The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict will issue a report today accusing Israel of “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its military incursion into Gaza from December 27 to January 18. The mission headed by respected South African judge Richard Goldstone is a major development in the controversy and could put the United States in a very difficult position.
The 400-page report was written without the cooperation of Israel, which insisted that the body should have considered “the thousands of Hamas missiles attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza Operation necessary.” There is no question that those acts are crimes themselves and are relevant to any reviewing of the cause or justification for the invasion. However, this investigation focused on how the invasion was carried out — a separate issue.
Goldstone, who is Jewish, has previously indicated that the group found clear evidence of violations of international law in the invasion.
The UN found that Israel failed to minimize casualties, used white phosphorous in civilian areas, intentionally fired upon hospitals using high-explosive artillery shells, and did not effectively warn civilians of attacks. It also accused some Israeli soldiers of using civilians as human shields and attacking food supplies for civilians.
The mission does call on the Palestinians to investigate war crimes by their side and to release soldier Gilad Shalit.
In the most worrisome part for Israel, the mission calls for an investigation by the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes prosecutions. Goldstone previously denounced Hamas for war crimes.
If Israel defies such an investigation, it would be in the same position as Serbia and other rogue nations. This could further isolate the country at a time when it has allowed the controversial “natural growth” of settlements in occupied areas.
With the hardline government of Binyamin Netanyahu, there will be a considerable effort to oppose any war crimes prosecution and he will likely look to the United States to help block that effort. The government has already denounced the findings as “propaganda,” here. After dismissing the Obama Administration’s demands for a halt to the settlement construction, it will be an awkward moment for Netanyahu to demand the U.S. use its power to stop an investigation. However, there will be many in Congress who will likely assist in that effort.
Of course, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are already limiting any domestic investigation into war crimes committed by our government in its torture program.
For the story, click here.
The United States during the Bush years allowed and authorized countless war crimes and we have done nothing about it. The men and women responsible for these crimes are still part of society without any attempt to prosecute them. Knowing this, the US will do nothing to stop this call for prosecution because to do so would cause the spotlight to be shown on the US and its intentional mishandling of detainees once again.
rafflaw,
Agreed.
A new de facto standard may be emerging in imperialist circles, which will take us back into the dark ages of human behaviour.
Israel sends food to their enemies civilians, yet the enemy sends bombs and lies back? Israel gives up some of its conquered land for peace, and the enemy used that land to shoot bombs at Israel (when was the last time a Muslim country gave anything it conquered back?). Why have the UN not addressed any condemnation for the actions that Palestine does? It’s like the Muslims get a free pass for whatever they want including hiding behind civilians and committing war crimes themselves (by using hospitals, places of worship, ect as cover for their assaults). The UN is bribable with oil. Furthermore Israel has done nothing that anyone of the UN countries has not done themselves. Ever notice how Palestine and other Muslims countries call for the total destruction of Israel, yet Israel has never once called for their destruction, yet the UN condemns Israel? Who are the real criminals here?
rafflaw,
This is an understatement in this matter. Wow, enough said.
“Quod licet jovi non licet bovi,” if I remember correctly, appears to apply to current political debate in general.
Reading over parts of the U.N. report and also some of the news articles about it, I can’t deny the nagging feeling that the authors of this report are little more than Saul Alinsky devotees.
Who Committed War Crimes in Gaza
“CNN: Hamas uses civilian infrastructure, including schools, houses, kindergarten facilities, hospitals, for storing and launching rockets and other ammunition, placing training camps inside populated areas in violation of Geneva Convention and international law. “
“Ms. Rice, The Secretary of State, told reporters at the State Department :… Hamas participates in activities like human shields and using buildings that are not designated as military buildings to hide their fighters”
Italian newspaper: Gazans say Hamas kept them in homes used by gunmen
“Palestinian civilians have accused Hamas of forcing them to stay in homes from which gunmen shot at Israeli soldiers during the recent hostilities in Gaza, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported. “
EU aid chief: Hamas ‘enormously responsible’ for Gaza war
“Michel echoed Israeli criticisms that Hamas used civilians as “human shields” by fighting in populated areas and, describing Hamas rocket fire on Israel as a “provocation”, he said in English: “Hamas is acting in the way of a terrorist movement.”
Top IDF officer: Hamas made ‘monstrous’ use of children during Gaza op
“The IDF Gaza Division Commander on Thursday, meanwhile, branded Hamas’ use of women and children during the offensive in Gaza as “monstrous” and “inhumane.” Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg said the civilians were sent by Hamas to transfer weapons to gunmen during the offensive. He also accused the Islamist militant group of booby-trapping many of the civilians’ homes. “Entire families in Gaza lived on top of a barrel of explosives for months without knowing,” Eisenberg said. “
Sources: Hamas leaders hiding in Shifa Hospital basement
By Amos HarelHaaretz
“Senior Hamas officials in Gaza are hiding out in a “bunker” built by Israel, intelligence officials suspect: Many are believed to be in the basements of the Shifa Hospital complex in Gaza City, which was refurbished during Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip. “
WATCH: IDF uncovers booby-trapped school next to Gaza zoo
By Haaertz Service
“Israel Defense Forces troops this week uncovered a school in the Gaza Strip rigged by Hamas militants with a large amount of explosives. The school, located next to a Gaza zoo, was entirely surrounded by a fuse connecting to the explosives. Inside the abandoned classrooms, IDF troops found a number of weapons. “
Hamas raids aid trucks, sells supplies
By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF
Jerusalem Post
“Hamas on Monday raided some 100 aid trucks that Israel had allowed into Gaza, stole their contents and sold them to the highest bidders. The IDF said that since terminal activity is coordinated with UNRWA and the Red Cross, Israel could do nothing to prevent such raids, Israel Radio reported. “
For the first time, Gaza militants fire phosphorus shell at Israel
By Yanir Yagna, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service
“Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday fired their first phosphorus shell into Israel, which exploded in an open area in the Eshkol area in the western Negev. No injuries or damage were reported. The phosphorus shell was among the 14 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel on Wednesday.”
Goldstone’s Report
No doubt that Richard Goldstone investigation was under Hamas close supervision and tight control. There are mounting evidences from credible sources who must be anonymous due to death threat from Hamas as they are living in Gaza. No doubt that Richard Goldstone perfectly understood the situation, but decided to go on with fake and Hamas-staged and controlled investigation. His report contradicts to previous complaints from Gaza residents on Hamas using civilians as human shield and civilian infrastructure for military purposes reported by Italian and other newspapers and UN officials.
The same was in Lebanon, where HRW and AI knowingly participated in Hezbullah-staged and controlled investigations; and in Second intifada, when western journalists made an agreement with Arafat to be controlled
in what they were reporting.
Obviously, Goldstone is a pathological liar.
I’m sorry professor, even the Economist lambasts the report: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14455609
raff,
Well played, sir, and to the point.
And just what do you expect the biggest culprit of human atrocities and illegal war aggression to do about this (speaking of our beloved USA)?
Why, of course, we will send them even more weapons, so that they can kill even more little brown people.
We must not stop Israel from its murderous rampage. If we did, then someone might ask us about ours.
Butters,
That Economist article is pretty ridiculous. A few quotes…
“It was mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, an anti-Israeli outfit…”
Maybe the UN Human Rights Council scrutinizes Israel because they so often commit war crimes, not because there is some insidious ‘anti-Israel’ bias in the council? Continuing…
“It is a grisly thought, but if Israel really had wanted to make Palestinian civilians suffer, the toll could have been vastly higher.”
The logic: The body count COULD always be higher, so it always falls just under the amount required for a war crimes investigation.
“And there is a danger of double standards. American and European forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo also caused thousands of civilian deaths, without attracting a Goldstone.”
True, but what’s the alternative? Not releasing any condemnations of war crimes by anyone — hardly productive (or, releasing condemnations of all war crimes ever simultaneously, an unlikely prospect).
“Yet if the mere fact of Israel’s attack were enough to condemn it then Mr Goldstone’s report was pointless all along.”
No, I think that’s the entire point… conducting an aggressive war against a defenseless civilian population is quite abhorrent.
“The pity is that the report frustrates the objective that Israel should be striving for: to hold its politicians and soldiers to the highest standards of Israeli and international law.”
War is Peace. Doublespeak like this usually comes out of the US Defense Department, not the Economist. For shame.
“The UN report has not come at a good moment. Barack Obama is trying to restart direct talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The peace process was never going to be easy. With its thimbleful of poison, the Goldstone report has made the job all the harder.”
And now, a completely irrelevant segway into what Obama thinks about all this.
I could do more, but I’m tired.
Rafflaw,
Your initial response sums it up as to the contextual hypocrisy at play here. I support Israel and yet I have no doubt that they have done some very bad things in Gaza. This is not exactly a one way street though and in the UN with its’ more than 70 Muslim nations it becomes easy to single out one hated State and ignore the crimes committed by and in many others.
While much has been made of Dr. Goldstone being Jewish, so less biased and more credible that doesn’t follow. See Howard Zinn’s thoughts on Israel and tell me if being born Jewish ensures one’s siding with Israel. Nevertheless, I would support condemnation of Israel’s actions if at the same time Bush/Cheney were prosecuted and along with them the human rights and war crimes committed by other nations and entities.
Israel has earned its’ being targeted for opprobrium, but sadly not more so, or to the extent of many other countries. Possibly a million dead Iraqi’s give support to my view.
sumday,
Your ignorance astounds me. Israel has no justification to call for the destruction of Muslim countries. However, Israel was created in the land of the Palestinian people without their consent or approval. That is why people call for the destruction of Israel. It was created illegally.
I really get tired of hearing people trying to debate or express their opinions who have little to do it with other than headlines, sound bites and buzz words. That’s what often makes arguing with a liberal so frustrating. At the end of one discussion I had with a liberal, he was totally backed in a corner with no defense, and really dealt me a blow (hardly) when he demanded, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, man!” It’s easy to parrot headlines. It takes more than a little thought to intelligently discuss and debate the issues.
Bob,
Explain to me what was “legal” about the creation of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Then maybe we can talk.
Larry,
“discussion I had with a liberal, he was totally backed in a corner with no defense, and really dealt me a blow (hardly) when he demanded, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, man!””
That is about as shaggy a dog story, or alternatively straw man set up as it gets.
It’s easy to be an apologist when it’s not your civilians getting killed, so let’s not skew this as a left/right issue, m’kay? That just reeks of troll. The topic is WAR CRIME. Not your whiny little bitching about liberals. So how about YOU sticking to the subject.
Mike,
The quality of the trolls is in flux for a fact.
Aren’t you late for a meeting at Acorn or something buddha?
We allow these guys to slam Israel for defending its people, but we never say anything about the atrocities committed by Hamas, and other terrorists. Every time that Israel gives concessions, Hamas jumps up and throws missiles, etc. So, when Hamas is ready to act like human beings, and give as much as it takes, then Hamas can be considered a party to peace. Until then, NUKE em.
It’s a sad commentary when one justifies war crimes by pointing out the war crimes of the other side.
It’s a sad state of affairs when one doesn’t understand the distinction between war crimes and war; and when one applies to the opposing sides different standards to what one considers a war crime.
The middle east is a hot bed for rabid discussion. Both sides seem somewhat inflexible. Mike, do you feel that any kind of reconciliation between both parties/ideologies is possible?
Larry makes a good point. We certainly shouldn’t expect Israel to abide by a higher standard of behavior than terrorists.
Mike S.:
“Israel has earned its’ being targeted for opprobrium, but sadly not more so, or to the extent of many other countries.”
Mike, did I ever tell you about my sister who was sexually molested at gunpoint? Did I ever tell you that one of the psychological problems she exhibited afterward was a sens of entitlement to react disproportionately harsh to anyone and treat people as badly as she wanted without justification? She always made it clear in her actions that “since she was hurt in the past, then no one dare so much as step on an egg shell to stop her from hurting people now.”
Mike, would you consider me ‘off base’ in seeing an incredible similarity between my sister and Israel?
BTW Mike, you know I addressed this one to you because you’d pick up the counter point of defending Israel.
And speaking of ‘other countries,’ how many other countries besides South Africa, have been accused by an ex-president of carrying out policies of apartheid?
AND, this one is truly my pet peeve, how many other countries bombed the infrastructure of an entire country on the basis of the alleged detainment of two soldiers? Which is worse; Bush & Cheney defrauding the country into bombing Iraq or Israel propagandizing its citizens and the West to justify their bombing of Lebanon?
If Voltaire were alive today, he would be laughing hysterically at most of these posted comments.
Aww, what’s the matter billywaynejoebobtrollpants? Did your nick slip again or do those nasty meds make you forgetful? Or is it the absence of meds that make you act the way you do? See, all we can see from this end is the product of your delusions, Wayne. This isn’t like TV where the people on the screen can see directly into your brain but still lining your head with tinfoil might help. You could always ask your buddy the Pope for help but being the God’s #1 Guy ™ he sure seems to like his bulletproof glass. Seems a little conflicted. Much like yourself. But you keep on keeping on. Past a certain scale all sets contain negative values.
Buddha, you’re late for the second part of the Acorn deposition, hurry up! They are in need of your razor sharp wit and irrelevacies..
Correction, they are in need of your “razor sharp wit and irrelevancies”. Pardon the hurried post..
There is no way to conduct a “Fact finding Mission” like this and not have it biased. Has anyone here ever been involved in urban warfare? I seriously doubt it. Has anyone here ever been involved with guerilla warfare? Again i bet not.
I have and i can tell you that there is no way i repeat NO WAY! they can confirm how many militants and civilians were killed. They will never come close. Palestinians that were fighting were not wearing uniforms and as soon as they were killed the weapons were taken by other fighters. That is how you fight a guerilla war. They do this on purpose because the best weapon they have is the media. Look at history people and open your damn eyes. They want to look like the victims so this kind of thing happens.
In my opinion and according to International Law in many cases Israel held back force. Of the civilized countries in the world Israel is one of the best in protecting civilians. Urban Warfare has many civilian casualties, it is unavoidable. If any of you were ever involved in it you would know. The “Fact finding Mission” was comprised of several people who do not even reconize Israel as a country. So the report is completely biased. Also the people looking into have no direct experience in urban or guerilla warfare so again it is biased and unreliable.
If anything this report lets people who know what they are doing and are very familiar with warfare that we will never be protected by the U.N. That we can not trust them to keep us in their best interest. I’m just relieved to know that Israel is doing right thing in saying that they do not hold any one of their military members responsible for the Alleged crimes.
Good luck Israel.
Charlie
If you disagree but lack experience in the actual subjects involved in the report keep any comments to yourself. oh and don’t believe everything you see in the news.
Love the “bloated green face”, Halloween is just around the bend..
“Mike, would you consider me ‘off base’ in seeing an incredible similarity between my sister and Israel?”
Bob,Esq. (Was that you before posting as Bob alone?),
I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exascerbates their problems. They are a country that has literally constantly been on a war footing for more than 60 years and their citizenry has reacted in a manner commensurate with that. That is why thugs like Begin got elected in the first place and Bibi is in now. They promise “tough” action and a war weary population has voted its’ fears and in my opinion voted badly.
“BTW Mike, you know I addressed this one to you because you’d pick up the counter point of defending Israel.”
“And speaking of ‘other countries,’ how many other countries besides South Africa, have been accused by an ex-president of carrying out policies of apartheid?”
I’m not a fan of Jimmy Carter’s, but for reasons other than Israel. What he pointed out is valid and it is why consistently on this site I have stated that the answer to this problem is for Israel to vacate the West Bank, remove all of the Israeli settlers there and provide a slim connecting corridor between that and Gaza. for Israel to continue with its’ occupation would create an apartheid situation and not only do I find that morally intolerable as a Jew, but politically not viable as a supporter of Israel remaining a Jewish State. I would think that is not quite the defense of Israel you expected from me, but if that is the case you haven’t really been reading my ongoing comments on the issue. Nevertheless, I anticipate I have to fully lay out my position here, or my beliefs will be misread, and/or open to further dissection.
First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians. Up until that point the Israeli’s were alternatively called Palestinians all over the world and in the media. THe PR guy was brilliant because by giving this group of displaced Arabs a name, the name being used for the Israeli’s alternatively, it created the ability to make them into a martyred people. There has never been an Arab State called Palestine in all of history and indeed the name comes from the Roman Phillistinia, which the region was renamed after crushing Bar Kochba’s revolt in the Second Century BCE and not from its indigenous population
Second, I would love people to be specific as to what Countries in the world are legal. While statutes have been written there really is no International Law in this world that all nations abide by and adhere to. Is the US legal? Ask the Native Americans
or the Brits. Is Britain legal? Ask the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh. Is France legal? Ask the Bretons. Italy? Ask Sicillians?
Russia? Ask Chechens. China? Ask Tibetans India? Ask the people from Kashmir and so on until one gets to the Mid East. How did the States there get formed sfter the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? The country’s now there were formed by Imperialist entities, like Great Britain who figured a new way to retain control, without the expense of having a protectorate.
Third, the reason that Jordan no longer wants the West Bank back and Egypt no longer wants Gaza, both of which were formerly parts of their country and were occupied by Israel after the 1967 war, is that they know that the proto-Palestinian people are a difficult lot. Jordan expelled them after Black September in 1970, when they tried to take over the country. This incident is somehow nevere referred to any more and I wonder why?
Fourth, have the proto-Palestinians been screwed royally for all these years and deserve sympathy? Absolutely, but just who screwed them is not as easy as it looks. When the 1947 war broke out the Israeli government literally begged the indigenous Arab population to stay and possibly fight along with them. The massed Arab country’s who attacked Israel certain of victory due to the troop differential and wide arms differential called on them to flee their homes to allow the Arab Armies to overwhelm the Israeli’s and “throw the Jews into the sea.” Some Arabs stayed, many more fled and some who were aiding with their fellow Arabs were thrown out. After the unexpected Israeli victory, without US aid by the way, because despite stereotypes Jews can be warriors, there were displaced Arabs from Israel all over the Mid-East.
Fifth, instead of welcoming their Arab brethren and taking care of them the Arab Countries put them into segregated camps and treated them poorly. The Saudi’s et. al., smarting from the disgrace of being beaten by Jews wanted to use them as a living reminder to the defeat and a focus of pity for the world. They thus were treated horribly for years and confined to in effect Concentration Camps. In 1964 Egypt called a conference which helped create the PLO. In 1968, Yassir Arafat the leader of the Fatah section rose to leadership. Arafat, born an Egyptian, had a nexus to Jerusalem because his Uncle, a Nazi supporter, had been Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Arafat was the champion of Guerilla warfare. He worked closely with the Arab governments and lived the life of the billionaire he became, while his “people” lived in wretched poverty.
Sixth, Israel is not going away so what is the solution to it all? THe solution is a separate/independant Arab State consisting of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and a strip leading from the West Bank to Gaza. Most Israeli’s, except for the idiot ultra-Orthodox, Likud and the settlers, very close to the same thing, accept this as the end game. What’s preventing it is a mixture of Israel’s right wing, Saudi and Arab oil interests and the intransigence of the various groups like Fata and Hamas, who want the whole loaf.
Seventh, why should I a loyal American Jew who does not want to live in Israel, care so much about this tiny, embattled foreign country? If the fascist shit ever hits the fan in America and it well might, where does a Jew like me and his family go? To a concentration camp, not likely, they would have to kill me and I wouldn’t go down easy. To other countries? We have WWII as an example of the desire of other countries to admit Jews in stress. The only place for myself and/or my progeny will be Israel. It is no doubt hard for non-Jews to understand, but after the Nazi’s the Jewish feelings of those connected to their roots is “Never Again.” Yet of all the religions and/or ethnic groups in the world we have only one little bit of land that will positively accept us and where we will if necessary make our final stand. Any Jew who knows the last 2,500 years of our history knows that Jews finally have to count on themselves, since we really can’t count on anyone else.
Mike, you need to be lecturing at Columbia or Rensselaer, you’re just to good..
My cousin attended Rensselaer, he is a petrologist in Washington state. I love it up around Pullman. I love the campus at WSU, my old friend Dr. Grover Krantz was a professor of Physical Anthroplogy at WSU. He was an accomplished primatologist and anatomist as well. He also was one of the “few” scientists who was willing to stick his neck out and defend the Patterson film fronm 67′.
We need to stop supporting Israel with our tax dollars. No one is starving there! American Jews should find someone else to fund their holy Disneyland.
Buddha, I wish to extend an “olive branch”. I apologize for the “less than wonderful” remarks I made. It was uncharitable of me, I would like to proceed forward in a spirit of being amicable to each other.
Mike S.: “Bob,Esq. (Was that you before posting as Bob alone?)”
No.
Mike S.: “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians. Up until that point the Israeli’s were alternatively called Palestinians all over the world and in the media. THe PR guy was brilliant because by giving this group of displaced Arabs a name, the name being used for the Israeli’s alternatively, it created the ability to make them into a martyred people.”
Really? There was no Palestine and no ‘Palestinian’ people? How do we distinguish Palestinian from Semite Mike? Do I hear it said that all Semites are Jews? If I were an anti-Semite, would I be anti-Jew or anti-Arab? Perhaps anti-Palestinian?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semite
Or is that simply a name given to a displaced group of people earlier than you claim the Palestinians were categorized?
While I appreciate the history lesson, I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.
Mike S.: “Second, I would love people to be specific as to what Countries in the world are legal.”
Mike, where in my post did I bring into question the legality of the existence of the state of Israel? Granted I blame the limeys for the mess, just as much as I blame the limeys for the Kashmir problem, but … Next…
Mike S.: “Third, the reason that Jordan no longer wants the West Bank back and Egypt no longer wants Gaza, both of which were formerly parts of their country and were occupied by Israel after the 1967 war, is that…”
Is that it bears no relevance to the issue of Israel acting like my sister; which, I remind you, is a point you already assented to in your previous reply. We are talking about Israel’s overall dialogue of entitlement to use “ILL WILL” (in the Kantian sense) towards whoever it wants; implicitly using my sister’s form of reasoning to exempt itself from any metaphysics of morals whatsoever — including the very religion upon which it bases its thinly veiled theocracy.
Mike S.: “Fourth, have the proto-Palestinians been screwed royally for all these years and deserve sympathy? Absolutely, but just who screwed them is not as easy as it looks.”
Mike, as a Kantian, I’m constrained to inform you that true morality is rooted in the non spacio-temporal concept known as principles. Morality, as a general rule, is not a product of His-Story.
Mike S.: “Seventh, why should I a loyal American Jew who does not want to live in Israel, care so much about this tiny, embattled foreign country? If the fascist shit ever hits the fan in America and it well might, where does a Jew like me and his family go?”
How about New York? You really think the screen writers for Casablanca weren’t serious when they wrote this exchange:
Major Strasser: Are you one of those people who cannot imagine the Germans in their beloved Paris?
Rick: It’s not particularly my beloved Paris.
Heinz: Can you imagine us in London?
Rick: When you get there, ask me!
Captain Renault: Hmmh! Diplomatist!
Major Strasser: How about New York?
Rick: Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn’t advise you to try to invade.
Admit it, you’re getting carried away. Even the teen culture that doesn’t know who the first president was or that Patton fought in WWII and not the Civil War are enlightened enough to never allow their friends, favorite comedians and favorite deli owners to be rounded up in any way. You also have the entire world watching.
But as to my original points, here’s where we stand:
1. You assent to the comparison between Israel and my sister.
2. While you claim to not defend Israel, you did in fact attempt to defend Israel’s lack of morality by invoking irrelevant His-Storical arguments.
3. You assented to the claim that Israel is engaged in carrying out apartheid policies.
4. You never addressed the invasion and destruction of Lebanon; most likely because its embarrassingly immoral and a macro-cosmic example of the comparison between my sister and Israel.
5. That said, I ask you; morally speaking is a Jew obliged to defend Israel no matter what does? Morally speaking Mike.
Morally speaking.
Bob, I love Casablanca, it is one of my favorites. You too make “many” valid points, I get pumped up just reading your posts,you guys bravo! John Huston after he directed “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” said, “In Hollywood you have Humphrey Bogart and than you have everybody else”. How true, their will always be only one Bogie..
Bogart had a most unique screen presence. So did Richard Widmark. I think the stars of yesteryear were the greatest. They had a certain star quality and presence that seemed to transcend the very films they starred in. Innocence and wholesomeness come to mind. Great films with no profanity and “zero” nudity, and the stories, those great stories..
“American Jews should find someone else to fund their holy Disneyland”
Mike K,
I guess when you think you’ve get a good line you can’t help using it, defending your position would be a lot more desirable.
I already answered the same line in another thread and you didn’t refute me, so I won’t bother with a response at this point.
“Really? There was no Palestine and no ‘Palestinian’ people? How do we distinguish Palestinian from Semite Mike? Do I hear it said that all Semites are Jews? If I were an anti-Semite, would I be anti-Jew or anti-Arab? Perhaps anti-Palestinian?”
Bob, Esq.,
You might find them tedious but I really suggest you read my many posts on semite and the term anti-Semitic. You will see I don’t accept the appellation “semite” for either Jews or Arabs, nor do I believe either of us constitues a “race,” however muddled the definition of any race as a subdivision of humanity is. You will see by the attached wiki (incomplete but quickly serviceable) that the original term was used by a German in the mid 18th Century to denote a language group and was borrowed to define people with the Mid East in their backgrounds. Wiki is someone incomplete on the full details in that in the mid to late 19th Century semite was used by the eugencists to define people from the Mid East. Incidently, the eugenicists used the term semite to denote a group racially inferior to the Aryan (white)stock. This term was later picked up by the NAZI’s. I’ve explained this at least two or three times before and used it to explain why I never use the term anti-semitic, or semite to refer to people who hate Jews. I guess you haven’t read any of my posts on this subject. Therefore though, I reject your premise above and reject the Merriam Webster quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semite
“While I appreciate the history lesson, I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.”
Bob where have I ever talked of or defended Israel as a place of “moral immaculateness?” You seem to be debating a perception and not me. I think I deserve the courtesy of being debated on my own words and not on your perception of what they might be.
“That is why people call for the destruction of Israel. It was created illegally.”
That is why I began my post with the question of whether that was Bob, or Bob, Esq. I see by your reply that you weren’t Bob so on that point never mind, I attributed it to you incorerectly. This has happened to me, since there are various Mikes posting.
“We are talking about Israel’s overall dialogue of entitlement to use “ILL WILL” (in the Kantian sense) towards whoever it wants; implicitly using my sister’s form of reasoning to exempt itself from any metaphysics of morals whatsoever — including the very religion upon which it bases its thinly veiled theocracy.”
Most of what you write here Bob is personal opinion, despite your cloaking it in philosophical terms. I get it. you believe Israel behaves immorally and feels entitled to because of its’ history and you believe that it is a theocracy. That’s your belief, it isn’t mine. Both are opinions that can be defended.
What’s the point, we disagree strongly? Remember, you called me out specifically because I’m Jewish, so I answered you on my terms, obviously you don’t accept them. Tough.
“Mike, as a Kantian, I’m constrained to inform you that true morality is rooted in the non spacio-temporal concept known as principles. Morality, as a general rule, is not a product of His-Story.”
I’m happy for you that you have a philosopher you believe in. I’m not sure his definition of morality is one I’d agree with or actually even be interested in. My philosopher of choice is Rabbi Hillel, who propounded:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?”
Besides Hillel the same formulations were first propounded by Confuscious, then the Buddha, Hindu’s Jews and Jesus. I like them and try to live by them. You no doubt believe Israel doesn’t live by them and there we differ somewhat, with me also believing that no country in history has lived by them, or by any morality at all. Morality is almost inimical to the notion of being a State. Sad, but altogether true.
As to philosophy in general it has never really interested me, but I’m sure it has given you a lifetime of enjoyment and enlightenment. I go with the person who did the original quote, which I only poorly paraphrase.
All philosophy, throughout all of history, is simply an elaboration of what the average human thnks to themselves as they take their Saturday night baths.
To wit:
What is life?
What am I?
Why am I here?
What should I do?
My own belief is that it is more helpful to answer these questions for myself, rather than look to authority.
“How about New York? You really think the screen writers for Casablanca weren’t serious when they wrote this exchange:”
NYC was the first place I experienced anti-Jewishness and it is the place where my parents and grandparents experienced much more hate than the anti-Jewishness I experienced. I know that you have little sympathy for this obviously, but then you can’t know what it’s like to be Jewish, or Black, or Arab, or Native American. When it comes to being Jewish and what people feel and believe as Jews, I have some expertise. Truthfully, there was something insultingly smug about the whole of this part of your post, but then that’s you.
“Admit it, you’re getting carried away”
Bob, I’m deadly serious about this, that you can’t empathize is understandable, but mocking me doesn’t do you credit I’m afraid.
“You never addressed the invasion and destruction of Lebanon; most likely because its embarrassingly immoral”
Bob, I’m no fan of Ariel Sharon and never was, but the Lebanon thing is not the clearcut moral issue you believe it to be. Let’s instead cut to the chase. You called me out because if you’ve read anything in the past, you knew I support Israel and defend Israel’s existence. However, in supporting Israel and defending its’ existence that doesn’t mean I accept it when Israel behaves badly, or that I defend all of its leaders. I have made that abundantly clear in everything I’ve written of the topic.
“That said, I ask you; morally speaking is a Jew obliged to defend Israel no matter what does? Morally speaking Mike.
Morally speaking.”
Nice technique for cross examination, silly in other contexts.
However, before I explain why let me say that no Jew has a duty to defend Israel if their own moral imperatives are breeched and I personally wouldn’t.
However, you reject my historical concerns seeming to deem them irrelevant to your line of discussion. The morality of an issue doesn’t exist in a vacuum as much as you would seem to want it to. Nations never behave morally, but only in their own self interest. I would think that would be obvious to a man of your erudition, but apparently it isn’t. So to put it in your terms I don’t believe that Israel has yet crossed any line into despicable immorality and I note that in this issue in the Mid East nobody’s hands are clean, or morals intact.
Your value judgment deems that Israel has behaved badly, over and above all the nations and people’s around her. I don’t believe that to be the case. There we stand. Frankly, Bob you could call me anything you want and it really wouldn’t matter to me, because I believe I’m right and I certainly believe I know much more about the issue than you do. Will this turn into a battle of posts, going on ad infinitum with post after post from each of us refuting the other. I decline. As the Yiddush expression goes “Call me pisher.” I have said before I don’t wish to do a whole debate on this topic, not because I couldn’t debate anyone here to at least a draw, but simply because there is no changing people’s belief systems.
Believe as you will Bob and I know you will, but at least do me the courtesy not to mock the depth of my belief in what I believe.
Boo-hoo, boo-hoo, boo-hoo. Cry me a river
I hold certain truths to be self-evident (in addition to those with which we are all familiar). They include the following:
1. No nation is incapable of inflicting the most vicious cruelty against the people of another nation.
2. The risk of inhumane treatment of others increases to the extent that the offending nation fears that its continued existence is at risk.
3. When inhumane treatment of others is excused or ignored, either due to inaction on the part of other nations or through the moral and financial support of allies, it develops its own legitimacy in the eyes of the offending nation.
4. When accusations of inhumane treatment are laid before an offending nation, the defense is always based upon the necessity of retaliation for acts of equal immorality.
In earlier posts Larry and nal endorsed the principle that a nation should not be expected to adhere to a standard of conduct that is higher than that of their enemies. As rafflaw noted at the inception of this thread, one of the legacies of the Bush-Cheney years is precisely that form of degeneracy, the view that a country’s moral standards are defined by its enemies. This is no more a valid principle of international conduct than it is of personal conduct, but our own nation has made it acceptable, and it will take years to undo the damage.
You’re so yellow,you stink out loud.
Herr Freitag. You appear confused. This site is for those who wish to express their own viewpoints, or respond to the views of others, in a thoughtful manner. You would perhaps be more comfortable at world net daily or, if you have the ability to do so, you might google “white supremacist” for a selection of sites more compatible with the maturity level of your contributions.
The complexity of the Palestinian Israeli conflict has taken considerable effort to detangle. A summation is provided by Bertrand Russell of recent JT blog fame…
The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East. We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy. —Bertrand Russell, 31 January 1970
Had European civilizations of times past and the U.S. too welcomed Jews, we would never have found ourselves in such a twisted mess. It’s our own mistakes we’re entangled in.
First the truth. Healing and peace will come after.
Mr. Appleton, shouldn’t you be at a gay pride seminar, serving cupcakes, cupcake?
Herr freitag,
You need a “time out” please go now and look in the mirror!
Mike S.,
Would you say that you treat the terms Palestinian and Semite in an equally abstract manner? Whether or not I read your earlier posts bears no relevance to the handling of the terms here.
Mike S.: “Bob where have I ever talked of or defended Israel as a place of “moral immaculateness?”
That’s a re-assertion of one of my claims.
“You seem to be debating a perception and not me. I think I deserve the courtesy of being debated on my own words and not on your perception of what they might be.”
Mike, I am not debating a perception; I’m discussing with an intelligent person, who has a proclivity for being fairly verbose (& troll-baiting) on the topic of Jews, Judaism & Israel (and dare we forget circumcision), my claims about the state of Israel and its a-moral similarity to my sister.
“Most of what you write here Bob is personal opinion, despite your cloaking it in philosophical terms. I get it. you believe Israel behaves immorally and feels entitled to because of its’ history and you believe that it is a theocracy. That’s your belief, it isn’t mine. Both are opinions that can be defended.
What’s the point, we disagree strongly? Remember, you called me out specifically because I’m Jewish, so I answered you on my terms, obviously you don’t accept them. Tough.”
Mike, to say that most of what I write is merely opinion is to say I don’t know how to argue. I’m not opining, I’m arguing.
As to my comparison of Israel to the immoral actions of my sister, you had this to say:
“I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exascerbates their problems…..”
Compare with: “you believe Israel behaves immorally and feels entitled to because of its’ history and you believe that it is a theocracy. That’s your belief, it isn’t mine.”
I ‘believe’ opinions change much quicker than arguments; and I believe you’ve contradicted your initial ‘opinion.’ As to the theocracy issue, I said ‘thinly veiled theocracy’; as in laws regarding marriage & citizenship (e.g. ‘there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people’) etc., etc.
Full out theocracy; no. Thinly veiled; damn straight by definition of Israeli nationality.
Mike S.: “Both are opinions that can be defended. What’s the point, we disagree strongly? Remember, you called me out specifically because I’m Jewish, so I answered you on my terms, obviously you don’t accept them. Tough.”
Mike, I chose to have an argument with you. And what is an argument; a pile of opinions? No. To paraphrase: ‘Arguing is reason giving. Reasons are justifications or support for claims. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or opinion.’
The fact that you are Jewish merely coincides with my observation that you possess a vast knowledge about Israel and its policies; i.e. the general topic we’re discussing.
Mike S.: “I’m happy for you that you have a philosopher you believe in. I’m not sure his definition of morality is one I’d agree with or actually even be interested in.”
I don’t ‘believe’ in things like the categorical imperative; I simply can’t refute them. And to give you a broad brush of what Kant wrote, let’s just say its the abstract reconstruction of the common thread running through all systems of morality.
Mike S.: “Truthfully, there was something insultingly smug about the whole of this part of your post, but then that’s you.”
Not smug; pragmatic. Here’s an opinion, I consider New York to have the lowest threshold tolerance for bullshit. If you think I’ve been mocking you, guess again. I have no tolerance for racism or bigotry; and whenever it rears its ugly head, I want nothing more than to verbally destroy the head it happens to exist in. And if the nightmare that you suggested ever happened near me, my next move would be towards my rifle. So get off my back with that ‘insult’ crap.
“Bob, I’m deadly serious about this, that you can’t empathize is understandable, but mocking me doesn’t do you credit I’m afraid.”
I’m not mocking you but I can’t empathize with the reasons you give for dreaming up your nightmare scenarios. I’m a Catholic that’s gone astray, but you don’t see me expecting the Spanish Inquisition do you?
Alright, maybe that could be considered mocking, but couldn’t it also be considered comic relief to distract you from your proclivity for dreaming up extraordinarily fearful scenarios for yourself? Fear must be tempered with reason; e.g. the chances of becoming a victim of a terrorist attack are less than being killed by a falling vending machine. Yet the country, like a person, has been suffering from (if I may borrow a psychological term) a 9/11 neurosis; invading other countries and raping the constitution out of its allegedly “rational fear.”
But I digress…
On to the issue of Lebanon. Let’s start again; without you injecting yourself into the picture. You say it’s not a clear cut issue, I say the invasion lacked any justification on a moral or legal level, and at the very least was completely unjustified as being wholly disproportional. Essentially, as I stated before, a macro-cosmic example of my sister’s post traumatic sense of morality.
The question I asked was “Which is worse; Bush & Cheney defrauding the country into bombing Iraq or Israel propagandizing its citizens and the West to justify their bombing of Lebanon?” At first blush you may want to accuse me of the fallacy of complex question. But since I know where you stand on the Bush/Cheney issue, per Lebanon, are you saying that Ariel Sharon moved Israel to act immorally just like Bush & Cheney?
Moving on.
Mike S.: “However, you reject my historical concerns seeming to deem them irrelevant to your line of discussion. The morality of an issue doesn’t exist in a vacuum as much as you would seem to want it to.”
In principle, it does:
Kant: “Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to be valid morally, i.e., as the ground of an obligation, has to carry absolute necessity with it; that the command ‘You ought not to lie’ is valid not merely for human beings, as though other rational beings did not have to heed it; and likewise all the other genuinely moral laws; hence that the ground of obligation here is to be sought not in the nature of the human being or the circumstances of the world in which he is placed, but a priori solely in concepts of pure reason, and that every other precept grounded on principles of mere experience, and even a precept that is universal in a certain aspect, insofar as it is supported in the smallest part on empirical grounds, perhaps only as to its motive, can be called a practical rule, but never a moral law.”
Saturday bath material? Do you agree or disagree with the foregoing; most importantly explain logically — why?
Are you getting a handle yet on why I’m CONSTRAINED to reject history as any form of moral compass?
Mike S.: “Your value judgment deems that Israel has behaved badly, over and above all the nations and people’s around her.”
No, she’s just never called on anything; like my sister.
Mike S.: “I don’t believe that to be the case. There we stand. Frankly, Bob you could call me anything you want and it really wouldn’t matter to me, because I believe I’m right and I certainly believe I know much more about the issue than you do.”
Once again:
‘Arguing is reason giving. Reasons are justifications or support for claims. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or opinion.’
So…why do you ‘believe’ you’re right?
The most “brilliant” argument and rebuttal I have yet read on this blog. I took logic at UCLA, this my friend(s) is how it is done. I may get a brain fart because I get caught up in “feelings, but make know mistake, this is the “sequential” path “you must go by, cause in the long run, theirs still time to change the road you’re on”. Paraphrase from Zeppelin 4, Stairway to Heaven. Brilliant, truly an honor to read posts this thoughtfully written by both Mike and Bob Esq., bravo…….
I “like” you Mike, but you have done some serious “troll-baiting” on anything related to Judaism, the Holocaust, Israel, and rants against Catholicism. I have read your posts for months, and I can clearly “tell” you have a sharp mind, with your own built in, “obviously” biased views. Your objectivity is somewhat impaired, especially when it comes to matters of religion. You just “go-off” on anyone who has anything positive to say about Catholicism or the Church or Christianity in general. Clearly this is a “forum” that caters to people of your ilk. I noticed, with “regularity”, that you have a proclivity to redefine words in order to make them conform to your value system; and are not always “intellectually honest” with your foes that you are debating. Something to reflect on. We aren’t always right or wrong. Remember what I said about dichotomy and this blog? Its’ okay, I have my own biases as well, thats’ why I am me and you are you. Ain’t life grand?
billy:
“The most “brilliant” argument and rebuttal I have yet read on this blog. I took logic at UCLA, this my friend(s) is how it is done.”
*************
Not to demean, in any way, my learned friends but this is neither’s pinnacle work. I think you need a logic refresher course. Mike S. implies his status supplies him superior knowledge of the situation–another logical fallacy I call “Father knows best.” Bob,Esq reduces most every rebuttal to a Kantian analysis of morality based on principles of duty or necessity divorced from experience. His admiration for Kant is palpable (as Mike S. points out), and that my student of logic, without more, is the fallacy of an appeal to authority.
In it’s pristine form morality may indeed be based on notions of duty and necessity, but pray tell, from whence do we get these notions. Are they just there rattling around in our heads? I think not. I suggest that we get them from common historical experience which provides societal support for normative conduct. To my mind, that is what Mike S. is saying about the mid-East problem. History has prescribed opposing duties to each of these antagonists which compel them to act in accord with their perceptions of morality. A massacre by one gives rise to the need to respond by the other with the entire panoply of human responses i.e. revenge, appeals for pity, outrage, most anything except mercy or forgiveness … and the treacherous cycle continues ad infinitum.
Ultimately and in my judgment, Mike S is right. Bob,Esq barely conceals his resentment of Israel when he so “Freudianly” laments that “… she’s (Israel) just never called on anything; like my sister.” This is personal opinion with a Kantian overcoat. In my experience, Israel is “called” on many things–this report being just one of them. And so likewise are the Palestinians and their radical proponents. This is not a logical exercise of finding the angel among the devils, but rather deciding which flawed position is the least acceptable to us, and applying our historical principles to judge that actor.
Mikes’ biases are spelled out in all his obvious “troll baiting”. You are in opposition to Bob because he opposed you in an earlier blog. Your deception is plane to see. Mikes’ obvious biases are “palpable” as yours are. You believe Mike is right in yout judgement, maybe you haven’t thought enough.
Morality is not fostered in historical experience . It stems from mans historical appeal to religion, which serves as a moral compass in assisting in mans decision to follow his “conscience” or the “evil one”.
Mike on the other hand chooses not to conceal his own obvious contempt for Christians, primarily Catholics. At least “you both” have this in common judge..
billy:
“Morality is not fostered in historical experience . It stems from mans historical appeal to religion, which serves as a moral compass in assisting in mans decision to follow his “conscience” or the “evil one”.”
***********
If you believe this statement either you are a stranger to any of the “sacred texts” of most of the world’s religion, or you are willfully deluding yourself. Find me some condemnation of slavery or misogyny in the Christian Bible and then we’ll talk about how it is the “moral compass” for modern day morality. You must be in deep, brother.
Forget Israeli War Crimes
What about RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW
Mr. Teleprompter seems to get lost at the five minute mark.
Mike Appleton:
In earlier posts Larry and nal endorsed the principle that a nation should not be expected to adhere to a standard of conduct that is higher than that of their enemies.
My remark, here, was obviously (I thought) intended to be taken as sarcasm.
Mespo:
come on man, dont you know about the evolution of christian ethics?
Although if you read Bob McDonnells’ thesis you might think you were reading a 10th century guide to marriage counseling. So maybe evolution is not the correct word.
nal as to Mike Appleton:
“In earlier posts Larry and nal endorsed the principle that a nation should not be expected to adhere to a standard of conduct that is higher than that of their enemies.
My remark, here, was obviously (I thought) intended to be taken as sarcasm.”
*****************
I am telling, you are being sarcastic.
Billy,
Apology and olive branch accepted.
Byron,
Evolution is the precise word. You need to read about cybernetics. Memes operate a LOT like a virus. They not only propagate on similar models, they also adapt to local circumstances and mutate in general like a virus subject to speciation pressures.
nal:
I took it that way. You are the victim of “quick-read-itis.”
Mespo:
“Bob,Esq reduces most every rebuttal to a Kantian analysis of morality based on principles of duty or necessity divorced from experience. His admiration for Kant is palpable (as Mike S. points out), and that my student of logic, without more, is the fallacy of an appeal to authority.”
First, I tend to employ Kantian analysis because it happens to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. You having confessed to no knowledge of said knife have no business opining about said knife.
Second, let’s get our informal fallacies straight. To accuse me of invoking ‘appeal to authority’ with Kant, you’d have to show that I used a BARE statement by Kant and held it out to be true simply because HE said it. However, notwithstanding your confessed and chosen ignorance of Kant, I quoted an implicit ARGUMENT by him; not a statement. Further, and obviously, the quote was not used as a summary conclusion to the argument about Israel; it was part of an ar-gu-ment.
Mespo: “In it’s pristine form morality may indeed be based on notions of duty and necessity, but pray tell, from whence do we get these notions. Are they just there rattling around in our heads? I think not.”
Now you’re just appealing to your own ignorance.
Mespo: “I suggest that we get them from common historical experience which provides societal support for normative conduct. To my mind, that is what Mike S. is saying about the mid-East problem. History has prescribed opposing duties to each of these antagonists which compel them to act in accord with their perceptions of morality.”
If that’s not sophomoric relativism, I don’t know what is. Slavery isn’t right or wrong morally; it’s just a matter of who happens to be thinking about it at the time – right? You have no right to be morally outraged that someone posted a poll on facebook asking whether the president should be assassinated — because in your world, there’s just other points of view. They have their duties and you have yours, so suit up and defend your … was it an opinion or something you call ‘morality?’
Mespo: “Ultimately and in my judgment, Mike S is right.”
Could you offer at least a syllogism, or must you continually appeal to your own authority?
Mespo: “Bob,Esq barely conceals his resentment of Israel when he so “Freudianly” laments that “… she’s (Israel) just never called on anything; like my sister.”
First, the use of the ‘she’ pronoun was Mike’s; to which I merely responded in form. To toss in the “Freudianly” comment was sheer intellectual dishonesty. Your second act of intellectual dishonesty was to ignore the fact that Mike S. agreed with my comparison of Israel to my sister and her post traumatic sense of a-morality.
Mespo: “This is personal opinion with a Kantian overcoat.”
So you’re saying I simply opined about the simile; no arguments? How did I do it? Lemme guess, I said “My sister is like Israel because Kant says so? Like that Mespo?
Mespo: “In my experience, Israel is “called” on many things–this report being just one of them.”
So you do you think Jimmy Carter’s observations are incorrect? In your experience, perhaps you can justify for all of us the invasion of Lebanon. Just how does your historically based morality see the detainment of two soldiers and the random non-government authorized firing of rockets justify a full scale invasion of a country? And while you’re at it, perhaps you’ll share some insight as to where the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stands in your historically based metaphysics of morals. Cause if I’m not mistaken, you’ve got Scalia on your breath. (See Harmelin v. Michigan)
I will reiterate last nights’ post. This is the best rebuttal I have read so far, it was only eclipsed by the latest rebuttal from Bob Esq.. By reading and responding to these posts it helps to sharpen my own dormant “mental” muscles.
Bob, Esq.:
My, my testy today. I am simply saying your seeing the world myopically through Kantian glasses doesn’t make me want to visit my optician. Kant is certainly a great thinker but his belief that true morality is based and justified exclusively on duty grounds is assuredly and naively wrong. While it fits your extreme examples such as slavery or calling for an assassination, pray tell how does Kant deal with moral questions presented over abortion, the morning after pill, eating meat on Friday, euthanasia, or even the mundane “helping little old ladies across the street.” Very little of the”duty” bright line tests there.
On the issue of your knowledge of Kant versus mine, I, of course, accept your superior study of the philosopher. His contributions are both remarkable and obscure. That is not to say that I waive my right to criticize obvious fallacies in his reasoning. Or do you assert that his philosophy is the perfect theory of everything. Duncey me, I thought he was mortal! And let’s not fall into the trap of saying because I don’t have the technical knowledge that a GM exec. has that I may not criticize their decisions on running a car business. Kant may have been perfectly consistent in the philosophical construct he created, but like so many philosophers he avoided those inevitable dust-ups with the real world. This refusal to test theory outside of the laboratory of the mind is blatant disregard of ecological validity. Ask Rick Wagoner. Utopias are as hard to come by in business as in societal architecture.
Your refusal to accept that SOME morality is relative to the time employed bespeaks a refusal to look at historical fact and the documented evolution of morals. Maybe Nietzsche should be on your reading list for some balance.
billy:
Thanks billy we’ll fit you for pleated skirt, knee socks and megaphone later. Head on off to the gym for more mental aerobics.
The documented “evolution of morals”? What you call “moral evolution”, some call “moral education” or missionary work. Stealing is as contemptible now as it was when the Ten Commandmendts were given to Moses, evolution was not needed to realize that even “ancient man” could discern that stealing was evil. When missionaries explained to pagan cultures that “cannibalism” was morally wrong, this was “moral education” or reeducation. The “evolution takes place when the student of the “converter” embraces the “moral philosophy”, or “theology, in the case of “morality” having an origin in Christianity.
The understanding that stealing was evil is self evident, even when studying the cultures of ancient civilzations who were never exposed to the Gospels or the Old Testament.
Judge, don’t take what I shared as a “narcissistic injury”..
Because I “championed” Bobs’ rebuttal was not intended to impugn you Judge.
billy”
You say earlier:
“Morality is not fostered in historical experience . It stems from mans historical appeal to religion, which serves as a moral compass in assisting in mans decision to follow his “conscience” or the “evil one”.”
and now you say:
“The understanding that stealing was evil is self evident, even when studying the cultures of ancient civilzations who were never exposed to the Gospels or the Old Testament.”
Thank you for coming around to my point that the need for morality seems intuitive in humans independent of religion, and that it develops along with, and not contrary to, its historical context. BTW not all cultures consider stealing or even murder morally wrong as we have discussed on the blog before.
That is not the point I was trying to illustrate. My argument was”finer” than that. I was referring to “cultural mores” that are considered abominable by Christians, but not seen as morally offensive by some primitive cultures. Through the process of moral education or missionary work, these cultures were taught that this behavior was morally offensive and not acceptable. They already understood that stealing was wrong! They have a conscience that was given to them by God at birth. Through a culture of paganism, they developed a deformed conscience in other areas. These areas are, but not limited to cannibalism, polygamy, and a whole host of other savage customs.
billy:
“Because I “championed” Bobs’ rebuttal was not intended to impugn you Judge.”
***************
Not taken as a slight. I merely was hoping you would add your considered insight into the discussion rather than reiterating praise you obviously felt several posts ago.
Cheering and admiration are fine but as players in the game all know it’s USUALLY accomplished by those who can’t or won’t play the game. I think you can play.
This is rather stimulating, thank you for allowing me to share and read.
I am not a philosopher, I am not an attorney, I took a philosophy course at University many moons ago. I am not an authority on Kant or Camus or Nietzsche. You “judge”, are an obviously very brilliant individual, I read your posts, you are a very talented writer. All you guys blow me away! By reading and sharing, it is helping me develop and sharpen my tools that have somewhat atrophied over the years..
billy,
First, in order for us to get along better, please refrain from trying to put words in my mouth. I said nothing about the “evolution of morals” because I would never frame “morals” as evolving as “morals” is a value loaded word based in some religious dogma. But the non dogmatic study of ethics has certainly evolved over time. If you don’t believe that, please feel free to ask Bob, Esq to contrast Aristotle and Kant. That will paint your wagon. What I was talking about is the science behind the propagation of ideas and how it mimics biological process – one that happens to support evolution. That you equated this to morals only presents the case to highlight the distinction and the importance of terminology, thus confirming my original assertion by providing a greater degree of contrast – a higher resolution data set.
Second, that you cannot accept this shows that you should also brush up on the basic concepts of cybernetics and molecular biology. Perhaps some information theory while you’re at it. An argument based in dogma will always fail to an argument based in the scientific method simply because one system can be demonstrated and repeated in the real world to create measurable results and the other is simply either individual or organizational wishful thinking in the end. A belief with no proof is not going to win an argument as arguments by their nature are based as much in the nature of proofs as in the logical relationships created by interactions. Dogmatic thinking is based in “belief without question” and that’s ultimately at odds with basic logic. Dogmatic arguments don’t work outside the context of a religious organizations structure proper. It’s the difference between internal logical consistency and actual logic – a basic lesson often demonstrated around here with the various “The moon is made of green cheese” argument. So in summation, that’s multiple sciences with their testable theories and hypothesis and logical conclusions vs. some dogma loaded “morals” that are contextually out of place and will not yield in the face of demonstrable facts because they are an organizational construct not interested in logics that don’t perpetual the organization proper to the benefit of those who run the organization. Hmmm. Part of the scientific method is to seek to reduce error in your data sets by using either physical experimental data and/or mathematical proofs that seek to eliminate both experimenter’s biases and mathematical misadventure. Part of dogmatic thinking is to ignore or attempt to quash what the organization and its leaders perceive as a threat, be it an actual error or not. Ask Galileo.
But let’s not neglect the viruses.
Viruses are something that we can actually demonstrate in real time some evolutionary concepts – especially the ideas of convergent and divergent evolution – something also demonstrated in the distribution and changes to memes across a system over time. We can do the same thing in breeding/genetically manipulating some simple creatures like fruit flies. And your cute little puppy didn’t just spring to magical existence different from his wolf ancestors. It got that way because we bred for selective traits over time. We humans were just the one’s making the choices about which traits get selected. We “played God”. Oops. And we still do every day in labs across the world. If you don’t believe this, then I guess you won’t be wanting any vaccines in the near future.
I’ll have to reread this post again buddha, I can obviously tell you put a lot of thought into it and it is beautifully presented. I will have to reflect on it, in order to appreciate it in its’ totality. I was only referring to morals from the standpoint of a Catholic/ Christian platform. Obviously one does not have to be a Christian to have a moral center. I have met many who profess “know religion” but seem to possess a better moral compass than those who seemingly are religious. I say religious and not spiritual. As I get older I am trying to become more spiritual because I have the religion part covered. I am not a philosopher, but I “think” most philosophers were trying to establish principles for the conduct of life. In this process they encourage others to develop and establish priciples as well. Philosophy helped me to think and appreciate the process of divergent thinking. I am not sure it is beneficial to subscribe to the value system of every philosopher, but to use it as a means to develop ones’ own platform to think critically and spatially..
Mespo: “I am simply saying your seeing the world myopically through Kantian glasses doesn’t make me want to visit my optician.”
Like I said, I choose him because I can’t refute him.
“Kant is certainly a great thinker but his belief that true morality is based and justified exclusively on duty grounds is assuredly and naively wrong.”
Pardon me, but, in light of your ignorance of Kant’s work, this seems like a a brazen unfounded statement more befitting a common troll. Let’s see how you support your ‘claim.’
“While it fits your extreme examples such as slavery or calling for an assassination,”
Instead of resorting to the rhetorical device of throwing me a bone, perhaps you might indulge me by showing me ‘how it fit.’ How else would I be able to verify your comprehension of the subject?
“pray tell how does Kant deal with moral questions presented over abortion, the morning after pill, eating meat on Friday, euthanasia, or even the mundane “helping little old ladies across the street.” Very little of the”duty” bright line tests there.”
Like a poor marksman you keep missing the target. Your posts regarding my use of Kantian analysis smacks of projection for your hatred of those who use a literal appeal to the Bible like a Magic 8-Ball. “How does Kant deal with…” Are you f’n kidding me? It’s as if you’re equating Kant with a fanatic’s use of Leviticus. Get over yourself. It’s not “how does Kant deal with” it’s “how do I deal with and formulate my arguments for doing so.” On the issue of abortion, et. al. I don’t simply open to a page of Kant, I formulate an argument built upon the PRINCIPLES (those non-spacio-temporal thingys) about the Social Compact, the alienable v. inalienable rights of the individual, the distinction between tyranny & usurpation, the necessity for maintaining said distinction so as to keep the social compact from becoming illusory, the distinctions between duties of virtue and duties of right (a Kantian analysis of the boundaries between state and individual responsibility) the commentaries of Blackstone and the viability of the fetus, etc., etc.
“[Kant's] contributions are both remarkable and obscure. That is not to say that I waive my right to criticize obvious fallacies in his reasoning. Or do you assert that his philosophy is the perfect theory of everything.”
How can “Kant’s fallacies” be obvious if you’ve never addressed them much less attempted to refute them? Further, if you’ve found any fallacies, they are most assuredly mine. However, before you accuse me of invoking a fallacy, I would advise you to make sure you’re familiar enough with said fallacy to ensure your accusation is correct. (see your post re: “argument from authority” etc.)
Mespo: “Kant may have been perfectly consistent in the philosophical construct he created, but like so many philosophers he avoided those inevitable dust-ups with the real world.”
I couldn’t agree more. Take his death penalty arguments he penned late in life. Doesn’t mean I can’t use his same methodology to show how he contradicted himself and thereby make the argument that the death penalty is non-feasible under the categorical imperative.
And here’s why I continue to remind you of your ignorance of Kant:
Mespo: “This refusal to test theory outside of the laboratory of the mind is blatant disregard of ecological validity. Ask Rick Wagoner. Utopias are as hard to come by in business as in societal architecture.”
Kant is not about theory but principles uncovered by a certain methodology of thinking. Here’s a rhetorical example of what I mean from Robert Pirsig:
“For this eighteenth-century German philosopher [Phaedrus] feels a respect that rises not out of agreement but out of appreciation for Kant’s formidable logical fortification of his position [in the Critique of Pure Reason]. Kant is always superbly methodical, persistent, regular and meticulous as he scales that great snowy mountain of thought concerning what is in the mind and what is outside the mind. It is, for modern climbers, one of the highest peaks of all, and I want now to magnify this picture of Kant and show a little about how he thought and how Phædrus thought about him in order to give a clearer picture of what the high country of the mind is like and also to prepare the way for an understanding of Phædrus’ thoughts.”
But why should an analysis of Kant stand in your way; when it’s far easier to plow him aside with a few glib irrelevant remarks paving the way for the sophistry you offer as substitute for a formidable counter-argument.
Mespo: “Your refusal to accept that SOME morality is relative to the time employed bespeaks a refusal to look at historical fact and the documented evolution of morals. Maybe Nietzsche should be on your reading list for some balance.”
Are you aware that you have yet to formulate an argument to justify your position Mr. Coyote? And regarding Kant v. Nietzsche, care to tell me where I’ve invoked Christianity as a basis for analyzing morals, or how Kant is seen as a traditional thinker about morals? It seems your hatred (well founded or not) of organized religion has blinded you to the finer points of argumentation. You don’t suffer from “quick-read-itis” you suffer from ‘quick-to-conclusion-itis.’
Finally, seeing once again you failed to challenge or concede any point I made in my previous post, I’m beginning to wonder if the term ‘counter-argument’ exists within your vernacular.
“How does Kant deal with?” — You’re funny.
BTW, I meant what I said about your breath smelling like Scalia. If you’d like to see how Scalia uses history to dispose of epistemology and morality completely, I invite you to read his opinion about the 8th amendment in Harmelin.
“that don’t perpetua[te] the organization proper ”
Billy,
I can see by your last post that you are on a better path to a more comprehensive understanding. That is a good thing. And as note with philosophers, it can be a mistake to put all your eggs on one basket. Like Nietzsche. To quote “The Big Lebowski”:
DONNIE: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
WALTER: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there’s nothing to be afraid of.
An open mind is a flexible mind. A flexible mind is an adaptive mind. An adaptive mind is the key to how we as a species went from banging rocks to together to walking on the moon.
“[Y]our breath smelling like Scalia.”
Wow. Now them is a fightin’ words. And the very idea makes me want mouthwash. Listerine. Acetone. Searing hot plasma. Whatever it takes to get that image out of my mind and away from my mouth.
I should not eat and type. sigh
Bob,Esq.:
Though I wish I could provide you a Schopenhauer-esque critique of Kant, I have neither the time nor the inclination. Rejoinder noted, and as usual we agree only to disagree and take victory or defeat from our readers opinions.
Buddha, Bryon, Bob, Billy, and any people with a letter other then B starting their name
I think where we get tripped up is when we separate our view of acceptable and unacceptable behavior (like Buddha, I think Morals is such a loaded and meaningless word that it hinders discussion) from the rest of the universe. Why should it be? Isn’t reasonable that morality falls into the same category as every other human characteristic. Either an adaptation that helps with individual or species survival, or a side effect of one.
That does it mean that the ideas are meaningless, on the contrary, I can think of few things more meaningful than ways of behaving that are responsible for humanity being humanity.
The obvious hole in this argument is the question of why we all participate in behavior that’s been tagged as “bad” in our collective wiring then exists. For one thing every single living thing walks a fine line between survival of the species and survival of self. Another concept to remember is that there’s no universally useful adaptation. Sickle Cell Anemia is a prime example of that. Having a certain percentage of the population with a single Sickle Cell alleles is great protection against the group being wiped out by Malaria, but too high of a percentage and you get a to high of an incidence of Sickle Cell Anemia which is caused by having both alleles.
Bob is fond of saying that we haven’t evolved one inch slime. I say we haven’t evolved one inch from the small tribes of early primates that are our ancestors. We still function like we’re bands of 20 humans fighting over their territory.
Mespo:
I am reading some Kant now, he is rather hard to figure out and I have heard that he has a fatal flaw, but I have yet to figure it out.
From my thinking it might be that he sees the world as being a projection of your being not the other way around. I assume that sensory perception is necessary to become human, if you were deprived of your senses you would not be able to become conscious. I think Kant might believe that human consciousness just is, no externalities are required. But I am only a little way into this so I could be just full of BS.
Your classical background would, if I am right, cause you to reject Kant because for the Greeks it was all about living in the world. You used your mind to understand what was in front of you based on your senses. Kant, I think, reverses that order. in other words existence does not exist without the existent. Whereas you probably believe that existence is perceived and conceptualized by the existent. Anyway just some thoughts, mostly baby steps.
“Would you say that you treat the terms Palestinian and Semite in an equally abstract manner? Whether or not I read your earlier posts bears no relevance to the handling of the terms here.”
Bob, Esq.,
As I see it you are quite comfortable discussing anything as long as you set the terms of the discussion and refuse to engage in areas that you discount, i.e. history vs. your notion of moral absolutes as per Kant. So be it.
You may characterize my treatment of Palestinian and Semite as being abstract, but I believe I was quite datailed in my not accepting either. I note that in both cases you never presented your own refutation of my points, merely ingnored them. So can I assume your position is: that it’s discuss an issue in the terms you set, or you will just ignore my responses? Nice technique if you can make it work and effective in court with sympathetic judges and incompetent opponents.
In principle, it does:
Kant: “Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to be valid morally, i.e., as the ground of an obligation, has to carry absolute necessity with it;……………………………….
Saturday bath material? Do you agree or disagree with the foregoing; most importantly explain logically — why?”
Bob, as much as you may wish it, I’m not on the stand and not undergoing your no doubt formidible cross-examination. I have already explained to you that philosophy as a subject holds no interest for me, nor do I consider it relevant to anything but the self-congratulatory rooting of philosophy fans. i.e. My Kant is better than your Wittgenstein. Incidentally, with somewhat more intelligence to be sure, to me fans of philosophy are as important to the world as are fans of sport. It means alot to each and they can get agitated about it, but it’s only
so much sturm und drang that is used by some in retrospect to justify their actions.
“On to the issue of Lebanon. Let’s start again; without you injecting yourself into the picture.”
Let’s not start again, especially after the snarkiness of your call to start. You want me to not inject myself and yet by dint of your opinion you have injected yourself, without any data to back up your statements. So in essence what you want is dueling opinions, framed in the context of your choice, with you having the option to reply to me or not given your definition of context. Nice work if you can get it, but you’ve picked the wrong patsy.
“Are you getting a handle yet on why I’m CONSTRAINED to reject history as any form of moral compass?”
Not any more than you’ve paid attention to my belief that nations and international relations are not motivated by morality, ever.
“”Mike S.: “Bob where have I ever talked of or defended Israel as a place of “moral immaculateness?”
That’s a re-assertion of one of my claims.”
Bob, that is pure sophistry on your part and you’re smart enough to know it. when you posited “moral immaculateness” it was directed at my post.
“While I appreciate the history lesson, I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.”
Once again Bob defines the terms of discussion and throws in his “zinger.” However, since you were replying to my post and I specifically have never claimed the defense of “moral immaculateness” for Israel, or believe that Israel as a nation does, then in my opinion you were setting up a straw man. Do some Jews assert something like that sure. Do some Israeli’s, I believe less than you think. Neither the government of Israel, nor I, nor even the majority of Jews in this world believes that.
We really are not a people that believes in nor practices homogeneity of thought. Unles you can give me data that’s proof of your claim, it remains simply your opinion, which I opine is based on your visceral perceptions. By the way don’t you agree that that whole quote was dismissive and snarky in tone? Good tactic, but somewhat dishonest.
“Mike, I am not debating a perception; I’m discussing with an intelligent person, who has a proclivity for being fairly verbose (& troll-baiting) on the topic of Jews, Judaism & Israel (and dare we forget circumcision), my claims about the state of Israel and its a-moral similarity to my sister.”
Yes Bob I am verbose and I do bait trolls on many topics. I am open to the charge that I get involved in a lot of discussions about Jews and Israel, but once again your perception is skewed because I purposely avoid many other topics about Israel and/or about Jews. What happens though, is when these topics come up I get people asking my opinion and although you claim my past writing is irrelvevant (when it suits you)I don’t believe that I can in anyway be characterized as a dogmatic follower of Israel and/or one who is loath to criticize Israel. However, since I am a self-identified Jew, and damn proud of it, I can understand why people think of me when related topics arise.
“Mike, to say that most of what I write is merely opinion is to say I don’t know how to argue. I’m not opining, I’m arguing.”
Bob, I think my statement is clear. You present your opinion to make your arguments, with a dash of Kant, but little to no data/facts to back up the opinion. You might not be satisfied by my output, but I at least make the effort to give my perceptions historical contexts (which can be easily checked) and/or data to back up what I’m saying. In your preference to argue on your own terms you prefer to make unsupported statements. That’s fine but that doen’t mean I have to accept your premises.
“Mike, I chose to have an argument with you. And what is an argument; a pile of opinions? No. To paraphrase: ‘Arguing is reason giving. Reasons are justifications or support for claims. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or opinion.’”
Bob, you called me out and indeed chose to have an “argument” with me, I note and not to engage in a discussion with me which was also an equally valid and less oppositional course to take.
Bob, I’ve given my reasons and reasoning, which obviously differs with yours and while you are free to refute or disacount them, you merely (like history) dismiss them. So we are seeing you in full and deliberate argument mode and I suggest you use your dictionary to see that there is a huge difference between
discussion, debate and argument. Now to you, argument is probably
defined in philosophical terms:
http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/definition-of-argument/
This is again your way of trying to define your terms of discourse. To me though an argument is a quarrel and that connotes something different. While I know you like to think in philosophical terms, my perception of you in this discourse is you want to quarrel. Quarreling on your part, on this issue, puts me at a disadvantage. This is because my position on Israel is not one of fully defending all of its’ actions, whereas yours is that the country is itself immoral.
“I ‘believe’ opinions change much quicker than arguments; and I believe you’ve contradicted your initial ‘opinion.’”
The dichotomy in what I’m saying exists only in your mind. While I agreed that Israel behaves like your sister I present the historical context for it and at the same time decry it. I’m saying to make it plain, that Israel’s experience of constant attacks has so affected its’ people, that they feel justified in acting any way they can, to strike back at their enemies. There is a difference between Israel and your sister though. She was sexually assaulted once, whereas Israel has had ongoing assaults.
Despite that overall feeling of justification that Israeli’s might have, the position of their government has never been that Israel has a right to do whatever it wants. Much of that mat be hypocritical to be sure, but then please inform me of any government in history that hasn’t been both hypocritical and amoral?
“I’m not mocking you but I can’t empathize with the reasons you give for dreaming up your nightmare scenarios.”
When I state that I’m dead serious about something and you describe it as a “nightmare scenario” you are mocking.
“Alright, maybe that could be considered mocking, but couldn’t it also be considered comic relief to distract you from your proclivity for dreaming up extraordinarily fearful scenarios for yourself?”
Bob, I’ve admired your writing and agreed with you on many things, but this is possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen you write. Comic relief? You are patronizing me and in this instance and being pompous to boot. You may not be able to empathize with my feelings/thoughts/premises, admittedly, but I would think that you would have the decency, nay morality, to understand that I truly believe them and have provided reasons for my beliefs.
“So…why do you ‘believe’ you’re right?”
I’ve already layed it out though apparently not in a format that you accept or approve of and certainly not on your terms, which you seem to demand for discussion.
Gyges,
Not all people moralize, but most moral people are in effect ethicists without method or they are backing blind belief with dogma. Morals don’t work anymore because they have become tools of organizations first and good guidance second. This is self-evident. But this isn’t as territorial as it seems. It’s not morals vs. ethics. It’s realizing that morals are an incomplete truth and that ethics – the search for greater common truths through dialects and logic – simply provides a better tool as it is reality based and does not bend to institutional prerogative.
At one time, we could only make bronze tools. Now we make exotic alloy tools. All knowledge, including the search for truth and good in the world (both subjects of religion and ethics), is a continuum. What a bronze age smith considered metallurgy is probably something a modern smith would giggle at its inadequacy and quaintness.
I submit that morals and ethics are both the same game – the search for the good, but that one has a better tool set for getting at the truth. Morals have become the Neanderthal of analysis in the search for what constitutes good humane behavior. Organization distortion has become moral’s equivalent of a thick protruding brow and small brain case. Being good and cooperative and altruistic are every bit the survival adaptation. And the conscious choice to embrace that fact over embracing the worn and dangerous mode of competition, aggression and alienation is (IMO) the next step in human evolution. And I say it’s a conscious choice too. Technology has unbalanced the playing field and we as a physical species are not adapting fast enough to cope with the changes. Our next step MUST be volitional.
“I “like” you Mike, but you have done some serious “troll-baiting” on anything related to Judaism, the Holocaust, Israel, and rants against Catholicism.”
Gee Whiz Billy,
I certainly appreciate you liking me and I will spend awhile framing an answer to your accusation of my bigotry towards the RCC. Unfortunately right now there’s no food in the house and my beautiful wife is hungry and my reply to Bob took up too much time
So I’m off in my Brand New Land Rover, top of the line you know, leaving my huge Country Club Condominium and driving over the a very upscale food emporium. There I’ll replenish my food with a selection of prime beef, sushi Grade Tuna, Western Fresh Water Salmon and free range chicken. Ah, its’ a wonderful life I have, just like yours which you have told us about in such detail.
Buddha,
I agree, but didn’t want to go into a Mike sized post, because that’s just too much proof reading.
My point was simply that talking about “morals” like they’re separate from the rest of human development is like saying “I believe animals evolved, but not humans.”
That’s right Mike. California, “a land of milk and honey”. Mike, that was a pricelss post, loved it!
Mike,
Western Fresh Water Salmon? That sounds like it’s either: Made up, farmed salmon, or Kokanee. I’m o.k. with either the first or the last, but if it’s the middle one we need to talk.
Mespo: “Though I wish I could provide you a Schopenhauer-esque critique of Kant”
No you can’t. We weren’t discussing the Critique or the ding an sich. We were discussing methodology in approaching principles of morals. If Schopenhauer reached conclusions differing from Kant, or claimed there were further steps than just uncovering ‘duties,’ would you have provided a critique or a smoke-screen?
And as an attorney, are your duties in any way tied to your experiences as an individual with a will in the world?
Buddha: “Wow. Now them is a fightin’ words. And the very idea makes me want mouthwash. Listerine. Acetone. Searing hot plasma. Whatever it takes to get that image out of my mind and away from my mouth.”
Here’s the result of His-Story based analysis of morals:
His Lordship:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-7272.ZO.html
Note that in Scalia’s world, epistemic marvels arrive at the predicates ‘cruel and unuusual’ without any judgment whatsoever.
Don’t get “bitter” Mike. I still like you. I get a “barrels worth of entertainment” reading your posts. Really, I do.. Anytime someone wants to discuss religion, the middle east and morality, you are gonna get division. These topics are a “lightning rod” for intense and often hard feelings. When a person “goes their”, it gets “hot” quickly. I liken it to the “Pooh story”. Little Pooh kept sticking his nose into the honey pot. Eventually his head got stuck, you know the rest..
“Your classical background would, if I am right, cause you to reject Kant because for the Greeks it was all about living in the world. You used your mind to understand what was in front of you based on your senses. Kant, I think, reverses that order. in other words existence does not exist without the existent. Whereas you probably believe that existence is perceived and conceptualized by the existent. Anyway just some thoughts, mostly baby steps.”
********************
You must be a big baby for steps like that. I do reject epistemological idealism as being useful only in an abstract or academic discussion. I would say existence only exists in a place conducive to existence and is as much a part of the whole experience as the perceptions of the observer. I would further say that “place” is as real objectively as it is subjectively, or maybe moreso. Was there no universe before we migrated from the ooze?
Bob,
Oh I’ve read Harmelin and I am truly appalled by Scalia’s “reasoning”, but I was just talking the phraseology itself. I too think mespo is off track on this one. This is why.
There are absolute truths in the world, but the path to divining their nature is strewn with the traps of ethical relativism. Some are easy to distill, others not so. It is through the defeat of these traps with reason that we distill greater truths or learn which traps are inescapable (due to whatever reason, but the most prevalent I can think of is that a decision is so situation specific as to have no application in “normal” life). mespo is falling into moral relativism I cannot argue otherwise.
But still, a harsh comparison.
Buddha,
Speaking personally from my own experience, the difficulty with pursuing truth is that it results in more and more humbleness as opposed to greater and greater self glorification.
Also, it’s difficult to make the jump from self-preservation in order to pursue truth wherever it might take you.
The most painful experience I’ve ever had was seeing myself from a pure perspective. I knew myself to be ugly then. It was painful beyond words because there was no escape, not even in death.
Mike S.: “As I see it you are quite comfortable discussing anything as long as you set the terms of the discussion and refuse to engage in areas that you discount, i.e. history vs. your notion of moral absolutes as per Kant. So be it.”
Seeing I offered my argument for taking my position of refusing to use history as a basis for morality, further shown by my disgust with Scalia’s employment of same tactic in Harmelin, a counter-argument in lieu of pouting that I’m some kind of stubborn five year old would be appreciated.
Mike S.: “You may characterize my treatment of Palestinian and Semite as being abstract, but I believe I was quite datailed in my not accepting either.”
No, you were abstract in your use of Semite; your use of Palestinian was connotatively dismissive.
Mike S.: “I note that in both cases you never presented your own refutation of my points, merely ingnored them. So can I assume your position is: that it’s discuss an issue in the terms you set, or you will just ignore my responses? Nice technique if you can make it work and effective in court with sympathetic judges and incompetent opponents.”
You seem to forget that argument is built upon a foundation of claims and suppositions. Should I choose to attack any portion of your foundation, it is your obligation as opponent to defend it in lieu of summarily dismissing my counter-argument just so we can muse about your opinions/conclusions.
Mike S.: “Bob, as much as you may wish it, I’m not on the stand and not undergoing your no doubt formidible cross-examination. I have already explained to you that philosophy as a subject holds no interest for me, nor do I consider it relevant to anything but the self-congratulatory rooting of philosophy fans. i.e. My Kant is better than your Wittgenstein. Incidentally, with somewhat more intelligence to be sure, to me fans of philosophy are as important to the world as are fans of sport. It means alot to each and they can get agitated about it, but it’s only
so much sturm und drang that is used by some in retrospect to justify their actions.”
First, I’m not a trial attorney. Second, I didn’t ask you to accept Kant’s argument; I invited you to refute it. Third, your carpet bombing of philosophy and philosophers in general represents nothing more than an en masse ad hominem. Fourth, I offered the quote from Kant as one of the reasons I refuse to accept History based morality. In doing so, I would toss in an additional claim that I challenged your points at their very roots. Just how does your attack on philosophy and philosophers rise to the level of counter-argument?
Mike S.: “Not any more than you’ve paid attention to my belief that nations and international relations are not motivated by morality, ever.”
The question was never “what motivates a country” the question was “is the country morally culpable.”
Mike S.: Bob, I think my statement is clear. You present your opinion to make your arguments, with a dash of Kant, but little to no data/facts to back up the opinion.”
If I’ve made any argument requiring further facts to back it up, then why don’t you simply enlighten me as to what facts they are in your counter-argument in lieu of simply making the bald assertion?
Mike S.: “Bob, you called me out and indeed chose to have an “argument” with me, I note and not to engage in a discussion with me which was also an equally valid and less oppositional course to take.”
Mike, argumentation is not about mere conflict. Argumentation is the method by which two people reach truth in agreement.
Mike S.: “While I know you like to think in philosophical terms, my perception of you in this discourse is you want to quarrel. Quarreling on your part, on this issue, puts me at a disadvantage. This is because my position on Israel is not one of fully defending all of its’ actions, whereas yours is that the country is itself immoral.”
I never made any such claim Mike, so I’d appreciate it if you’d stop throwing your premises into my arguments and attacking them as if they were my own. I no more consider Israel to be an immoral state than I consider the U.S. to be during and post Bush/Cheney. Further, you acknowledged the root problem when you assented to the comparison between Israel and my sister. The walking on egg-shells problem; no one dare chastise or reprimand her for her inappropriate actions; after all, her previous suffering gives license — or does it make us irrationally reticent to stop her at all— and just look the other way.
Mike S.: “The dichotomy in what I’m saying exists only in your mind. While I agreed that Israel behaves like your sister I present the historical context for it and at the same time decry it. I’m saying to make it plain, that Israel’s experience of constant attacks has so affected its’ people, that they feel justified in acting any way they can, to strike back at their enemies. There is a difference between Israel and your sister though. She was sexually assaulted once, whereas Israel has had ongoing assaults.”
Since when does ‘feeling justified’ act as a substitute for ‘justification?’ How does one assault differ from ongoing assaults in the context of ‘feeling justified’ equals actual justification? You’ve just created the perfect defense FOR EVERYTHING; ‘feeling justified.’ My God man, your premise makes civilized society itself disappear.
Court: “You stand accused of raping and murdering your wife, how do you plea?”
Defendant: Not guilty
Court: Your defense?
Defendant: “I felt justified”
Court: “Defense accepted, case dismissed.”
In contrast to simply ‘feeling justified’, which I maintain stems from an attitude of moral immaculateness, there’s the ‘self defense’ option. This too, however, has its limits. There’s an element known as ‘proportionality.’ For example, killing a man for spilling hot coffee over you would be considered… ‘dis-proportional’ and thus making the actor morally (and criminally) culpable.
Not to keep pressing the issue, but you seem to have a problem stating whether Israel acted proportionally in waging war against Lebanon. (see previous posts for specifics)
Mike S.: “Despite that overall feeling of justification that Israeli’s might have, the position of their government has never been that Israel has a right to do whatever it wants. Much of that mat be hypocritical to be sure, but then please inform me of any government in history that hasn’t been both hypocritical and amoral?”
Tu quo que Mike. It seems the only part of my argument that you absolutely refuse to assent to is the world walking on egg-shells regarding any of Israel’s (allegedly wrongful) actions because of the Holocaust, yet you accept that Israel has been acting far more on a ‘feeling’ of entitlement to act immorally because of the traumas that the Jews suffered.
Mike S.: “Bob, I’ve admired your writing and agreed with you on many things, but this is possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen you write. Comic relief? You are patronizing me and in this instance and being pompous to boot. You may not be able to empathize with my feelings/thoughts/premises, admittedly, but I would think that you would have the decency, nay morality, to understand that I truly believe them and have provided reasons for my beliefs.”
I may not be a psychologist, but I can spot when fear over comes rationality. There was no ill will in that portion of the post and my attempt to quell your fear with laughter was not pompous but genuine. The fact that I confessed that I would take up my Model 70 and summarily kill off as many of the antagonists in your nightmare, within 300-400 yards of me, should have been ample evidence of my empathy regarding your nightmarish beliefs. Oh yeah, did I mention that there are Jews’ in my family?
BTW, that last sentence doesn’t count as a premise for an argument. It’s merely a statement regarding ‘feelings’ about this matter.
Finally Mike, I applaud you for engaging the argument in lieu of changing the entire subject with each post.
Buddha:
“There are absolute truths in the world, but the path to divining their nature is strewn with the traps of ethical relativism.”
*************************
I don’t dispute the existence of some universal truths merely I say that most of our notions of morals, ethics or good vs. bad boils down to our judgment as to whether the act causes more pain or pleasure. To that extent it is relative. That most societies agree to it, makes the value universal, but I do not subscribe to the Platonian “Forms In The Sky” model which holds there is some perfect moral law divorced from human experience. Each human act exists within its context and is judged as such based upon our experience with similar situations. Isn’t that, at its core essence, what we do in court each and every day?
Bob is one “HEAVY DUTY HOMBRE”!
I just keep readin’, learnin all kinds of new things…
Next month will be the forty-second anniversary of the Patterson Film. If any of you gents have an opportunity to travel to the nortwestern corner of California, do see the Redwoods, they are as awe-inspiring as the Grand Canyon. Not far from the Redwoods is the Six Rivers National forest and Bluff Creek, where the historic film was shot. I am convinced that in Northern California and especially Northeastern California, that the forests and mountains are so remote, and impenetrable in some areas as to be untouched by human feet. “Bigfeet”, are another issue..
Gyges,
You seem to be focused on half the picture; i.e. duties to others (aka duties of right). While codes of morality can be helpful guides, I’m not sure they’re the product of an evolutionary trend. Yes we change laws to reflect changing policies and values, however the empirical change may or may not reflect the principle at issue.
If you take a step back from the empirical and focus on the timeless principle as it is or is not being carried out in the world, you at least have a compass as to which side you should be on and why.
Take the civil war; please. I often like to imagine that if Hamilton was president (for argument’s sake, let’s say he was born on Long Island) and Jefferson was his vice president, what they could have done when the South got all ‘passive aggressive’ about adhering to a certain Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, running with the land and recorded July 4, 1776.
Jefferson confesses to Hamilton that he plagiarized Locke and reminds Hamilton that exercising power over the inalienable right of self ownership (e.g. slavery) is tyranny per se.
So what does everyone’s favorite New Yorker, Hamilton, do? Is he concerned more about preserving the union or enforcing a contract regarding the treatment of all people? I say he holds up the DOI (and the timeless principles recited therein) to the seceding south and utters that famous New Yorker phrase “Fu(k you pay me!”
So, it’s a fractured fairy tale; sue me. But my point is you can’t oppose the South with that line from Goodfellas if you ain’t got the principles to back it up.
BTW, the founding fathers may have dressed like fairies but they had balls the size of church bells.
Buddha,
I agree with your observation re: the need to escape surface awareness traps in order to guide your life by principle. If you go back and read that block quote from Kant I posted to Mike, you’ll see he’s saying pretty much the same thing.
“No, you were abstract in your use of Semite; your use of Palestinian was connotatively dismissive.”
Bob,
I’m glad you used the term dismissive in writing this because it perfectly captures your methodology in this whole exchange. There was nothing abstract about your use of the inapt term “semite” and I replied by explaining why I reject the term, providing its’ usage and origin and even a link.
That you choose to ignore my argument directly, rather than making the least effort refute it, is just more of the tactics you’ve been using. As to “palestinian” I also supplied a history of the use of the term in this context and in fact could actually write a much more detailed critique of this ill-usage. In this case to, you dismiss my thoughts arbitrarily, without bothering to explain your dismissal, except to use persiflage in calling it “connotatively dismissive.” Once again you refuge to engage my arguments not
by reply, but by dismissal. You seem to be dealing in Bob’s movie and in your movie you’re the arbitrator of what the debate is. SIYOM? Well in my movie you are heading smack dab towards Bob’s tautology on Israel.
That you know doubt believe that this is a discussion that should be carried out on your terms, in some abstract (to use your words) pseudo-philosophic dialogue that only abuts on reality by reference, is as I have said a game on your board that I won’t play. How nice that you adopt the “moral” high ground of critique, without referencing the realities of conflict. It’s so………………why it’s so philosophical.
“Third, your carpet bombing of philosophy and philosophers in general represents nothing more than an en masse ad hominem.”
That wasn’t ad hominem, that represents my attitude towards philosophy. I think of it as mental masturbation. An abstraction of the world best utilized in retrospect and peopled by self congratulatory sycophants and psuedo “Giants”
of thought. To bastardize one of my favorite quotes “God save us from the Philosophy Masters of the world and their students, they’re the ones who get everyone else killed.” It was not ad hominem because I provided the reasons I believe that, whether or not you accept my reasoning. This is another example of you smugly patronizing me in this debate and we both know how hubris turns out.
“Fourth, I offered the quote from Kant as one of the reasons I refuse to accept History based morality.”
If you were really interested in discussion, instead of showing off your Kantian erudition, you might see why I, for admitted different reasons also don’t believe in “history based morality,” I don’t believe that morality has one damn thing to do with history, except when used in dubious claims
of government justification and have repeatedly stated no government is moral, nor can be by definition. You are in essence arguing with a straw man and not me.
“The question was never “what motivates a country” the question was “is the country morally culpable.”
Your question is whether a country is morally culpable, my answer is morals have nothing whatever to deal with a country’s actions, hence moral culpability is irrelevant.
“If I’ve made any argument requiring further facts to back it up, then why don’t you simply enlighten me as to what facts they are in your counter-argument in lieu of simply making the bald assertion?”
Bob, sadly you are the one making “bald assertions” and dismissively ignoring the facts I’ve presented. I know you are more than smart enough to know this, but I fear hubris or philosophical cant is blinding you.
“Mike, argumentation is not about mere conflict. Argumentation is the method by which two people reach truth in agreement.”
Bob, that may be so, but your argumentation in this instance seems to be about you setting the terms and dismissing cavalierly anything that doesn’t meet your standards.
“I no more consider Israel to be an immoral state than I consider the U.S. to be during and post Bush/Cheney.”
However, earlier you wrote:
“Which is worse; Bush & Cheney defrauding the country into bombing Iraq or Israel propagandizing its citizens and the West to justify their bombing of Lebanon?”
Your equation of the two, coupled with your accusation that Israel claims an “immaculate morality, like your sister” could certainly create the impression that you deem Israel immoral. Where this get complex is that you carry on your argument in abstract terms, utilizing a philosophical ground work and so are in a position to deny any presumption of your opinions your writings create.
“Since when does ‘feeling justified’ act as a substitute for ‘justification?’ How does one assault differ from ongoing assaults in the context of ‘feeling justified’ equals actual justification?”
Where have I said this? My point was about why the Israeli’s act as they do and not in justifying all their actions. You posit your sister’s abuse as enabling her to excuse further inappropriate actions on her part. I agreed that this has been a problem with the Israeli’s. However, I think this is a problem of all governments and so I think singling out Israel is overly simplistic.
“It seems the only part of my argument that you absolutely refuse to assent to is the world walking on egg-shells regarding any of Israel’s (allegedly wrongful) actions because of the Holocaust”
Bob, you really must get out more. Neither the world, nor the US, has ever walked on eggshells where Israel is concerned. Most of the world is currently pissed off at Israel and cuts them no holocaust slack. You are caught in a tautology if you think this is not true.
“should have been ample evidence of my empathy regarding your nightmarish beliefs. Oh yeah, did I mention that there are Jews’ in my family?”
Did I mention that Howard Zinn is Jewish? From my perspective characterizing my beliefs as “nightmarish” as a way to dismiss them is not only patronizing, but really shows an inability to understand where I’m coming from. I wonder what Kant says about empathy?
“Finally Mike, I applaud you for engaging the argument in lieu of changing the entire subject with each post.”
Gosh Bob, Gol-ly! Thanks for the shout out. were I the paranoid though you paint me I might get the implication that you think I normally change engage in argument by changing the entire subject with each post. I’m so comforted by your applause though that I won’t entertain that nightmarish scenario.
Bob,
I’m not sure they’re a result of an evolutionary trend either, but the facts sure seem to point that way. Since it’s been awhile since I’ve read the books, and I won’t do the evidence justice, I’ll just point you in the direction of both “The Science of Good and Evil” by Shermer and “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” by Sagan and Druyan. Now admittedly, they’re no great works of philosophy, but I prefer theories backed up with facts to theories backed up with assumptions.
Does any of that mean that I don’t have a guiding compass? Not at all, it just means that I recognize that the compass points north because of the nature of magnets (including this planet), and not because there’s a law separate from the universe telling it to.
“Don’t get “bitter” Mike. I still like you. I get a “barrels worth of entertainment” reading your posts. Really, I do.. Anytime someone wants to discuss religion, the middle east and morality, you are gonna get division.”
Billy,
Entertaining you gives me great pleasure. I’m not bitter, I find you enjoyable also, particularly your proclivity for mostly posting superficial cheer leading, messages that can be read on many levels, bragging about your possessions and your accomplishments, and your general good cheer. I’m sure you’ve come across the term “passive aggressive” many times in your work and personal life.
“Mike on the other hand chooses not to conceal his own obvious contempt for Christians, primarily Catholics.”
Billy, Billy, Billy, I have no contempt for Christians or Christianity, I simply do not believe in their premises, resent their appropriation (and misinterpretation) of the Torah, am cognizant of their persecution of Jews throughout history and contemptuous of their belief that the only way to God’s acceptance is through Jesus. Since my parent’s best and closest friends were almost all RCC, I literally spent many a holiday in their homes, have been to many a Christmas Mass
(the best being St. Patrick’s in NYC) and these times represent some of my best childhood memories. My contempt is reserved for fundamentalists of any religion, including Judaism, who I personally believe are bigoted and blasphemous.
Mike,
By the way, that earlier “Mike Length post” was in fun. I wish I could string together as many words as you. I’m pretty sure if I tried it’d end up reading like a paragraph in Naked Lunch.
“Western Fresh Water Salmon? That sounds like it’s either: Made up, farmed salmon, or Kokanee.”
Gyges,
You got me. I was so involved in my satire and really had to go shopping, that made up became my version of choice and necessity.
Sorry if I offended Mike. My apologies. I of course don’t believe in the tenets of Judaism, in light of the fact I am a Catholic. Its’ okay, we’re still part of the “brotherhood of man”.
I am a bit surprised though Mike, that you could attend mass at St. Patricks Cathedral and spend Christmas day at Catholic friends’ of the family, in light of the fact “they” persecuted and tormented “your people” throughout history. What you “say” now, in light of your “past experiences” seems strangely incongruent. But what the heck, that is the “paradox” of man, he dosn’t always do the logical thing..
Billy,
I would think it’s because Mike strikes me as a better person then the bigots who persecuted him because of his religion. One who tries to not judge an entire group based on the actions of a few of it’s members.
Strange, when I read his post, it seems pretty persecutorial to me. I love the “back handed” validation especially. Priceless..
Billy,
What exactly are you talking about? Making fun of you doesn’t equal being bigoted against Catholics, it just means that he’s using humor to point out some of your less likable quirks.
If you’re talking about past posts where Mike has commented about the policies of the RCC, I’d point out that he also doesn’t like all the actions of the U.S. government, but as near as I can tell he isn’t prejudiced against Americans as a whole.
Gyges, know hard feelings, you and Mike are both good guys and I appreciate the thoughtful feedback. Somehow, when you share things, you don’t come off as insulting, rude, or with an agenda. I appreciate that..
Mike S.: “I’m glad you used the term dismissive in writing this because it perfectly captures your methodology in this whole exchange. There was nothing abstract about your use of the inapt term “semite” and I replied by explaining why I reject the term, providing its’ usage and origin and even a link.” That you choose to ignore my argument directly, rather than making the least effort refute it, is just more of the tactics you’ve been using. As to “palestinian” I also supplied a history of the use of the term in this context and in fact could actually write a much more detailed critique of this ill-usage. In this case to, you dismiss my thoughts arbitrarily, without bothering to explain your dismissal, except to use persiflage in calling it “connotatively dismissive.”
It doesn’t matter that you reject the term semite Mike, what matters is that you refused to acknowledge that I was challenging your objectification of an entire group of people. But why?
Okay Mike, I give up. If the world’s vernacular refers to a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, what purpose did your anecdote serve? My use of the term semite was abstract, in fact, if you read closely, I rejected the use of the term too. Yet you informing me why you rejected the term failed to answer the implicit question; why would you share an anecdote with the connotation of reducing the identity of a group of people to a PR side show when you’ve already admitted they’ve been suffering from apartheid policies by the ‘better’ identified opposing group of people?
As a psychologist, I’m sure you’re aware that minimizing the identity and objectifying a group of people, e.g. seeing them as nothing more than the result of a PR stunt, makes it far easier on the conscience to look the other way from said apartheid policies. I could give you examples in history from South Africa to 20th century Europe, but … oh, never mind.
Mike S.: “Once again you refuge to engage my arguments not
by reply, but by dismissal.”
Is that what happened above? Did I summarily dismiss what you wrote or did I engage you by providing yet another counter-argument as to why I completely reject your premise regarding the term Palestinian?
Mike S.: “It was not ad hominem because I provided the reasons I believe that [philosophy & philosophers, necessarily including the subset known as LOGIC & LOGICIANS, are worthless], whether or not you accept my reasoning.”
Actually, to be clear, your reasons smacked of ad hominem while your overall presentation is what Logicians refer to as argument from personal incredulity.
Allow me to provide you with another example of this type childish argument. “I can’t believe the Bush administration authorized and ordered the use of torture, so it can’t be true.” or “I refuse to believe that the Bush administration defrauded the country into war with Iraq, so it can’t be true.” It’s the implicit premise “whether or not you accept my reasoning” that’s the giveaway.
Mike S.: “This is another example of you smugly patronizing me in this debate and we both know how hubris turns out.”
Gee Mike, be honest, would you accuse me of being smug & patronizing and full of hubris if I were using the same clarification tactic on the hammer-heads that followed Bush/Cheney in lock step? See, that’s the thing about those principles those worthless philosophers discuss; helps ya maintain integrity.
Mike S.: “If you were really interested in discussion, instead of showing off your Kantian erudition, you might see why I, for admitted different reasons also don’t believe in “history based morality,” I don’t believe that morality has one damn thing to do with history, except when used in dubious claims
of government justification and have repeatedly stated no government is moral, nor can be by definition. You are in essence arguing with a straw man and not me.”
Mike, I agree with your observation about the a-moral actions of nations in the past, but that’s not what I’m talking about when I refer to disregarding history as a basis for moral law. I’m talking about the principles of human morals. Nations are run by people and it is people who push nations to commit immoral acts. The fact that nations tend to politicize crime does not excuse the immoral acts. It could be argued that Germany acted immorally, but what was the object of the Nuremberg trials; to hold Germany morally and legally culpable for its actions, or certain people?
Mike S.: “Your equation of the two, coupled with your accusation that Israel claims an “immaculate morality, like your sister” could certainly create the impression that you deem Israel immoral. Where this get complex is that you carry on your argument in abstract terms, utilizing a philosophical ground work and so are in a position to deny any presumption of your opinions your writings create.”
Mike, arguments begin with ‘resolutions.’ This is why, when you witness a debate, the opponents rise and begin with “Resolved: Israel has and continues to act immorally and the countries of the world have wrongfully remained silent (…yada yada, cause she acts with an air of entitlement like my sister).” The opponent then rises and recites the opposing resolution. If it get complex, it’s only because I find comfort in certitude. After all, as any practical pig will tell ya, far better to build your house out of bricks of certitude than mere straw.
Mike S.: “Where have I said this? My point was about why the Israeli’s act as they do and not in justifying all their actions. You posit your sister’s abuse as enabling her to excuse further inappropriate actions on her part. I agreed that this has been a problem with the Israeli’s. However, I think this is a problem of all governments and so I think singling out Israel is overly simplistic.”
Mike, you’re forgetting the existence of past trauma creating the ‘walking on eggshells’ phenomena and thereby creating the illusion of moral immaculateness no matter what they do. I told you how my sister felt entitled by using it as leverage to bar all accusations and you made your acknowledgment of Israelis and Israel doing the same quite clear. How do you accuse me of being simplistic when it was you, not me, who used the phrase “felt justified.” I on the other hand clarified your position by narrowing it down to the concepts of self defense and proportionality.
Mike S.: “Bob, you really must get out more. Neither the world, nor the US, has ever walked on eggshells where Israel is concerned. Most of the world is currently pissed off at Israel and cuts them no holocaust slack.”
I’m sure you’re aware that being pissed off and holding accountable are two distinct concepts. No eggshells? You mean to tell me that Israel doesn’t have the world wound so tight with the events in Nazi Germany that I can’t use a 13th century term to describe some other atrocity without looking around the corner for the PC police? And this overall reticence to speak for fear of mis-speaking around a race of people who were the victims of said horrific event, this doesn’t amount to any form of ‘holocaust slack?’
And the apartheid policies discussed above aren’t hidden in the penumbras of holocaust slack? Really Mike? Who should get out more?
Mike S.: “Did I mention that Howard Zinn is Jewish? From my perspective characterizing my beliefs as “nightmarish” as a way to dismiss them is not only patronizing, but really shows an inability to understand where I’m coming from.”
What the fu(k does Howard Zinn, someone I don’t know and is not family, have anything to do with my better ability to empathize with you to the extent that I can?
I already confessed that I couldn’t truly empathize with you; I’d be a liar if I said anything different. So put the whip down and back away from the horse.
However I did say that while I can’t truly empathize with you, all I could do was do everything in my power to defend you. Furthermore, you, as a former therapist, should acknowledge that arguing from your fear leads to argument from emotion; and that Mike is an informal fallacy, never an argument. But I’m the bad guy for informing you about the patently obvious; right Mike?
Mike S.: “I wonder what Kant says about empathy?”
Quite a bit, but then again you’d have to get over your attitude towards philosophy to find out.
Mike S.: “Gosh Bob, Gol-ly! Thanks for the shout out. were I the paranoid though you paint me I might get the implication that you think I normally change engage in argument by changing the entire subject with each post. I’m so comforted by your applause though that I won’t entertain that nightmarish scenario.”
You are paranoid, because I was comparing you to another poster who has the habit of ignoring counter-argument completely by changing the subject and eventually folding up the chessboard in lieu of seeing the argument to some semblance of a conclusion.
You don’t want the compliment, don’t take it.
BTW, about that Lebanon thing, and why it pisses me off:
You want smug, I give you the Israeli ambassador and his defense of Israel regarding the war crimes in Gaza. Same tripe used to defend the invasion of Lebanon.
And I’m still waiting on your proportionality assessment.
I will amend my post from yesterday,”THIS” is the most cogent and reasonable argument and “rebuttal” I have read on this blog so far. You are to be commended Bob. Cool, dispassionate argument with a search for truth. Nice..
Coincidentally, the fact that Mike “dispapproves” of Catholic policy is irrelevant, “they” couldn’t care less what he approves of, or dosn’t, in regards to what they teach their members. And unlike our country, the Catholic church is not a “democracy”, or a “republic” for that matter..
Gyges: “Does any of that mean that I don’t have a guiding compass? Not at all, it just means that I recognize that the compass points north because of the nature of magnets (including this planet), and not because there’s a law separate from the universe telling it to.”
Gyges,
Your post made me flash back to a scene in the film “Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas”
Raoul Duke: All energy flows according to the whims of the Great Magnet. What a fool I was to defy him.
“I am a bit surprised though Mike, that you could attend mass at St. Patricks Cathedral and spend Christmas day at Catholic friends’ of the family, in light of the fact “they” persecuted and tormented “your people” throughout history. What you “say” now, in light of your “past experiences” seems strangely incongruent. But what the heck, that is the “paradox” of man, he dosn’t always do the logical thing.”
Billy,
There is nothing illogical about it. I’m not a believer in Catholicism and don’t like some of the activities of the RCC, but I don’t hate it and can name at least as many good things it has done in its’ history, as bad things. As for Catholics themselves why should their religious beliefs cause me to hate them if theirs don’t cause them to hate me? Secondly, as you well know, especially at St.Patricks, the mass is a mighty impressive and moving ritual. I like ritual. I’ve also attended Black Baptist Churches, Greek Orthodox services and Episcopal services. Love gospel music as much as I love Gregorian chants. If I’m bigoted and in this respect I probably am, it is against religious fundamentalism, or indeed political fundamentalism of any stripe, that include Judaism as I’ve previously stated.
I actually find your remarks fairly incongruous and remarkably naive. Incidentally, although I spent Christmas Day many times in Catholic homes we all respected each other enough to know that we wouldn’t be exchanging presents, but that didn’t mean I couldn’t get in to the fun of watching other people open their. I’ve also pleasurably spent many an evening helping friends trim their Christmas Trees, but have never wanted one of my own. Friendship of people with different faiths should be normal and a true friend shares the joy of their friends celebrations. Most of the seders my father ran and that I’ve run and that my son-in-law now runs have had non-Jewish guests, though admittedly none that I’ve known of have had Egyptians. That could be a problem.
Billy,
“…I of course don’t believe in the tenets of Judaism, in light of the fact I am a Catholic…”
I’m on a search to discover where life is most beautiful for me. Along that journey, I’ve discovered the necessity of making life more beautiful for them.
All of them.
I’m touched Nate.. really I am..
“By the way, that earlier “Mike Length post” was in fun.”
Gyges,
Everyone who knows me knows and has commented upon my long windedness verbally even my family, so why should my writing be any different. I am congenitally long in the tooth and long winded in my writing. Another way of saying it is that i’ve got a big mouth. As my maternal Grandmother used to put it in a yiddish I’ve long forgotten “Moishie, you have more nerve than brains.” It was sad affectionately of course
Mike, you are strarting to “spin off” into some real irrelevancies, and it is becoming a bit tedious.. I would like to express my pleasure at reading your many posts. You are a very bright and “articulate man”. And this is not an attempt at mollification or being passive aggressive. I am being sincere..
This thread may have a serious unresolved issue at heart, but I’ve had a ton of laugh-out-loud moments from it.
“what matters is that you refused to acknowledge that I was challenging your objectification of an entire group of people.”
Is that what I was doing? Could have fooled me, where is your reasoning on that?
“Okay Mike, I give up. If the world’s vernacular refers to a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, what purpose did your anecdote serve?”
Why should I care what the world’s “vernacular” refers to if I think it is wrong and the product of a well funded PR campaign? I may not believe in philosophy Bob, but I do have a strong sense of my own morality and my own ethics and frankly it’s of no moment to me if the “whole world” sees it differently.
“Gee Mike, be honest, would you accuse me of being smug & patronizing and full of hubris if I were using the same clarification tactic on the hammer-heads that followed Bush/Cheney in lock step?”
Bob, your premise equating the two is faulty in my opinion and if you’re implying that I’m lock step on Israel I believe you’re confusing me with someone else. Or in the alternative do you believe that to defend Israel in any manner equates the defender with those who would defend Bush?
“Did I summarily dismiss what you wrote or did I engage you by providing yet another counter-argument as to why I completely reject your premise regarding the term Palestinian?”
Obviously the former and I’m sorry the truth escapes you.
“but what was the object of the Nuremberg trials; to hold Germany morally and legally culpable for its actions, or certain people?”
Guess what Bob, you are hoisting yourself on your pre-suppositions of what I as a Jew should believe. I think the Nuremberg trials were an exercise in hypocrisy, especially with the Russians there, when Stalin killed as many people as Hitler, for just as ridiculous reasons. I don’t like the deaths of innocent people whether or not they’re Jewish. Plus my HS English Teacher was a marine in the South Pacific and used to talk of how much fun it was to napalm Japanese soldiers in their caves, even after a white flag was proffered.
“Resolved: Israel has and continues to act immorally and the countries of the world have wrongfully remained silent (…yada yada, cause she acts with an air of entitlement like my sister).” The opponent then rises and recites the opposing resolution. If it get complex, it’s only because I find comfort in certitude. After all, as any practical pig will tell ya, far better to build your house out of bricks of certitude than mere straw.”
Thank you for providing the proof of what I’ve been saying, debate is fine with you as long as it is on your terms. Nice deal if you can get it, I’m not buying.
“Mike, you’re forgetting the existence of past trauma creating the ‘walking on eggshells’ phenomena and thereby creating the illusion of moral immaculateness no matter what they do.”
Once again Bob, you postulate a phenomena for which you offer no proof, I did comment on that in my last post, other than you own beliefs. That’s fine, but when I disagree with that premise and those beliefs that is also my right and just as much an exercise in logic.
“What the fu(k does Howard Zinn, someone I don’t know and is not family, have anything to do with my better ability to empathize with you to the extent that I can?”
You offered up having Jewish family to make what point? Have I once called you or implied you are anti-Jewish? My point with Zinn is that Jews are anything but homogeneous in thought
so being friends or family with some proves nothing, least of all empathy.
“Furthermore, you, as a former therapist, should acknowledge that arguing from your fear leads to argument from emotion; and that Mike is an informal fallacy”
Bob, you don’t think it’s patronizing to say that I’m arguing from fear, when I clearly believe that not to be the case? You’re trying to help me. How special. Bob, we really don’t know each other, but it’s my uninformed guess that I am at least as in touch with and honest with myself as you are. This is not about fear, but truly not being Jewish you are incapable of understanding that. It is really like saying to a Black man that their distrust of police and the law is unfounded.
“You don’t want the compliment, don’t take it.”
When it’s inserted at the end of a long, patronizing post, it seemed barbed. My apologies and thank you.
“BTW, about that Lebanon thing, and why it pisses me off:
You want smug, I give you the Israeli ambassador and his defense of Israel regarding the war crimes in Gaza. Same tripe used to defend the invasion of Lebanon.
And I’m still waiting on your proportionality assessment.”
I’ve stated countless times that I don’t like Bibi or Israel’s current government and like their policies less, so why would I defend any statement they make? As to the proportionality assessment I fear you’ll have a long wait. I’ve made far too many statements on this site condemning Israeli actions and if that hasn’t given me credibility about where I’m coming from, then so be it. I told you I refuse to play your game. On a much less grandiose level this is like President Obama being asked to make a statement about Reverend Wright’s comments, much of which I personally agreed with, and I prefer to let my voluminous previous comments on the Mid East situation speak for themselves.
“Mike, you are strarting to “spin off” into some real irrelevancies, and it is becoming a bit tedious.”
Billy,
Pot calling the kettle black.
Mr. Spindell,
I wish to identify my horse in this race… I just want there to be peace in Jerusalem.
There’s this remnant within from my upbringing, a great deal of which didn’t stand the test of truth or time, to the effect of “pray for the peace of Jerusalem.” It seems to have grown considerable roots with the effect that it makes me sad to see the lack thereof.
Mike Spindell & Bob (Frog) Esq.
This thread is a good example of how people can disagree without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Thanks.
However, we are missing your perspectives on the other important threads.
Thats’ right Mike, make sure you get in the last word sport..
Still love to read your posts though Mike. “Peace” on the blog…
Who am I trying to kid, I’m just as “guilty” as well Mike. That was fun, we walk away, no “rancor” and I still value you as a spirited debator and blogger. Thats’ the name of the game.
FFLEO,
Thank you, but really did you expect less from Bob or me? We share many beliefs, but obviously too as you would expect from iconoclasts such as we, disagree strongly on other issues of substance. I’m somewhat tired of this, because to me the topic is so complex I would need a long book to completely explain my views and that is not the book I’m writing.
Admittedly though, it does cut down on my time of reacting to the rest of what’s going on here. While I can’t comment on Bob’s speed of preparing these rejoinders, I think he works and so it must take time. I’ve been running about two hours to prepare the individual posts to Bob, what with reading, quoting, contemplating and then writing. This is also a compliment to his skills in debate.
Israel’s Defense Minster afraid to travel, fears arrest for war crimes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/10/05/vice-premier-and-exidf-ch_ws_309358.html
Pardon me, Vice Premiere.
Mike,
Sorry about the delay, but your last post on this topic contained enough ipse dixet to give me pause. While I enjoyed arguing a topic that’s considered taboo for non-Jews, I even had one person warn me of being accused of being a ‘Jew-hater’ for what I wrote, I made two of my points directly and the third (Lebanon) implicitly. So what was left to argue? As I thought about it off and on over the past few days, I kept hearing a recurring theme. Here it is:
Mike S.: “Why should I care what the world’s “vernacular” refers to if I think it is wrong and the product of a well funded PR campaign? I may not believe in philosophy Bob, but I do have a strong sense of my own morality and my own ethics and frankly it’s of no moment to me if the “whole world” sees it differently.”
Apparently you ignored this:
“As a psychologist, I’m sure you’re aware that minimizing the identity and objectifying a group of people, e.g. seeing them as nothing more than the result of a PR stunt, makes it far easier on the conscience to look the other way from said apartheid policies. I could give you examples in history from South Africa to 20th century Europe, but … oh, never mind.”
Which brings me to this:
Mike S.: “Bob, we really don’t know each other, but it’s my uninformed guess that I am at least as in touch with and honest with myself as you are.”
While I was reading your post, a song popped into my head; “I Me Mine” by George Harrison. Unlike your previous posts, your comments here bordered on the solipsistic. Bald assertion I hear you say. Actually no, and here’s why:
You’ve already assented to the resolution that Israel has been carrying out apartheid policies towards a group of people the world, ‘not you,’ call Palestinians. You’ve also assented to the resolution that the comparison between my sister’s said behavior and Israel’s. Yet you exhibit an inability to reconcile the foregoing with your beliefs & boilerplate arguments about Israel that normally suit you well. (See also your comment on needing to write a book) You appear so emotionally entrenched in your beliefs and stock arguments that the reasoning you offer for reconciling the positions you assented to above leads us to little more than ‘They reconcile because I say so.’
Telling yourself that you can reconcile the immoral acts discussed above by sweeping it under the ‘every nation has done it in the past’ and other self-deceptive stances ain’t working so well. And to be brutally honest, breaking up my similes regarding one issue on the basis of an entirely different issue isn’t the peak of intellectual honesty either.
How does that quote go?
“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.”
Who cares “what the world’s “vernacular” refers to if I think it is wrong and the product of a well funded PR campaign?” The world does Mike. And as long as you stick to stock arguments and anecdotes like the one you use to describe the Palestinians as nothing more than the product of a PR stunt, the more you move away from your vision of yourself as a moral man and towards a simple human being bereft of conscience; part and parcel of that ‘lying to yourself’ phenomena.
The sad irony here is that your best hope of reconciling your own morality with that of those who rule Israel is to climb up past the clouds to the clearer skies of the apriori principles of a well grounded metaphysics of morals; a path you sadly reject out of hand.
Mike,
If I may . . .
This reminds me of a time when we were discussing the rights and responsibilities of nations. I forget the exact context – it wasn’t argument fatal – and we were quibbling on a point. But I recall you saying that your thinking on that particular point was colored by your (I think the wording was) “tribal relation”. Since it was not fatal to the argument and a certain amount of tribalism is (I think) wired in with the Savannah survival skill set in our genes, I didn’t begrudge or push the point as error but rather took it as a simple fact of human nature. I’m proud to be Irish (mostly) and will be until I become something else. I don’t expect you to feel any different about your tribe. That’s unrealistic.
However, I suggest in this instance that Bob may have a point.
In a de-nationalized, non-denominational analysis of the actions of one party against another, there is a fair case for war crimes against Israel. Their behavior goes beyond anything that can be blamed on a few bad actors. It’s systemic and rapidly becoming (if not already) chronic. You have no issue at rising above your sense of nationalism as an American to say that you think the US is guilty of war crimes using an a priori framework. I’ve seen you do it. The problems in the US have systemic roots too. In this instance it does indeed make it appear that you have taken your hand off your ethical rudder when it comes to looking at the actions of Israel. Rename all the parties and religions involved and tell me it doesn’t paint an ugly picture. Just as ugly as Gitmo. Yet you seem distracted(?) from your faculties in making that equivalent abstraction of the patterns of behaviors that I know you are capable of from discussion about torture. Could part of that distraction may be the tribal relationship itself? Is it not true in therapy that self-diagnosis frowned upon because the doctor is simply too close to the patient to be objective? Could there be a root of denial holding you back? Bias is only correctable if one first recognizes it but one cannot recognize it if one does not question apparent inconsistencies. Bias is not always a club that hits you on the head. It can be insidious. It can even be inadvertent and/or subconscious.
Most importantly, it can be corrected. Bare logic can be a skeletal creature, but it runs better lean.
I’m not saying anything more than maybe it’s something to think about.
Just when I thought I was going to get out, they drag me back in. Here I am dreamily ready to read some SF and relax before watching the taped Ken Burns National Park series, I discover not one but two long posts by people I respect and so feel compelled to answer. I will do it manana and of course answer in depth. However, I’ve been slaving over a hot computer all day, writing here and doing my personal writing, but I would like to make one point clear. I consider neither of you to be anti-Jewish because of your stances about Israel.
The only person who was here for any length of time that I called anti-Jewish was bdaman for specifically his “Christ Killer” name calling and he claimed to be pro-Israel. Stop confusing me with people like AIPAC, which I’ve denounced on more than one occasion, who use that formulation to deal with Israel’s critics. Bob, specifically I’ve thought that at times you’ve confused me with that type of person. Argue with me if you will, not with an image of who you think I am.
“the more you move away from your vision of yourself as a moral man and towards a simple human being bereft of conscience; part and parcel of that ‘lying to yourself’ phenomena.”
Bob, you simply don’t get it. I’m quite comfortable with my morality and my ethics. I am also someone who has spent a lifetime of work on being honest with myself. Truthfully, you may disagree with my attitudes and beliefs, but who are you to lecture me on morality? Especially because I think your own preconceptions prevent you from even dealing with my arguments, which you’ve cavalierly dismissed as history you’re not interested in. Now I understand that your lack of interest comes because you deem to see this issue strictly on moral terms, your own terms of course. You also have a right to think my positions are immoral, but the holier than thou tone you adopt is frankly patronizing and insulting.
“Mike S.: “Bob, we really don’t know each other, but it’s my uninformed guess that I am at least as in touch with and honest with myself as you are.”
Bob, I was being charitable with you in response to your patronizing me and my beliefs. I wasn’t about to get childish with you in response, but I was saying to you “back off” and stick to the topic and stop your patronizing. This is not a threat, by the way, it is a plea to at least give me the benefit of realizing that I’m definitely in your league when it comes to discussion, logic and morality. Patronizing equates to smugness and is the refuge of the uninformed and/or unwilling to be informed. I’d prefer this discourse be carried on with vigor, but without vituperation. I fear that you have crossed the line somewhat. I’m not about to play Nyanh! Nyanh! with you but your remarks have been getting personal even if you are unable to see it.
I’m off to read Doc Smith, I’ll get back to you whenever.
“climb up past the clouds to the clearer skies of the apriori principles of a well grounded metaphysics of morals; a path you sadly reject out of hand.”
Bob,
Frankly that is nonsensical. You are extolling a belief system that appeals to you as if it is a clear path to higher understanding. So do fundamentalists of every stripe. I envision Kant followers hounding college students on campus with their leaflets and using that line and it typifies how you are, deep within the spell of your own pet moral system, treating me patronizingly. Or do you think that I haven’t used my brain all these years to have my own thoughts and conceptions of moral issues? Metaphysician heal thyself.
So, morally speaking, when you say
“Why should I care what the world’s “vernacular” refers to if I think it is wrong and the product of a well funded PR campaign?”
you’re okay with seeing and treating ‘Palestinians’ as a mere means to an end?
Morally speaking, exactly how do you reconcile the maxim you employ in your means-end reasoning with regards to Palestinians as opposed to the other maxims you employ in your every day dealings with human beings?
Mike S.: “do you think that I haven’t used my brain all these years to have my own thoughts and conceptions of moral issues?”
Categorical Imperative Metaphor:
Little Bill: “I don’t deserve this…to die like this. I was building a house!”
William Munny: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
Bob,
Mike is more than capable of defending himself, but for some reason your Palestinian comment bugged me. I don’t know how you get from “I don’t like the term Palestinian” to “okay with seeing and treating ‘Palestinians’ as a mere means to an end?”
To be fair, you’ve been arguing quite a bit that his refusal to argue on using your choice of terms means that he supports actions he’s rejected from the get go. I don’t know why it was worth commenting on this time and not others, but it was.
Gyges,
It all began with this:
Mike S.: “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians. Up until that point the Israeli’s were alternatively called Palestinians all over the world and in the media. THe PR guy was brilliant because by giving this group of displaced Arabs a name, the name being used for the Israeli’s alternatively, it created the ability to make them into a martyred people.”
Instead of engaging the moral issue as to how people should be treated, i.e. Palestinians being included among the group of ALL PEOPLE, Mike offered up an anecdote showing ‘Palestinians’ as distinct from the group of ALL PEOPLE, i.e. a sub-set of people who are merely the by product of a PR Stunt.
That Gyges, is the means-end reasoning. What other possible purpose, Gyges, does this anecdote serve in a discussion regarding the morality behind the treatment of a certain set of people?
I’ve made many remarks regarding this connotatively dismissive anecdote regarding the ‘Palestinians’ such as:
“As a psychologist, I’m sure you’re aware that minimizing the identity and objectifying a group of people, e.g. seeing them as nothing more than the result of a PR stunt, makes it far easier on the conscience to look the other way from said apartheid policies. I could give you examples in history from South Africa to 20th century Europe, but … oh, never mind.”
“Sorry about the delay, but your last post on this topic contained enough ipse dixet to give me pause.”
You dismiss what I have to say by terming much unspecified argument as being without substantiation. It is easy to cast aspersions, as you are doing, without pointing specifically to that which arguments you are referring to.
“While I enjoyed arguing a topic that’s considered taboo for non-Jews, I even had one person warn me of being accused of being a ‘Jew-hater’ for what I wrote,”
Where is your substantiation for the belief that critiques of Israel have been “taboo” for non-Jews? Who made that topic taboo? I know that is your underlying premise, but where is your substantiation, considering that criticism of Israel by non-Jews has been more than a cottage industry for many years, without any harm to those criticizing. I can give you literally thousands of examples of this, but I’m sure you can easily Google them there are over 13 million entries right now.
Now do certain Israeli defenders use this tactic, of course they do. However, Bob you are arguing with me and not AIPAC, which I’ve denounced. I have stated before that you seem to be arguing with someone other than me and that is unproductive and disrespectful. Part of the reason I don’t like to get drawn into this is because I’ve found that even regulars, who purportedly have read my writings, have confused me with what to them is generic Jewish opinion (an oxymoron if ever there was one) and I am forced to continually restate positions I’ve already made clear, to differentiate myself from the “generic Jew” mindset.
“I made two of my points directly and the third (Lebanon) implicitly. So what was left to argue?”
Ipse dixet goes both ways. Your first two points represented your unsubstantiated opinion and surmises. Your third point assumed that Lebanon was a “War Crime” because many people say it is, without an explanation of why that was so. In truth you accuse me of what you yourself are guilty of. You give an anecdote about your sister (who knows if it is true and your like/dislike of the woman?) and extend it to Israel in the sense that many defenders of Israel use their continued state of war with the PLO as a justification for all of Israel’s actions.
I agreed with that premise, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t historical precedents and continued hostility that explain the mindset for this reaction on the part of some Jews (All of us and the Israeli’s specifically I must remind you are not monolithic in thought.) and I disagree with the mindset BECAUSE I believe it is a weak argument and that there are better cases to be made. You took that as my totally agreeing with your premises and that is the direct result of reading into my posts that which you expect to be there.
“As I thought about it off and on over the past few days, I kept hearing a recurring theme. Here it is: Mike S.: “Why should I care what the world’s “vernacular” refers to if I think it is wrong and the product of a well funded PR campaign? I may not believe in philosophy Bob, but I do have a strong sense of my own morality and my own ethics and frankly it’s of no moment to me if the “whole world” sees it differently.”
“As a psychologist, I’m sure you’re aware that minimizing the identity and objectifying a group of people, e.g. seeing them as nothing more than the result of a PR stunt, makes it far easier on the conscience to look the other way from said apartheid policies. I could give you examples in history from South Africa to 20th century Europe, but … oh, never mind.”
First of all as I have made clear often I’m an Institute-Trained Gestalt Psychotherapist and Social Worker degree wise. Secondly, do you even bother to read what I, not other Jews write? As far as your statement re” objectification to leading to minimization, you again ignored this and many other statements I’ve made regarding my distress at the plight of these people.
“have the proto-Palestinians been screwed royally for all these years and deserve sympathy? Absolutely, but just who screwed them is not as easy as it looks.”
Bob, argue with me, not some Jewish straw man you’ve set up.
“Mike S: “I would think that is not quite the defense of Israel you expected from me, but if that is the case you haven’t really been reading my ongoing comments on the issue. Nevertheless, I anticipate I have to fully lay out my position here, or my beliefs will be misread, and/or open to further dissection.”
That is why I laid out my conception of the background of all of this and needed to correct you on your incorrect usages of Semitic and Palestinian. I was proved correct in this need by your following statements:
“While I appreciate the history lesson, I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.”
“Whether or not I read your earlier posts bears no relevance to the handling of the terms here.”
Bob, you asked me for an explanation of my position and I gave it. It is obvious that you either haven’t read what I’ve been posting about Israel for a long time, or just forgot it. This is important because rather than argue with me you argue with your generic straw man.
“Mike, as a Kantian, I’m constrained to inform you that true morality is rooted in the non spacio-temporal concept known as principles. Morality, as a general rule, is not a product of His-Story.”
Ipse dixet? Bob, Kant developed his closed system of logic and morality, based on his suppositions of truth. To me that is merely his statement of opinion, unsubstantiated and your belief in his system. Your words could be used in the following manner and I wonder if you would then accept them as paens of truth:
“Mike, as a (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist Hindu, etc.), I’m constrained to inform you that true morality is rooted in the non spacio-temporal concept known as principles. Morality, as a general rule, is not a product of His-Story.”
Same stuff Bob and actually in almost all cases would fit just as well. Statements of belief do not substantiation make, except it seems for you.
“You’ve already assented to the resolution that Israel has been carrying out apartheid policies towards a group of people the world, ‘not you,’ call Palestinians.’
Bob, you continue to read into my words that which you imagine to be there. My statement:
“I have stated that the answer to this problem is for Israel to vacate the West Bank, remove all of the Israeli settlers there and provide a slim connecting corridor between that and Gaza. for Israel to continue with its’ occupation would create an apartheid situation and not only do I find that morally intolerable as a Jew, but politically not viable as a supporter of Israel remaining a Jewish State.”
The statement “would create an apartheid situation” is not by any stretch of the imagination “carrying out apartheid policies.” You misread me and you misstate what I’m saying”
“You’ve also assented to the resolution that the comparison between my sister’s said behavior and Israel’s.
My response actually was:
“I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exacerbates their problems. They are a country that has literally constantly been on a war footing for more than 60 years and their citizenry has reacted in a manner commensurate with that. That is why thugs like Begin got elected in the first place and Bibi is in now. They promise “tough” action and a war weary population has voted its’ fears and in my opinion voted badly.”
“Mike, would you consider me ‘off base’ in seeing an incredible similarity between my sister and Israel?”
I answered you honestly, unaware that your real meaning was:
“I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.”
Your original post was unclear that this was your true point, which considering your later writing is a general attitude that Israel can’t be criticized, which is untrue, unsupportable and easily disproven. How some of Israel’s defenders react to criticism is what is really irrelevant here unless you can provide proof of its’ chilling effect.
“Yet you exhibit an inability to reconcile the foregoing with your beliefs & boilerplate arguments about Israel that normally suit you well.”
I have reconciled them Bob, you just disagree with my reconciliation and beyond that continue to argue with your belief in what I believe, rather than what I’m actually saying.
“(See also your comment on needing to write a book) You appear so emotionally entrenched in your beliefs and stock arguments that the reasoning you offer for reconciling the positions you assented to above leads us to little more than ‘They reconcile because I say so.”
So uh..Bob, tell me how this isn’t patronizing. The writing a book comment was to point out the complexity of this issue and the nuances entailed. As for being “emotionally entrenched” in one’s beliefs I think that in your continued assertion of Kant to back up all your points, you are projecting your own traits upon me.
“Telling yourself that you can reconcile the immoral acts discussed above by sweeping it under the ‘every nation has done it in the past’ and other self-deceptive stances ain’t working so well. And to be brutally honest, breaking up my similes regarding one issue on the basis of an entirely different issue isn’t the peak of intellectual honesty either.”
Not only is your characterization of me in your original sentence above a false reading of my beliefs, but the second accusation of intellectual dishonesty is again your projection of your own argument patterns on to me.
“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.”
A man can do that by using the tenets of a philosophy to justify his arguments. You intentionally insult me and yet you lack the awareness to see those selfsame characteristics in your own discourse.
“Who cares “what the world’s “vernacular” refers to if I think it is wrong and the product of a well funded PR campaign?” The world does Mike. And as long as you stick to stock arguments and anecdotes like the one you use to describe the Palestinians as nothing more than the product of a PR stunt”
Once again Bob you put words into my mouth and credit me with ideas I haven’t expressed.
“the more you move away from your vision of yourself as a moral man and towards a simple human being bereft of conscience; part and parcel of that ‘lying to yourself’ phenomena.”
The simple human beings are the people with consciences Bob, it is the self proclaimed moral men who use their philosophical cant as persiflage to justify themselves and in the process falsely imagine themselves as being in on truth no one else has. By the way I understand there are a number of Kant Secret Decoder Rings on sale now on E Bay. Just what a philosopher-phillic person needs to feel superior to his fellow man, the great unwashed who never bathed in the spiritually cleansing intellectual waters of the Great Man. In the alternative Philosophy = fundamentalism for the non-religious.
“The sad irony here is that your best hope of reconciling your own morality with that of those who rule Israel is to climb up past the clouds to the clearer skies of the apriori principles of a well grounded metaphysics of morals; a path you sadly reject out of hand.”
Gee Bob, I’ve had people sort of say the same thing to me about Jesus and to my mind they were just as smug and self congratulating as you are.
Now once again I’ve answered you point by point, as I’ve done on all my posts on this thread. You have been picking and choosing from my posts that which you deem pertinent and ignoring that which either clarifies or defends my positions.
You have patronized me and you have called me intellectually dishonest. Examine yourself Bob and your own behavior in this discourse. For those already bored by this long interchange I ivite you to read through the many posts and draw your own conclusions. I for one am tired of being dealt with in a patronizing, dismissive and ultimately intellectually dishonest manner.
Bob,
Just because you say it’s something doesn’t make it that way. Personally, knowing Mike and his writing style, I’d say it serves the purpose of a footnote. It’s tangential to the discussion in general, but important enough to Mike that he felt it needed clarification. As other examples of this sort of behavior I point to his frequent explanations of his rejection of the terms “Semitic” and “Old Testament,” there are other examples I’m sure, but I don’t really feel the need to scan every one of his posts for examples.
It’s pretty clear from the context of the conversation Mike’s rejecting the term “Palestinian people” and not passing judgment on the treatment of those people in question. Read that post, after that brief aside that you find so objectionable, he goes into length discussing the history of the people in question, and using language that decries their treatment.
If you want his actually thoughts the treatment of the people, all you have to do is stop ignoring all but a portion of his responses and other comments he’s made (These do include statements about their treatment by countries other than Israel):
“I support Israel and yet I have no doubt that they have done some very bad things in Gaza.”
“Israel has earned its’ being targeted for opprobrium,”
“I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exascerbates their problems.”
“for Israel to continue with its’ occupation would create an apartheid situation and not only do I find that morally intolerable as a Jew,”
“have the proto-Palestinians been screwed royally for all these years and deserve sympathy? Absolutely”
“They thus were treated horribly for years and confined to in effect Concentration Camps.”
“This reminds me of a time when we were discussing the rights and responsibilities of nations. I forget the exact context – it wasn’t argument fatal – and we were quibbling on a point. But I recall you saying that your thinking on that particular point was colored by your (I think the wording was) “tribal relation”. Since it was not fatal to the argument and a certain amount of tribalism is (I think) wired in with the Savannah survival skill set in our genes, I didn’t begrudge or push the point as error but rather took it as a simple fact of human nature. I’m proud to be Irish (mostly) and will be until I become something else. I don’t expect you to feel any different about your tribe. That’s unrealistic.
However, I suggest in this instance that Bob may have a point.
“In a de-nationalized, non-denominational analysis of the actions of one party against another, there is a fair case for war crimes against Israel.”
Buddha, who is to make that determination between two entities warring for all these years? What are the equivalencies between rocket attacks, suicide bombings and one side declaring perpetual war on another and reactions (over reactions?) made by that side? Is it to be the UN, which has a majority of Muslim States? Is it the major powers of the G20 who are economically tied to mid East oil? There is no de-nationalized, non-denominational determination to be made. There is ultimately only a settlement to be made, or not made.
“Their behavior goes beyond anything that can be blamed on a few bad actors. It’s systemic and rapidly becoming (if not already) chronic. You have no issue at rising above your sense of nationalism as an American to say that you think the US is guilty of war crimes using an a priori framework. I’ve seen you do it. The problems in the US have systemic roots too. In this instance it does indeed make it appear that you have taken your hand off your ethical rudder when it comes to looking at the actions of Israel.”
Seriously Buddha, on what do you base this judgment of “their” behavior, especially in light of the amount of money and oil on one side of the equation? I know you don’t believe every bit of news you get, or the sources of same, So how are you so convinced in this climate that you know what is really going on?
I can judge the US actions because I’m a citizen and I’m here and I see the information. I’ve never been to Israel and probably will never go, unless the shit hits the fan. Frankly I could never afford it. My children have spent extensive time there as have my grandchildren. They are as moderate as I am regarding Israel, but because they speak Hebrew they’ve got a good sense of the feeling there. The people are tired, most want a settlement and yet like every other place in the world there are fundamentalist crazies and right wing true believers.
“Rename all the parties and religions involved and tell me it doesn’t paint an ugly picture. Just as ugly as Gitmo. Yet you seem distracted(?) from your faculties in making that equivalent abstraction of the patterns of behaviors that I know you are capable of from discussion about torture. Could part of that distraction may be the tribal relationship itself? Is it not true in therapy that self-diagnosis frowned upon because the doctor is simply too close to the patient to be objective? Could there be a root of denial holding you back? Bias is only correctable if one first recognizes it but one cannot recognize it if one does not question apparent inconsistencies. Bias is not always a club that hits you on the head. It can be insidious. It can even be inadvertent and/or subconscious.” Most importantly, it can be corrected. Bare logic can be a skeletal creature, but it runs better lean. I’m not saying anything more than maybe it’s something to think about.”
My cup runneth over with people so concerned with my psyche that they want me to re-examine myself to dissect my tribal prejudice, from my better reasoned half. It really is insulting Buddha, that you are so certain of the correctness of your position that you question mine as to what in effect is an aberration. Buddha, I hate to say this, but you and Bob force me into it so despite the bragging entailed I must. There are few people I’ve met in this life who have had the intellectual honesty to self examine every premise they hold as I do. I’m someone who really listens to counter arguments and who honestly examines if I’m wrong and they have merit. I think my time here has shown this.
In the end it really comes down to this and that is that I believe that Israel has won the right to have a Jewish State. That its’ standing is as legal (whatever that means) as that of any other Nation. I also believe that due to the years of hostility and fighting they have encountered, the people, always by a close margin, have chosen some disastrous leadership. By the same token I believe these hostilities have been extended by the Saudi’s primarily and that the US has acted as a Saudi agent thus far. I believe in a two state solution and I believe all settlements on the West Bank by Israeli’s should be vacated, with force if necessary, to enable this solution. However, for their part Hamas, Fatah, etc, must accept Israel’s legitimacy and stop their terrorist attacks.
Now you and Bob may think this is wrong, or disagree with any part of it you choose and that is you right. Your doing so would not be deemed by me to be anti-Jewish, because I believe neither of you are bigots. I know, however, that if that was your belief I wouldn’t argue it by claiming you have an irrational attachment to calling out Israel for war crimes. I respect each of you too much for that. Apparently, that respect is not mutual.
Gyges: “Just because you say it’s something doesn’t make it that way. Personally, knowing Mike and his writing style, I’d say it serves the purpose of a footnote.”
And I, also familiar with Mike and his writing style, respectfully disagree. That footnote poisons the well as to how the reader perceives the group of people under discussion. Instead of talking about people suffering under apartheid policies hidden from the world in the penumbras of holocaust slack, we’re just chatting about the byproducts of a ‘PR stunt.’
Furthermore, you’re confusing me with the poster who’s been continually falling back on the ‘my reasoning is sound because I say so no matter what you think’ fallacy.
Gyges: “It’s pretty clear from the context of the conversation Mike’s rejecting the term “Palestinian people” and not passing judgment on the treatment of those people in question.”
I never said he passed judgment, I said he used connotatively dismissive language to describe them. Passing judgment is a conscious action; I honestly think Mike tossed in that ‘footnote’ as you call it without much conscious thought at all. A stock aside thrown around during his usual discussions on this topic if you will.
Gyges: “Read that post, after that brief aside that you find so objectionable, he goes into length discussing the history of the people in question, and using language that decries their treatment. If you want his actually thoughts the treatment of the people, all you have to do is stop ignoring all but a portion of his responses and other comments he’s made”
I’ve not only read them and re-read them, but I’ve also commented on his inability to reconcile his positions:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29/u-n-report-israel-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza/#comment-83936
If you’re looking for more intersubjective validation of my point, (i.e. who else saw the elephant in the living room) look at what Buddha had to say.
“Instead of talking about people suffering under apartheid policies hidden from the world in the penumbras of holocaust slack, we’re just chatting about the byproducts of a ‘PR stunt.’”
Bob,
Just what proof have you offered as to Israel’s “apartheid” policies. None actually except for your own opinion, but after all you’re a Kantian and so your opinion is ipso facto logical and moral. Secondly, as usual with you and I too am quite familiar with your “debate” methods, you only want the debate to be on your terms and you ignore or develop blind-spots when people don’t go along with you.
“Instead of talking about people suffering under apartheid policies hidden from the world in the penumbras of holocaust slack, we’re just chatting about the byproducts of a ‘PR stunt.’”
I can’t tell you how gratified I am to see that I’m not the only one that you use the “ignoring game” with. I thank Gyges for his providing a partial list of my quotes condemning the treatment of the proto-Palestinians, but in your response to him you totally ignore those quotes and return to the same assertions. I’m not there quite yet, but I’m beginning to have the suspicion that the real problem here is that Bob, like GW Bush, simply can’t see or admit when he is wrong. Since you have felt free to question my morality and also accuse me of self-deception, I claim the same right of critique for myself and in my judgment you are exposing a side of yourself that is highly insecure emotionally and therefore must always be right.
“I honestly think Mike tossed in that ‘footnote’ as you call it without much conscious thought at all.”
Another insult Bob, you really seem to be beginning to lose it and that gives me no pleasure. Since you have Kant and his logic I guess words only mean to you what you choose them to mean, morally of course.
Words do mean a lot to me because they have been used through the centuries to disparage Jews and denigrate them. To wit”
Old Testament = Christianity replacing Jews in God’s favor.
Semitic = A racially inferior group of people.
Palestinian = A meaningless term coined by Romans to take the Jew out of Israel. Later redeveloped by the Saudi’s to de-legitimize any Israeli claim to the land and to pretend that there ever was a Palestinian people.
When people such as yourself use these terms ignorant of their meanings I correct them and have always done so. That is not an irrelevant action considering your arguments and you ridiculing my fears about anti-Jewish feeling again arising in the US.
Finally, you are once again projecting your own foibles on to me claiming I wrote that without much thought at all. Bob that is you dashing off you missives without bothering to look back to check the accuracy of your statements. My last post addressed at you took 2 1/2 hours to write because I pondered every word and kept referring back to this entire dialogue. Looking incidentally to see where I might have been wrong. You see Bob, I’m not Kant powered and so I do recognize my possible fallibility, it seems that with you not so much. Gee whiz, I wish that when I grow up I can be the example of moral rectitude that you are in your own smug estimation.
Mike S: “Where is your substantiation for the belief that critiques of Israel have been “taboo” for non-Jews? Who made that topic taboo?”
Why do you feel the need to take a personal observation of mine and represent it as if it were part of an argument?
Mike S.: “Bob, you asked me for an explanation of my position and I gave it. It is obvious that you either haven’t read what I’ve been posting about Israel for a long time, or just forgot it. This is important because rather than argue with me you argue with your generic straw man.”
You’ll have to excuse me for not keeping up with and memorizing your posts here; I had no idea it was a condition precedent to having a discussion on this topic. Shall I refer you to my previous discussions on morality so you can research them as well? Considering how much you’ve obliged me to be familiar with your earlier posts with other people, are we limited to just this website? And just because I haven’t read your earlier posts, or that you allege I’m not reading your arguments here, it doesn’t follow that I’ve been misrepresenting your position. Your position has been far from clear and I’ve been pointing to your inability to reconcile your arguments. Further, you yourself said you’d need to write a book to make your position clear. Maybe if you ceased arguing with me as if I were arguing against the right of Israel to be a state we’d get somewhere.
Mike S.: “Not only is your characterization of me in your original sentence above a false reading of my beliefs, but the second accusation of intellectual dishonesty is again your projection of your own argument patterns on to me.”
Mike, I offered the Nuremberg simile as a part metaphor and premise to a larger argument. Did you follow the metaphor or the argument? No. Instead you chose to misrepresent a premise in my argument by changing my simile to inject your own meaning into it via a whimsical aside as to how you find the Nuremberg trials an exercise in hypocrisy.
What’s that fallacy called Mike?
Mike S.: “The simple human beings are the people with consciences Bob, it is the self proclaimed moral men who use their philosophical cant as persiflage to justify themselves and in the process falsely imagine themselves as being in on truth no one else has. By the way I understand there are a number of Kant Secret Decoder Rings on sale now on E Bay. Just what a philosopher-phillic person needs to feel superior to his fellow man, the great unwashed who never bathed in the spiritually cleansing intellectual waters of the Great Man. In the alternative Philosophy = fundamentalism for the non-religious.”
Would you like a Kleen-ex?
Mike S.: “Examine yourself Bob and your own behavior in this discourse. For those already bored by this long interchange I ivite you to read through the many posts and draw your own conclusions. I for one am tired of being dealt with in a patronizing, dismissive and ultimately intellectually dishonest manner.”
Oh, I did examine myself; thus my reluctance to post for a few days here. I’ve had three points; that’s it. And you’ve assented to nearly all of them. Yet I’m still trying to clarify why you keep coming back at me as if you were arguing with someone who doesn’t think Israel has a right to exist. Your posts are rife with that form of subtext; yet you accuse me of not reading what you write and projecting…
Like I said Mike, I had three fucking points and no god damned axe to grind.
You want to brag about your self-honesty? Take another look. I’m arguing three points and you’re arguing with me as if the state of Israel lay in the balance.
And if you were wise and wanted to stop putting your foot in your proverbial mouth, you’d stop with the anti-philosophy rants; because with this last round of yours didn’t need my commentary to show how dumb they were.
everytime during those days
Mike S.: “Just what proof have you offered as to Israel’s “apartheid” policies.”
And your earlier comment about agreeing with Carter was about what?
Why not scream “do-over” while you’re at it?
Hate to break up your discussion
Judge Carter Denies Motion to Dismiss, in Barnett vs. Obama!
October 7, 2009 by John Charlton
COURT ORDER FINALIZES SCHEDULE FOR TRIAL!
by John Charlton
(Oct. 7, 2009) — Today was published the Court order resulting from the Oct. 5th hearing in Barnett vs. Obama, issued by federal judge, David O. Carter, in the Southern Division of California.
The order, reads as follows:
On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made final.
Case Management dates are as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment — November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 26, 2009
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference — January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Jury Trial — January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED!
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/
Mike S.: “Finally, you are once again projecting your own foibles on to me claiming I wrote that without much thought at all.”
No Mike, I said you probably weren’t conscious of what you were writing (implicit in the thought being that you’re as accustomed to arguing this topic as you are driving a car).
Get over it.
Furthermore, if you want to retain an ounce of integrity by accusing me of insulting you all the time, then you should refrain from doing the same. Otherwise, you’re wasting bandwith.
Finally, if you’re looking for a psych work-up on why I react the way I do, you may find some insight in the Myers-Briggs descriptions of INTP’s and INTJ’s. I think there’s something in there about INTP’s being very affable people until someone steps on a PRINCIPLE.
An exposed weak side? Hardly.
Sorry, badaman, but your information is bogus, again.
There was no denial of the motion to dismiss.
There was just a modification of the docket.
Birfer Charlton is leaping to conclusions.
This is all over the bither web already. Take a look at
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1899&start=3275
“Mike S.: “Just what proof have you offered as to Israel’s “apartheid” policies.”
And your earlier comment about agreeing with Carter was about what?
Why not scream “do-over” while you’re at it?”
Bob,
You are so convinced of your infallibility and morality that you just dash these missive off willy-nilly. Again bob, what proof have you offered besides yours and Jimmy Carter’s opinion. This is the essence of your dishonesty and I am at a loss to deal with it, simply because I do not represent an
immovable position, can admit when Israel is wrong and you represent a smug confidence in your moral stance. You therefore feel free to take complex issues and run them through your Kant machine to come out as moral certainties. Would that the world really ran like that.
“Like I said Mike, I had three fucking points and no god damned axe to grind.”
Bob you are full of shit and this quote from you early on proves it:
“AND, this one is truly my pet peeve, how many other countries bombed the infrastructure of an entire country on the basis of the alleged detainment of two soldiers?”
Sounds like an axe grinding to me. Also is a moral judgment that is based on your determination of moral equivalencies.
The soldiers were detained, not alleged and there is a long history of Israeli soldiers being tortured and beheaded. Besides that there were other constant attacks being made. Somehow though, to you and the rest of the world blowing up thirty people here, forty there and twenty another place has little weight and for Israel to reply they must not reply too much. How is that judged in Kantian terms, Bob. What is the adequate response to thirty killed and a hundred wounded at a marketplace or restaurant. How easy it is to sit in moral judgment, smug and self satisfied.
No also referring to axes to grind is this statement on its’ face:
“Mike, I chose to have an argument with you.”
Also this one which I heartily endorse:
“First, I’m not a trial attorney.”
A smart career choice judging by your argument style.
Bob, why don’t we end this by cutting to the chase so that everyone understands the real basis of the argument which I believe is unspoken. Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist as an independent Jewish State and that a two State solution and return to the 1967 borders is the best way to do it?
solution is the only answer
Bob,
To reiterate, just because one says something doesn’t make it so. He was rejecting a term, not commenting on the people it applied to. No matter how much you try to make it otherwise. I’ve given proof that supports my claim, you’ve simply reiterated yours.
Please explain how you can accuse someone of dismissing a people that he went into great detail about their suffering and history.
As an aside, please don’t try and play word games with me, you may be more verbose, but don’t take that to mean I’m less aware of what words both denote and connote. You’re correct in saying that you didn’t say he judged the people. You implied it. Being dismissive of a people by it’s very nature involves judging them as “not worth it,” whatever “it” may be. I could bring out the dictionary to prove my point, but I’m sure you’re able to look up words as well as I can.
To edit:
“I’ve given evidence to support my claims, you’ve simply restated yours”
Mike S.: “You are so convinced of your infallibility and morality that you just dash these missive off willy-nilly. Again bob, what proof have you offered besides yours and Jimmy Carter’s opinion. This is the essence of your dishonesty…”
Stop right there. Did I miss something?
Bob: “And speaking of ‘other countries,’ how many other countries besides South Africa, have been accused by an ex-president of carrying out policies of apartheid?”
Mike S: “I’m not a fan of Jimmy Carter’s, but for reasons other than Israel. What he pointed out is valid and it is why consistently on this site I have stated that the answer to this problem is for Israel to vacate the West Bank, remove all of the Israeli settlers there and provide a slim connecting corridor between that and Gaza. for Israel to continue with its’ occupation would create an apartheid situation and not only do I find that morally intolerable as a Jew, but politically not viable as a supporter of Israel remaining a Jewish State. I would think that is not quite the defense of Israel you expected from me, but if that is the case you haven’t really been reading my ongoing comments on the issue. Nevertheless, I anticipate I have to fully lay out my position here, or my beliefs will be misread, and/or open to further dissection.”
Come again Mike?
Mike,
Is it your contention that I must continually re-argue points which you already assented to?
You’re a funny guy.
Bob,
Slipped in another one while I was writing. You just crank these missives out. In truth you are seeming somewhat hysterical in your latest production and you are even less capable of actually engaging in a back and forth. No axe to grind Bob?
ps: the was one too many “solution is the only answer” in my last post.
“No Mike, I said you probably weren’t conscious of what you were writing (implicit in the thought being that you’re as accustomed to arguing this topic as you are driving a car).”
An insult by any other name is still an insult. A blatant rationalization of an insult by any other term is still a blatant rationalization.
“And if you were wise and wanted to stop putting your foot in your proverbial mouth, you’d stop with the anti-philosophy rants; because with this last round of yours didn’t need my commentary to show how dumb they were.”
Bob, I’m every bit as erudite as you are and I think Philosophy as provided by its’ “Great Minds” like Kant, is the production of people with an overblown sense of their own self importance and a minimal impact, except as justification, or in retrospect by people trying to excuse their actions. Your constant hawking yourself as a devotee of Kant strikes me as both superficial and silly. I think for you morality is an intellectual exercise that allows you to
keep your emotions at bay. To me morality is visceral and as a follower of Gestalt Philosophy, I trust my gut and feel that
people tend to use overblown intellectual bullshit to escape their true feelings.
“Mike, I offered the Nuremberg simile as a part metaphor and premise to a larger argument. Did you follow the metaphor or the argument? No. Instead you chose to misrepresent a premise in my argument by changing my simile to inject your own meaning into it via a whimsical aside as to how you find the Nuremberg trials an exercise in hypocrisy.”
Bob, come off it you offered the Nuremberg Trial as a debate gambit, wrongly seeing in me that I would give what you think is the generic Jewish response. It was used to find another way to trap me into admitting what you see as my immoral support of Israel. There was nothing whimsical about my reply, that is what I truly believe and it’s really too damn bad that you haven’t given any thought in your life to my points about them, because they really were a hypocritical travesty.
“Mike S: “I’m not a fan of Jimmy Carter’s, but for reasons other than Israel. What he pointed out is valid and it is why consistently on this site I have stated that the answer to this problem is for Israel to vacate the West Bank, remove all of the Israeli settlers there and provide a slim connecting corridor between that and Gaza. for Israel to continue with its’ occupation would create an apartheid situation and not only do I find that morally intolerable as a Jew, but politically not viable as a supporter of Israel remaining a Jewish State. I would think that is not quite the defense of Israel you expected from me, but if that is the case you haven’t really been reading my ongoing comments on the issue. Nevertheless, I anticipate I have to fully lay out my position here, or my beliefs will be misread, and/or open to further dissection.”
Bob,
Carter called his book “Peace Without Apartheid,” but said in his clip that there was no apartheid taking place in Israel proper. Carter’s solutions and beliefs are congruent with mine and I’ve stated it time and again. You unfortunately are so wrapped up with your own beliefs and definitions that you can’t see that. What it really is is that you must win your arguments totally so that you can feel better about yourself. That you are intellectually dishonest in the process is of no moment to you because you are cushioned in your morality by Kant.
Mike S.: “Sounds like an axe grinding to me. Also is a moral judgment that is based on your determination of moral equivalencies.”
Careful Mike, you might start thinking of morals in abstract ‘philosophical’ terms. Perish the thought.
Mike S.: “The soldiers were detained, not alleged”
My bad; I said alleged because I wasn’t sure if it was two or three at the time of writing. Apologies. It was two.
Mike S. “and there is a long history of Israeli soldiers being tortured and beheaded. Besides that there were other constant attacks being made. Somehow though, to you and the rest of the world blowing up thirty people here, forty there and twenty another place has little weight and for Israel to reply they must not reply too much.”
So now we begin the Lebanon debate; good. Did the state of Lebanon carry out such atrocities? If people in Mexico were committing the same acts as described above against areas in the United States, would the United States have the right to bomb the entire infrastructure of Mexico? What about Canada; same scenario.
“How is that judged in Kantian terms, Bob.”
Abstractly Mike.
“What is the adequate response to thirty killed and a hundred wounded at a marketplace or restaurant.”
I assure you it isn’t the killing thousands of more civilians while bombing the infrastructure of a country not accused of the atrocities.
“How easy it is to sit in moral judgment, smug and self satisfied.”
Smug and self satisfied; grow up or get a thesaurus will you.
Mike S.: “An insult by any other name is still an insult. A blatant rationalization of an insult by any other term is still a blatant rationalization.”
No Mike, the ‘unconscious’ remark was no insult; the grow up or get a thesaurus remark was.
Mike S.: “Bob, I’m every bit as erudite as you are and I think Philosophy as provided by its’ “Great Minds” like Kant, is the production of people with an overblown sense of their own self importance and a minimal impact, except as justification, or in retrospect by people trying to excuse their actions.”
Actually Mike, it’s a system of thinking best suited for analyzing ‘moral’ issues. I’m sure if we were discussing a psychological issue, you’d refer to an expert or two who you respect. Further, a man’s got to know his limitations. Accordingly, you wouldn’t see me objecting to your expert, having not even read him, simply because I have certain ‘feelings’ about psychology and desire to attribute them to your expert.
Mike S.: “Your constant hawking yourself as a devotee of Kant strikes me as both superficial and silly. I think for you morality is an intellectual exercise that allows you to
keep your emotions at bay.”
Actually, keeping emotions at bay is a key to retaining the capacity to think rationally about moral issues.
Mike S.: “To me morality is visceral and as a follower of Gestalt Philosophy, I trust my gut and feel that
people tend to use overblown intellectual bullshit to escape their true feelings.”
You trust your gut? Like Steven Colbert? While my knowledge of Gestalt is fairly limited, I’m always interested in furthering my studies of philosophies that were influenced by Kant. Any favorite books on Gestalt you care to recommend?
Mike S.: “Bob, come off it you offered the Nuremberg Trial as a debate gambit, wrongly seeing in me that I would give what you think is the generic Jewish response.”
No Mike, go back and read it.
Bob,
We’ve played enough and it is apparent that you get your thrills from the game, but it is boring me and there are so many other threads to deal with. Declare yourself the “winner” to feed your need to satiate your insecurity. I think you need that much more than me. You deliberately called me out and wanted to argue, I obliged, but you really are only interested in conquest. Arguing with you is an exercise in perseveration and I have better things to do. I’ve made my points, people can accept or not accept them as they please.
“Actually Mike, it’s a system of thinking best suited for analyzing ‘moral’ issues.”
No, by your own admission it is a system best used for:
“Actually, keeping emotions at bay is a key to retaining the capacity to think rationally about moral issues.”
I spent my last 37 years getting in touch with my emotions and learning from the wisdom of my emotions. That is all of Gestalt Therapy my son, now go out and practice, or not if you will. Separation from ones emotions is akin to cutting oneself off from half of what you know. I suppose that is comforting for you and makes life so much easier, especially with Kant to rationalize the incompleteness lodged in your gut.
Great win Bob, you’re the man!
Forgive my one last point on this thread. I think we need to get Bob and Billy into it on something, they would be even matched and perfect for talking over each others heads.
Bob Esq and Mike Spindell,
Your back-and-forth was not an exercise in futility. This is another good archive of information regarding Israel. Thanks again for omitting any overt ad hominem attacks.
Mike,
I threw out a few mice and you kept firing missiles. I just wanted to know why.
My gut told me to expect a response to the Mexico/Canada comparison and you recommending a good book on Gestalt; particularly one describing what it owes to Kant. Apparently my gut was wrong.
Nobody really wins here Mike; it’s the journey that’s the thing.
Gyges:
“Please explain how you can accuse someone of dismissing a people that he went into great detail about their suffering and history.”
Gyges,
I’ve been trying to show you how Mike resorts to stock arguments and anecdotes that don’t (for lack of a better term) jive with his overall take on the situation. His rhetoric is polluted with arguments and anecdotes more befitting an Israeli zealot seeking to deminimize and draw attention away from the group of people suffering from their tyrannical policies. Why look at Palestinians as people suffering when you can create the illusion that they don’t even exist; properly speaking.
I know that’s not Mike’s philosophy, which is why I ask him about it. But does Mike pause for a minute and take stock of what he’s saying? No. Instead, Mike digs deeper and attributes arguments to me that I’ve never brought up.
Want proof? How about this. I stated over and over that the argument would flow much better if he would stop arguing as if the fate of Israel lay in the balance; that I was never arguing about the right of Israel to exist as a state. What does he do?
Mike S.: “Bob, why don’t we end this by cutting to the chase so that everyone understands the real basis of the argument which I believe is unspoken. Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist as an independent Jewish State and that a two State solution and return to the 1967 borders is the best way to do it?”
You tell me Gyges.
Former Federal LEO,
Care to moderate?
For example, what’s your take on this:
Mike S.: “Carter called his book “Peace Without Apartheid,” but said in his clip that there was no apartheid taking place in Israel proper.”
You saw the clip, you’ve read the arguments here; what’s your take on raising this distinction? Relevant?
Mike S.: “Carter’s solutions and beliefs are congruent with mine and I’ve stated it time and again. You unfortunately are so wrapped up with your own beliefs and definitions that you can’t see that. What it really is is that you must win your arguments totally so that you can feel better about yourself. That you are intellectually dishonest in the process is of no moment to you because you are cushioned in your morality by Kant.”
Is that true FFLEO? You tell me.
Bob, Esq.
I might first need to reread up-thread,
‘War and Peace’ Palestinians v. Israelis
“you recommending a good book on Gestalt; particularly one describing what it owes to Kant.”
Bob,
A typical “question” on your part in that it tries to reinforce your prejudice re: Kant, even as it hides itself as merely a simple question. Gestalt Therapy, as created by Fritz Perls owes nothing to Kant and I was trained for five years by one of Fritz’s closest disciples. If anything it owes much to Zen Buddhism.
My question with you is why you just can’t let this argument go?
We’ve both written reams and people are free to make their own judgments on the topic and our respective positions. I suspect though that people have long since lost interest in it. Yet here you are trying to win over Gyges and FFLEO to your viewpoint and in the process further castigating what you see as my inability to separate my emotions for Israel, thus clouding my moral judgment.
It must be nice to be someone who has found something to believe in that removes all uncertainty as to ones moral own rectitude. It actually is phenomenologically quite prevalent today. I unfortunately see too many nuances to try to make my beliefs into syllogistic certainties and hold with Emerson’s position on consistency, at least as viewed by other making judgments on me, or my moral compass. I must note, however, that you refused to answer the one question I’ve put to you, as opposed my answering the many questions you’ve put to me in this exchange and I wonder why that is so.
Bob stated to Gyges:
“Want proof? How about this. I stated over and over that the argument would flow much better if he would stop arguing as if the fate of Israel lay in the balance; (sic)’that I was never arguing about the right of Israel to exist as a state’.”
Given the overall context of your part of the discussion which featured you trying to limit the discussion to your own “Robert’s Rules of Order” I think a reasonable inference of that sentence is that Israel’s right to exist is outside the context
of your discussion definition’s, not per se your belief that it has a right to exist as a Jewish State.
“Mike S.: “Bob, why don’t we end this by cutting to the chase so that everyone understands the real basis of the argument which I believe is unspoken. Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist as an independent Jewish State and that a two State solution and return to the 1967 borders is the best way to do it?”
Finally Bob, and I do mean finally despite your seeming need for not only closure but for acknowledgment of your victory, I am withdrawing because you have not been honest (moral?) in this discussion and I’m aware that you lack the awareness of your own foibles and the ability to admit to them. That frankly bores me.
One final example to represent your tactics throughout the interchange:
Bob said:
“It could be argued that Germany acted immorally, but what was the object of the Nuremberg trials; to hold Germany morally and legally culpable for its actions, or certain people? {i.e. there should be war crimes trials for Israeli’s, or Mike is a hypocrite-Mike) ”
Mike S.: “Bob, come off it you offered the Nuremberg Trial as a debate gambit, wrongly seeing in me that I would give what you think is the generic Jewish response.”
Bob said:
“Mike, I offered the Nuremberg simile as a part metaphor and premise to a larger argument. Did you follow the metaphor or the argument? No.”
Attempted debate trap admitted, albeit with a gloss of innocence for deniability.
Bob, argue/lobby on in your quest for emotional closure and your need to convince intelligent people you won. I hope it makes you feel better. As for me I’ll let what I’ve written and what you’ve written be the materials for others to judge, if they wish. I reiterate what I wrote responding to Buddha and you and will let that stand as my coda.
“Now you and Bob may think this is wrong, or disagree with any part of it you choose and that is you right. Your doing so would not be deemed by me to be anti-Jewish, because I believe neither of you are bigots. I know, however, that if that was your belief I wouldn’t argue it by claiming you have an irrational attachment to calling out Israel for war crimes. I respect each of you too much for that. Apparently, that respect is not mutual.”
Now you and Bob may think this is wrong, or disagree with any part of it you choose and that is you right. Your doing so would not be deemed by me to be anti-Jewish, because I believe neither of you are bigots. I know, however, that if that was your belief I wouldn’t argue it by claiming you have an irrational attachment to calling out Israel for war crimes. I respect each of you too much for that. Apparently, that respect is not mutual.
Bob,
You haven’t been showing me a thing, you’ve been telling me. You want to call what Mike’s saying a stock argument, fine. Give me examples where he’s used it before. You’re claiming his arguments don’t line up. Then it should be easy for you to point out two arguments that are in conflict. Give me an example, in Mike’s own words where he says something that you feel doesn’t reconcile with that short history he gave. Then you will have shown me that “how Mike resorts to stock arguments and anecdotes that don’t (for lack of a better term) jive with his overall take on the situation.”
By the way, this stopped being about the original topic when Mike agreed with you in his first response to you (You know BEFORE he went on to give a more nuanced description of the situation. The one you claim shows he doesn’t care about the people whose history he’s obviously researched). After that it became about you wanting to point out how bad Israel was, and Mike wanting to explain that the situation is more complicated then you credit it with being. Oh, and there’s been that whole “My philosopher can beat up your rabbi” undercurrent going on.
You both have been arguing at each other for awhile now, so neither of you really gets to cast stones in that regard.
Apparently my last post is awaiting moderation. I’ll check back later.
Gyges,
To save time, allow me to clarify/edit this post:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29/u-n-report-israel-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza/#comment-84217
When people argue about a certain topic more often than others, they tend to collect stock arguments, anecdotes etc. via repetition; much like a guitar player collects stock phrases while practicing solos.
That’s what I meant by saying his rhetoric is polluted with stock arguments and anecdotes that don’t jive with what his true feelings are.
I broached the topic of this problem from another angle when I commented that I was tossing out mice and he was firing missiles at them and I wanted to know why.
To be blunt, he’s been overreacting from the get go and at points it’s gotten so bad that he even inserted premises that I SPECIFICALLY REJECTED EARLIER into my arguments. How many times do I have to say I’m not arguing about Israel’s right to exist as a state? Why does he keep tossing that premise into my court?
The beauty I find in Gestalt is that it deals with the “NOW”. This is a potent “phenomenological” modality of humanistic existentialism. Fritz Perls has captured the “essence” of this dynamic. Gestalt isn’t interested in what we “THINK”, rather what we “FEEL”. The beauty is it cuts through the defense mechanisms of “intellectualization” and liberates you to share what you “FEEL”. Its’ called being in the NOW…..
Bob,
You never struck me as the type to play Martyr, you’re not good at it. I suggest you leave it to our resident Saint. There was bad behavior by both parties, you’ll be much more credible if you stop trying to palm all of this off as Mike being “too emotional.”
Since I really don’t expect you to go through and comb over Mike’s posts I’ll concede that Mike uses certain themes frequently (I don’t remember him making the one we’re talking about, but since I know memory is faulty I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on it), but that’s only part of your claim. Show me where they don’t Jive.
There’s a difference between having stock phrases and using them without thought. I’ve played with great improvisers, and they ALWAYS mean what they say, no matter how many times they’ve said it before.
Gyges: “There was bad behavior by both parties, you’ll be much more credible if you stop trying to palm all of this off as Mike being “too emotional.””
I said he’s been overreacting; I never said he’s been ‘too emotional.’ How about ‘out of character’ or ‘a-rational’ or ‘not the usual Mike?’
If I’ve acted badly here, then EVERY SINGLE POST I’ve ever made here was an act of bad behavior. I have not changed my debating style in any way whatsoever. The ‘all of this’ to which you refer isn’t coming from me. And should the ‘all of this’ phenomena be exacerbated by my refusal to be insulted, wrongly accused of employing informal fallacies which my opponent must employ to sustain the false accusation, remain silent while rants against a system of thought they completely fail to comprehend or simply have words shoved in my mouth — well I guess I’m just a bad guy.
Remember me telling you how Mike keeps throwing premises into my argument and imputing his ideas of what I’m arguing onto me?
Let’s keep it simple; here’s another example of the “this is about Israel’s right to be a state, isn’t it” tactic of his.
In attempting to keep him focused on the issue; i.e. that unlike what he thought, that I was focused far more on the issue of morality & law rather than Israel per se, I offered this:
Bob: “Mike, I agree with your observation about the a-moral actions of nations in the past, but that’s not what I’m talking about when I refer to disregarding history as a basis for moral law. I’m talking about the principles of human morals. Nations are run by people and it is people who push nations to commit immoral acts. The fact that nations tend to politicize crime does not excuse the immoral acts. It could be argued that Germany acted immorally, but what was the object of the Nuremberg trials; to hold Germany morally and legally culpable for its actions, or certain people?”
Here’s what Mike wrote:
Mike S.: “Guess what Bob, you are hoisting yourself on your pre-suppositions of what I as a Jew should believe.”
See that? What the fuck do I know about ‘what a Jew should believe?’ Now look at it again in light of the amount of times he’s attempted to ‘cut to the chase’ and insert his premise that ‘this is all about Israel’s right to be a state’ into my argument.
Here, he ripped apart my simile and tossed in a red-herring; i.e. derailing the argument into his musings
Mike S.: “I think the Nuremberg trials were an exercise in hypocrisy, especially with the Russians there, when Stalin killed as many people as Hitler, for just as ridiculous reasons. I don’t like the deaths of innocent people whether or not they’re Jewish. Plus my HS English Teacher was a marine in the South Pacific and used to talk of how much fun it was to napalm Japanese soldiers in their caves, even after a white flag was proffered.”
What does the foregoing have to do with what I was trying to illustrate with the Nuremberg simile?
To wit: “Nations are run by people and it is people who push nations to commit immoral acts. The fact that nations tend to politicize crime does not excuse the immoral acts.”
Nothing. Why? I’m guessing he overreacted.
“The resistance which is opposed to any hindrance of an effect is in reality a furtherance of this effect and is in accordance with its accomplishment. Now, everything that is wrong is a hindrance of freedom, according to universal laws; and compulsion or constraint of any kind is a hindrance or resistance made to freedom. CONSEQUENTLY, if a certain exercise of freedom is itself a hindrance of the freedom that is according to universal laws, it is wrong; and the compulsion of constraint which is opposed to it is right, as being a hindering of a hindrance of freedom, and as being in accord with the freedom which exists in accordance with universal laws. Hence, according to the logical principle of contradiction, all right is accompanied with an implied title or warrant to bring compulsion to bear ON ANY ONE WHO MAY VIOLATE IT IN FACT.” (’Science of Right,’ Immanuel Kant)
I’m keen to guess how you can show me Israel’s ‘implied title or warrant’ to ‘bring compulsion to bear’ on the citizens of Gaza (or Lebanon) for the acts of Hamas.– Bob, Esq. to waynebro along time ago.
Bob are you in any mood to break out a GIANT crayon,
(I might require 8×10′s with circles and arrows too.)
Mike,
If you get a chance, I wish you’d email me. I have an out of camera question I’d like to ask that is only tangentially related to this thread.
buddha_is_laughing@email.com
Thanks.
Bob,
Every response of yours gets further and further off the topic I’m interested in… which is you showing me how Mike’s discussing the history of both the term Palestinian and the people to who it refers was: dismissive, unthinking, and inconsistent with the rest of what he had to say. Since you don’t appear to be willing to engage that topic any deeper then insisting it’s true, I’m done.
I brought up your behavior, that was because I was sick of seeing you say (explicitly or implicately) that Mike was incapable of having a rational discussion on this issue, then showing his reaction to your over the top antagonism as proof. You’re a talented enough writer to play a very subtle rhetorical “I’m not touching you” game, and I’m a talented enough reader to pick up on it. You may not see any difference between your behavior here, and your behavior elsewhere, but very rarely have I seen you so aggressively confrontational and insistent on your own moral high-ground. You’re right Mike’s responses weren’t in keeping with his usual character, but then again his usual character isn’t getting goaded on by a wit as sharp as yours.
So what do we have a treaties for cliff notes for war and peace on this thread?
CCD,
You’re like a Leprechaun with a pot of gold. How did you find that post? Thanks!
Anyway, I was going to say I think I’ve got a Crayola 64 pack somewhere. You may find my crayon sketch of a Mexico/Canada v. U.S. comparison
Bob to Mike S.(comment above): “So now we begin the Lebanon debate; good. Did the state of Lebanon carry out such atrocities? If people in Mexico were committing the same acts as described above against areas in the United States, would the United States have the right to bomb the entire infrastructure of Mexico? What about Canada; same scenario.”
Then again, thanks to you, now I recall where I first encountered that comparison; that waynebro guy brought it up here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/04/leading-israeli-newspaper-pity-for-palestinians-in-gaza-is-immoral-and-unethical/
How do I thank you?
Big crayon? To explain the idea of ‘no punishment by proxy’ or that the law may only punish the actor, not including anyone who happens to be standing next to him?
You’re being sarcastic right?
Gyges,
In the discussion about Israel carrying out apartheid policies against a group of people now and formerly known as Palestinians, here’s what Mike had to say ‘first.’
Mike S.: “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians.”
What rhetorical purpose does starting off with the sentence “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israelis” serve?
Now recall I said this doesn’t jive with Mike’s thinking. Why? Well, if I were a zealot anti-Palestinian being accused, in the eyes of the world, of carrying out apartheid policies against said people, what’s my first move? Deny the victim’s existence. You’ve seen this tactic before in perhaps its most extreme case, i.e. holocaust denial.
Palestinians are people deserving of being recognized as such, not reduced to byproducts of a PR stunt ESPECIALLY in a dialogue about them suffering from policies of apartheid.
I know Mike doesn’t see Palestinians as less than people, THAT’S WHY I took issue with the comment. That’s not the ‘usual Mike’ talking. That’s Mike tossing out an ill-considered anecdote in an incredibly inappropriate setting.
Don’t believe me; look back at the posts. I’m not the only one who sees the elephant in the living room.
Bob,
You really can’t quit this can you? You are so determined to prove your incorrect theories about me wrong that you must continue on to justify the nonsense you’ve already written.
“Mike S.: “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians.”
Bob said:
“What rhetorical purpose does starting off with the sentence “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israelis” serve?”
I was relating history to you Bob and also conveying to you that I reject the current usage of the term “Palestinian” because it was employed as an effective PR ruse. For a quick and dirty history lesson why not Wiki Palestinian Liberation Organization
to discover your own historical ignorance, your consequent inability to understand my purpose and your total miscontrual of my point. In dealing with you I made the mistake of thinking that you had some knowledge of the issue, but find your knowledge is sadly limited.
My purpose Bob was not to de-legitimize and thus present these refugees as deserving no consideration. It was to illustrate how the term Palestinian has been cleverly used to de-legitimize the Israeli’s and has convinced people like you, with shallow historical knowledge, that these Arabs misery is real, but the circumstances surrounding this misery are not quite what you think. For someone who would seem to see through the Media’s canonization of George Bush, you become awfully trusting when your own pre-judgments are combined with your lack of historical knowledge and context.
For someone who professes philosophic expertise Bob, I would have certainly expected that you would understand the need to define terms and the fact that words can be used to deceive as well as clarify. I was correcting your word choices and at the same time making the point that perhaps all is not what you so blithely expect because of your superficial understanding and your use of philosophical abstracts to discuss real world issues.
But let’s get clear here Bob and get to what you were really doing, for reasons I can’t fathom having previously considered you intelligent and fair minded. You have in this interchange begun to seem petty and smugly egotistical.
What you did was draw me into debate to prove this following premise:
“B
“I’ve been trying to show you how Mike resorts to stock arguments and anecdotes that don’t (for lack of a better term) jive with his overall take on the situation. His rhetoric is polluted with arguments and anecdotes more befitting an Israeli zealot seeking to deminimize and draw attention away from the group of people suffering from their tyrannical policies.”
Why you wanted to prove this point is anybody’s guess, but here is the proof of it in your own words. Bob, the “stock arguments”
you refer to are I believe historical truths about the Mid-East situation. I do re-use them, because as you have amply shown with misplaced pride, I need to repeat them again and again to people like yourself who are really ignorant of the issues. My mistake was discussing this with you at all in good faith, because you have lacked any in your discourse.
Mike first post on this thread:
“Israel has earned its’ being targeted for opprobrium, but sadly not more so, or to the extent of many other countries. Possibly a million dead Iraqi’s give support to my view.”
Bob’s first post to me and the beginning of his rhetorical set up
“Mike, would you consider me ‘off base’ in seeing an incredible similarity between my sister and Israel?
BTW Mike, you know I addressed this one to you because you’d pick up the counter point of defending Israel.
And speaking of ‘other countries,’ how many other countries besides South Africa, have been accused by an ex-president of carrying out policies of apartheid?
AND, this one is truly my pet peeve, how many other countries bombed the infrastructure of an entire country on the basis of the alleged detainment of two soldiers? Which is worse; Bush & Cheney defrauding the country into bombing Iraq or Israel propagandizing its citizens and the West to justify their bombing of Lebanon?”
Mike’s reply to Bob
“Nevertheless, I anticipate I have to fully lay out my position here, or my beliefs will be misread, and/or open to further dissection.
First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians. Up until that point the Israeli’s were alternatively called Palestinians all over the world and in the media. THe PR guy was brilliant because by giving this group of displaced Arabs a name, the name being used for the Israeli’s alternatively, it created the ability to make them into a martyred people. There has never been an Arab State called Palestine in all of history and indeed the name comes from the Roman Phillistinia, which the region was renamed after crushing Bar Kochba’s revolt in the Second Century BCE and not from its indigenous population”
Bobs answer:
“Really? There was no Palestine and no ‘Palestinian’ people? How do we distinguish Palestinian from Semite Mike? Do I hear it said that all Semites are Jews? If I were an anti-Semite, would I be anti-Jew or anti-Arab? Perhaps anti-Palestinian?”
Or is that simply a name given to a displaced group of people earlier than you claim the Palestinians were categorized?
While I appreciate the history lesson, I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.”
Please notice the switch of topic here to Bob’s perception of Israel’s self perceived moral immaculateness. His analogy refers first back to his sister using her abuse to cloak her future actions my agreement that Israel has done this and my trying to present context, but him re-framing it in the loaded, sarcastic connotation of “moral immaculateness.”
My comment which is abstracted from a much longer post dealing with the historical context:
Mike S.: “Third, the reason that Jordan no longer wants the West Bank back and Egypt no longer wants Gaza, both of which were formerly parts of their country and were occupied by Israel after the 1967 war, is that…”
Bob replies:
“Is that it bears no relevance to the issue of Israel acting like my sister; which, I remind you, is a point you already assented to in your previous reply. We are talking about Israel’s overall dialogue of entitlement to use “ILL WILL” (in the Kantian sense) towards whoever it wants; implicitly using my sister’s form of reasoning to exempt itself from any metaphysics of morals whatsoever — including the very religion upon which it bases its thinly veiled theocracy.”
To use ILL WILL (in the Kantian sense towards whoever it wants certainly connotes distaste for Israel, especially the angry capitals, as does thinly veiled theocracy. Both of which are accusations, only supported by his opinions and his false logical connection. Yet Bob has claimed throughout this debate that he is only talking in the abstract, when it is obvious that this is somewhat more personal with him.
Mike S.: “Fourth, have the proto-Palestinians been screwed royally for all these years and deserve sympathy? Absolutely, but just who screwed them is not as easy as it looks.”
Bob:
“Mike, as a Kantian, I’m constrained to inform you that true morality is rooted in the non spacio-temporal concept known as principles. Morality, as a general rule, is not a product of His-Story.”
Unlike Bob I reject the belief that morals exist outside of human experience. It’s must be a pleasant exercise to divorce yourself from the real doings of human beings, but I find it cold and inhuman. Sort of like using one’s sexually abused sister negatively to reinforce an abstract political point.
Mike S.: “Seventh, why should I a loyal American Jew who does not want to live in Israel, care so much about this tiny, embattled foreign country? If the fascist shit ever hits the fan in America and it well might, where does a Jew like me and his family go?”
Bob replies “empathetically”:
“How about New York? You really think the screen writers for Casablanca weren’t serious when they wrote this exchange:”
“Admit it, you’re getting carried away. Even the teen culture that doesn’t know who the first president was or that Patton fought in WWII and not the Civil War are enlightened enough to never allow their friends, favorite comedians and favorite deli owners to be rounded up in any way. You also have the entire world watching.”
Bob just can’t understand why Jews with thousands of years of oppression, 5o years from hotels in Miami Beach having signs saying “no Jews allowed” and towns all over the US with entry signs saying “No Jews, Niggers, or Dogs Allowed,” that Jews may feel threatened by a potential for a NAZI turn in America. This with the rise of Neo-NAZI groups, right wing fundamentalists who may be discouraged that their proselytism efforts among Jews might turn to “Christ Killer” animosity. He mocks my words which were stated in seriousness and honesty, not out of paranoia, but historical knowledge. Claims I’m overreacting, but forgets Germany which in the late 19th Century was the most welcoming of European nations to Jews. That was the beginning
Bob again:
“I’m not mocking you but I can’t empathize with the reasons you give for dreaming up your nightmare scenarios. I’m a Catholic that’s gone astray, but you don’t see me expecting the Spanish Inquisition do you?”
The thrust of the Inquisition was mainly about Jews, Cathars and Gypsies and the brunt of it was not borne by Catholics. You really are ignorant of history aren’t you Bob? And then this admission and expression of concern for my state of mind.
Bob again:
“Alright, maybe that could be considered mocking, but couldn’t it also be considered comic relief to distract you from your proclivity for dreaming up extraordinarily fearful scenarios for yourself? Fear must be tempered with reason”
Could be considered mocking? Comic relief? This is the source of the attacks on me that Bob initiated and now is denying in a protest that I attacked him first. I’ve even had people not condoning my actions, but equating them with Bob’s, while rebuking him. If you gratuitously mock me, denigrate my honest and historically well-founded concerns and then ridicule me, I will reply in kind and treat you to the replies you deserve.
Yet if you read through all these posts to me the clear fact is that Bob has been in attack mode, way beyond debate and has consistently tried to denigrate me, while insisting the debate be handled on his terms and finally to misquote me by adding implications that clearly weren’t there. Now we have him whining as he seeks approval for his actions and continuing this debate way beyond its’ need. To what end? I can only conclude that he has an inability to see his own culpability, an over confidence in his own moral correctness and a lack of respect for anyone who doesn’t believe as he does. I find his performance in this rather pathetic, not a cause for anger, since he is awash in the self deception of a true believer.
Mike S:
I think Bob’s refusal to consider historical fact and moral evolution is a flaw in his argument. It likely stems from his Kantian view that morality exists independent of human experience – a proposition for which I find little evidence. Your comment that this exchange has grown tedious is exactly the case, and I humbly suggest that you let the readers digest and decide for themselves whether Churchill’s prescient observation of the human condition holds sway or whether Bob’s view is the most likely. The great British statesman said, “The further back I look, the further forward I can see.” Also relevant here, I think, and to paraphrase Mr. Churchill, “You have [adversaries]? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
mespo,
Do ideas, conceptual constructions, exist independent of human experience?
Take for example the concepts of zero and the golden ratio. Both of these are ideas, just like simple operations of addition and subtraction – observations about the world turned into logical constructs we can re-use to our benefit (tools). Yet simple operations are not the sole realm of human thought. Math is an art perhaps but it is a logic foremost. Scientists have proven that some animals have basic math skills. Therefore, logic is a trans-human experience. We have evidence to this end.
Math is the language in which we will attempt to talk to aliens (and vice versa most likely) until some middle ground or true translation can occur. Surely the concepts of zero and the nature of the golden ratio will come up at some point in the lexicographical construction phase. These are mathematical concepts both as simple and yet as complicated as any philosophy. If you doubt this, look even superficially into the debates around the philosophical implications of either. Those waters run deep. But it is arrogance and anthropomorphic to think that we humans are the only beings capable of such musings upon the discovery of these or similar mathematical principles.
I have a stated aversion to the term moral because of its value loading (in the propaganda sense of the term value loading). But I’ll talk ethics. Is it so hard to believe that an ethical idea, just another idea about how the observer relates to the universe – just like counting and basic math, is it so difficult to believe that such a principle could be as trans-human as the concept of zero itself? Is it inconceivable that alien minds came to the conclusion that murder is wrong? It is not out of the question that hive mind creatures may not have such a prohibition as the worker class are cheap and expendable so why is it out of the question that aliens with a more similar morphology to humans (bilateral symmetry, limited breeding cycles, language and tool users minimum) could come to similar conclusions about their relationships to the universe as a human would and place a high value on individual life?
If animals are capable of basic logic, then not every logical thought is human. Therefore no idea is the sole province of man. Why is math, one logic – a given, but ethics, another logic – is not? And just like math, some ideas (not all) transcend the human experience. This includes ethical constructs. They are relational constructs and can be expressed symbolically.
We use words traditionally, but if you were insane enough to want to do it, you could rewrite most works about ethics in symbolic logic notation. Agreeing on a key is the issue, but that’s another story.
When we meet our interstellar brethren, provided we survive the encounter, there will be a whole new clash of ideas where there will be both commonalities and conflicts. Culture clash and culture shock. I know you have read enough history to know this is seen even with human groups meeting for the first time. For our sake, we better hope for a net better track record than what happened on Earth to this point.
In addition, I put it to you that we had better hope the first technologically advanced aliens we encounter (as in they could get here) have some kind of commonality with us poo flinging space monkeys. If not? Rocks are cheap and easy to throw from orbit and this sure is a nice planet if it wasn’t for all those THINGS down here monopolizing the resources.
I think you are dismissive of the idea of trans-human ethics too easily. And I’m not afraid to threaten the Earth with asteroid bombardment to prove it.
Mike,
One of THE major reasons I keep coming at you on this topic has been to combat your insistence of painting me with your own sins.
You need to stop calling me intellectually dishonest for a for just a moment to take stock of all the misleading statements you’ve made and all of your premises you’ve attributed to me and summarily attacked as being mine. I’ve been attacking you Mike because I”ve NEVER seen you debate like this.
I posted this yesterday as yet another example of you covering yourself with an intentionally misleading statement. The original is still awaiting moderation, but here it is in an edited form:
Bob,Esq. 1, October 8, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Mike S.: “A typical “question” on your part in that it tries to reinforce your prejudice re: Kant, even as it hides itself as merely a simple question. Gestalt Therapy, as created by Fritz Perls owes nothing to Kant”
You have the audacity of accusing me of intellectual dishonesty after writing the foregoing?
‘The Anatomy of Sheer Intellectual Dishonesty’ (let’s see how it’s done)
“Gestalt therapy ‘as created by Fritz Perls’ owes nothing to Kant?” Perls stood on the shoulders of no one? Hmm? Gestalt just popped into existence once Perls came along, right?
While I’m sure you’re aware of the distinctions between Gestalt psychology and therapy, you weren’t discussing them earlier. You wrote:
Mike S.: “To me morality is visceral and as a follower of Gestalt Philosophy, I trust my gut and feel that
people tend to use overblown intellectual bullshit to escape their true feelings.”
Ya see Mike, you never mentioned Gestalt therapy by Perls, you said you were a follower of GESTALT PHILOSOPHY. And where did that all begin; with Perls? Actually, I think it started with a guy named Wertheimer? Is that his name? And I believe he was influenced by the works of Goethe, Mach and some other guy…
GESTALT THEORY
by Max Wertheimer (1924) an address before the KANT Society, Berlin, ‘7th December, 1924], Erlangen, 1925.
In the translation by Willis D. Ellis published in his “Source Book of Gestalt Psychology,”
http://horan.asu.edu/ced522readings/gestalt/wert1.html
Gee, why would Wertheimer address the Kant Society in Berlin?
Is there some relationship between Gestalt & Kant?
(insert TINYURL LINK TO GOOGLE OF “KANT & GESTALT”)
Apparently so. (And yes, I’m being as smug as possible and deservedly so)
Now Mike, had you originally mentioned Gestalt therapy instead of Gestalt philosophy, my comment STILL would have have been true as to its origins. However that form of explanation would have required quite a few pages of explanation regarding what was borrowed from Kant, more explanation about what Kant was saying and how distinguishing ‘perceiving, feeling, and acting from ‘interpreting and reshuffling preexisting attitudes’ is just the use of the Gestalt template in a clinical setting, and how Gestalt itself echoes a paradigm shift found in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.
Here’s a summary that simplifies it a bit:
“An early influence on Gestalt psychology was the philosopher Immanuel Kant. He argued that we do not perceive the world as it is; we impose cause and effect relationships on it and therefore our perceptions are influenced by our experience. The original observation forming Gestalt Theory was made by Max Wertheimer. Gestalt psychology is based on the observation that we often experience things that are not a part of our simple sensations. We have the tendency to experience a structured whole as well as the individual sensations. We are able to read and understand a word that is missing letters because our mind sees the whole even when it is not there.”
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/18033/gestalt_psychology.html?cat=37
Perhaps one day, when you’re less prone to throwing tantrums about Kant, I can tell you more about the great grandfather of your Gestalt philosophy.
———————
Your confessed unwillingness to discuss and resolve issues within relevant current day factual contexts, relying instead on far removed historical facts, comes off like an African American attempting to excuse theft of land and live stock by stating he’s entitled to 40 acres and a Mule. And you wonder why I don’t consider history to be a relevant guidepost to moral law.
Finally Mike, I do have feelings. And it is YOU who have been casting the insults as soon as I dare challenge your views on a topic which dismiss opponents by claiming you have the most knowledge of and are therefore unquestionable. Like a ten year old dittohead, you ridicule philosophy and Kant as if you’ve ever cracked a few books on the subject when you haven’t. That’s mature debate? Further, it is your dearth of analytical skills in the areas of law, morals and informal fallacies that contributes to your ‘insecurity’ and resulting proclivity to attribute your premises, informal fallacies & unfounded accusations here to me while attacking me for same.
I’m supposed to just accept all the shit you dumped on me just because you penned an “okay you win Bob” post. That excuses you?
There’s a post from Buddha above that explains what I’ve been talking about. Don’t let Mespo fool you; your arguments have become more and more irrational, yet instead of biting the bullet and taking responsibility, you’ve been projecting it all on me.
Once again Mike, I’ve been tossing mice, and you’ve been firing missiles; I just wanted to know why.
I should also note that some of the more fringe scholars speculate that Kant was not really Prussian, but rather a Prussian/Zeta-Reticulan hybrid. Or maybe Swiss.
(I kid.)
Just one piece illustrating why this is futile:
Mike S.: “Unlike Bob I reject the belief that morals exist outside of human experience.”
The man who wrote this has no idea what Kant was talking about and even more so would have no idea how Gestalt owes its origins to Kant’s philosophy.
“The resistance which is opposed to any hindrance of an effect is in reality a furtherance of this effect and is in accordance with its accomplishment. Now, everything that is wrong is a hindrance of freedom, according to universal laws; and compulsion or constraint of any kind is a hindrance or resistance made to freedom. CONSEQUENTLY, if a certain exercise of freedom is itself a hindrance of the freedom that is according to universal laws, it is wrong; and the compulsion of constraint which is opposed to it is right, as being a hindering of a hindrance of freedom, and as being in accord with the freedom which exists in accordance with universal laws. Hence, according to the logical principle of contradiction, all right is accompanied with an implied title or warrant to bring compulsion to bear ON ANY ONE WHO MAY VIOLATE IT IN FACT.” (’Science of Right,’ Immanuel Kant)
Bob initially my intent was to ask for help comprehending the above Kantian quote with regard to the U.N. report: Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, to better grasp your perspective, (this is where the crayons would have been required on my part). However I don’t think I could ever really appreciate its essence, to me it’s a Quadratic polynomial, which is also beyond my limited range of understanding.
What I did understand is this:
Mike, did I ever tell you about my sister who was sexually molested at gunpoint? Did I ever tell you that one of the psychological problems she exhibited afterward was a sens of entitlement to react disproportionately harsh to anyone and treat people as badly as she wanted without justification? She always made it clear in her actions that “since she was hurt in the past, then no one dare so much as step on an egg shell to stop her from hurting people now.” —Bob, Esq.
To me that behavior is the victim archetype. My understanding of the term archetype is a universal pattern of energy.
It’s difficult to explain to a person that at some point in time it’s counterproductive to their healing by staying in the victim role.
Avraham Burg authored the book,
“The holocaust is over; we must rise from its ashes”
Burg gives an interview to Gershom Gorenberg here. Would you look at the first 20 minutes of this piece? Burg presents the argument that the victim cannot become the victimizer.
This interview was conducted 12/9/2008.
Might help if the link appeared:
embed type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” src=”http://static.bloggingheads.tv/maulik/offsite/offsite_flvplayer.swf” flashvars=”playlist=http%3A%2F%2Fbloggingheads%2Etv%2Fdiavlogs%2Fliveplayer%2Dplaylist%2F16423%2F00%3A00%2F39%3A29″ height=”288″ width=”380″></embed
or
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/16423
Thanks
Bob replies:
“Is that it bears no relevance to the issue of Israel acting like my sister; which, I remind you, is a point you already assented to in your previous reply. We are talking about Israel’s overall dialogue of entitlement to use “ILL WILL” (in the Kantian sense) towards whoever it wants; implicitly using my sister’s form of reasoning to exempt itself from any metaphysics of morals whatsoever — including the very religion upon which it bases its thinly veiled theocracy.”
Mike S.: “To use ILL WILL (in the Kantian sense towards whoever it wants certainly connotes distaste for Israel, especially the angry capitals, as does thinly veiled theocracy.”
ILL WILL is the base element for wrong doing where the only thing good in the world is a good will; you simpleton. Further, the thinly veiled theocracy remark was an allusion to the act of EVEN IGNORING the morals set forth in the Old Testament.
Mike S.: “Both of which are accusations, only supported by his opinions and his false logical connection. Yet Bob has claimed throughout this debate that he is only talking in the abstract, when it is obvious that this is somewhat more personal with him.”
Personal to the extent that I despise hypocrisy.
True, Getalt borrowed from a number of existential sources in its’ development. Kantian philosophy was actually praised by Perls…
“Personal to the extent that I despise hypocrisy.”
Bob,
Nice to know, however, your own ego keeps you safely tucked away from the reality of your own hypocrisy. I showed clearly above how your gratuitous attacks on me in this thread began and clearly you were the the aggressor. Ridicule and alluding to my state of mind is an attack. That you ignore, perhaps because reality is inconvenient for you and that is your hypocrisy.
What does gratify me, however, is that you actually forced yourself beyond your “all-knowing” ego to actually Googlng something to get historical context. Unfortunately, your superficial understanding of the topic, merged with your Kant egocentricity let you get it wrong yet again.
However, why would I expect you to understand Gestalt Psychotherapy, when you lack the ability to empathize emotionally and replace it the emotional lacking with intellectual constructs that mimic feeling. You find no sympathy even for your own sister, who was viciously abused and because of it has behaved in a difficult manner. Whatever feelings I might have about my siblings, I wouldn’t use their personal history to illustrate a point on a blog.
If you had the ability to understand insights other than your own, you might actually see clearly that I agreed with the analogy, but you wanted me to come exactly to the same conclusions you had. I’ve said Bob I’m a visceral person and I don’t introject my intellectualism in front of my emotions, nor do I discount the lessons of history.
Speaking of history though your superficial research does uncover that Max Wertheimer was the prime force behind Gestalt Psychology, which was developed by him in Vienna contemporaneously with Freud’s work in that same City. In my library I have a dog eared copy of Wertheimer’s only book which I bought 20 years ago at a yard sale.
Fritz Perls and his wife Laura were indeed trained in Gestalt Psychology in Vienna and were also trained in Freudian Psychotherapy. Perls practiced psychoanalysis for many years, with an overlay of Gestalt Psychology:
http://www.gestalt.org/fritz.htm
However, by the early 40′s Fritz had become disillusioned by the effectiveness of both disciplines to effect change and growth in people. His wife Laura remained more wedded to Wertheimer’s theories and a rift began, also widened admittedly by Fritz tendency to be unfaithful to her. The marriage ended in bitter acrimony and the fact that Fritz became internationally known added to Laura’s enmity and she spent the rest of her life trying to discredit him and with it Gestalt Psychotherapy.
As Fritz’s distaste for the disciplines he was originally trained in grew in the 40′s he began to develop his own conceptions and writings. This culminated in his break with them in the seminal “Ego, Hunger and Aggression,” written with Heferline and Goodman. He went beyond that though to write later books, best of which is “Gestalt Therapy Verbatim” though his autobiography “In and Out of the Garbage Pail” is also instructive.
As I said before I was trained in a 5 year training program by one of Fritz’s chief disciples.(I would mention her name, but since my wife has been under a vicious twitter stalker attack since last night I am somewhat chary at the moment of providing personal details.) Gestalt Psychology was mentioned briefly in passing and Kantian, or other philosophies were never brought up.
Gestalt Therapy simply does not work that way.
This is history Bob and that you would pretend to hoist me on a petard in my own field is absurd, but bespeaks the egocentricity that your Kantian beliefs seem to give you. I’ve noticed that you have a history here of trying to play the bully more and more as some reject your assertions. Rather than reference what you believe to be my personality quirks, I would suggest you look into your own.
“The man who wrote this has no idea what Kant was talking about and even more so would have no idea how Gestalt owes its origins to Kant’s philosophy.”
Bob, having clearly stated long ago on this thread that I am a Gestalt Psychotherapist and now having show you that it is a different field from Wertheimer’s, my conclusion is that you are “the man with no idea.”
“Ya see Mike, you never mentioned Gestalt therapy by Perls, you said you were a follower of GESTALT PHILOSOPHY.”
Bob below is the whole of Gestalt Philosophy, it is a term of art, rather than an area of discourse. I made two mistakes with you one this thread: 1. That you were an honorable debater. 2. That you had some erudition beyond the law and Kant. My mistake in this case was the silly notion that you would understand where I was coming from.
“I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.”
(Fritz Perls, 1969)
Fritz unfortunately died before he could expand this into a book,
where he would construct his philosophy around it. I use it and Rabbi Hillel do construct my own “philosophy” and inform my own moral/ethical judgment.
“Once again Mike, I’ve been tossing mice, and you’ve been firing missiles; I just wanted to know why.”
Bob, I proved with your own words in my previous post, which you true to form did not respond to, that you began tossing ICBM’s at me and your casting them as mice, only proves your incapability to empathize. It’s so comforting to discuss morality, while being unable to actually evoke human feelings.
“I’m supposed to just accept all the shit you dumped on me just because you penned an “okay you win Bob” post. That excuses you?”
I proved, with your own words that you were the initial “shit dumper” so this sentence ill becomes you. I’m supposed to deal with your hidden sarcasm and dismissal, by not responding in kind? When I do respond in kind then I’m to be told I’m not acting myself? I think not. You have some cleverness in debate Bob, but I would define your cleverness as the ability to be disingenuous and then like the Casablanca you quote become “shocked” at your deserved rude treatment. You are whining Bob and to what effect? Marshaling allies to your side? I’ve already stated in many ways that it is immaterial to me what people think of me as long as my own moral compass is pointing in the right direction and in this case mine is. I’m not like you Bob, as you now play for the grandstand pathetically. Perhaps though that is your gratification showing off for the grandstand?
“One of THE major reasons I keep coming at you on this topic has been to combat your insistence of painting me with your own sins.”
I’ve stated it before and proved it before that you are projecting your behavior onto me and I made that statement before you made yours. This is merely another gambit of trying to turn the argument around on me. How very Republican of you Bob.
“I dare challenge your views on a topic which dismiss opponents by claiming you have the most knowledge of and are therefore unquestionable.”
Paraphrasing and mis-characterization of my remarks out of a broader context do not an argument make. Then, however, this has been another part of the dishonesty of your technique. An effort to render my comments without their surrounding context.
“Like a ten year old dittohead, you ridicule philosophy and Kant as if you’ve ever cracked a few books on the subject when you haven’t. That’s mature debate?”
Bob, I’ve done my reading. My comments on philosophy came when you used your Kantian precepts as a “debate ender” whereby your quoting Kant proves all and gives you license to dismiss other arguments in the light of the “great man’s” conceptions. You may be a lapsed Catholic, but I suspect you’ve replaced religious zealotry with philosophic zealotry, while simultaneously projecting on to me the role of zealot.
“ILL WILL is the base element for wrong doing where the only thing good in the world is a good will; you simpleton.”
Tsk, Tsk Bob. The only thing good in the world is a good will?
A fatuous statement bereft of content simply because it is so all encompassing. My sense is to beware of simple syllogisms and those that wield them as revealed truth. Bob, have you really given up Jesus for Immanuel? Sounds like a parable to me.
“Further, the thinly veiled theocracy remark was an allusion to the act of EVEN IGNORING the morals set forth in the Old Testament.”
First of all Bob, as I previously stated, Jews take “Old Testament” as an insult. It is referred to as the Torah or Pentateuch, by Jews and those sensitive to Jewish feeling. This incidentally is not a statement of holocaust victimization, it is a Jewish/christian dispute that has lasted for 1,700 years.
Now, if that was your meaning regarding “theocracy” than your use of language is highly imprecise and faulty, especially when you are replying to concrete statements. In your ignorance of this subject you obviously don’t understand that “theocracy” has been a charge leveled against Israel by opponent’s of its existence, its’ point being to under cut Israel’s being defined as a democracy. The problem in this discussion is that you only want to have it on your terms, by your rules and yet fail to have the most rudimentary understanding of the geo-political nuances entailed.
As quoted from the link you provided Bob, don’t you fully read your links before posting them? This from page 4 of the article quoted.
“As stated by Mary Henle: “Fritz Perls has done – `his thing’; whatever it is, it is not Gestalt psychology”. Her contemporary Rudolph Arnheim also says, “I can see Max Wertheimer fly into one of his magnificent rages, had he lived to see Perls’ Ego, Hunger, and Aggression (1947) dedicated to him as though he were the father of it all”.”
In Ego, Hunger and Aggression Perls was being charitable towards Wertheimer since it was Perl’s first major break with both Freudian Psycho-Analysis and Gestalt Psychology and thus the didication. You would really do better Bob if you didn’t try to prove your your ignorant suppositions, by vetting your “proof.”
The article by the way was hardly an unbiased view since it was written by proponents of Gestalt Psychology, which had been eclipsed by and far surpassed by Gestalt Psychotherapy in recognition.
Bob, I could go on and on with this to the ultimate boredom of everyone else. You, however, are like a child with a temper tantrum and refuse to stop until you’ve had your way. I been reading your stuff for a long time and I do respect your intelligence, perception and at times humor. However, it is my impression that what is sorely missing from your quiver is a sense of humility. You never have to my memory apologized on anything and eventually because of your increasing belligerence people don’t give into you, they merely stop debating with you.
This no doubt leads you to believe that you’ve once again won the debate rather than just began to bore and intimidate people.
I’ve often said that I began to learn I was on the path to wisdom, when I came to realize I didn’t know everything and in the case of possible knowledge had hardly scratched the surface. I believe given your writing and your religious attachment to Kant, that you have not yet set out on that path because humble is not an adjective one would use in describing you. One the other hand when shown to be wrong I’ve apologized for my behavior and admitted my mistakes and misinterpretations. In the case of this discussion that is not necessary. You have not done yourself proud Bob, despite whatever claque of defenders you might develop.
Billy,
Why don’t you and Bob argue some RCC stuff I sense you would be evenly matched in sheer doggedness.
“To me that behavior is the victim archetype. My understanding of the term archetype is a universal pattern of energy.
It’s difficult to explain to a person that at some point in time it’s counterproductive to their healing by staying in the victim role.
Avraham Burg authored the book,
“The holocaust is over; we must rise from its ashes”
Burg gives an interview to Gershom Gorenberg here. Would you look at the first 20 minutes of this piece? Burg presents the argument that the victim cannot become the victimizer.
This interview was conducted 12/9/2008.”
CCD,
Where in my writings have I used the holocaust (Shoah) experience as a justification of Israel’s behavior? I know that is Bob’s claim about some Jews in general, but i don’t happen to be one of them. Sympathy for past victimization’s is never my point. My point is that given our past history Jews are wary that in any country in the world we could again be victims and so are attached to Israel as the one place where we will be welcome if anti-Jewishness rises. The Jewish philosophy of “Never Again” is one that rejects casting ourselves as victims and takes responsibility upon ourselves as agents of our own survival. Bob thinks this is paranoid, history teaches me that it isn’t.
Do some Jews use past victimization as a shield, yes they do. On this blog I have been among the first to denounce that tactic.
Please understand though that Jews have never been monolithic in attitude and are actually taught by our religion to question everything. Just as a black man has no responsibility have to personally justify Clarence Thomas, Allan Watts, Ken Steele, Reverend Wright, or even Barack Obama, I have no responsibility, but do it anyway to decry those Jews using victimization as a shield. They don’t speak for me and for many other Jews.
True, Perls conceptualization was different than Wertheimers’. This was because Fritz integrated a “phenomenological” approach to psychotherapy that was new and groundbreaking. If I may be so bold, I would say that Perls employment of Gestalt, in a healing modality would be unrecognizable to Wertheimers’ efforts in psychotherapy and its’ development. Fritz was a “showman”, with a past history of theatrics in his adolescence. Many behavioral scientists saw to much of the “showman” in his approach to “humanistic existentialism”. I personally feel, that Perls was “trying” to move away from the “theoretical” on this level, because it would invaraibly cause the client to begin the process of “intellectualization”, thereby defeating the purpose of Gestalt Psychotherapy!
“I think you are dismissive of the idea of trans-human ethics too easily. And I’m not afraid to threaten the Earth with asteroid bombardment to prove it.”
Buddha,
I interrupt your message to Mespo to say to you don’t you think as an avid reader of science fiction since 1952, I am familiar with what you posit? Haven’t you read enough of Mespo’s writing to understand the point he was making and that he is far from an intellectual slouch and probably more learned than all of us, stating:
“Do ideas, conceptual constructions, exist independent of human experience?”
The claim I make against Bob is that he insists on taking human emotions and history out of this issue and want’s to argue it strictly on his own Kantian grounds. My contention, which Mespo and Gyges to a degree agree with, is that he has used Kant to try to turn this into an a-historical discussion, when it is clearly grounded in history. Rather than clarify the issues, as he thinks he is doing, he merely muddles them further.
Finally, do you really think I’m as ignorant of the philosophical implications here as Bob seems to suggest? Truthfully though Kant and philosophy in general has never interested me, Bob’s usage of him has diminished my interest further. That he knows far more about Kant than I do and want’s to make Kantian syllogisms the foreground of debate is to me childish and remiscent of the kid taking his bat home from a pick up baseball game when a call went against him.
Buddha, I won’t play this in his ballpark as he has assiduously tried to do. I know you think I’m not myself, but really I’m quite myself, but part of being myself and following Gestalt Therapy principles is being flexible enough to use appropriate tactics that fit the environment/reality and the aspersions of my fellow debater. Were you in my boat, knowing your skill, I have no doubt you’d be doing the same thing.
“If I may be so bold, I would say that Perls employment of Gestalt, in a healing modality would be unrecognizable to Wertheimers’ efforts in psychotherapy and its’ development. Fritz was a “showman”, with a past history of theatrics in his adolescence. Many behavioral scientists saw to much of the “showman” in his approach to “humanistic existentialism”. I personally feel, that Perls was “trying” to move away from the “theoretical” on this level, because it would invaraibly cause the client to begin the process of “intellectualization”, thereby defeating the purpose of Gestalt Psychotherapy!”
Billy,
I must admit you do know your Gestalt Therapy and why Wertheimer bears little relevance to it.
The reason I resonate with Perls, is because he is REAL! Gestalt is not interested in what you “think”, only what you “feel”. Perls knew that when you start talking about what “you” think, the “therapeutic relationship” will then devolve into ELEPHANTSHITTING! These are Fritzs’ words, not mine, I just happen to subscribe to them..
Bob,
Since you did address the topic I was trying to engage you on, let me respond. Then unless either of us can find something new to add, I’ll be done.
Argument from repetition is convincing only to the person making the argument.
I’ve given a perfectly valid reason (one supported by Mike’s previous behavior) for Mike to say what he said. You disagree, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is your assumption that you simply disagreeing with it makes it go away. You don’t get to say “I don’t think your explanation is the right one, therefor my explanation is the only possible one,” and expect me to forget that I gave an explanation.
Furthermore, your insistence the Mike “Started out” with that is easily proven wrong by anyone who does a word search for “Mike” and then hits “next” a few times. He started out by agreeing with you. The history of the term Palestinian was part of a coda (by the way, any fan of Beethoven’s later Symphonies will tell you that codas can be as long as the rest of the Movement) Mike used to further develop a few themes.
True, it came at the beginning of the coda. As to why it would be in the beginning of the end instead of the end of the end let’s do a simple exercise. Take out any translation of a philosophical work you want, and I bet money that out of the first 10 footnotes at least 6 will be definitions of terms. You define terms at the beginning, because it clears things up and helps to avoid possible misunderstanding.
Where in my writings have I used the holocaust (Shoah) experience as a justification of Israel’s behavior?– Mike
Never to my knowledge.
Mike did you listen to the interview? My objective is honestly to learn, I may be catching you in a defensive moment, that isn’t my intent and if I’m reading you inaccurately forgive me.
Burg makes the argument that there is institutional victim energy propagated by the state in Israel. Burg makes his point to me about the Shoah, in that it is the responsibility of the entire world, of the victim and the victimizer to remember that important piece of human history, (minute 16:30).
Burg further states that, (minute 17:36) we have a responsibility to any person who suffers genocide, a crime against humanity, a crime against peace to raise awareness to an indifferent world.
Mike,
I chose that language for a reason Mike and that was because it is a common vernacular with us. I also understand the contention that Bob is trying to do something to the argument. I not only understand it, I agree. Of course he’s trying to influence the conversation, that’s part of the sport, but I just disagree that he is attempting to turn it a-historical.
I suggest that he’s attempting to do something that looks similar, but isn’t.
It’s not the layer of history that he seeks to strip away, but the layers of cultural and political weight around the actions in history to distill as “clean”/universal an ethical lesson as possible. That is the method I see here, not an attack on the history of Israel nor a denial of that history. Look at what I said about aliens and abstractions again and if you can’t see that the very way we’ll breach the alien language barrier is a combination of math, logic and a reductionist methodology for finding common concepts for forming the basis of communication. Compare it to Kant’s methodology. Distillation is key to his way of analysis. Reductionist methods are a powerful analytical tool and I think you are being dismissive of the man using this method because you disapprove of the method and/or misinterpret its application in this instance for something it is not.
Gyges: “Furthermore, your insistence the Mike “Started out” with that is easily proven wrong by anyone who does a word search for “Mike” and then hits “next” a few times. He started out by agreeing with you. The history of the term Palestinian was part of a coda (by the way, any fan of Beethoven’s later Symphonies will tell you that codas can be as long as the rest of the Movement) Mike used to further develop a few themes.”
Is that what did? I was referring to the post and the rhetoric of order of presentation.
“In the discussion about Israel carrying out apartheid policies against a group of people now and formerly known as Palestinians, here’s what Mike had to say ‘first.’
Mike S.: “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians.”
I believe there were seven points he made, this the first.
Did you know that John Marshall structured Marbury in a way that he left the final point of the opinion to remark about how the Court had this new power of judicial review?
Since I was referring to the original post, you apparently misread what I wrote.
Buddha:
“It’s not the layer of history that he seeks to strip away, but the layers of cultural and political weight around the actions in history to distill as “clean”/universal an ethical lesson as possible. That is the method I see here, not an attack on the history of Israel nor a denial of that history.”
“Distillation is key to his way of analysis. Reductionist methods are a powerful analytical tool and I think you are being dismissive of the man using this method because you disapprove of the method and/or misinterpret its application in this instance for something it is not.”
Thank you.
I went to school with a Palestinian woman at UCLA. She was also Catholic. The stories she shared with me were heart-rending, and the sense of loss and abandonment that her family experienced was dreadful. I in turn shared my own families experience in WWII, and how they were the victims of horrific brutality and indoctrination techniques at the hands of the Japanese.
Mike S.: “As quoted from the link you provided Bob, don’t you fully read your links before posting them?”
Yes I do; which is why I structured my post in the way I did.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29/u-n-report-israel-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza/#comment-84474
I know nothing about Gestalt therapy Mike and I never claimed I did. But, having knowledge of what Kant did in his Critique, I do know why Gestalt is said to partially owe its founding to a unique part of Kantian philosophy. This is why I was able to paraphrase the part about distinguishing ‘perceiving, feeling, and acting’ from ‘interpreting and reshuffling preexisting attitudes’ from a latter portion of the article I posted. In fact, I threw that bomb in there after reading a similar quote to the one you posted.
Nonetheless, you said “Gestalt Philosophy” and that Mike is the entire Gestalt gambit. You’re not entitled to take your pitch back after its been hit out of the park by claiming you meant to limit it down to Perls brand of Gestalt therapy; even though I anticipated you doing so, evidenced by the above.
Here’s the thing Mike; something that CCD reminded me of. Remember the film “Good Will Hunting?” Remember the scene where Will (Matt Damon) first meets Shawn (Robin Williams)? Remember Will looking at the water color painting on the therapist’s wall?
When I started out with my comparison of Israel to my sister, I was expecting more of your therapist’s persona to chime in and attempt to explain it to me in a rational manner. Why, well to make another public confession, I wanted to know why people like
my sister grow up happy as happy children and then suddenly turn into monsters who laugh, dare I say cackle, as they emotionally terrorize my mother with the most cruelest harmful things to say.
Why do I get the feeling that had I compared my sister to ANY other country doing something similar, I would have gotten a more rational discussion? By more rational, I mean, returning to the scene from “Good Will Hunting,” a discussion where your immediate reaction was to grab me by the neck and throw me against a wall.
I didn’t mock the loss of your wife, so to speak, I was doing what the Buddha saw me doing.
Mice & Missiles.
Perls was an admirer of Kant. In fact he referenced Kant and Camus in one of his films and monographs he submitted from South Africa. The existential dimension, of Kantian philosophy is what attracted Perls to it. That said, Perls was attracted to many existential disciplines.
Perls “attraction” was due in large part because he was a humanistic existentialist.
“a discussion where your immediate reaction was to grab me by the neck and throw me against a wall.”
Bob, My, My. You’re certainly projecting macho today, however,
do you really think that I’m so angry with you that I’d like to assault you?
“In fact, I threw that bomb in there after reading a similar quote to the one you posted.”
Oh, I see you’re the one with those macho feelings.
“Nonetheless, you said “Gestalt Philosophy” and that Mike is the entire Gestalt gambit. You’re not entitled to take your pitch back after its been hit out of the park by claiming you meant to limit it down to Perls brand of Gestalt therapy”
You hit the ball out of the park? Gloating Bob, prematurely I think. I’m entitled to claim whatever I want. Those are Bob’s Rules of Order. Perhaps Bob’s Rules of Order mean that only bob get to dishonestly say whatever he want? I said what I said within a context since I gave you fair warning that I’m not a Psychologist, but a Gestalt Psychotherapist. As much as you play pretend I’m not playing by your skewed rules.
First Google response on “Gestalt Philosophy” below and guess what no Kant, just as my five years of training never mentioned Kant and Fritz’ books/tapes only mentioned him tangentially a few times
“http://www.gestalt.org/wulf.htm”
“When I started out with my comparison of Israel to my sister, I was expecting more of your therapist’s persona to chime in and attempt to explain it to me in a rational manner. Why, well to make another public confession, I wanted to know why people like
my sister grow up happy as happy children and then suddenly turn into monsters who laugh, dare I say cackle, as they emotionally terrorize my mother with the most cruelest harmful things to say.”
bob, frankly the above is full of shit and remember you opened up by telling me I couldn’t change my position retroactively.
That paragraph is a nonsensical cover up to hide the fact that you cruelly used your sister’s abuse to make a philosophic point on morality. By the way within it I hear the whine of tommy Smothers saying Mom always loved you the best.
‘I didn’t mock the loss of your wife, so to speak, I was doing what the Buddha saw me doing.”
What loss of my wife, Bob? She’s fine. You really need to hone your reading skills.
Another thing I’d like to share as to my feeling about Philosophy and Philosophers. Before I met my wife I was dating a very wealthy fellow student, older than me, who owned a Gatsby like mansion on the Long Island Sound. She threw a party one night for all the faculty and selected students of Columbia University’s Philosophy Department. All the top flight published professors showed. Being in my early thirties I was excited, imagining all of the pithy discussion I would hear. I dropped some mescaline, not enough to impair myself and circulated through the party. I was at that time young, tall and handsome so I got hit on by many of the woman, some of whom were professors. When I was taken around and introduced by my then girlfriend though, people understood I was taken and the flirting stopped. This left me to circulate through this luxurious setting and out back to the tables set up overlooking the Sound.
I listened in on the conversations hearing names like Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Plato, Kant and the whole panoply of Philosophical stars. There were sociable disputes and there were
monologues by star Professors, surround by young women/men who listened eyes agleam with rapturous adoration and the hope that their ardor would be noted. Then I started to laugh, to myself of course not wanting to be offensive, because it occurred to me that all the talk, all the intellectual interplay and in the end all the meaning was about people wanting to get laid, or at least to bask in the glow of admiration of their erudition. All the rest was bullshit, because in the end our society differs little from that of the Great Apes. It was one of the most fun evenings of my life as my tripping mind made these associations.
This is my metaphor for philosophy and my judgment of the effect it has had on the human race. We’re all just great apes with pretensions.
Now, as to the topic at hand. Morality in the abstract is an easy
place to stand because it makes little demand on the proclaimers.
People like me who’ve spent many years working with those who have been crushed and discarded by society and yet still manage to find empathy for those we’ve ministered to are the true moralists. We’ve put our money where our mouths were. I’ve seen for instance the ravages of sexually molested children and adult women and managed to retain empathy for their pain, even while having to deal with their angry discharges, striking out in all directions in the vain attempt to quench the anguish inside.
I won’t take lessons in intellectually pristine morality from someone who still bears enmity towards someone he knows who has been abused. Yes I can even feel empathy for that little boy inside someone who watched his Mother’s attention being stolen from him and saw the destruction that those who have been psychically scarred can wield. If you had asked me about it Bob
as you posit I would have tried to answer you as best I could.
“Why, well to make another public confession, I wanted to know why people like my sister grow up happy as happy children and then suddenly turn into monsters who laugh, dare I say cackle, as they emotionally terrorize my mother with the most cruelest harmful things to say.”
That wasn’t what you asked me though and I suspect that it was your original motive. You chose instead to purposely draw me into an argument, of your choosing, about Israel and then mocked
my attempts to answer you and displayed not one whit of compassion for my heartfelt statements on why Israel is important to Jews. You admitted to mocking me and tried to excuse it as a joke to mollify what you felt was my overreaction.
Live the life I’ve lived Bob, walk a mile in the shoes I’ve walked, see the horrific sights I’ve seen and the just maybe we can discuss the philosophy of morality. However, you are constrained from showing empathy at this site and upwards in this thread admitted it toward what were my honest feelings. There is no morality without empathy and compassion no matter how you define it. Empathy and compassion complete morality by injecting the needed human element. If you don’t understand that in your gut than memorizing all of Kant can’t help you.
You want to keep playing this out I’m here and despite your unjustified feelings of superiority and macho pretensions I’m every bit your equal intellectually, the difference is as Fritz would have said: I’m tuned into the wisdom of my entire organism and not trapped only in my head.
“The reason I resonate with Perls, is because he is REAL! Gestalt is not interested in what you “think”, only what you “feel”. Perls knew that when you start talking about what “you” think, the “therapeutic relationship” will then devolve into ELEPHANTSHITTING!”
Billy,
That is the essence of it, try not to cloud your mind with pseudo intellectualism.
“bob, frankly the above is full of shit and remember you opened up by telling me I couldn’t change my position retroactively.
That paragraph is a nonsensical cover up to hide the fact that you cruelly used your sister’s abuse to make a philosophic point on morality. By the way within it I hear the whine of tommy Smothers saying Mom always loved you the best.”
Seriously Mike, how am I cruel now, but not ten days ago when you wrote this:
September 29, 2009
Bob: “Mike, would you consider me ‘off base’ in seeing an incredible similarity between my sister and Israel?”
Mike S. “I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exascerbates their problems. They are a country that has literally constantly been on a war footing for more than 60 years and their citizenry has reacted in a manner commensurate with that. That is why thugs like Begin got elected in the first place and Bibi is in now. They promise “tough” action and a war weary population has voted its’ fears and in my opinion voted badly.”
How am I on target ten days ago and cruel today regarding a comparison that has not changed? And the Tommy Smothers mother remark? Could you crawl further into the gutter of personal attacks?
“a discussion where your immediate reaction was to grab me by the neck and throw me against a wall.”
Mike S.: ” Bob, My, My. You’re certainly projecting macho today, however, do you really think that I’m so angry with you that I’d like to assault you?”
Mike, I was referring to a scene in a film; was I wrong to assume you know what a metaphor is?
Bob: “In fact, I threw that bomb in there after reading a similar quote to the one you posted.”
Mike S.: “Oh, I see you’re the one with those macho feelings.”
Actually Mike, that was an oblique reference to a tactic I picked up from Scalia’s use of footnotes in an anticipatory fashion.
Bob: “Nonetheless, you said “Gestalt Philosophy” and that Mike is the entire Gestalt gambit. You’re not entitled to take your pitch back after its been hit out of the park by claiming you meant to limit it down to Perls brand of Gestalt therapy”
Mike S.: “You hit the ball out of the park? Gloating Bob, prematurely I think. I’m entitled to claim whatever I want. Those are Bob’s Rules of Order. Perhaps Bob’s Rules of Order mean that only bob get to dishonestly say whatever he want?”
I used the baseball metaphor simply to illustrate how your word choice precipitated my reply. There’s nothing macho about objecting to you pretending you wrote one thing when I earlier replied to what you actually wrote; i.e. something completely different. But my apologies, I’m the dishonest one since I obviously should have addressed something you hadn’t written as opposed to what you actually did write. You didn’t lob Gestalt Philosophy over the plate, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to refresh my recollection of the influence of Kant on other areas of academics if I included the word “Kant” in any search on “Gestalt” or “Gestalt philosophy.”
Bob: ‘I didn’t mock the loss of your wife, so to speak, I was doing what the Buddha saw me doing.”
Mike S. “What loss of my wife, Bob? She’s fine. You really need to hone your reading skills.”
The ‘so to speak’ part was to remind you of the metaphorical use of the scene in the film “Good Will Hunting” i.e. when Will pushed Shawn’s buttons when he suspected the picture had something to do with Shawn’s relationship with a woman and kept goading him about the topic until Shawn, the therapist, grabs Will by the neck and warns him about the dangers of disrespecting his dead wife.
BTW Mike, if you don’t recall the movie that’s fine. The metaphor’s purpose was to illustrate my surprise at your reactions here seeing I didn’t ‘mock the loss of your wife’ so to speak. But if you do recall the film, and you recall that particular scene, well then… that would be that.
CCD,
I’ll try to finish watching that interview later on tonight.
CCD: “Bob initially my intent was to ask for help comprehending the above Kantian quote with regard to the U.N. report: Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, to better grasp your perspective, (this is where the crayons would have been required on my part). However I don’t think I could ever really appreciate its essence, to me it’s a Quadratic polynomial, which is also beyond my limited range of understanding.”
CCD, that quote you found on the other thread is about the (self-evident, though often forgotten) principle that in a universal sense, people are free to act but not to hinder the freedom of others who are acting in agreement to universal laws of right.
Using parentheticals, allow me to loosely translate what Kant is saying:
Kant; “CONSEQUENTLY, if a certain exercise of freedom is itself a hindrance of the freedom that is according to universal laws, it is wrong; (i.e. defendant did something bad) and the compulsion of constraint which is opposed to it is right, as being a hindering of a hindrance of freedom, and as being in accord with the freedom which exists in accordance with universal laws. (when we arrest the defendant, we hinder the hindrance of freedom according to the universally accepted laws (aka principles) which are ‘on the books’) Hence, according to the logical principle of contradiction, all right is accompanied with an implied title or warrant to bring compulsion to bear ON ANY ONE WHO MAY VIOLATE IT IN FACT.” (the implied right and title to punish a defendant, as explained above, goes only so far as the defendant who IN FACT VIOLATED THE LAW)
Since you’re the one who found this, you’re aware that I brought it up in the context of explaining how it is WRONG to ‘bring compulsion to bear’ on anyone besides Hamas in Gaza or Lebanon. Applying the foregoing to war crimes in Gaza would necessitate a case by case approach, but I think you get the general idea. This should also help you understand why (“Bob claims”) ‘history’ tends to be irrelevant in moral equations so to speak.
CCD: “What I did understand is this:
“Mike, did I ever tell you about my sister who was sexually molested at gunpoint? Did I ever tell you that one of the psychological problems she exhibited afterward was a sens of entitlement to react disproportionately harsh to anyone and treat people as badly as she wanted without justification? She always made it clear in her actions that “since she was hurt in the past, then no one dare so much as step on an egg shell to stop her from hurting people now.” —Bob, Esq.
CCD: To me that behavior is the victim archetype. My understanding of the term archetype is a universal pattern of energy. It’s difficult to explain to a person that at some point in time it’s counterproductive to their healing by staying in the victim role.
Avraham Burg authored the book,
“The holocaust is over; we must rise from its ashes”
Burg gives an interview to Gershom Gorenberg here. Would you look at the first 20 minutes of this piece? Burg presents the argument that the victim cannot become the victimizer.”
CCD,
That interview is rather thick with some ‘heavy’ material covered at a rather quick pace. I’m not at all familiar with Mr. Burg’s work however from what I heard in the interview I agree with your summation of his position; i.e. ‘the victim cannot become the victimizer’
Accordingly, I should thank you once again for shedding new light on my observation regarding the similarities between my sister and Israel and summing it up so succinctly.
Per the ‘victim archetype,’ while my knowledge of psychology is quite limited, I think it would be hasty to say that all victims exhibit the same pattern. But I think it’s safe to say that your point is quite clear and cogent; not only to me but to most of the people following this thread.
Buddha:
“And just like math, some ideas (not all) transcend the human experience. This includes ethical constructs. They are relational constructs and can be expressed symbolically.”
******************
I thank you for the chance to engage your question about the relative and organic nature of morals based upon your interesting correlation between animals, aliens, and humans. I will use the term “morals” because I think it is a classic term used by many thinkers to define the basic guiding principles we must live by to exist in a society.
You rightly ask what if an alien culture adopted a basic human moral system such as the human aversion to murder. This possibility proves to you that trans-human ethics are thus possible, indeed, even likely.
First, It is a stretch to conclude that aliens even exist but the odds are with you here. Second, like most people I would like to see the alien before opining on their particular brand of morality. But even assuming your hypothesis arguendo, how might we evaluate the moral system displayed by our alien cousins except through our own experience. Perhaps the alien defines murder as fricasseeing microbes from a blast of their inter-space rockets thus expanding the definition from our human limitation that murder only concerns other humans. I bet you would find an historical event which prompted the little green folk to elevate the “lowest” form of our life to such a protected class.
Leaving the fantastic aside, even if we look at your examples of animal behavior we still cannot conclude that ethics are trans-species. That animals exhibit some logical traits with respect to mathematics is simply our way of explaining the phenomena. We distill this phenomenon into concepts our brain accepts as similar, and mathematics is just our short-hand way of associating two very different though similar behaviors.
That animals also exhibit ethically inclined behaviors proves nothing about the trans-species nature of ethics since we have no reason to believe that the animals even realize they are engaging in anything like a system of guiding principles with notions of “right” and “wrong” associated with them. You might as well say that animals are “immoral” when they attack and eat the young of other animals, as say they are “moral” when they do not. There is simply no reason to believe that animals expand their system of “morals” beyond basic instincts to survive. Of course, there are counter-examples such as the classical story of Romulus and Remus who were supposedly raised — instead of eaten — by wolves. one must conclude sadly that these are the exceptions to the often times barbaric world of the food chain.
Likewise I do not doubt that animals demonstrate some behaviors we would conclude are logical patterns. Group hunting comes to mind. However to suggest that because some ideas such as similar ways of surviving a hostile environment though organized group activity necessarily implies a conscious decision to act in a particular way, would turn every concept of animal instinct on its head. I simply see no reason to equate learned behavior of animals through trial and error or genetic encoding of animal behavior with human notions of rational thought and discovery through contemplation. To do so, would elevate Pavlov’s dogs to membership in the Academy.
Wiki actually has a good summary of my criticism of a moral philosophy divorced from human experience:
“Nietzsche indicts the “English psychologists” for lacking historical sense. They seek to do moral genealogy by explaining altruism in terms of the utility of altruistic actions, which is subsequently forgotten as such actions become the norm. But the judgment “good”, according to Nietzsche, originates not with the beneficiaries of altruistic actions. Rather, the good themselves (the powerful) coined the term “good”. Further, Nietzsche contends that it is psychologically absurd to suggest that altruism derives from a utility which is forgotten: if it is useful, what is the incentive to forget it? Rather such a value-judgment gains currency by being increasingly burned into the consciousness.”
(“On the Geneology of Morals”)
I do think Nietzche goes too far with his contention that the nobility are freed from moral constraints because they are the definers of morality, but I do so based upon historical events which demonstrate the utter dis-utility of enabling an elite class to dictate both morality and the punishment for deviation from those norms.
Mike S:
“This is my metaphor for philosophy and my judgment of the effect it has had on the human race. We’re all just great apes with pretensions.”
**************
Now there’s a great name: The Great Apes With Pretensions Society. Where do I get an application?
Mike S.: “I won’t take lessons in intellectually pristine morality from someone who still bears enmity towards someone he knows who has been abused. Yes I can even feel empathy for that little boy inside someone who watched his Mother’s attention being stolen from him and saw the destruction that those who have been psychically scarred can wield. If you had asked me about it Bob
as you posit I would have tried to answer you as best I could.”
You have no idea how off base and insulting this comment is do you? My sister had been targeting my mother for abuse and blame LONG before the incident Mike. My sister is seven years younger than me and she was attacked 15 years ago while she was married to her first husband. And you don’t think I have enough empathy for her that I still conclude I’d give her a kidney if she needed one even after all the intentionally cruel things she’s done and said? And if I’m not mistaken, as a therapist with a semblance of an interest in being thorough, you’d have to catalog her actions and comments, pre and post ‘incident’ before drawing any conclusions; at least not the type of conclusions you’d expect to hear from a tarot card reader at a carnival.
So Mike, we’ll mark this one off as yet another gutter-born ill-considered personal attack. Okay Mike?
mespo,
“Second, like most people I would like to see the alien before opining on their particular brand of morality. But even assuming your hypothesis arguendo, how might we evaluate the moral system displayed by our alien cousins except through our own experience. Perhaps the alien defines murder as fricasseeing microbes from a blast of their inter-space rockets thus expanding the definition from our human limitation that murder only concerns other humans.”
I covered this briefly when I mentioned contextual keys and similar morphology. To expect 100% commonality in the logics is anthropomorphic and unrealistic – they are aliens, they may reach similar (or dissimilar) conclusions based on not just their cultural lens (extropormorphic thinking to coin a term) but through their divergent biology as well. What is the standard of beauty for a being that sees in infrared? But what I am saying is that surely as a mathematical proposition some commonalities will weigh out. And as far as quibbling over the definition of murder, that’s where common conceptual keys and basic definitions (like zero) come into play: aligning logics so that that data sets can share information, e.g. communicate.
As to animal behavior, nothing I said elevates the dog. You mistake capacity for processing power. There is more to reason than just logic: the ability to recognize relationships. Reason is the ability to manipulate (re-model, use whatever term works for you) logics and that requires neural complexity. A microprocessor is capable of very complicated transformations, much like a human brain, but at it’s base component level it is a switch with two settings capable of being either on or off. A neuron is not that much different. It only has so many states and by itself is just an electrochemical switch. The question becomes what level of complexity constitutes “higher” life and I still go with reasoning as a basic criteria. Coupled with self-awareness this makes for a “higher animal”. Yes, humans are locked into evaluating experience from our singular viewpoints but sense of self is a perquisite for reasoning as it provides a “stable platform” to observe the universe from. If you want to argue about the relative nature of data to the observer, be ready to talk physics and quantum mechanics. But back to Pavlov. A dog has the basic language skills of a 4 year old and some basic problem solving ability. This does not mean that it’s capable of putting together a Fischer-Price toy. It lacks the processing power to carryout the data transformations required to solve the puzzle. But a baby can kick some ass.
As to moral relativism and changing of values, I think Fredrick was a pant load for this reason. First, he denies the perceptions of the recipients of altruism. That’s just nonsense to say that only an actor can define altruism and not the recipient. Have you never unintentionally benefited another? Did they not enjoy it? Could they not see it as altruism despite your total lack of motive? Because if you have managed to pull that off, that’s one hell of a trick even for a wild-eyed plaintiff’s attorney as yourself. Second, I fail to see how the assertion that a principle which, by good practice of the scientific method if not Kantian standards, should be distilled to a essence that is true beyond our subjective experience whenever possible suggests Nietzsche was right about ethics. About morals perhaps, but not ethics. His argument is based first in culture. He was obsessed with cultural status and it shows in his work. Morals are very much a creature of culture and I’ve said so elsewhere – morals are organizational dictates tainted with organizational priorities. Fredrick is right that humans are the sole determination of “morality”, but they are not the sole determination of logic. That morals sometimes coincide with ethical behavior is little more than happy chance given our sheer brutality and stupidity as a species. Ethics, by disregarding the other priorities to examine the relationships proper in the light of detached reason, is just another form of logic. My argument is that some logics, including some ethics, can and will be found to be trans-human once we break the language barrier. Zero is zero whether a madman recognizes it or not. F=ma applies whether we observe it or not. If these logics are trans-human, logics that reflect reality as it is, not how we wish it to be then any being capable of understanding the symbols (if the have a key) can understand the logic.
Why is it possible that one type of logic can be refined to a universal principle but not another? That is illogical. Even when taking the Incompleteness Theorems into account, distillation is still possible.
Why is it impossible that other reasoning beings could come to identical or similar logics to some of our ethical models if they were not “too alien” to understand at all (a very real possibility)? It’s not. To think otherwise is, again, anthropomorphic and more than a little arrogant on our part as a species. Yes, we are going to be different from the aliens. Very different. But we won’t be completely different. We all share the same universe. This does not mean mutual understanding will be possible, but I think it will be to varying degrees.
Would these “shared logical conclusions” not constitute a trans-human ethic? I think they would be a good starting place at a bare minimum.
Buddha,
Check your email
I awakened this morning with an epiphany that I’d like to share and an apology. The epiphany is that much of the reader’s, though I expect that herd has thinned out, time and effort has been spent going over the increasing diatribes between Bob and I, masquerading as an argument/debate and hi-jacking this thread into what has become a silly contest of wills.
I offer my apology to the readers of this cant, though not to Bob, who I think as is his wont, initiated and perpetuated it. One would expect that with all the words written, the time spent and the intelligence of the writers a broad range of topics would have been discussed leading to much information to be gleaned. They would no doubt be disappointed in their expectation. The following is a brief summation of this entire interchange.
1. Bob initiates it with an analogy about his sexually abused sister and her reaction to it by using the incident as an excuse for future bad behavior, with the statement that Israel’s actions mimic those of his sister’s. He specifically requests my comment “as a defender of Israel.”
2. I reply to him saying I see merit to his analogy, specifically
telling him though that I must give an explanation, defining terms so to speak (thank you Gyges)to qualify my agreement of his analogy.
3. His trap having been sprung, because despite all his protestations of innocent inquiry, Bob usually hides his true aims and motivations (an observation of his long history on this site), Bob then begins to dismiss all I said and the game is afoot.
4. In replying to him, quite civilly I might add, I explained to him my reasons for my attachment to Israel and my heartfelt belief that it is possible that virulent anti-Jewish feelings may arise and given historical experience Jews believe they may need a haven. Is this deeply emotional in content, absolutely.
However, it is an emotion informed by an intellectual assessment of past history, current rampant attitudes world wide and the need of rational human beings to be prepared for future events.
In essence it is part of being a knowledgeable Jew. Now I understand this may seem frivolous to non-Jews, but it is utterly serious to Jews like myself and while some Jews exploit it, I can only be responsible for my own position.
5. Bob’s reply to me was not only mocking, it was insulting to the extent that implied disordered thinking on my part. He later denied, than admitted mocking me, but then tried to make it into a joke to defuse my “over reacting” and in it his implication that I was thinking was delusional.
6. I’m a Jew and I don’t turn the other cheek. If I open my heart to you and respond to you with honesty and you mock and ridicule me in return, all bets are off. From that point on the potential dialog, which Bob keeps professing was all he wanted, became a “he said/he said” knockdown drag out and new information, or the possibility of reaching a point of mutual understanding was gone.
So for those of you who are here for the intellectual pleasure of a free exchange of ideas I apologize, it isn’t going to happen. For those of you who would treat the view of a car crash as good fun, have your fun but I fear you will be bored more than excited.
I would close by reminding you all that at one point I tried to withdraw from this ongoing “he said/he said” but Bob didn’t appear to get the closure he wanted and so continued to attack me at the same time trying to turn himself into the injured party. Since he is so good at using past movie plots as metaphors, like I really remember all the plot twists of “Good Will Hunting” all these years later, I will add a less arcane movie analogy of my own.
You know the action thrillers where you have a bad guy who tries to kill the hero, is foiled and then spends the rest of the movie trying to get revenge on the hero for his temerity in foiling the original attempt on his life? I’m certainly by no means a hero and Bob is really not an arch villain, but his behavior here brings that movie image to my mind.
“You have no idea how off base and insulting this comment is do you? My sister had been targeting my mother for abuse and blame LONG before the incident Mike.”
Bob,
There you go again. Your original statement clearly placed the beginning of your sister’s abuse as set off by the abuse incident. The later quote below then changes that original formulation:
“Why, well to make another public confession, I wanted to know why people like my sister grow up happy as happy children and then suddenly turn into monsters who laugh, dare I say cackle, as they emotionally terrorize my mother with the most cruelest harmful things to say.”
Now you change your story once again and you are insulted? Bob are you really so unaware of what you’re doing with this? How is it that you take your mis-definitions of what I say, which I then correct you on and you respond with demanding that I accept the meaning of your original mis-quote?
“And you don’t think I have enough empathy for her that I still conclude I’d give her a kidney if she needed one even after all the intentionally cruel things she’s done and said?”
Again, you mis-quote my meaning. To me your lack of empathy comes from even using your sister and exposing your anger at her, to make your larger philosophical point and from the obvious rage that your hold towards her. This is not a diagnosis, merely a clear reading of your own words. However,
for your own good I would look up the definition of “reaction formation,” a psychological defense mechanism which I think has broken down in you to your detriment.
“So Mike, we’ll mark this one off as yet another gutter-born ill-considered personal attack. Okay Mike?”
Nice hyperbole Bob, if only I could have been as “innocent” as you in the mudslinging. Bob, I’m not the one who has over and again lauded his grounding in a philosophy that encompasses all.
It would seem to me that one of the original postulates of any philosophy should be “Know Thyself.” As you natter on it becomes clearer and clearer that you lack that capacity as exhibited by your inability to even be aware of your own culpability and vile actions in this name calling. I’m at least being out front about what I’m doing. you keep cloaking yourself in the “Olympian Mantel” of higher philosophy and morality, which in your case is merely a crock.
Bob: “You have no idea how off base and insulting this comment is do you? My sister had been targeting my mother for abuse and blame LONG before the incident Mike.”
Mike S.: “Your original statement clearly placed the beginning of your sister’s abuse as set off by the abuse incident.”
Key concept was her feeling ENTITLED to treat others badly. My comment was in reply to your abusive, insulting & sweeping generalizations about me, my sister and my mother that I found particularly disgusting coming from a “therapist” who gloats about his powers of empathy & civility.
Mike S.: “The later quote below then changes that original formulation”
Bob: “Why, well to make another public confession, I wanted to know why people like my sister grow up happy as happy children and then suddenly turn into monsters who laugh, dare I say cackle, as they emotionally terrorize my mother with the most cruelest harmful things to say.”
Mike S.: “Now you change your story once again and you are insulted?”
This is misrepresentation; the story wasn’t changed; you’re engaged in contextomy. The word “also” as in “I also wanted to know why people like my sister…” is clearly implied within the context of this thread. Or “maybe the therapist might toss me an insight or two as to why my sister acts the way she does.” But, seeing how your intuitive powers match those of Homer Simpson as Homer Thompson
FBI agent: “Now when I press down on your foot and say ‘Hello Mr. Thompson, you smile and nod.”
Homer Simpson: No problem
FBI Agent: “Hello Mr. Thompson”
Homer Simpson: (loud whisper to man seated next to him) “I think he’s talking to you.”
I was a fool to expect anything more.
Mike S.: “Bob are you really so unaware of what you’re doing with this? How is it that you take your mis-definitions of what I say, which I then correct you on and you respond with demanding that I accept the meaning of your original mis-quote?”
The comparison stands Mike; whether or not they fit in with your thin skinned whiny appeals to emotion, pity and special pleadings regarding your Jewish heritage made above.
Bob: “And you don’t think I have enough empathy for her that I still conclude I’d give her a kidney if she needed one even after all the intentionally cruel things she’s done and said?”
Mike S.: “Again, you mis-quote my meaning.
Did I?
Mike S.: “I won’t take lessons in intellectually pristine morality from someone who still bears enmity towards someone he knows who has been abused.”
Someone who bears enmity towards another gives them a kidney? What did I miss here?
Mike S.: “To me your lack of empathy comes from even using your sister and exposing your anger at her, to make your larger philosophical point and from the obvious rage that your hold towards her.”
Make up your mind; do I lack empathy, bear emnity or lack empathy only within the context of your clarification?
Apparently CCD got the point
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29/u-n-report-israel-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza/#comment-84696
And since CCD so succinctly summarized the comparison between my sister and Israel, i.e. “the victim cannot become the victimizer,” agreeing with a similar point you made earlier when you said I was “on target,” perhaps you can inform me as to how your change of heart regarding this comparison came about. When did I “cross the line” Mike?
Could it be that you’re suffering from a form of the ‘psychologist’s fallacy’ in your emotionally charged special pleadings for Israel as ‘a Jew with feelings who doesn’t turn the other cheek?’ I ask because I don’t know.
And by the way, I refer to your posts as irrational because you’ve been continually engaging in the following:
appeal to pity; appeal to ridicule; irrelevant conclusion; proof by verbosity; appeal to emotion; argument from ignorance; argument from personal incredulity; ad hominem abusive; psychologist’s fallacy; ad hominem circumstantial; moving the goalposts; and lest we forget Special pleading.
I confess, I’m guilty of appealing to ridicule and ad hominem abusive as well.
Live fast, die young, have a good lookin’ corpse…
“you’re engaged in contextomy.”
Ah Bob,
A light bulb goes on over your head, the only problem is you are unable to fully follow through the thought because you seem barely capable of recognizing your own foibles. Bob, since you initiated this whole attack mode with your comments towards me, I originally tried to honestly respond to you point by point, laboriously contextualizing my responses and pointing out to you where we differ.
However, it then became apparent that you wouldn’t bother to respond to much of the context and history I was providing, adopting instead the position that it was irrelevant and constantly implying that I “wasn’t my old self” which was a more
genteel way of saying I was aberrational.
You also the tried to turn the discussion into being carried on in your Kantian ballpark and in philosophical terms, knowing this was an area where you had greater knowledge than me. It also allowed you to pretend to assume the “moral high ground” and even twisted the debate into the fact that you wanted to show why I despite anything I write was just a typical zealot Jew, when it came to Israel. Re-reading your constant assaults and retrenchments is an exercise in being in Wonderland, rather than then being in the sights of a moral philosopher and logician.
“The comparison stands Mike; whether or not they fit in with your thin skinned whiny appeals to emotion, pity and special pleadings regarding your Jewish heritage made above.”
Are you really so far entrapped in self deception that you really are unaware of what you are saying here? Bob, you specifically called me out because of my Jewish heritage and said so clearly. Now I’ve already stated that I don’t believe you to be bigoted and/or anti-Jewish. I clearly think the problem is you are so entrenched in the smugness and moral certitude of your own mind, that you really don’t understand the import of things you say.
Which returns us to the issue of context. Once I saw, halfway through, that for whatever foibles you have you were clearly incapable of carrying on an honest dialog on this issue and were determined also to besmirch both my intellect and moral compass, you left me with no choice.
I began to treat you exactly in the same manner you treated me and watched as you began to sputter figuratively, because you were being given doses of your own medicine and it didn’t go down well. Don’t like the way my attacks feel Bob, well maybe then you can have some empathy for those you treat in the same manner with your more moral than thou debating style performed according to the Gospel of St. Immanuel. Dosages of your own medicine and being hoisted on your own petard doesn’t feel too good does it?
“Someone who bears enmity towards another gives them a kidney? What did I miss here?”
It actually happens all the time. look at the news, one act does not logically follow from another. I based what I said on only your own words Bob and I’m sorry if you feel choked by them.
“Make up your mind; do I lack empathy, bear emnity or lack empathy only within the context of your clarification?”
Based on your own words I would say that you lack empathy and bear enmity, not mutually exclusive feelings.
“Apparently CCD got the point”
So now you look for allies in this Bob? Too late in the game and I’m not biting. CCD may not agree with me and neither does Buddha for that matter, but neither of them started this out by denigrating and attacking me, you did, chose to continue it after I tried to withdraw and now you seem bothered by the heat.
I think it’s known as a guilty conscience Bob and I never said you were bereft of one, it just get hidden sometimes in the fog of your own self-justification.
“I confess, I’m guilty of appealing to ridicule and ad hominem abusive as well.”
A little progress Bob and seeing this perhaps a wedge for you to see into the games that you play, but don’t like being played back to you.
Do unto others……..
Dr. Love,
I’ve lived fast, am trying not to die young and I think my corpse will be good looking. Two out of three ain’t bad.
Mike,
You didn’t even have enough honor to apologize for that remark about my mother and my sister.
Good day sir.
You know guys we have missed your posting on other Threads, Please do so soon.
“You didn’t even have enough honor to apologize for that remark about my mother and my sister.”
Bob,
I didn’t make any remark about your mother or sister. You made the remarks about your mother and your sister I commented on what really was your bad taste in doing so. You brought them into this and used them to make some point about me. You disparaged your sister for abusing your mother. Stop projecting on to me Bob, when you must clearly understand that I criticized you for bringing them into the discussion and if anything sympathized with them, but at the same time noted that it must have been painful for you.
The statement above is your attempt to turn this all around away from the bad behavior that you exhibited. The problem is that there is a full record of all the remarks we both made and if you can show me an instance where I disparaged your mother and sister I’ll be happy to apologize for it sincerely, but I don’t believe you can.
As far as apologies though, I think you owe me an apology for playing these silly games with me, for trying to trap me into some esoteric point you were making, for patronizing me, for mocking me, for painting me as an Israeli zealot and for implying that my real fears of this country returning to being anti-Jewish, especially given the raucous fascist minority in the streets and on the air, are delusional. The apology should also reflect the fact that when I honorably tried to withdraw from this specious debate, you drew me back in by trying to play the injured party for the audience.
You dish it out pretty viciously Bob, but when it comes back at you via the same techniques you use constantly, you cry foul and play the injured party. Now you’re a good person Bob and the stupid fact about this argument is we have many views in common. I respect you and have enjoyed your various sensibilities, many of which we have in common. However, I’ve also found you difficult at times, as I suspect others have. You tend to turn on people, even when they agree with you, as I did here initially. You also, for someone with a 60′s sensibility tend to become overly pompous.
Now some people on this site have personally wondered if I had suddenly changed due to physical or other problems. I haven’t changed and am fine in all respects. What I’ve never tolerated from anyone in my life, sometimes to my career detriment, is being patronized and treated in the fashion you initiated in dealing with me. While I much prefer making nice to people, I am far from anybody’s patsy.
I regret at this point about my having identified myself as being Jewish, but that came about in a much, much earlier Israel discussion and I felt full disclosure was fair. I shouldn’t have to regret being known as a Jew. I’ve never used the fact of my being Jewish as a crutch, to guilt trip anyone who posted here regularly, or to claim they were anti-Jewish because they disagreed with me. The exception to that was bdaman and that was because his Christ Killer remark had gone way across the line and was clearly bigoted. Throughout this whole argument, it can’t be dignified by calling it a debate, you have more than implied differently about me and have tried to hold me accountable for those actions by certain right wing Jews, who behave as victims. Mess with them if you will, I have and you can’t imagine the intra-faith arguments I’ve had sometimes with close friends.
I’m no ones victim and Jews in general are not a people who play the victim. Whether you like Israel or not is a matter of your own perspective, but I refuse to be used as the target of your particular frustrations.
Mike Spindell wrote:
“I regret at this point about my having identified myself as being Jewish…”
_________________________________
Mike, there is certainly no reason to regret your informing us that you are Jewish. I have learned information I would have never known had you not provided us with your Jewish heritage and perspectives.
Thanks from an atheistic, conservative Republican.
Wipe, flush and move on.
Mike S.: “I didn’t make any remark about your mother or sister. You made the remarks about your mother and your sister I commented on what really was your bad taste in doing so.”
Compare:
Bob: “Mike, would you consider me ‘off base’ in seeing an incredible similarity between my sister and Israel?”
Mike S.: “I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exascerbates their problems.”
So Mike, I’m ‘on target’ but in ‘bad taste?’ When did it become bad taste Mike? Perhaps when you became emotionally upset later on?
Mike S.: “You brought them into this and used them to make some point about me.”
Wrong again Mike. You made it about you; despite my repeated objections to you doing so. Just like you kept trying to sum up the argument about being Israel’s right to exist as a state; throwing your premises and perceived biases into my arguments and attacking them along with me.
Mike S.: “You disparaged your sister for abusing your mother.”
Actually Mike, my sister degraded herself, morally speaking, by emotionally terrorizing my mother. That my sister has been nothing but hurtful towards my mother AND that she takes joy in hurting her by laughing (cackling) when she succeeds in making my mother sob is statement of fact Mr. Therapist.
Speaking of therapists, what kind of ‘feeling’ therapist makes a remark like this with as little factual background as set forth on this thread:
Mike S.: “That paragraph is a nonsensical cover up to hide the fact that you cruelly used your sister’s abuse to make a philosophic point on morality. By the way within it I hear the whine of tommy Smothers saying Mom always loved you the best.”
My comparison between my sister and Israel (i.e. victim becoming victimizer) was not “cruel,” it was “on target” right Mike? As I stated earlier, perhaps you changed your mind when you realized the full effect of the comparison. It wasn’t the reasoning behind the comparison; you just didn’t ‘feel’ right about it anymore. But it had nothing to do with my sister; did it Mike? And when it didn’t ‘feel’ right anymore, you felt entitled to, what’s that word, it’s in the ninth amendment… oh yea, ‘disparage’ my mother with that Tommy Smothers crack? Reducing my family to a joke doesn’t constitute over-the-line ad hominem abusive? Have you no decency sir?
Let’s review:
I posted three observations about Israel; of which you assented to two and remained silent on the third.
Your ‘first’ remark was an anecdote with a rhetorical effect of denying the existence of a group of people known to the world as Palestinains.
Your ‘second’ remark was a comment about the legality of the existence of Israel; a topic which I never brought up and no matter how many times I objected, you continually came back to.
In your third point, you delved into the ‘it’s not as easy as it looks history’ diatribe; shifting focus away from a legal analysis of the acts at issue.
In your seventh point, you admitted your inability to approach the topic as a ‘detached and neutral magistrate’ by saying “If the fascist shit ever hits the fan in America and it well might, where does a Jew like me and his family go?”
AS someone who’s been keeping an eye on where and how the Constitution has been getting trampled on since December 9, 2000, and who still can’t use a 13th century term in this country without looking over his shoulder for the PC police, I admitted and apologized for having an extremely hard time empathizing with your fear; much less deeming it an excuse for the dearth of rationality in your later posts.
Fear is no license to argue the way you did. Fear is no license to attack me, Kant, Philosophy in general in lieu of addressing my arguments. Fear is no license for you to argue against reason itself by claiming your argument is valid because it ‘feels’ right. You may ‘feel’ you have the right to insert your premises into my argument and attack them, and me, as if they were my own. You may ‘feel’ like you’re entitled to formulate ‘moral’ & ‘legal’ arguments based on your ‘gut feelings’ about the subject.
But there are ‘reasons’ why we reject the musings and actions of people like Charles Bronson in “Death Wish,” people who ‘feel’ they ‘know’ who the guilty ones are. Philosophers, founding fathers, legal scholars & procedural architects have designed systems of government and law to keep people from acting on their feelings with law in check; so the law is never reduced to ‘it’s right because I just feel it in my gut.’
If I sound pompous to you Mike, it’s because, unlike you in your arguments, I have more respect for law, legal and moral principles than my ‘feelings.’