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 (63882)	12/31/2002 1:46:50 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

. My response was to something else, a form of argumentation, which we see most prominently here, like that used by Pipes, which argues that critics of a policy are on the other side, are guilty, however implicitly, of advocating, in this particular case, murder. Changing the subject, as you've done in this reply, doesn't change the tactic. We were discussing the editorial, which was on the "open season on settlers" policy promulgated by Prof. Sternhall and the European advisors to the Hamas-Fatah talks. I pointed out that Professor Sternhell and his admirers in the Hamas-Fatah talks DO advocate murder. If armed attacks on the settlements, which are towns, not forts, is "legitimate", there is nothing implicit about the advocacy. Reuters and the BBC sympathize with this view, as shown by their language. Not much implicit about it there either. So how is this a change of subject? We are both talking about the same editorial. Not the first time you've accused me of changing the subject when as far as I can see I'm still totally on the same subject. I don't know what subject you have in your head; it seems to have no relation to what's on the page, which was an editorial criticizing those who advocate attacking settlers. As for charges of demonization (another common charge from you), responding to quotes that advocate the murder of settlers with This kind of argumentation, in which critics are labeled as advocating murder, as traitors, as whatevers, should be condemned by right and left and middle as incompatible with a vigorous democracy. Whether Israeli, European, or US. which amounts to saying that anyone who criticizes the notion that settlers deserve to be shot is demonizing his critics, is pretty far along the demonization scale itself.