----- Original Message -----
From: "Hermit" <hidden@lucifer.com>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: virus: Dear Hermit: You Constitutionally Can't Admit When You
Lose
>
> [Jonathan Davies 1] 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 2] 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.
>
> [Jonathan Davies 3] 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.
>
> [Jonathan Davies 3] This was to me a symbolic of the faults with our whole
debating structure:
>
> [Jonathan Davies 3] 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
Virian 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
little more than frighten off new members of the church.
>
> [Hermit 4] While your comment on Joes sudden decision to reject generally
recognized sources as biased when they disagree with him, yet cite the same
sources >when it suits him is valid, the rest of your criticism is not.
My comments apply to most of us including you.
>There is reason to "pick hairs." My reply to your diatribe against the
"uncivilized Palestinians" and supporting the "civilized Israelis" shows
why.
Does it? How?
> There are so many lies, distortions and perversions propagated by Israel
and its admirers that it is difficult to pick a path between them. Indeed,
in your entire >screed there was no single point with which I could find
myself in agreement.
There are so many lies, distortions and perversions propagated by
Palestinians and their apologists that it is difficult to pick a path
between them. Indeed, in your screeds there is seldom a single point with
which I can find myself in agreement on this issue.
> [Jonathan Davies 3] If Saint Popper were to read our list he would be
appalled.
>
> [Hermit 4] Perhaps. He would probably have, as I am often tempted, said
"Fuck it, these assholes are not with responding to" and ignored it.
Particularly if he >had been called names.
If you object to the practice why do you do it then?
>The trouble is, that if everyone does that, then, as the US of today shows,
the bigots rule, and propaganda and new speak replaces analysis and fact.
Pravda, bye the way, is the Russian equivalent of USA Today.
>Let it continue long enough and well-intentioned but poorly informed people
like yourself will cite propaganda instead of fact.
LOL! See, you are even calling me names now. Am I really poorly informed?
Remember this is me Hermit, Jonathan. Please give an example of where I have
quoted propaganda.
> I don't want that in my world, and will resist it for so long as I can.
Good for you. Why not try an be gracious and admit that when you fail to
convince people of your view it is not that they are 'poorly informed' but
you may be wrong. You may be racked with prejudices and bigotries. You
certainly have difficulty remaining polite to those who disagree with you -
even your pals get nailed for daring to disagree.
>
> [Jonathan Davies 3] 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 opponents case before demolishing its core point."
>
> [Hermit 4] Brian Magee missed a point here. Popper always chose his
arguments and his opponents carefully. He would walk out of a room rather
than argue >with fools.
Actually this is not what I have read about Popper. Descriptions of Popper
remind me of you sometimes. Let me quote from the book I am sending you
soon. Magee states that he was struck by "an intellectual aggressiveness
such as I had never encountered before. Everything was pursued beyond the
limits of acceptable conversation...In practice it meant trying to subjugate
people." The whole of chapter 15 of Wittgenstein's Poker is dedicated to to
Poppers and how he argued with anyone and everyone. He particularly detested
fools and people who tried to impress - but he would argue and argue and
argue until they were subjugated.
>
> [Jonathan Davies 3] Here we ignore core points and spend weeks nitpicking
over incidentals. This is what happens when there is no good faith in a
discussion.
>
> [Hermit 4] When the "core point" is poisoned by the fact that a vast slew
of "incidental lies"
>are presented and then used to "prove" that the "evil Palestinians" are
attacking the "civilized Israelis" - as you did, then the incidentals become
very important >indeed.
It would appear you are accusing me of lying, which is a grave charge.
Perhaps you will back it up with some examples? I did not label the
Palestinians evil - you just have. I did however make it clear I consider
the Israelis to be vastly superior to the Palestinians in terms of their
behaviour in their conflict and their relative levels of civilizational
development. .
> [Jonathan Davies 3] 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)
>
> [Hermit 4] Did you?
Of course.
> <snip>
>
> [Jonathan Davies 3] Did you read the rest of the post by the way? Looks
like you got hung up on the first line.
>
> [Hermit 4] I read it. I spent a day responding to it. I hope you read the
response.
Where is it? On the BBS? I will look for it on the morrow.
>Judging by the fact that you seem to uncritically singing in the "Israel
good - >Palestinian bad" chorus, I doubt it will do any good, but you might
find challenging >your preconceptions interesting.
Judging by the fact that you have been uncritically singing in the "Israel
bad - >Palestinians good" chorus for as long as I have known you without a
single exception, I doubt it will do any good my trying to challenge your
preconceptions on this matter.
Regards
Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT