'Anti-Semitic' label curbs talk about Israel

[Mr_Perceptive]

Touche, but excuses don't pay the bill. The Arabs need to move on into the future. Sem of them have. Commendable. Continuing to harp on past injustices is counter-productive. I am half-Cherokee. To harp on how the White Man f---ed us over is immature and not conducive to a better future.

Now that you've asked me, the Arabs need to address the plank in their own eye before they look at eyes elsewhere.

Physician, heal thyself!

[Mr_Perceptive]

MY experience tells me that contrary to this article the average Arab would like nothing more than to kill every Jew they can find.

Blatant racism.

This is a typical strategy of the Left, attempting to make an issue more complex than it really is in order to minimize alternative views. Nice try, but I stand by my view.

No one is saying that you cannot stand by your view, but your view is overly-simplistic and quite stupid. The issue is complex. No one or group is making it so. You cannot fit the entire Arab population's views into one easy blanket statement, no more than you can all blacks, or all Jews.

You don't have the data to back up your view either. It is an off the cuff remark which you hold valid for no real reason.

Indicating tribalism as a cause for action implies a justification for future action because theyare just abiding by their internal customs due to the concept of tribalism.

And you'll notice that Ms. Henny never once claims that tribalism is an acceptable defense for murder. That is a statement you made and not the argument she is making. If you'd listen, instead of constructing strawmen, then you might learn a little.

If you happen to know how to read, i said it was all my opinion. Therefore, the only justification I need to have is, well, ZIP. Told you the Left would attempt the old "You make the issue too simple and so, implicitly at least, you are stupid." Get a grip, liberal.

Ah, I see. I just looked. Seems you and Henny are a sympatico pair here, backing each other up. Perfectly fine, YOU'RE BOTH WRONG. You have been captured by the intellectual Left that is also intellectually dishonest. They don't see Life for what it is, Life. They must attempt to make more out of it than there really is. Light red is still RED. Dark blue is still BLUE and rationalizing your actions due to "tribalism" is pure unadulterated bovine excrement. Gonna censure me now, Mr. MODERATOR?

[Mr_Perceptive]

JS: "MY experience tells me that contrary to this article the average Arab would like nothing more than to kill every Jew they can find.

Blatant racism."

I thought I educated you or some other Liberal yesterday on what racism really is. Need me to bring that post back up? Yet again, you are a HERD CREATURE. The members of the herd (the Left) follows the mantra of the mainstream ("Leftist" media) that decides to define racism anew.

Define it yourself. Do not follow the herd or are you so much a part of the herd you can no longer do this?

Damn, back to educating the troops again...(Ain't it glorious though!?)

[_JS]

If you happen to know how to read, i said it was all my opinion. Therefore, the only justification I need to have is, well, ZIP. Told you the Left would attempt the old "You make the issue too simple and so, implicitly at least, you are stupid." Get a grip, liberal.

What? Opinion cannot be wrong? I'm afraid you are way off base there. Your opinion can still be and was racist. Moreover, you make a blanket statement about the "average Arab" and their support of bin Laden, yet offer no real proof of it being true. My guess is that it is not true. It represents your perceptions of the Mideast and the Arab people, which are not reality.

Ah, I see. I just looked. Seems you and Henny are a sympatico pair here, backing each other up. Perfectly fine, YOU'RE BOTH WRONG. You have been captured by the intellectual Left that is also intellectually dishonest. They don't see Life for what it is, Life. They must attempt to make more out of it than there really is. Light red is still RED. Dark blue is still BLUE and rationalizing your actions due to "tribalism" is pure unadulterated bovine excrement. Gonna censure me now, Mr. MODERATOR?

I don't censure anyone. I have not been captured by anything. I'll wear the title intellectual with pride though. Systems are complex. Life is complex. We do not live in a Manichaen, cowboys & indians world. This is not a 1950's government filmstrip.

As for the rest of your diatribe...it is mostly rubbish and unintelligible.

[Mr_Perceptive]

From my earlier post, since you didn't learn the first time:

"You are entirely incorrect. You are subscribing to the recent revisionist theology that states that ethnic background and other factors define "race". This is simply incorrect. Ethnicity and Race are often used interchangeably although such use is incorrect and often results in people talking past one another.

Humans are divided into races as determined by scientific, not social. criteria, primary being skull size and shape. Skulls are thus be divided into 4 main human races:
Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid & Australoid

Therefore, following this train of thought, a social entity such as a tribe or a nation or any subgroup cannot be defined as a race in tis itself, therefore your statement is inaccurate. Calling Arabs "names" cannot convert you into a racist. Making derogatory comments about a super group such as mongoloid can.

Following this analysis, you have been unduly influenced by 20th century revisionists, a typical foilable in the PC world we live in."

Therefore, my statement is not racist.

And, I am entitled to my opinion. I could produce many articles of newsies, etc. who agree with me, but what's the point? It is obvious you have a firm idea of what you believe and it happens to differ from mine. That is perfectly acceptable. Sad, in that you willingly agree to let the mainstream media color your views, but acceptable nonetheless.

What, no post from Henny now? No, pincer attacks? I await, expectantly...

[_JS]

I'm not going to get into semantics, but the legal international definition of racism includes:

based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin

and is not limited to a simple anthropological definition.

But nice try on getting your racism discounted.

[Henny]

From my earlier post, since you didn't learn the first time:

"You are entirely incorrect. You are subscribing to the recent revisionist theology that states that ethnic background and other factors define "race". This is simply incorrect. Ethnicity and Race are often used interchangeably although such use is incorrect and often results in people talking past one another.

Humans are divided into races as determined by scientific, not social. criteria, primary being skull size and shape. Skulls are thus be divided into 4 main human races:
Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid & Australoid

Therefore, following this train of thought, a social entity such as a tribe or a nation or any subgroup cannot be defined as a race in tis itself, therefore your statement is inaccurate. Calling Arabs "names" cannot convert you into a racist. Making derogatory comments about a super group such as mongoloid can.

Following this analysis, you have been unduly influenced by 20th century revisionists, a typical foilable in the PC world we live in."

Therefore, my statement is not racist.

And, I am entitled to my opinion. I could produce many articles of newsies,etc. who agree with me, but what'sthe point? It is obvious you have a firm idea of what you believe and it happens to differ form  mine. That is perfectly acceptable. Sad, in that you willingly agree to let the mainstream media color your views, but acceptable nonetheless.

What, no post from Henny now? No, pincer attacks? I await, expectantly...

What - a person can't walk away from the desk once in a while?

My question is why you expect an attack. I thought this was a discussion.

Rich calling Domer/Gipper fat is an attack. Disagreement is not.

[Mr_Perceptive]

I'm not going to get into semantics, but the legal international definition of racism includes:

based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin

and is not limited to a simple anthropological definition.

But nice try on getting your racism discounted.

Spoken like a true 21st century revisionist. Next, it will be considered racist to call someone obese or some other such nonsense. I will chuckle loudly when that happens.

[Mr_Perceptive]

From my earlier post, since you didn't learn the first time:

"You are entirely incorrect. You are subscribing to the recent revisionist theology that states that ethnic background and other factors define "race". This is simply incorrect. Ethnicity and Race are often used interchangeably although such use is incorrect and often results in people talking past one another.

Humans are divided into races as determined by scientific, not social. criteria, primary being skull size and shape. Skulls are thus be divided into 4 main human races:
Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid & Australoid

Therefore, following this train of thought, a social entity such as a tribe or a nation or any subgroup cannot be defined as a race in tis itself, therefore your statement is inaccurate. Calling Arabs "names" cannot convert you into a racist. Making derogatory comments about a super group such as mongoloid can.

Following this analysis, you have been unduly influenced by 20th century revisionists, a typical foilable in the PC world we live in."

Therefore, my statement is not racist.

And, I am entitled to my opinion. I could produce many articles of newsies,etc. who agree with me, but what'sthe point? It is obvious you have a firm idea of what you believe and it happens to differ form  mine. That is perfectly acceptable. Sad, in that you willingly agree to let the mainstream media color your views, but acceptable nonetheless.

What, no post from Henny now? No, pincer attacks? I await, expectantly...

What - a person can't walk away from the desk once in a while?

My question is why you expect an attack. I thought this was a discussion.

Rich calling Domer/Gipper fat is an attack. Disagreement is not.

I am open to the term "verbal sparring", if you prefer...

[sirs]

I'm not going to get into semantics, but the legal international definition of racism includes:

based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin

and is not limited to a simple anthropological definition.  But nice try on getting your racism discounted.

Spoken like a true 21st century revisionist. Next, it will be considered racist to call someone obese or some other such nonsense. I will chuckle loudly when that happens.

Js is kinda the PC police around these parts.  It appears that anything that doesn't conform to operational educated verbal models, that of course he is fully versed in, is thus designated bigoted and/or racist.       

Something about a lack of humor, is my guess

[_JS]

Spoken like a true 21st century revisionist. Next, it will be considered racist to call someone obese or some other such nonsense. I will chuckle loudly when that happens.

Or just someone who lives in the 21st century. Forgive me if I don't paint all Arabs or all Jews with one big brush.

What, no post from Henny now? No, pincer attacks? I await, expectantly...

By the way, that wouldn't constitute a pincer movement. I thought you were some sort of military expert.

[_JS]

Js is kinda the PC police around these parts.  It appears that anything that doesn't conform to operational educated verbal models, that of course he is fully versed in, is thus designated bigoted and/or racist.       

Something about a lack of humor, is my guess

Not at all Sirs, I just don't find racism humorous. You'd be amazed the racist and sexist jokes I've heard in my time. Some people get a real thrill out of putting down an entire set of people based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. I just don't understand that.

[gipper]

For every debate over "political correctness" there's a core, more or less solid, of actual human feelings in genuine human context that should be considered. Simply mouthing "PC" doesn't address that dominant aspect of the concept, if it is used correctly. Stated another way, it is simply politeness and regard written on a societal yet visible and audible screen: larger and diffuse, but pointed and potentially hurtful. THAT is where the impetus for PROPER PC concerns emanates from.

[Mr_Perceptive]

For every debate over "political correctness" there's a core, more or less solid, of actual human feelings in genuine human context that should be considered. Simply mouthing "PC" doesn't address that dominant aspect of the concept, if it is used correctly. Stated another way, it is simply politeness and regard written on a societal yet visible and audible screen: larger and diffuse, but pointed and potentially hurtful. THAT is where the impetus for PROPER PC concerns emanates from.

I see your point. And, civility has its merits, after all, a basis of civility is crucial to a functioning society.

However, what I sense is that it is more in the line of "I will change the vocabularly THUSLY and if anyone speaks contrary to that, then it is obviuosly at the least, ill-fitting."

By chagnig the vocabulary, you gain extensively.

I reject that when it pleases me, namely when I feel it is actually confusing an issue. Direct talk can slice throguh mush very handidly, I have found.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Spoken like a true 21st century revisionist. Next, it will be considered racist to call someone obese or some other such nonsense. I will chuckle loudly when that happens.

Or just someone who lives in the 21st century. Forgive me if I don't paint all Arabs or all Jews with one big brush.

What, no post from Henny now? No, pincer attacks? I await, expectantly...

By the way, that wouldn't constitute a pincer movement. I thought you were some sort of military expert.

The Pincer movement is essentially an envelopment movement by one or more antagonists at both sides of an opposing antagonist. Read slowly if that is your speed:



JS --->  Mr Percpetive <--Henny