lock all thread about the Israel/palestine conflict because for the most part the people who get involved only know their sides propaganda and have no real wish to have an honest debate about it.
suggestion
- Thread starter pjdude1219
- Start date
The General and/or the Particular
Interesting, and a compelling argument on principle alone. However, would we be considering Israel/Palestine propaganda in a unique context? Because there are plenty of talking points being passed off as argument without any real consideration by the promoters.
There are the Democrat and Republican recyclers; although the latter are a bit more blatant, there are plenty of liberals—excuse me, progressives—who have settled into the habit of just playing along with their conservative neighbors and seem rather quite comfortable caught up in superficial variations on superficial themes. There's the atheistic evangelization taking place; although it's good to see the atheists occasionally breaking their pattern and making ridiculous doctrinal claims on behalf of their movement, so maybe we should strike that propaganda as well. And, well, it's been years since our religious evangelists have come up with much new. Hell, I would love to strike a bunch of homophobic—excuse me, I mean heterosupremacist ... oh, wait, I mean proud, courageous, and traditional°—propaganda, since it's only the same thoughtless, wretched cycle of ignorance, fear, and hatred.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily protesting. It's just that if we set our standards too high, we'll suppress the vitality of this community. Yes, I think Sciforums could be much more healthy psychologically, but we cannot force that outcome. Until we decide otherwise, the best we can do is ask certain people to come up with better than they're showing now, but, that would be rude°, or unfair, or unreasonable, or something like that.
____________________
Notes:
° proud, courageous, and traditional — Owing to some advice I received recently, I recognize that it is not fair to call certain people bigots, hatemongers, or idiots. After all, they are part of an identifiable political majority, and since logic and reality are insufficient, apparently require constant appeal to their egocentrism. Thus, we must consider the role of hatred and ignorance in American tradition, and when all else fails, we will call arrogance and denial proud and courageous instead of cowardly. You know, it would be rude to call someone what they are. Empowered majorities should not have to think poorly of themselves or their decisions, ever. Because the majority is always right. Right?
° but that would be rude — As with the prior note, it is simply time to give legitimate consideration to the assertion that people should not be labeled, judged, identified, or assessed according to their behavior when that behavior would describe them in terms contrary to their own self-love. Remember that the best argument is one utterly devoid of facts. Nobody should be able to question certain opinions or the value thereof. After all, calling an opinion fact free when, indeed, it lacks any connection to reality other than a person believing it, still denigrates that opinion which, in offering no facts to reinforce or validate the outlook, stands irreproachable.
Interesting, and a compelling argument on principle alone. However, would we be considering Israel/Palestine propaganda in a unique context? Because there are plenty of talking points being passed off as argument without any real consideration by the promoters.
There are the Democrat and Republican recyclers; although the latter are a bit more blatant, there are plenty of liberals—excuse me, progressives—who have settled into the habit of just playing along with their conservative neighbors and seem rather quite comfortable caught up in superficial variations on superficial themes. There's the atheistic evangelization taking place; although it's good to see the atheists occasionally breaking their pattern and making ridiculous doctrinal claims on behalf of their movement, so maybe we should strike that propaganda as well. And, well, it's been years since our religious evangelists have come up with much new. Hell, I would love to strike a bunch of homophobic—excuse me, I mean heterosupremacist ... oh, wait, I mean proud, courageous, and traditional°—propaganda, since it's only the same thoughtless, wretched cycle of ignorance, fear, and hatred.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily protesting. It's just that if we set our standards too high, we'll suppress the vitality of this community. Yes, I think Sciforums could be much more healthy psychologically, but we cannot force that outcome. Until we decide otherwise, the best we can do is ask certain people to come up with better than they're showing now, but, that would be rude°, or unfair, or unreasonable, or something like that.
____________________
Notes:
° proud, courageous, and traditional — Owing to some advice I received recently, I recognize that it is not fair to call certain people bigots, hatemongers, or idiots. After all, they are part of an identifiable political majority, and since logic and reality are insufficient, apparently require constant appeal to their egocentrism. Thus, we must consider the role of hatred and ignorance in American tradition, and when all else fails, we will call arrogance and denial proud and courageous instead of cowardly. You know, it would be rude to call someone what they are. Empowered majorities should not have to think poorly of themselves or their decisions, ever. Because the majority is always right. Right?
° but that would be rude — As with the prior note, it is simply time to give legitimate consideration to the assertion that people should not be labeled, judged, identified, or assessed according to their behavior when that behavior would describe them in terms contrary to their own self-love. Remember that the best argument is one utterly devoid of facts. Nobody should be able to question certain opinions or the value thereof. After all, calling an opinion fact free when, indeed, it lacks any connection to reality other than a person believing it, still denigrates that opinion which, in offering no facts to reinforce or validate the outlook, stands irreproachable.
Technically we all know whats right and whats wrong, so i just think discussion on an issue where ideas proliferate is pointless, because:
A.) Facts are already known.
B.) The issue will not be settled using ideas provided in this forum, unless policy makers on both sides log in here, which is highly unlikely.
Rick
A.) Facts are already known.
B.) The issue will not be settled using ideas provided in this forum, unless policy makers on both sides log in here, which is highly unlikely.
Rick
Cybernetics
Registered Member
i would sugest that rather than crushing a new section of important debate atleast i agree a moderator shoudld be placed in charge of keeping the posts on track and make sure thay are not any of the above undesirable things but underliuning this is that it is free speach and the radical ends of society need to be represented