give away
anything so the most minor of points are over debated. Hairsplitting and
attacking straw men are rife. Huge battles take place on minor points and
become little more than contests to see who can find more authorative
sources. Since when did appeal to authority become a Virain virtue? There
has been an upsurge in personal attacks and other ad hominem type
activities. In short there is some shameful nonsense being presented here in
an useless and bad tempered manner. It servers to do litlte more than
frighten off new members of the church.
If Saint Popper were to read our list he would be appalled. His methods were
the direct opposite of those used here by most of the debaters (including
myself):
As Bryan Magee - quoted in Wittegenstein's Poker - points out: "Rather than
score through identifying minor faults , Popper would carefully strengthen
his opponenets case before demolishing its core point."
Here we ignore core points and spend weeks nitpicking over incidentals. This
is what happens when there is no good faith in a discussion.
I think it may be time to re-read "A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EFFECTIVE RATIONAL
DISCUSSION" (
http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/argument.html )
>For example, you say:
>
> [Jonathan]
> Show me the images of Israeli collaborators hanging from streetlights.
>
> [rhinoceros]
> If you don't spend some time to be informed of what a collaborator is in
this context and how they come about, then it will seem perfectly logical to
you -- by >analogy -- that there should be such a thing as "Israeli
collaboarators".
There are Israelis who have sold weapons to Palestinians. Given that
collaboration is the act of cooperating treasonably with an enemy, there are
of course Israeli collaborators. But the broader point is that the
Palestinians operate summary justice and hang the victims from streetlights,
whereas Israel does not even have the death penalty!
(Since 1994, the PA has executed dozens of people legally and illegally.
Just recently Amnesty International issued an alert about one of the latest
cases of people being sentenced to death after suspect trials:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/pages/IOT_UA_169_02 . )
> If you don't spend some time to be informed of how collaborators affect
the lives of ordinary people, then it is perfectly logical to assume that
only psychopaths >or animals would hang someone from a streetlight.
I made no such assumption. You are implying that thanks to posting some
links on collaboration you are "informed" and I am not. You can believe this
of course, whether it is true or not is another matter.
> I won't make any speculations about what kinds of solutions can be
suggested as a result of logical thinking by analogy rather than informed
thinking.
Good. Leave that to me. :)
Did you read the rest of the post by the way? Looks like you got hung up on
the first line.
Regards
Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT