🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2006-12-31 20:20:52 -0600, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:

> 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.

While that is strictly true, you've chosen a very presumptuous way of 
phrasing the statement. This phrasing is typically used when the 
speaker has already concluded that the <if> clause evaluates to true.


> 
>>> (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.

One can be bigoted against women, or old people, or dog-owners, or 
surfers. And as you mentioned, one who is bigoted against a religious 
group, say Mormons, isn't racist either.

> 
>>> 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

Agreed.