Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (54048)	10/22/2002 10:28:01 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Respond to of 281500

excellent point about the consequences of calling all criticisms of the Sharon government antisemitism. Isn't that an old trick though? When you run out of arguments, why not resort to ad hominem attacks? Always an easy out for those who lack in substantive arguments. To call anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies anti-semitic is an old tradition, and simply not effective. We've seen this trick with "anti-Black", and "anti-Muslim" and all the other PC attempts to stifle debate. We see it on this forum too. Never worked. Won't work this time either.

To: JohnM who wrote (54048)	10/22/2002 10:34:09 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Respond to of 281500

Incidentally, to say that "SFD could find nothing wrong with Arafat" is not factually correct. I've repeatedly indicated otherwise - here's just one example: Message 18140389 As to who is worse between Arafat and Sharon when it comes to the past? Both have blood on their hands. Arafat disgracefully engaged in terrorism involving innocent third parties. There is more, but that's enough to prove the falsity of the charge. Would'nt it be much better if we spent our time debating substantive points rather than having to correct mischaracterizations and defend from personal attacks? I think this is simply a diversionary move. Won't work.

To: JohnM who wrote (54048)	10/22/2002 10:54:41 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Fisk made an excellent point about the consequences of calling all criticisms of the Sharon government antisemitism. Accusing Israel of a massacre of the innocents in Jenin was not a valid criticism of the Sharon government, just to pick one example of his untruths and wild inaccuracies (there's a good reason why "Fisking" is now a common verb in the blogosphere). Refusing to even regret it when it was proved a hoax shows his regard of journalistic standards. Fisk has lost the right to shield himself in the innocence of a valid critic of Sharon's policies. A black man arrested for theft may proclaim his own innoncence and the prejudice of the justice system, but he has no right to do so if he is in fact as guilty as sin, whether or not the prejudice exists. As for Fisk, I could say some of the same things about some of the posts you offer to the thread What, I post proven lies to the thread? Not to my knowledge. If you think so, why don't you do us the favor of pointing them out and showing the evidence? As for whether you've got the "facts" on your side or SFD has on his, I would rather watch the two of you argue about it and see which particular "fact" makes the most sense As I pointed out before, real facts are not found by "balancing" opinions, but by searching for evidence.