I can spend all night coming up with reasons why you have the inability to understand my logic, criticizing your lack of comprehension, without bearing the responsibility of ever having to further explain myself, or provide an alternative scenario which you might be able to understand.
How's that for an example of what I've been talking about?.. ;0)
It doesn't strike me as a good example of anything... Explaining (or not explaining) your point isn't the same as coming up with an alternate solution to a problem (or not stating an alternate solution).
To expand on my statement " I don't understand what you mean by that" (that being " The difference is that, by criticizing a plan based upon logic that is irrelevant, if not explicitly dysfunctional one is engaging in a monologue, not a dialogue.")
Are you saying that my logic or my real criticism is irrelevant, or that the logic of the criticism of the hypothetical situation was irrelevant, or that the hypothetical situation itself was irrelevant (and if so irrelevant to what?)?)
That's a critical monologue.. Criticism merely for the sake of criticism.. Criticism that declares that my logic (or comprehension) is always implicitly flawed, but neither bears the burden of properly explaining why, nor of proposing alternative logic (or means of comprehension).
Your stating several different ideas and lumping them all together.
I did not criticize for the sake of criticism, and I did not declare that your logic is always implicitly flawed. Also there is no necessary connections between such statements and posting or not posting an alternative solution. If I had posted an alternative solution I could still have made an ad-hominem attack like "your logic is always implicitly flawed". In reality I did neither. I did not post an alternate solution or make an ad-hominem attack and criticize merely for the sake for criticism.
"Doing something" is not always better.
But that is not the case in the scenario Nadine and I were discussing. The Israelis are always doing "something". The Palestinians are also doing "something". But both sides are also doing nothing, when it comes to reaching a multi-lateral peace accord.
Do both sides want such an accord?
For that matter looking at if from the outside is progress towards such an accord really our goal? I would like to see a more peaceful and stable situation but progress toward such an accord or even an actual accord might not really bring peace or stability to the region, and intervention of foreign forces also might fail to bring such stability in fact it might make things worse, esp. for the outsiders who intervene. If we are to take a proposal like yours seriously (and I did even though I disagreed with it), we have to analyze questions like "Will it really bring peace and stability to the region"? And such questions still need to be answered before going forward with an idea like what you posted even if no really good idea comes along to replace it.
Tim |
