🚀 go-pugleaf

In ba.general Hal Burton <hal@burton.spam> wrote:
> 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.

     I said "if," in fact I said it twice.  If you in fact do not
have both such beliefs, the statement is "inoperative".  There are 
many things I can accuse you of (justifiably) "if" certain conditions
hold.  If they do not hold, I would not make the accusations.

>>   (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.

     So a bigot is intolerant on some other basis than race or
ethnicity; or if on that basis, the person is both a bigot and
a racist.
     I'm not sure I agree.  If I'm prejudiced against bankers or
athletes or entertainment personalities, I'm not a bigot.  Only
if the prejudice is against some definable racial or ethnic or
religious group or some such.

>>   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.

     I'm beginning to agree with you on that point...though
Usenet discussions that don't convince anybody often have two
positive outcomes:
- I gain understanding of how the other side thinks
- I see additional information on both sides of the question