🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2006-12-30 23:35:15 -0600, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:

> In ba.general Hal Burton <hal@burton.spam> wrote:
>> On 2006-12-28 10:08:19 -0600, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:
> 
>>> In ba.general Hal Burton <hal@burton.spam> wrote:
>>>> On 2006-12-27 00:37:41 -0500, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:
>>> 
>>>>> most, but (1) it's not in their DNA to respond to a real or
>>>>> perceived offense with anything but violence, and (2) many/most
>>> 
>>>> Finally, the truth slips out. You are racist. It was apparent enough 
>>>> from your credulous acceptance of anything Israeli and rejection of 
>>>> everything Arab, but one can't accuse another of being racist without 
>>>> direct evidence. The funny thing about racists is, they always admit it 
>>>> if given enough time to speak their minds.
>>> 
>>> "In the DNA" is colloquial for "very deep in the culture."  If
>>> this is to be a scientific discussion, I will avoid such 
>>> colloquialisms.  Thank you for catching this.
>>> It is very deep in the Arab culture to respond to any real or
>>> perceived offense with violence.  Thus it is unlikely that they will 
>>> implement a sustained campaign of civil disobedience or
>>> passive resistance in the occupied territories of Palestine.  This
>>> is unfortunate, because such a campaign would lead to an independent
>>> Palestinian state, on terms that many if not most of them would find
>>> acceptable, within a couple of years.
>>> Again my thanks for calling me out on the inappropriate use
>>> of this colloquialism.
> 
> 
>> Apparently you've morphed from a racist to a bigot. One could say some 
>> very unflattering things about Jewish culture or DNA, with about the 
>> same degree of accuracy as your own statements. To be perfectly clear 
>> what I mean: only bigots believe such statements to be accurate. And as 
>> for your accusation that I'm racist in the opposite direction, you 
>> should know that I have adopted a policy of not commenting on 
>> Israeli/Palestinian affairs about two years ago, having finally come to 
>> the conclusion that both sides are appalling. This is the closest I've 
>> come to commenting about the situation since then, and my comments are 
>> restricted to addressing you as a person.
> 
>       Then you are a double racist if you believe "both sides are
> appalling," if you believe it is in their nature rather than due to
> the circumstances.

You are fast with your accusations, aren't you? I must have hit a 
nerve. I, for one, never blamed their appalling behavior on their 
natures. I simply said they were appalling. You drew an incorrect 
conclusion.


>   (BTW, what is the difference between a racist
> and a bigot?)

A bigot is one a prejudiced and intolerant person. A racist is one who 
believes that a particular race is inherently superior to another. A 
racist bigot is one who is prejudiced and intolerant based on his 
belief that a particular race is superior to another.


>   And adopting a policy of not commenting says absolutely nothing about 
> your mindset, which is what determines
> whether or not you are a racist (or bigot).

It says that I find that there is no constructive way to have a 
discussion about this topic on Usenet. That is a form of enlightenment 
that many have not yet discovered.