#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Does this man know so much about Islam?
He bases his statement on what happens in "Muslim" countries but fails to mention that what Iran is doning is not in the quar'an. The Quar'an does NOT state that women should be treated has sub-humans. The Taliban are not real Muslims, they do not let women leave the house at night and that is no where in the quar'an.
This video really made me aware of the astounding ignorance that exists within humans.
He does not know how safe and wonderful life was in the old Islamic empires. He does not know that West Africans long time ago adopted Islam beacuse they thought it was fair and peaceful, they adopted it by themselves when it was introduced.
No
Side Score: 37
|
 |
Yes
Side Score: 35
|
|
5
points
That's Pat Condell, a racist who hides his bigotry under a cloak of secular humanism (like many others), he's a very intelligent man, and hides his hideous bias very well, not that he doesn't make very valid points, but I'd advise anyone who likes the sound of this guy to give him a wide birth as he could very well end up poisoning your mind. He shows his true colours at 2:18 when he talks of the Iranian obsession with killing Jews, and the their desire to force a nuclear showdown (the converse is actually true, i.e. Isreal and the US are forcing Iran into a nuclear showdown). He say's they're: "Driven by poweful apocalyptic delusions which they intend to act upon the first chance they get", it's as if he's quoting from the book of Hitchens', any rational person knows it's total bullshit, but it plays well among the heavily indoctrinated dum dums who are already inclined to beleive anyone that doesn't look like them, speak the same language, hold the same religion, etc., are evil psychopath's. Side: No
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
2
points
"You accept that claim without evidence?" Pat Condell is Irish, and I've known about him for long time, he's a failed comedian who decided to share his bigoted views with the world when he realised his chosen vocation was never going to bring him fame. I've seen this guy far too much for my own liking. "What exactly points to him being a racist here?" Nothing. He thinks Islam is not a "race", it's a idea (like you said), that can, and should be treated with hatred and contempt, however, it's quite apparant from watching his videos that he's a xenophobe, and thus, a racist. I just don't see any real difference between him and the radicals he "oh so loves" to always give out about, he's a ruthless purveyor of hate inspired propaganda (which admittedly has a lot of truth at it's core), and he incites religious and racial hatred. He's a fundamentalist and his videos are completely one sided and only intended to provokea a negative reaction in people. Can I prove he is a filthy racist, no, because he has never said anything overtly racist, as I said, he's no fool. "As far as I know, he hates religion. Islam is not a race is it?" Ya, the problem is people love to blame religion for all the worlds problems, religion isn't the cause, humans are, religion simply serves as a suitable vehicle in which to deliver hate and obviously the more extreme the better. He knows Islam is not a religion of violence, he knows the majority of Mulsims are not fanatical, in fact he has admitted it before on one of his videos, but that doesn't stop him making incredilby ones sided hate inspired sweeping generalisations about thier faith. As I said, if you like this guy, fair enough, I can see why, his brand of hate is fairly palatable, but it's still hate. Side: No
1
point
2
points
"I was only criticizing debateleader's quickness to accept an unjustified claim." I agree, he was rather quick to simply accept it, but it's a human mental illness to willingly accept something without proper scepticism when you were already inclined towards that position to begin, and if the person deleivering the message does so authoritative and with a high degree of acuity, the amount of evidence required in support the position drops appreciably. That's why propaganda is so effective, I mean, no propaganda has a truth value of 0, it all has some level of truth to it, and if the message is something you want to hear, and the person deleivering is a really smooth talker, people are (on average) much less inclined to seriously scrutinise it, and instead simply assimilate it. It's one of the main reasons the world full of perverse ideologies. Side: Yes
1
point
however, it's quite apparant from watching his videos that he's a xenophobe, and thus, a racist. He's addressed people calling him racist and and Islamophobe in other videos I've seen. And by and large he is phobic of ideologies that work to undermine freedom and has repeatedly expressed that any secular, peaceful religious person is more than welcome to quietly practice their religion wherever they want. I see from him a phobia of radical religion, not of religious (or foreign) people. and he incites religious and racial hatred. He's a fundamentalist and his videos are completely one sided and only intended to provokea a negative reaction in people. If you're working at pointing out flaws in an ideology that has put itself above criticism i could see how that could be construed as negative. He knows Islam is not a religion of violence, he knows the majority of Mulsims are not fanatical, in fact he has admitted it before on one of his videos, but that doesn't stop him making incredilby ones sided hate inspired sweeping generalisations about thier faith. ...and constantly clarifying that he is talking about radical, fundamental Islam and not quiet, peaceful Muslims counts for nothing? If you're trying to be an inspiring speaker it credits your cause to use strong, absolutist terms instead of meek ones laced with qualifiers. I think that clarifying an absolutist statement after the fact is on par with clarifying an absolutist statement in the statement, but it does take away some of the flair. As I said, if you like this guy, fair enough, I can see why, his brand of hate is fairly palatable, but it's still hate. And most of the hate in his videos has been directed at violence, sexism, intolerance, discrimination, radical religion, blind faith, mutilation, and corruption. If he hates those things and hates on them in his videos i completely support him, because i hate those things too! Side: Yes
1
point
"He's addressed people calling him racist and and Islamophobe in other videos I've seen." Yes, I know, I don't believe him to be sincere. "And by and large he is phobic of ideologies that work to undermine freedom and has repeatedly expressed that any secular, peaceful religious person is more than welcome to quietly practice their religion wherever they want. " I've watched a lot of his videos, he masks his hatred behind a veil of secularism, I will admit he does this very well, and no doubt he has converted many reasonable people toward his way of thinking, but he is hate monger. None of his videos are constructive, they are largely intended to increase anti-Islamic feeling and whip up racial tension. His approach is quite nuanced, and he sounds quite reasonable most of the time. Most of what he says is true, and he rarely says anything that could be construed as overtly racist or xenophobic, but an unbiased person (I get the sense you may not be) can clearly tell that his criticism is all one way, and even though what he says is "by-in-large" true, he uses truth in a highly selective manner, and because there is such a dearth of anti-Islamic sentiment in the West, his hate filled views are taken seriously because the are palatably packaged. His rants are sometimes frantic and filled with a kind of vitriolic rhetoric that is incredibly one sided. He rarely says anything remotely constructive, he's brash, arrogant, pig-headed, and frankly seems quite pathetic. He's couldn't succeed in his chosen profession and now has to share his hateful message on youtube with anyone who'll listen. I don't take people like him seriously, I can see right through him. "If you're working at pointing out flaws in an ideology that has put itself above criticism i could see how that could be construed as negative. " I don't believe anything is above criticism, but I also don't condone hate for the hate's sake. "...and constantly clarifying that he is talking about radical, fundamental Islam and not quiet, peaceful Muslims counts for nothing?" Not when he consistently targets customs and traditions that apply to all Muslims, he mocks an entire culture and civilization in a very perverse way for no reason whatsoever aside from the disdain he clearly holds for it, and somebody (such as yourself) who is most likely already inclined to having certain anti-Islamic tendencies probably finds it reasonable and justified. I can assure you a Muslim would not. "If you're trying to be an inspiring speaker it credits your cause to use strong, absolutist terms instead of meek ones laced with qualifiers." And what would you know about inspiring speeches? "And most of the hate in his videos has been directed at violence, sexism, intolerance, discrimination, radical religion, blind faith, mutilation, and corruption." I agree with much of what he has to say, but that only makes me realize how many other reasonable people can't see through the stuff that is intended only to engender hatred in people. He is motivated by hatred, I have divined him thusly. "If he hates those things and hates on them in his videos i completely support him, because i hate those things too!" And what of his analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict, do you agree with him there also? Side: No
1
point
but an unbiased person (I get the sense you may not be) What gave you that "sense?" can clearly tell that his criticism is all one way, and even though what he says is "by-in-large" true, he uses truth in a highly selective manner, and because there is such a dearth of anti-Islamic sentiment in the West, his hate filled views are taken seriously because the are palatably packaged. I find this odd. As I said most of the Pat Condell videos I've seen have been what I suppose you would call anti-Christian, and Christianity is extremely popular in the West. Its peculiar that he would appeal to the sentiment of the West in one video to try to get them to hate Islam, while in the next video reject and criticize Western sentiment (every bit as viciously as he attacks Islam, I'm sure you know) to try to get them to hate Christianity. His rants are sometimes frantic and filled with a kind of vitriolic rhetoric that is incredibly one sided. Well that's a rant for you. and somebody (such as yourself) who is most likely already inclined to having certain anti-Islamic tendencies probably finds it reasonable and justified. I actually find this quite humorous. I'll address your question about Israel-Palestine later down, but I've been on both sides of the debate, and an advocate for Palestine much longer. When I was supporting Palestine and debating Jews and Israel advocates I was constantly having to fend off accusations that I was anti-Semitic. Indeed, if anything, I would be anti-Semitic, not anti-Islamic; a goodly portion of my friends growing up were Persian, most of them Muslim, and I learned of and about the Israel-Palestine conflict from them originally and agreed with their views, biased though they were. I cant speak to Pat Condell both because I'm not familiar with his entire works and because you haven't actually pointed out anything that would show him to be irrefutably racist and hateful, but I know from experience it's very irksome having to explain that opposing religious politics is not the same as opposing people of that religion. And what would you know about inspiring speeches? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but when Obama, or any politician for that matter, goes up to give a speech they dont say stuff like, "I'll try to fix the deficit problem, but, y'know, this is a tough job and it's not like I have total control over the situation anyways, and..." No! They say they will something, this is going to happen they make promises and absolute statements. I'm not claiming to be some great orator but you've surely noticed by now that inspiring speakers don't pussyfoot around with qualifiers. I agree with much of what he has to say, but that only makes me realize how many other reasonable people can't see through the stuff that is intended only to engender hatred in people. He is motivated by hatred, I have divined him thusly. Not seeing it. But if you cant point out some examples please do. And what of his analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict, do you agree with him there also? I very much doubt I've heard everything he has recorded on the subject, but I know that he's against Palestine for a slew of reasons, not all of which I agree with, and reminds me heavily of the kind of pro-Palestine advocacy I used to hear when I was on that side of the issue. There's the Israeli-Palestinian political mess, and there's the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and in the conflict you support either the Israeli military or Hamas. I had a hard time supporting terrorists to criticize thieves, and the fact that the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian movement are such willing bedfellows with an organization that will never want peace because their stated mission is to kill Jews made me re-evaluate my position on the issue. Things I've taken away from Pat Condell videos to support my opinion are pretty limited; I was intrigued by his mention of Arab on Arab apartheid, and after looking it up was surprised to see that many Arab countries have been actively working to ensure the continued existence of the refugee camps by denying citizenship and work permits, or by ghettoizing and discriminating against Palestinians that are let in. Side: Yes
1
point
"What gave you that "sense?"" Well, firstly you can't see the hatred of Pat Condell's pontificating, and secondly you're American, so I figured like many in the US you may have anti-Islamic tendencies. Not intentionally trying to stereotype. "As I said most of the Pat Condell videos I've seen have been what I suppose you would call anti-Christian," Not really, most of his videos are directed at Islam in one way or another. "Its peculiar that he would appeal to the sentiment of the West in one video to try to get them to hate Islam," You're the one ascribing intention, not me. "while in the next video reject and criticize Western sentiment" Its not peculiar at all actually, any propagandist will appeal to peoples particular prejudices when it suits his argument, when it doesn't he will resort to alternative means. "Well that's a rant for you." Ya, that's why I don't take people like him seriously. "I actually find this quite humorous." Glad I could be of service. "a goodly portion of my friends growing up were Persian, most of them Muslim, and I learned of and about the Israel-Palestine conflict from them originally and agreed with their views, biased though they were. " What were they doing living in the US? "I cant speak to Pat Condell both because I'm not familiar with his entire works and because you haven't actually pointed out anything that would show him to be irrefutably racist and hateful," Well clearly we have a different interpretation of his videos so no matter what i say I'm not going to convince you. "opposing religious politics is not the same as opposing people of that religion. " I'm well aware of that. "I'm not sure what you're trying to get at" One can only site artillery from a position of authority on a subject. "They say they will something, this is going to happen they make promises and absolute statements. " Perhaps you have forgotten but this is a debate website, I'm not giving an inspiring speech, I simply expressing my position, I'm using terms I feel are reasonably objective, and the qualifiers are intended to stave off criticism, which is ironic considering you are trying to criticizing me for including them. Either way, if I'm looking for constructive criticism I'll ask, otherwise, keep it to yourself. "Not seeing it. But if you cant point out some examples please do. " I'm not sure I really care enough tbh, that will take actual effort and I'm quite busy a the moment. I'm quite good at wading through the facts and digging up sources to counter specific points, and thus deobfuscating the well constructed bullshit, I mean I can type this reply up in 5-10 min but what you're looking for takes time I don't have ATM. Just look into his beady little soulless eyes, maybe then you'll see what I see. "I very much doubt I've heard everything he has recorded on the subject, but I know that he's against Palestine for a slew of reasons, not all of which I agree with," His position on Palestine is absolutely abominable, it's actually quite disgusting. "and reminds me heavily of the kind of pro-Palestine advocacy I used to hear when I was on that side of the issue. " Who are you talking about specifically? "I had a hard time supporting terrorists to criticize thieves," So Israel is not guilty of terrorism? How on earth can you have such an extraordinary double standard? you clearly didn;t learn much about the conflict when you were an advocate for Palestine. "and the fact that the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian movement are such willing bedfellows with an organization that will never want peace because their stated mission is to kill Jews made me re-evaluate my position on the issue." Ah yes, the old Hamas charter, favorite quote of all the neo-cons, Hamas has agreed to recognize Israel, Israel has not agreed to recognize Palestine, that is all that really matters my friend. What about the PLO, there stated goal wasn't the killing of Jews, in fact they were desperate for a settlement just like the Palestinian leadership is now, did you know Mosad played a crucial role in the rise of Hamas? What about the recent Palestine papers expose on Al Jazeera? The Palestinian leadership were willing to give extraordinary concessions, ones that their people would never have agreed to, and Isreal still refused. How do you explain Israel unwillingness to compromise? Israel doesn't want peace, it wants further expansion and colonization. "I was intrigued by his mention of Arab on Arab apartheid," This is actually a red herring, what you have described is not apartheid, by definition is cannot be apartheid as the Palestinians are not citizens of those countries. I find it laughable that you would smear other Arab countries with this when you know full well Israel is the only country operating an apartheid system. Just ask former president Jimmy Carter. What is going on in the West Bank can definitely be described as such, I mean come on, Israeli only highways cutting through the heart of what is legally occupied Palestinian territory, get a grip, I'm finding it hard to believe you once an advocate for Palestine, if you were you weren't a very good one. "nd after looking it up was surprised to see that many Arab countries have been actively working to ensure the continued existence of the refugee camps by denying citizenship and work permits, or by ghettoizing and discriminating against Palestinians that are let in." Those countries were forced to take in non-citizens. Palestinians are legally entitled to their right of return based on UN 242. What exactly do you think you're proving by pointing this out, Jordan and Lebanon are not Palestine, Palestinians are a displaced people because of Israel, saying that some Arab countries didn't treat them well when they were forced to accept waves of refugees forcibly evicted from their homeland only reinforces my argument. Side: No
1
point
Well, firstly you can't see the hatred of Pat Condell's pontificating Seems like it's something I'll have to take on faith. and secondly you're American, so I figured like many in the US you may have anti-Islamic tendencies. Not intentionally trying to stereotype. Unintentionally, then. I live in California. Here, resistance movements remind people of Che Guevara, so the Palestinians have full support of pop culture. Not really, most of his videos are directed at Islam in one way or another. So you're telling me the videos I've seen so far that don't remotely touch on Islam were in fact directed at Islam? What were they doing living in the US? What the hell are you talking about? Every Persian New Year a local park is packed with thousands of Persians partying it up. I think you have a very warped view of Islamic sentiment in the US. We don't all write them angry letters and spray-paint on their mosques. Well clearly we have a different interpretation of his videos so no matter what i say I'm not going to convince you. That's very defeatist of you. Or a cop-out. I'm well aware of that. Then why does opposing Islamic government (or the atrocious actions of) make you anti-Islamic? Does supporting Palestine or condemning actions of the Israeli government make you anti-Semitic? Perhaps you have forgotten but this is a debate website, I'm not giving an inspiring speech, I simply expressing my position, I'm using terms I feel are reasonably objective, and the qualifiers are intended to stave off criticism, which is ironic considering you are trying to criticizing me for including them. Either way, if I'm looking for constructive criticism I'll ask, otherwise, keep it to yourself. You must be short on time, because you're forgetting to read my posts before attacking them. I was talking about Pat Condell's style of speaking, not you or anything about you. Get over yourself, man. Who are you talking about specifically? Meh. Im not sure I care enough to look them up for you, tbh. I'm busy. Plus, I mean, it will only take me a little bit of time to pull a few searches and find some of the pro-Palestinian videos that reminded me of Pat Condell, but seeing as how we dont need to refer to anything but our own opinions in this debate between you and I, i think I'll just be lazy about it. So Israel is not guilty of terrorism? How on earth can you have such an extraordinary double standard? you clearly didn;t learn much about the conflict when you were an advocate for Palestine. Perhaps, but as it stands there's the disciplined and trained army of a democratic nation on one hand, and a bunch of religious "freedom fighters," if you prefer, working for an Arab militia on the other. Show me some Israeli child soldiers or suicide bombers, or show me Israeli troops shielding themselves with women and children - oh, wait, nevermind, that's probably far too much work. Ah yes, the old Hamas charter, favorite quote of all the neo-cons, Hamas has agreed to recognize Israel, Israel has not agreed to recognize Palestine, that is all that really matters my friend. The charter was just for shits and giggles, then? How do you explain Israel unwillingness to compromise? Israel doesn't want peace, it wants further expansion and colonization. I find it laughable that you would smear other Arab countries with this when you know full well Israel is the only country operating an apartheid system. "Glad I could be of service." Perhaps you could define apartheid for me, in garry terms, because all the research I've done on the word has led me to believe it means, basically, "separation." Which is evident in Arab on Arab discrimination. Which is all I was saying. And Pat Condell merely mentioned something about it (I don't disagree Israel is an "apartheid state," something he claimed); I looked into it own my own. What exactly do you think you're proving by pointing this out, Jordan and Lebanon are not Palestine, Palestinians are a displaced people because of Israel, saying that some Arab countries didn't treat them well when they were forced to accept waves of refugees forcibly evicted from their homeland only reinforces my argument. Perhaps, but I can never pass up a chance to point out righteous hypocrisy. Side: Yes
2
points
"recognize like it's something I'll have to take on faith. " Not really, just watch his videos. "So you're telling me the videos I've seen so far that don't remotely touch on Islam were in fact directed at Islam?" Sure, why not. "What the hell are you talking about? Every Persian New Year a local park is packed with thousands of Persians partying it up. I think you have a very warped view of Islamic sentiment in the US. We don't all write them angry letters and spray-paint on their mosques." I'm well aware of the fact that there a millions of Persians in the US and they all come from the elite sector of society that was ran out of the country after the fall of the Sha. "That's very defeatist of you. Or a cop-out. " No, I just don't care, i have far more important matters to attend to, call it a cop if you want I've been on this site nearly two years, please excuse me if I don;t jump at the first chance to engage in an in depth argument of the type that I have engaged in hundreds of times before, especially when my life is fairly hectic. "Then why does opposing Islamic government (or the atrocious actions of) make you anti-Islamic? " I like the way you speak of him as some reasonable individual who rationally critiques Islamic governments in an objective manner, when in fact his speeches are nothing except insincere hyperbole and black-and-white thinking. If that's how you like your information, fine, I'm happy for you. "I was talking about Pat Condell's style of speaking, not you or anything about you. Get over yourself, man. " You Said: "If you're(i.e. you are, i.e. me) trying to be an inspiring speaker it credits your cause to use strong, absolutist terms instead of meek ones laced with qualifiers. I think that clarifying an absolutist statement after the fact is on par with clarifying an absolutist statement in the statement," have to forgotten this: "Does supporting Palestine or condemning actions of the Israeli government make you anti-Semitic?" Of course not, it makes me anti-Zionist, and since Zionism is synonymous with racism i have no problem being called that. "Meh. Im not sure I care enough to look them up for you, tbh." Surely you know the prominent people who advocated on behalf of a position you once held without having to look them up. "I'm busy." Then why did you feel compelled to dispute my argument on a debate that ended months ago? "Perhaps, but as it stands there's the disciplined and trained army of a democratic nation on one hand, and a bunch of religious "freedom fighters," if you prefer, working for an Arab militia on the other." So your saying because Israel has a big army with the latest military hardware (courtesy of uncle Sam) they have the moral highroad, that's strange logic. "Show me some Israeli child soldiers or suicide bombers" I've got a better idea, how about we strip Israel of all the military technology that has been provided to them since the end of the 67 war by the worlds greatest super power, then we remove all the men that have been trained as crack soldiers, you know, to level the playing field, once Israel and Hamas are matched militarily I think we see their tactics change a little don;t you? Ahmed Ben Bella, the leader of the Algerian revolution, was asked why he was placing bombs in baby carriages and leaving them in the soot to explode amongst the French forces and their collaborators, he answered, "if the French will give us some of their helicopters, some of their aero planes, we will give them our baby carriages." "oh, wait, never mind, that's probably far too much work. " http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/ "The charter was just for shits and giggles, then? " You find quite disgusting rhetoric on both sides, actions are what count, besides Israel destroyed the PLO precisely because they were becoming too reasonable, they wanted someone like Hamas that they can point the finger at and use as a scapegoat for their expansionism. " Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas representative in the Gaza Strip, confirmed that his movement was considering the possibility of changing its charter. In an interview with the Saudi daily Okaz, Hamad said that the Hamas charter, like any other document, may be subject for changes and discussions. But Hamad also stressed that “accepting” Israel did not mean that Hamas would “recognize” the Jewish state. Salah Bardaweel, a Hamas legislator and spokesman from the Gaza Strip, said in response to the Post story that his movement was not seeking the destruction of Israel. “There is a huge difference between our demand to restore the Palestinian people’s rights and the annihilation of Israel,” he told a Hamas-affiliated Web site. “We haven’t said that [we want] to destroy Israel, but we are striving to restore our people’s rights and refugees’ right to return to their dwellings and land from which they were deported." Source: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/ ""Glad I could be of service." " I didn't say I thought it was humorous, I said i found your position laughable, there is a difference. I don;t find anything you have to say humorous. "Perhaps you could define apartheid for me, in garry terms, because all the research I've done on the word has led me to believe it means, basically, "separation." Which is evident in Arab on Arab discrimination." It's really quite simply, I'm sorry all that research only led you down a dead end. Apartheid is a system of law enacted on a racially distinct group of people in a sovereign country, it is a system of legal racial separation, the only country in which this is known to have legally taken place is South Africa, although anyone with a brain can see it going on in Isreal, i.e. "New legislation classified inhabitants into four racial groups ("native", "white", "coloured", and "Asian"),[1] and residential areas were segregated, sometimes by means of forced removals. Non-white political representation was completely abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. " Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Please explain to me how the non-citizens can be deprived of citizenship? That's why they say South Africa was an apartheid regime or state, and Isreal is aapartheid state - they don't call Italy an apartheid state for keeping all those Libyan refugees in camps on the coast, denying them rights they never had in the first place. Seriously, this demonstrates incredible stupidity on your part. "Which is all I was saying." I know exactly what you were saying. "And Pat Condell merely mentioned something about it (I don't disagree Israel is an "apartheid state," something he claimed); I looked into it own my own" Oh well if that racist bigot mentioned something about it and then you went a looked it up on a website then it must be true;-) "Perhaps, but I can never pass up a chance to point out righteous hypocrisy." How on earth is it "righteous hypocrisy"? Seriously, I really would like to know how you worked that one out. Side: No
1
point
Its becoming clear to me that you either have such a low opinion of me or such a high opinion of yourself that you will not concede any points to me, regardless of the actual truth of the matter or the conviction with which you hold the counter-argument. I just rewatched some of the older videos I was more familiar with and he talks about God and Jesus and the US and UK governments and the Christian church and blah blah but never once mentions Islam. You criticize Pat Condell for being black and white, on issues, yet you are black and white on the issue of Israel and Palestine and when evaluating Pat Condell himself. You've defended and victimized Palestine and wholly condemned Israel, the Israeli people, army, Israels allies, and their cause as fervently and uncompromisingly as Pat Condell supports them. And you seem utterly convinced that anything that Pat Condell might say is entirely worthless and untrue because it is said by Pat Condell, and you hate Pat Condell. I don't like all my information black and white, but i take it when it comes with a grain of salt and try to sift through the bullshit; you, on the other hand, spew black and white opinions on this issue. Im more moderate on this issue than either you or Pat Condell, so let me go over some interesting things I noticed and conceded in your one sided rhetoric: I can appriciate you being anti-Zionism and not anti-Semitic, and I see where you're coming from. This would make me, among other things, both anti-Zionism and anti-radical Islam. Surely you know the prominent people who advocated on behalf of a position you once held without having to look them up. Ah, perhaps prominent is the wrong word. I meant like Pat Condell's rants on a topic; he's not exactly someone I'd call a prominent voice for Israel. George Galloway is the only name thats come back to me, I've been without media for a few years and haven't watched videos advocating for Palestine in even longer than that. once Israel and Hamas are matched militarily I think we see their tactics change a little don;t you? Ahmed Ben Bella, the leader of the Algerian revolution, was asked why he was placing bombs in baby carriages and leaving them in the soot to explode amongst the French forces and their collaborators Do you think the ends justify the means? I could see how desperation could result in combat tactics that might be seen as terrorism, but given that it's got to be clear by now that no Arab militia will usurp Israel through military might I guess i see this more as pointless resistance. It's not getting anywhere. Violence for the sake of violence, kind of thing. I guess i dont see why if the Palestinians are all so wholeheartedly bent on peace and compromise there is even an organization that is also waging war on them, even though its a war they know they cant win.. besides Israel destroyed the PLO precisely because they were becoming too reasonable, they wanted someone like Hamas that they can point the finger at and use as a scapegoat for their expansionism See, I dont know if there's some big plot by the Arabs to abuse the refugee situation to garner sympathy to try to destroy Israel (as I said, I looked into a few issues regarding the notion, but i have yet to made any convictions), but you do seem to believe that there is a sinister Jewish plot afoot. I didn't say I thought it was humorous, I said i found your position laughable, there is a difference. Well, they say laughter is the best medicine. If you dont think it's appropriate to use apartheid to describe a form of racial separation practiced by a government, that the situation the word is used to describe has to be more like the situation the word originated from, I suppose I can agree and abide by that. Im not sure I agree that using it the other way demonstrates incredible stupidity, but I'm also not sure I'll convince you otherwise. Oh well if that racist bigot mentioned something about it and then you went a looked it up on a website then it must be true;-) The best lies usually have an element of truth. Or are mostly true. When i hear something i try to sift out the truth in it, and yes I often do this using the internet. Dont you? I rarely get the opportunity to do research anywhere as lofty as a UC library or anything, but i think I can still look into and reasonably confirm a notion by checking it across a few websites, and then checking those websites for credibility. I see pointing our human rights violations in another country when your own human rights record is filthy as hypocrisy. I know this doesn't negate the human rights violations on either side, I just don't think it credits the Palestinian cause when Arab countries cry "atrocity!" on Israel because it draws attention to all the human rights violations in that region, of which Israel is a benefactor but not the sole contributor. In regards to me misspeaking, apparently, my apologies. I thought it was understood we were talking about the various explanations and qualifiers Pat Condell places intermittently throughout his videos and how they pertain to him being able to rant in absolutist terms the rest of the time. In giving examples I suppose i slipped out of the right tense, which you could have taken as an attack on you. So I'm sorry for that. Please don't cut off my hand. Side: Yes
1
point
"Its becoming clear to me that you either have such a low opinion of me or such a high opinion of yourself that you will not concede any points to me," And what points would those be exactly? Were exactly have you proven me wrong beyond a reasonable doubt? "regardless of the actual truth of the matter or the conviction with which you hold the counter-argument." Now you're trying to imply I don't care about the truth, what are your grounds for making these unjustified accusations? "You criticize Pat Condell for being black and white, on issues, " Yes, and for being motivated by hate. "yet you are black and white on the issue of Israel and Palestine" Not really, I believe Israel is in as much danger as Palestine. "and when evaluating Pat Condell himself." Grounds? "You've defended and victimized Palestine" I'm not defending Palestinians, I'm defending their rights, I'm defending international law, please stop trying to paint me as some partisan hack. "wholly condemned Israel," Yes, because Israel are in breach of international law, they could end the conflict tomorrow by simply abiding by the global consensus (i.e. peaceful settlement to the Israel-Palestine question) but because they are backed by the worlds greatest superpower they chose mnot to. If you my position is unfair because I chose not to sit on the fence you must think atheists are idiots for not calling themselves agnostic. "the Israeli people," Where exactly did I condemn the Israeli people? "army" I condemn them for illegally kicking people out of the homes they've occupied for hundreds of years and installing an apartheid like regime on occupied Palestinian territory, why is it wrong to do so? "Israels allies" Again, paint whatever picture you want the fats won;t bear it out, I;ve justified the positions I hold. "nd their cause as fervently and uncompromisingly as Pat Condell supports them." Again, grounds, i can throw accusation at you as well but I think I'd have the courtesy to back them with something, what do you think I'm just going to nod and agree with your mud slinging? "nd you seem utterly convinced that anything that Pat Condell might say is entirely worthless and untrue because it is said by Pat Condell" This is a clear indication you haven't clue what you're taking about, I said in my previous post the exact opposite of this, i.e. "I agree with much of what he has to say," Remember that little statement? You just completely mischaracterised what I wrote, in fact, you asserted the exact opposite of what I had previously stated, I think your credibility is hanging by thread, pal. "I don't like all my information black and white," Are you kidding, if someone read what you've typed so far about me (and believed it) they think I'm some unreasonale zealot who despises the state of Israel. "I don't like all my information black and white" You could have fooled me. "ou, on the other hand, spew black and white opinions on this issue." And what exactly would you call what you do? "I'm more moderate on this issue than either you or Pat Condell" Of course you are, you're completely moderate and my one sided rhetoric is shameful. "I can appreciate you being anti-Zionism and not anti-Semitic," At least we can agree on something. "and I see where you're coming from. " Thanks (honestly). "George Galloway is the only name thats come back to me," He's like the anti-Pat Condell. "Do you think the ends justify the means?" Not at all, I seek to understand, not justify. "but given that it's got to be clear by now that no Arab militia will usurp Israel through military might I guess i see this more as pointless resistance." Yes, it is completely symbolic, just like the kids throwing stones at the IDF, there sending the IDF a message, i.e. we will fight with whatever we have until you kill us Or how Palestinian families train their kids not to show emotion (symbolizes weakness) on front of the IDF when their families members are killed by them or they are forcibly evicted from their homes, that's also why their funerals can be such emotional affairs. "It's not getting anywhere." What exactly would you have them do? "See, I dont know if there's some big plot by the Arabs to abuse the refugee situation to garner sympathy to try to destroy Israel " I think there is probably some truth to that, there's not doubt that that there has been a PR war waging for a long time in addition to the normal conflict, however Israeli propaganda has always dominated the narrative (particularly in the US). "but you do seem to believe that there is a sinister Jewish plot afoot." Not really, you make it sound like a conspiracy theory or something, its not, just go to the West bank and look at all the new (Israeli only) estates being constructed on occupied Palestinian territory. Is it really that hard to grasp that Israel wants further expansion because thats is exactly what's happening, you see, unlike you I don;t judge by what is written on a piece of paper, I think actions speak louder than words, and Israels actions are quite transparent. Again, mischaracterising my positions as putting forth the notion of a "sinister Jewish plot" while completely ignoring the facts on the ground. "I'm not sure I agree that using it the other way demonstrates incredible stupidity," Well, if one were to agree with your definition (i.e. that wherever in the world refugees have been taken into a country because they had nowhere else to go and the government were forced to group together in shelters and not grant them the same rights as citizens), then most countries in the world would be guilty of apartheid. Do you not see how your definition completely devalues the word? "I'm not sure I agree that using it the other way demonstrates incredible stupidity," Well, if i went away and dug up the number of countries that current house refugees in camps it would tell its own story. "The best lies usually have an element of truth." Ever thing has an element of truth to it, bare faced lies are rarely told, a good propagandist knows how to take something with a truth value of say 0.1, and make it sound like it has a truth value of 0.8. "nd yes I often do this using the Internet. Don't you?" Yes. "I rarely get the opportunity to do research anywhere as lofty as a UC library or anything, but i think I can still look into and reasonably confirm a notion by checking it across a few websites, and then checking those websites for credibility" Yes thats one way to do it, I;ve been trained to research so it comes fairly naturally to me, I also find that when you see how a story is covered from multiple sources (e.g. Russia Today, BBC, France 24, Euronews, CNN, Press TV, CCTV, Al Jazeera, etc.) it provides you with a more complete picture of that story. "when your own human rights record is filthy as hypocrisy." What are you talking about, "my" human rights record? "I just don't think it credits the Palestinian cause when Arab countries cry "atrocity!" on Israel because it draws attention to all the human rights violations in that region," I agree completely, I don't see how this matters. "In regards to me misspeaking, apparently, my apologies. " Thanks (honestly). "I thought it was understood we were talking about the various explanations and qualifiers Pat Condell places intermittently throughout his videos and how they pertain to him being able to rant in absolutist terms the rest of the time." Well you referenced me and a piece of text loaded with qualifiers so it seemed pretty cut and dry. "So I'm sorry for that" Again, thanks for the apology. Side: No
1
point
And what points would those be exactly? Were exactly have you proven me wrong beyond a reasonable doubt? The thing on Condells Christian videos right below where you took this from. Now you're trying to imply I don't care about the truth, what are your grounds for making these unjustified accusations? Same as above. Not really, I believe Israel is in as much danger as Palestine. How so? I haven't heard anything along these lines from you, i think. Grounds? Above above above. I'm not defending Palestinians, I'm defending their rights, I'm defending international law, please stop trying to paint me as some partisan hack. Can you agree to stop trying to paint me as some neo-con moron? I'm down to drop the condescending tone if you are. But I guess this kind of addresses one of my questions. Why do countries with shit for rights criticize Israel for giving shit for rights? And why do people who advocate for rights focus on Israel, allying themselves with the aforementioned shit for rights countries instead of opposing them, as well? If you my position is unfair because I chose not to sit on the fence you must think atheists are idiots for not calling themselves agnostic. Your position would only be unfair if you don't have an open mind. Again, paint whatever picture you want the fats won;t bear it out, I;ve justified the positions I hold. Statements like this lead me to believe that you don't. Not behind demands for proof. Again, grounds, Indicating that they are terrorists, stating their goal as domination of the region, condemning their political and military actions, etc. This is a clear indication you haven't clue what you're taking about, I said in my previous post the exact opposite of this, i.e. "I agree with much of what he has to say," You've also colored him a hateful racist bigot, said you don't take him seriously, and asserted that every single one of his videos is subtly directed at slandering and mocking Islam. I haven't heard you agree with him on anything, just denounce and devalue any point he makes as hateful and biased. You also insinuated that only someone with your level of intelligence and reasoning would be able to pierce through his lies and see the truth. So while I am well aware that you said you agree with much of what Pat Condell says, and, in fact, was addressing it somewhat in the post you replied to, I'm saying that your actions tell a different story. If i prefaced the paragraph above with, "You clearly have no idea what you're talking about," would that help my cause at all? And I'm not the only one mischaracterizing or misrepresenting ideas, if that is what I'm doing. Are you kidding, if someone read what you've typed so far about me (and believed it) they think I'm some unreasonale zealot who despises the state of Israel. That's what I've got from you so far. And if I was actually the person you've painted me to be I would be a bumbling, drooling buffoon who cant even get his shoes on the right feet, much less coordinate himself enough to function on a debate site. And what exactly would you call what you do? Spew grey opinions? Of course you are, you're completely moderate and my one sided rhetoric is shameful. I never said completely I said more. He's like the anti-Pat Condell. In terms of what he advocates yes, but in terms of dictation, passion (ranting), and his style of arguing with others he reminds me very much of Pat Condell. Yes, it is completely symbolic I guess if the Palestinians are so hellbent on peace I don't get why they perpetuate symbolism that results in the death of Israelis. I get that they might not be the greater of two evils in that regard, but in terms of supporting their cause it's not endearing to me. Or the Israeli government, clearly. What exactly would you have them do? Absolutely no idea. Kind of like my atheism, i don't know what the ultimate answer is, I just know I dont like how it's being done. Lucky for me, nothing I write or think has any impact on the situation. Not at all, I seek to understand, not justify. Wouldn't that lead to sympathizing with the Palestinians, not thinking they are right? I think there is probably some truth to that, there's not doubt that that there has been a PR war waging for a long time in addition to the normal conflict, however Israeli propaganda has always dominated the narrative (particularly in the US). While we're on conspiracies, that because Jews control the media in this country. But that's paranoia for another time. Like I said, we don't get much of that in the part of the US where I live. Not really, you make it sound like a conspiracy theory or something, its not, just go to the West bank and look at all the new (Israeli only) estates being constructed on occupied Palestinian territory. Is it really that hard to grasp that Israel wants further expansion because thats is exactly what's happening, you see, unlike you I don;t judge by what is written on a piece of paper, I think actions speak louder than words, and Israels actions are quite transparent. Again, mischaracterising my positions as putting forth the notion of a "sinister Jewish plot" while completely ignoring the facts on the ground. Not at all. I think the post I responded to above sounded like a conspiracy, like a sinister Arab plot. And I never said there wasn't a sinister Jewish plot or a sinister Arab plot, I was just curious to know if you treated both of these with equal consideration. If Israel is bullshitting to conquer, that's sinister. If Arab countries are prolonging suffering to breed conflict, that's sinister. Do you not see how your definition completely devalues the word? If you have a problem with the idea that many governments have a similar system, yes. Yes thats one way to do it, I;ve been trained to research so it comes fairly naturally to me, I also find that when you see how a story is covered from multiple sources (e.g. Russia Today, BBC, France 24, Euronews, CNN, Press TV, CCTV, Al Jazeera, etc.) it provides you with a more complete picture of that story. I do that too. But if you use the internet as a backing for your beliefs, why is it so bad when I do? It's this shit, implying I confirm a fact the moment I see some mention of it on a random website, that gives me the impression you think I'm mentally disabled or something. I agree completely, I don't see how this matters. One because the Palestinian cause is laced with human rights concerns. And two because it makes focusing on Israel partisan, ignoring human rights violations in greater number and severity all over the region to pay attention almost exclusively to a country that, by the standards of the Middle East, is actually doing alright. It's not like Israel isn't one of the most contested territories in history; once we're free from religion people will have no reason to fight over every inch of some scrap of the desert because of its religious significance. What are you talking about, "my" human rights record? Do you have a human rights record? I'd be genuinely interested to hear it. But no that was just another example. I was talking about one of my shithead friends the other day and said something along the lines of "If you've got no job, no car, and no motivation to fix that, sucks to be you." I said this to another friend, and he understood that I was talking about the shithead and not him even though I used the word "you," based on context and application. I can make a greater effort to stay in tense if you're really struggling with it (I cant tell if you're confused or being a smart ass), but I do like to directly question whoever I'm debating, try to put them in someone elses shoes. Well you referenced me and a piece of text loaded with qualifiers so it seemed pretty cut and dry. Perhaps if you heard my tone you would've picked up the hypothetical air of the piece. Having corrected all this now, do you think it generally credits someones inspiring oration, from Obama to Condell, to speak in absolute terms? I've often seen that from people trying to convince others of something through their speech, and though it's not my personal style I understand it because I think it makes the speaker sound more confident, both sure of himself and his cause. And I filter it out, or look for the fine print. Side: Yes
1
point
"The thing on Condells Christian videos right below where you took this from.....Same as above........Above above above." So your entire diatribe attacking my character, saying I'm close minded, that my views are one sided, and that I am no better than Pat Condell himself, is based solely on the fact that I said the primary focus if his hatred is directed towards Islam, wow. Ya, it's very objective and balanced of you to say all that a based on one minor inconsistency that isn’t really even an inconsistency. I'm well aware Pat Condell has made videos on Christianity, religion in general, governments, the European debt crisis, etc., however, from what I've seen, he hates Islam far more than anything else, plus this debate is a debate on Islam and how pat Condell views it, so really, your criticism is pretty groundless as far as I can see. "I live in California. Here, resistance movements remind people of Che Guevara, so the Palestinians have full support of pop culture" (I never commented on this in the last post): the ironic thing about most of these resistance movements is they fetishise the symbols of communism, armed struggle, and the ideals people like Che fought and died for as entertainment products and fashion statements within their own modern consumer-capitalist society. They just feed into the system, a Californian who wears a Che Guevara t-shirt and some ripped designer jeans and reads a little Marx on the weekend and thinks that makes him some kind of revolutionary is fucking pathetic, he's a walking cliché, I'd view him in a worse light than a soulless capitalist suit. "How so? I haven't heard anything along these lines from you, i think." I worry about the future of Israel and its inhabitants because they have never tried to reach out to any of their neighbours, they have always sought to dominate them violently, they are an extremist state but they are not viewed as such as they have the backing of the world’s greatest superpower, however the US will not be the world’s only superpower forever. Brazil (and South America as a whole), China, Russian, India, and others, are becoming more of force in determining political outcomes every day. The geopolitical landscape is slowly being reshaped, and the day when unremitting and (completely) one-sided US support for Israel becomes publicly unfashionable, politically untenable, and simply not profitable anymore, may not be as far away as one might think. I worry that the state of Israel may have a precarious future is they do not attempt to mend fences with their neighbours, their neighbours are going nowhere, and they have long memories of the suffering Israel has caused them, but US support is transient. Don;t get my wrong, even if the US withdrew support, Israel is still the only military supwerpower in the region (thanks to the US), but I still think they would be a dangerous position, their extremism is bound to create blow back. “Can you agree to stop trying to paint me as some neo-con moron?” I haven’t been painting you as such. I’ve dealt with plenty if neo-con morons, I treat them far far worse I can assure you. “I'm down to drop the condescending tone if you are.” I respond in way that I feel is fitting, if I see what I deem to be a stupid opinion, I will say so in no uncertain terms. “ Why do countries with shit for rights criticize Israel for giving shit for rights?” I don’t see how that matters, the entire world international community is untied in their condemnation for Israel, aside from the US that is, just type “peaceful settlement to the Israel-Palestine question” in Google, for the 30 yrs the US and Israel have been blocking a peaceful settlement to the conflict based on international law. ”” “And why do people who advocate for rights focus on Israel” For a number of very important reasons, Israel is the only country in the world that seems to be allowed colonise another, and attack its neighbours whenever it sees fit, with zero internstional repercussions. It is also widely recognised that much of the hatred for the US (and the west), and the instability in the Middle East is caused by the disgusting way in which the Palestinians have been treated. “Your position would only be unfair if you don't have an open mind” I have a very open mind, I have listened to both sides of this argument for a hell of long time, I have researched the positions of all the major scholars on the conflict, i.e. Raul Hilberg, Edward Said, Beni Morris, Norman Finkelstein I have read two books that deal directly with the Israel-Palestine conflict and I’ve read many more on the middle east that dealt with it indirectly or partially. I’ve attended and participated in debates in my university on the topic, I watched and listened to countless hrs of lectures and debates on the topic, and I’ve read numerous op-eds and interviews from reliable sources on the topic. I became interest in it over 7 years ago and in that time I feel I’ve garnered enough of an understanding to be quite confident in the position I espouse. Frankly, I find the insinuation that I’m not opened minded because I have the tenacity to heap more blame on Israel highly disrespectful. “Statements like this lead me to believe that you don't.” That I don’t what? “Not behind demands for proof.” What demands of proof? You want proof, fine, I'll get you your proof, what exactly do you want? “Indicating that they are terrorists” Both sides are guilty of terrorism, Palestinians are guilty of guerrilla warfare, Israel is guilty of widespread state terrorism, go read the Goldstone report – that is before Zionist pressure forced him to go against his own principles and rescind it. “stating their goal as domination of the region” I don’t need to state shit, the presence of over 500,000 illegal Israeli settlers on occupied Palestinian territory, the continued expansions of said territories, the illegal acquisition of Palestinian land and resources, the building of separation walls and israeli only highways, that does all the stating for me. “condemning their political and military actions,” I condemn what I feel deserves to be condemned, again, why am wrong to do so? what compellingly cogent arguments have you provided to the contrary? “You've also colored him a hateful racist bigot, said you don't take him seriously, and ” Yes, I know my own position. "asserted that every single one of his videos is subtly directed at slandering and mocking Islam." This is an absolute statement. My exact words were: “Not really, most of his videos are directed at Islam in one way or another.” When I said: "Sure, why not", I was being sarcastic, sorry if you didn;t pick up on that, i thought it was quite obvious. “I haven't heard you agree with him on anything,” That’s because you attacked my position on him as a xenophobe, if you want to talk about specific views of his I agree with (wholly or partially) go ahead, I think you’ll find i agree with many. ” just denounce and devalue any point he makes as hateful and biased.” He is hateful and biased, and therefore, in my eyes, that discredits everything he says. “You also insinuated that only someone with your level of intelligence and reasoning would be able to pierce through his lies and see the truth.” I never insinutated it had anything to do with intelligence, quite the contrary actually. “, I'm saying that your actions tell a different story.” So now you’re accusing me of lying? It’s a shame you haven’t a shred of anything that resembles tangible evidence to back up your extravagant claims. If chose to beleive I am being disingenuous, do yourself a favour and keep it to yourself. This is debate website; people are required to take opinions and beliefs at face value, I could be sitting at home with a skin head surrounded by Nazi and white supremacist paraphernalia, if I say I love ethnic minorities you have to accept that unless you have proof to the contrary. “If i prefaced the paragraph above with, "You clearly have no idea what you're talking about," would that help my cause at all?” No, it wouldn’t, you tried blatantly to put words in my mouth and I called you out on it in a fairly vociferous manner, pointing to my statement: “You clearly have no idea what you're talking about” doesn’t negate the fact that it was response to an underhanded tactic. ” “And I'm not the only one mischaracterizing or misrepresenting ideas” Again, you seem to love taking about how I’m one sided and how I seem to pathologically prone to misrepresentation, but when I ask for some simple evidence you seem to shirk and point to my view that Pat Condells main target is Islam. Why not try backing up these unjustified accusations; it does your case an awful lot more good. “And if I was actually the person you've painted me to be I would be a bumbling, drooling buffoon who cant even get his shoes on the right feet,” Not, you seem intelligent enough, just misinformed. ” “In terms of what he advocates yes, but in terms of dictation, passion (ranting), and his style of arguing with others he reminds me very much of Pat Condell.” That’s exactly what I meant, I meant “anti” in the sense of where he is on the political spectrum. ” “I get that they might not be the greater of two evils in that regard,” Well at least you get that, most Israeli advocates don;t. ” Absolutely no idea. Kind of like my atheism, i don't know what the ultimate answer is” I know what the answer is, it’s called peaceful settlement to the Israel-Palestine question, it was decided nearly 30 yrs ago at the UN, every year the US and israel block it. ” “Wouldn't that lead to sympathizing with the Palestinians,” I sympathise with any side I see as being oppressed, if Israel abided by international law, gave the Palestinians their homes and their dignity back, and Palestinians still continued their terrorist attacks, my sympathies would rapidly change sides. ” While we're on conspiracies, that because Jews control the media in this country.” I never said jews control the media, again, you're misrepresenting my position. I said the Israel narrative has been the only one allowed into America. It is not in Israel or (crucially) Americans interests for americans to have a clear picture of the conflict. ” “If Israel is bullshitting to conquer, that's sinister.” I do believe this to be the case. ”. If Arab countries are prolonging suffering to breed conflict, that's sinister.” This may also be true, but to what extent i am not sure. ” “If you have a problem with the idea that many governments have a similar system, yes. “ Please name the other countries currently enacting an apartheid like system on their own citizens. ” But if you use the internet as a backing for your beliefs, why is it so bad when I do?” I never said I have problem with what you do, I disagree with your opinions, if you want me to critique a source just say so. ” “implying I confirm a fact the moment I see some mention of it on a random website,” Again, show me the facts, I criticise what I views I see as being misinformed. “ignoring human rights violations in greater number and severity all over the region to pay attention almost exclusively to a country that, by the standards of the Middle East, is actually doing alright.” You seem incapable of the recognising a key difference though, i.e. Palestine has been wiped off the map, millions of Palestinian’s have been thrown off the land they occupied for centuries, and they are still being thrown off as we speak, name another country guilty of that in the ME. ” once we're free from religion people will have no reason to fight over every inch of some scrap of the desert because of its religious significance. “ The first Zionist settlers were Atheistic westerners. "Perhaps if you heard my tone you would've picked up the hypothetical air of the piece. " I am sorry if I'm giving you the impression I'm attacking you. ” “do you think it generally credits someones inspiring oration, from Obama to Condell, to speak in absolute terms?” Yes, because inspiring speeches are generally designed to pander to the ignorant masses. Side: No
1
point
so really, your criticism is pretty groundless as far as I can see. If i couldn't get you to admit to an easily confirmed fact, how was I supposed to convince you of anything in an issue as complicated as the Israel-Palestine conflict? You don't see how this could be frustrating for me? the ironic thing about most of these resistance movements is they fetishise the symbols of communism, armed struggle, and the ideals people like Che fought and died for... I completely agree. And yet this is why my state supports Palestine, at least as far as I can tell. I haven’t been painting you as such. I’ve dealt with plenty if neo-con morons, I treat them far far worse I can assure you. I'll take your word for it, but calling my argument a neo-con favorite and calling me an idiot don't credit you much, here. I respond in way that I feel is fitting, if I see what I deem to be a stupid opinion, I will say so in no uncertain terms. I don't think you need to attack the intelligence of a debater to refute the debater's points. You especially don't need to do that. I really don't mind a few insults, though, it was the overall tone of being superior jackass that bothered me and that, if I see again, will probably deter me from talking to you further as it grates on my nerves. I don’t see how that matters, the entire world international community is untied in their condemnation for Israel, aside from the US that is, just type “peaceful settlement to the Israel-Palestine question” in Google, for the 30 yrs the US and Israel have been blocking a peaceful settlement to the conflict based on international law. Still didn't answer my question. For a number of very important reasons, Israel is the only country in the world that seems to be allowed colonise another, and attack its neighbours whenever it sees fit, with zero internstional repercussions. It is also widely recognised that much of the hatred for the US (and the west), and the instability in the Middle East is caused by the disgusting way in which the Palestinians have been treated. I understand that. I'm not saying Israel doesn't deserve criticism for its actions. What I don't get is why people choose to pick on Israel over worse countries, if war, human rights, and a lack of repercussions are really the concern. Frankly, I find the insinuation that I’m not opened minded because I have the tenacity to heap more blame on Israel highly disrespectful. “Statements like this lead me to believe that you don't.” That I don’t what? “Not behind demands for proof.” What demands of proof? You want proof, fine, I'll get you your proof, what exactly do you want? I don't think you have a closed mind for heaping all the blame (until now) on Israel. I think you have a closed mind because you told me to post whatever I want, but you're right and justified and nothing I say will have basis in fact. Or at least that's what I took from it. That statement came behind a request for proof from you. So when you ask for proof and then immediately after say that I can "paint whatever picture [I] want the fats won;t bear it out," it tells me that you've already decided your position on anything I might say. Again, frustrating. I don’t need to state shit, But you... did... so i was commenting on it. I condemn what I feel deserves to be condemned, again, why am wrong to do so? You were asking me on what grounds I felt you were condemning Israel as passionately as Pat Condell condemns Palestine. I was providing what you asked for, not saying you were wrong for doing so. When I said: "Sure, why not", I was being sarcastic, sorry if you didn;t pick up on that, i thought it was quite obvious. Seemed pretty cut and dry to me. That’s because you attacked my position on him as a xenophobe, if you want to talk about specific views of his I agree with (wholly or partially) go ahead, I think you’ll find i agree with many. I don't know about specifics, but how do you feel about his mockery, ridicule, and condemnation of things that would be very much a part of his life, not a foreign intrusion? Things like his government or his old religion, or the US, even. So now you’re accusing me of lying? It’s a shame you haven’t a shred of anything that resembles tangible evidence to back up your extravagant claims. Saying you agree with much of what he says in one sentence, saying "He is hateful and biased, and therefore, in my eyes, that discredits everything he says." in another. Not that extravagant. Again, you seem to love taking about how I’m one sided and how I seem to pathologically prone to misrepresentation, but when I ask for some simple evidence you seem to shirk and point to my view that Pat Condells main target is Islam. Why not try backing up these unjustified accusations; it does your case an awful lot more good. Which ones would you like to hear, restated or otherwise? Not, you seem intelligent enough, just misinformed. You've told me a few times to keep my advice to myself, but you just gave me some so I hope you'll forgive this, but why don't you just say "misinformed" instead of "moron," man? You clearly know a lot more about this issue than I do, and seem well aware of your own intelligence, so why resort to name calling so early on in the game, especially if I haven't shown myself to be unintelligent? I generally get to the point of name calling after several debates where a person has shown themselves to be completely uncompromising and irrational, often coupled with abhorrent grammar and spelling, and I don't feel I fit that description and, apparently, neither do you. I know what the answer is, it’s called peaceful settlement to the Israel-Palestine question, it was decided nearly 30 yrs ago at the UN, every year the US and israel block it. I guess i should have also said I'm stumped on how to get there, with religious values, territorial urges, and homicidal maniacs clogging up both sides. I never said jews control the media, again, you're misrepresenting my position. No, that was my opinion. Somewhat sarcastic and cliche, however. I sympathise with any side I see as being oppressed, if Israel abided by international law, gave the Palestinians their homes and their dignity back, and Palestinians still continued their terrorist attacks, my sympathies would rapidly change sides. I have no doubt that something like this will occur, I'm just not sure we'll be around to see it. The whole basis for why the Jews ended up taking Israel of all places was religion. It's the Holy Land for the three most powerful and insane religions on the planet. It will be violently contested again, if its history is anything to go by. Please name the other countries currently enacting an apartheid like system on their own citizens. Why? You said lots of countries have a system of separation when it comes to refugees, not me, and I'm cool with calling that a system of separation, which is still think is similar to apartheid but admittedly not the same thing. You seem incapable of the recognising a key difference though, i.e. Palestine has been wiped off the map, millions of Palestinian’s have been thrown off the land they occupied for centuries, and they are still being thrown off as we speak, name another country guilty of that in the ME. I guess i put yet another religious occupation of the holy land about on par with the human rights violations in other countries in the Middle East (and elsewhere, lets not forget elsewhere), largely because the Israel-Palestine issue is a conflict. A long conflict, unnecessarily long, to be sure, but probably not an indefinite one. Until the next holy war, that is. But human rights violations elsewhere are a matter of course, the norm, a standard of barbarism that has been maintained for a lot longer than the crisis in Israel. Really, man, if Israel conquers the Middle East anytime soon don't expect me to support them like I am now. If Israel as a stable democracy doesn't level out, and soon, it will grow in my mind until it surpasses other concerns I have about other shit in other countries. The first Zionist settlers were Atheistic westerners There is still enormous religious significance to the area, though, no? And the state is largely Jewish... I am sorry if I'm giving you the impression I'm attacking you. I'm not sure if this was meant generally or specifically, but thanks either way. Yes, because inspiring speeches are generally designed to pander to the ignorant masses. That's all I was trying to say, man. For me, knowing that, I look for the bits in the speeches that may excuse any absolutism. If those bits are absent, still seems like it's up in the air; is the speaker really an uncompromising absolutist or do they simply realize that absolutism is the best way to convince the most people? Side: Yes
1
point
“If I couldn't get you to admit to an easily confirmed fact,” And what easily confirmed fact is that, Condell’s views on Christianity and European governments? Let’s look at the record of our correspondence to see whether this is valid criticism: You: “As I said most of the Pat Condell videos I've seen have been what I suppose you would call anti-Christian, and Christianity is extremely popular in the West. Its peculiar that he would appeal to the sentiment of the West in one video to try to get them to hate Islam, while in the next video reject and criticize Western sentiment (every bit as viciously as he attacks Islam” Me: “Not really, most of his videos are directed at Islam in one way or another.” You: “So you're telling me the videos I've seen so far that don't remotely touch on Islam were in fact directed at Islam?” Me: “Sure, why not.” If you feel I’ve left out anything pertinent to this point, please say so. As can clearly be seen your entire criticism of me relies on a reply that is quite obviously sarcasm, look at your post, then look at mine, and ask yourself whether it seems like I’m being serious. If you are in any way in doubt then I will include the word sarcasm in parenthesis in future after I make such a statement, but something tells me you’re not in doubt, something tells me you’re clinging to one of the few points that you may have a chance of successfully refuting, if so, I find that quite sad but if desperately want that brownie point I won’t deny you it. “You don't see how this could be frustrating for me?” Of course, but we both know that not exactly how it went down. “And yet this is why my state supports Palestine, at least as far as I can tell.” I have my doubts about how strongly your state supports them, but if they do I would say that (in my humble opinion) it is better to be on the right side for the wrong reasons than on the wrong side for the right ones. ” “but calling my argument a neo-con favourite” Elements of your defence were classic neo-con responses, believe I’ve dealt with enough of them know. ” “calling me an idiot don't credit you much” I never called you an idiot, I don’t engage in ad hominems for the sake of ad hominems, but I do ridicule opinions and positions I feel are idiotic, and I don’t mince my words about it. If you disagree then please show one statement I made that was not a reference to a point you made and was in fact purely a personal attack on you. “I don't think you need to attack the intelligence of a debater to refute the debater's points.” I agree, that’s why I don’t, that doesn’t mean you don’t hold positions I consider to be idiotic. Some of the most intelligent people I know or have known had some of the most small minded corrosive opinions I’ve ever heard. “I really don't mind a few insults, though, it was the overall tone of being superior jackass that bothered me and that,” Well, again, I could easily turn that around on you, you’re the one who thinks Condell is a nice reasonable man with reasonable opinions, you’re the one who attacked my position on him and probably thought you’d get an easy ride cause you probably thought you were 100% in the right, and what annoyed me most about your opinion, and frankly turned me off you a person is the fact that you couldn’t see he obvious bias, hatred and small mindedness. But again, I haven’t been all that bad, maybe one or two shots were a little petty, but I’m a pretty prickly person at the best of times anyway, and I treat most people on this site with opinions such as yours with far more contempt. ” “if I see again, will probably deter me from talking to you further as it grates on my nerves.” Ah, but you see nerve grating only makes you care even more. "Still didn't answer my question. " Your question: "Why do countries with shit for rights criticize Israel for giving shit for rights?” My answer: Those countries with “shit for rights” are fairly complex places, most of them are (and have been) client states of the US and their dictators are (by-in-large) only in power because it suits the west (and others) to repress Arabs so their resources can be exploited. The only countries that are allowed to develop are the ones that firm allies of the West. Those countries largely have shit for rights because it suits external powers (primarily the US), and if they ever gain their freedom and public opinion is actually voiced properly you can be sure they will do a hell of lot more than simply criticise Israel, that is why I worry for Israel’s future. Not that external powers (historically the West but manily the US for the last 100 yrs) are all to blame, but when analysing the history of that region right up to the present day it is obvious that external powers (primarily the US) deserve more blame than anyone else. ” “What I don't get is why people choose to pick on Israel over worse countries” I just told you why, Israel is the only one that is virtually exempt from International law. “if war, human rights, and a lack of repercussions are really the concern.” There’s a big difference between a country repressing its own population and depriving its own people of their rights, and a sovereign country doing it to another. However, this requires you to have some respect for sovereignty, and since the US doesn’t you may not. “I don't think you have a closed mind for heaping all the blame (until now) on Israel.” If you want this debate to continue you’re going to have to stop mischaracterising what I wrote, again this only highlights your desperation. My exact words were: “I have the tenacity to heap more blame on Israel” More =/= All Your semantic games are designed to gain ground on me, however I can see right through most of them, so I’d advise you to stop because you’re only doing your position more harm. “I think you have a closed mind because you told me to post whatever I want, but you're right and justified and nothing I say will have basis in fact.” Again, I’m getting very sick your mischaracterisations, and it is leading me to believe that your friendliness in the other post was only a defence mechanism as you knew you were getting your ass handed to you. Again, let’s look at what I actually said: Me: Again, paint whatever picture you want the fats won;t bear it out, I;ve justified the positions I hold. Where exactly did I say nothing you say will have a basis in fact? I said my opinions are based on fact, and therefore the only way you can disprove them is by using facts. ”But you... did... so i was commenting on it.” What I mean is that settlement expansion does all the stating for me, I don’t need to search for the statement of Zionist settler organisation funded the government that claims they want to ethnically clean the Palestinians, even though I know i would find it as I’ve come across similar Zionist statement and positions before. But I don’t need to as it is actually happening right now. My position relies on the reality on the ground; your position relies on what is written on paper. “I was providing what you asked for, not saying you were wrong for doing so.” I bear no resemblance to Condell, again, I find the insinuation insulting. “Seemed pretty cut and dry to me.” That’s right my friend, that’s one point on the chalk board for you, although it’s blatantly obvious I was being sarcastic. ” “but how do you feel about his mockery, ridicule, and condemnation of things that would be very much a part of his life, not a foreign intrusion?” He’s is obviously far more justified in talking about his own country and its problems. ” “Saying you agree with much of what he says in one sentence, saying "He is hateful and biased, and therefore, in my eyes, that discredits everything he says." in another. Not that extravagant.” I’m saying that if I saw certain videos of his and wasn’t aware of his venomous attacks on Islam and Palestine, then yes, I would be slightly more inclined to agree with him than not, although I would not think much of his rhetorical device and method, just the same way that I agree with many of the positions George Galloway holds but I know he is not the principled person he makes himself out to be and therefore I treat everything he says with suspicion. ” “Which ones would you like to hear, restated or otherwise?” I want hard evidence for the following accusations: 1. you either have such a low opinion of me or such a high opinion of yourself that you will not concede any points to me, regardless of the actual truth of the matter 2. You criticize Pat Condell for being black and white, on issues, yet you are black and white on the issue of Israel and Palestine and when evaluating Pat Condell himself. 3. You've defended and victimized Palestine and wholly condemned Israel, the Israeli people, army, Israels allies, and their cause as fervently and uncompromisingly as Pat Condell supports them 4. And you seem utterly convinced that anything that Pat Condell might say is entirely worthless and untrue because it is said by Pat Condell, and you hate Pat Condell. 5. I don't like all my information black and white, but i take it when it comes with a grain of salt and try to sift through the bullshit; you, on the other hand, spew black and white opinions on this issue. 6. Im more moderate on this issue than either you or Pat Condell, so let me go over some interesting things I noticed and conceded in your one sided rhetoric. I would very much like to hear your rationale for every single point as I believe I can show how everyone is practically 100% wrong, particularly no. 6 ” “You've told me a few times to keep my advice to myself,” You really are shameless aren’t you? I never said keep your advice to yourself, I said if you think I’m lying, which is what you tried to insinuate, it does your position no good to say so, just so we’re clear, this is what I said: ”So now you’re accusing me of lying? It’s a shame you haven’t a shred of anything that resembles tangible evidence to back up your extravagant claims. If chose to believe I am being disingenuous, do yourself a favour and keep it to yourself.” Show me where else I told you unequivocally to keep your advice to yourself? ” “why don't you just say "misinformed" instead of "moron," man?” Because it really hasn’t a lot to do with a persons intelligence, I mean, don’t get me wrong, with someone with an IQ of 70 it does. ” “You clearly know a lot more about this issue than I do,” I have no way of knowing that. “and seem well aware of your own intelligence,” I take everyone as they come, I don’t believe intelligence is quantifiable, and I am also well aware that intelligence has very little to do with insight. Experience can sometimes mean far more, some of the most amazing people I have ever known had no education whatsoever. ” “so why resort to name calling so early on in the game,” Any “name calling” was based on opinions expressed by you, and was thus not baseless. ” “especially if I haven't shown myself to be unintelligent?” You seem fixated on intelligence; you need to get over that. ” “I generally get to the point of name calling after several debates where a person has shown themselves to be completely uncompromising and irrational,” If I see something wrong with a person’s position I say so, the severity of which is dependent on how wrong I think it is and much I care about the topic being discussed. When innocent people lives are the issue (i.e. Palestinians) I generally use more ferocity. ” “I guess i should have also said I'm stumped on how to get there,” Well, the whole world isn’t stumped, and neither is the state of Israel, they just don’t want to have to move 500,000 settlers off land they consider their own, and possibly give up infrastructure they have invested countless millions in. In fact they want the opposite of this, they want to colonise more land, and are doing so right now. ” “No, that was my opinion. Somewhat sarcastic and cliche, however.” Fair enough, I wasn’t sure. “There is still enormous religious significance to the area, though, no? And the state is largely Jewish..” Yes, but the original Zionist leaders would have settled for another location, in fact a number of other locations were mentioned (that would have upset practically nobody) in the 20s when the Zionist movement was gaining traction. However they obviously preferred Palestine, even though they had remove about 10 million people. Britain also wanted a loyal strategic hub in the Middle East, they even used the term “our own little Jewish Northern Ireland in the middle east”, with the collapse of Britain as an empire, Pax Britannia rapidly became Pax Americana, and the US now uses Israel as its 52st state, even though its more like a military base, and has been vital for ensuring US hegemony in the region for over 60 years. Side: No
1
point
If you feel I’ve left out anything pertinent to this point, please say so. No, your point. Of course, but we both know that not exactly how it went down. On my end, though, it was. I have my doubts about how strongly your state supports them California, generally speaking, is broken up into liberal cities and conservative rural areas. In the cities, SD, SF, SJ, etc, you'll find an abundance of often openly proclaimed support for Palestine. Outside of the concentrated areas of people not so much, but these people don't make up the majority. Not that I can cite you but that I've personally been around to see are pro-Palestine demonstrations in Berkeley and SF. Well, again, I could easily turn that around on you, you’re the one who thinks Condell is a nice reasonable man with reasonable opinions, you’re the one who attacked my position on him and probably thought you’d get an easy ride cause you probably thought you were 100% in the right No, I think he's a deliberate jackass with some reasonable opinions. And one doesn't generally attack someone with over 1000 points on this site and not expect a decent rebuttal out of it. Ah, but you see nerve grating only makes you care even more. No, it doesn't. I dont debate to serve any greater purpose, to convert people to any way of thinking, or even because I'm overly passionate about the things I'm arguing for or against; I debate for fun. If I cant have fun, what's the point? Getting my argument trounced might be unpleasant, but it wouldn't deter me more than the prospect of continuing to debate in a manner I find abrasive. There’s a big difference between a country repressing its own population and depriving its own people of their rights, and a sovereign country doing it to another. However, this requires you to have some respect for sovereignty, and since the US doesn’t you may not. I get that in terms of political critique, but from a humanitarian point of view a person is a person, a violation of rights is a violation of rights. I'm not even sure how to refute that last bit for you other than to say that I defiantly do not often share similar opinions with my government. If you want this debate to continue you’re going to have to stop mischaracterising what I wrote, again this only highlights your desperation. My exact words were: “I have the tenacity to heap more blame on Israel” More =/= All Your semantic games are designed to gain ground on me, however I can see right through most of them, so I’d advise you to stop because you’re only doing your position more harm. Fair enough, your point, but I think you're putting a lot more malice and intent in my actions then is actually there. I reword things for the sake of variation, but I can cut that out and only directly quote you from now on. Again, I’m getting very sick your mischaracterisations They're interpretations. At least, that one was. He’s is obviously far more justified in talking about his own country and its problems. I guess I just don't see how attacking a foreign government and his government with equal contempt makes him a xenophobe. Or how evenly mocking religious people abroad and and home makes him a racist. I think it would be more fair to say he has an irrational hatred or fear of religion or oppression or government or something, not of any one religion or government in particular. Do you think that your own opinions of issues abroad are devalued or less justified just because they are foreign issues, not ones at home? 1. You already made it clear that you were being sarcastic and I didn't pick up on it. 2. You've since shared some of your concerns for (not against) Israel and apportioned some blame elsewhere; you hadn't done this at the point I made this accusation, so while I'm not entirely convinced it was originally unjustified, continuing to support that notion would be foolish on my part. In regards to Condell, I think we're still debating that point, aren't we? 3. Some of your posts that led me to posting what I did. "besides Israel destroyed the PLO precisely because they were becoming too reasonable, they wanted someone like Hamas that they can point the finger at and use as a scapegoat for their expansionism." "putting forth the notion of a "sinister Jewish plot" while completely ignoring the facts on the ground." "So your saying because Israel has a big army with the latest military hardware (courtesy of uncle Sam) they have the moral highroad, that's strange logic." "How do you explain Israel unwillingness to compromise? Israel doesn't want peace, it wants further expansion and colonization" "So Israel is not guilty of terrorism?" 4. Saying you hate Pat Condell was kind of a sarcastic critique of your opinions on Pat Condells hate. I don't have any proof that you hate Pat Condell, but, then, we dont have any proof Pat Condell hates anything, and that was kind of my point. "I've watched a lot of his videos, he masks his hatred behind a veil of secularism, I will admit he does this very well, and no doubt he has converted many reasonable people toward his way of thinking, but he is hate monger...I don't take people like him seriously, I can see right through him." 5. Not sure how I'm supposed to prove to you I like my information with a grain of salt, but, "he mocks an entire culture and civilization in a very perverse way for no reason whatsoever aside from the disdain he clearly holds for it," "He is motivated by hatred, I have divined him thusly." "I like the way you speak of him as some reasonable individual who rationally critiques Islamic governments in an objective manner, when in fact his speeches are nothing except insincere hyperbole" 6. I dont know how to prove this other than to say that I dont support/condemn either Israel or Palestine as passionately as you and Pat Condell seem to support/condemn them, respectively. It's a matter of opinion based on what I've heard from the two of you and what I know of myself. You really are shameless aren’t you? I never said keep your advice to yourself, I said if you think I’m lying, which is what you tried to insinuate, it does your position no good to say so, just so we’re clear, this is what I said: I'm sorry, I'll make a greater distinction between advising someone on something and stating advice in the future. Because it really hasn’t a lot to do with a persons intelligence, I mean, don’t get me wrong, with someone with an IQ of 70 it does. So why not call the 70 IQ a moron and the smart one misinformed? Any “name calling” was based on opinions expressed by you, and was thus not baseless. Not baseless in the sense that it's your opinion of my opinion, but I still don't see why you wanted to start name calling so early. What's your mission in debating? I think people are rarely shamed into silence or convinced to convert over to another way of thinking when others attack their opinions with undue ferocity. But if you're not trying to convince anyone of anything and this is just a hobby for you I suppose it doesn't matter. Side: Yes
1
point
"On my end, though, it was. " Fair enough, in future I'll put it in parenthesis like this: (sarcasm), even though I still think it was obvious. "No, I think he's a deliberate jackass with some reasonable opinions." You didn't really say anything about that originally, but it is irrelevant, you agreed with his rants against Islam. "And one doesn't generally attack someone with over 1000 points on this site and not expect a decent rebuttal out of it. " Points are only an indication of how long a person has been here or much a persons uses the it to post arguments, when I came to this site first nearly every argument I posted was down voted into double figures because it was largely populated by Americans who had never heard the kind of positions I espoused, plus i went at that with no mercy. I was called a Muslim terrorist on site many times before. Points are not a good indicator of the quality of debater in most cases. Joe is perfect example, he's been forever, has over 16,000 points and rarely posts anything that can be considered an argument, he's a troll who provides the comic relief. "I debate for fun. If I cant have fun, what's the point?" Depends on what you mean by fun, I think our ideas of fun are quite different. "but it wouldn't deter me more than the prospect of continuing to debate in a manner I find abrasive." This is too subjective to be valid. You just feel hard done by, but the reality is you asked for the majority of what you got, again I admit I may have thrown a petty shots your way, but overall you had it coming, "but from a humanitarian point of view a person is a person, a violation of rights is a violation of rights." I agree completely but it is up to the citizens of country to change the system of government they have if they feel they are not being granted those rights. "but I think you're putting a lot more malice and intent in my actions then is actually there." You may be right, and if so I apologize, but these things are not simply semantic accidents either (whether you realise it or not), the intention is clear, it is definitely no accident when you try to change what I said from: Israel deserves more of the blame To: Israel deserves all the blame "I reword things for the sake of variation," Yes, it is no accident that variation favours your position. "They're interpretations. At least, that one was. " Yes but its your interpretation, and it is quite obviously based on what you think and not on what i said. "I guess I just don't see how attacking a foreign government and his government with equal contempt makes him a xenophobe. " Well, it doesn't have to, except its clear he hates Islam, look at his rant on the burka and Niq, and many others, its disgusting, and his position on Israel-Palestine is in line with Fox News (i.e. Satanic), in Europe those kinds of views are normally only held by radical right wing nationalist groups like the British BNP. "I think it would be more fair to say he has an irrational hatred or fear of religion or oppression or government or something, not of any one religion or government in particular." No, I think this is true except he hates Islam far more. "Do you think that your own opinions of issues abroad are devalued or less justified just because they are foreign issues, not ones at home?" No, because I can back them without bigotry. "You've since shared some of your concerns for (not against) Israel and apportioned some blame elsewhere; you hadn't done this at the point I made this accusation, " Therefore you were wrong to make this baseless allegation, just because somebody hadn't said something or clarified something else gives you no right to attack their character. "so while I'm not entirely convinced it was originally unjustified, " I am, and i have yet to see anything tangible that proves otherwise. "I think we're still debating that point, aren't we?" I clarified what I said on Condell before you even decided to dispute me, I said he is a propagandist, who uses the truth as a means to manipulate people into his way of thinking, he is a hate filled bigot who uses truth in a deviously deceptive manner. "Some of your posts that led me to posting what I did. " That isn't the point, not only were you wrong to accuse me in the way that you did, but your defense amounted to: I'm right because I believe I'm more moderate even though I'm clearly advocating on behalf of the Israelis" You also inferred that I said things I had not said, firstly; you said I wholly condemn Israel which isn;t true, i condemn for they deserve to be condemned for, secondly; you added: the Israeli people and their allies (who I had not mentioned up that point). Now let's look at the points that led you to believe that: "besides Israel destroyed the PLO precisely because they were becoming too reasonable, they wanted someone like Hamas that they can point the finger at and use as a scapegoat for their expansionism." In a debate when someone expresses an opinion that leads you to believe they are (as you said): "defending and victimizing Palestine and wholly condemned Israel, the Israeli people, army, Israels allies, and their cause as fervently and uncompromisingly as Pat Condell", you don't simply come out and say that because simply saying isn't worth shit. In order to dispute me effectively you would have had to have proved (with evidence) why it is wrong to say Mossad never intentionally destroyed the PLO because they were becoming too reasonable. If you can show why that is not the case I'm kinda fucked, then you can throw your insulting accusation and they will actually mean something. Lets looks at the next: "putting forth the notion of a "sinister Jewish plot" while completely ignoring the facts on the ground." I'm struggling to understand what the issue is with this you're going to have to tell me. "So your saying because Israel has a big army with the latest military hardware (courtesy of uncle Sam) they have the moral highroad, that's strange logic." I said: How on earth can you have such an extraordinary double standard? you clearly didn;t learn much about the conflict when you were an advocate for Palestine. You responded: Perhaps, but as it stands there's the disciplined and trained army of a democratic nation on one hand, and a bunch of religious "freedom fighters," if you prefer, working for an Arab militia on the other. Show me some Israeli child soldiers or suicide bombers, or show me Israeli troops shielding themselves with women and children - oh, wait, never mind, that's probably far too much work. Inferring you believe Israel has the moral highroad because they have a bigger army and don;t have to use suicide bombers is perfectly valid based on what you said, if you can't see that your blind. ""How do you explain Israel unwillingness to compromise?" Again, a successful dispute would require you to show me how Israel is in fact willing to compromise, even though you'll have a tough time proving that one I can assure you. Again, this only shows how your accusations were based on nothing except your own exceptionally biased opinion, if you don;t want to swallow that bitter pill of truth, that's your problem. If you think I'm wrong, attack my positions with facts that run counter to the ones I have presented, that's how its done, when you simply throw baseless accusations you look like jackass and poor debater. "Israel doesn't want peace, it wants further expansion and colonization"" Again, do I need to show you pictures of the estates currently being built in the West Bank? What exactly is wrong with speaking the truth? "So Israel is not guilty of terrorism?" Again, this shows your position for what it is, Israel is guilty of far More terrorism than hamas or anyone else, but people like you don;t call it that, so when Israel illegally invades Lebannon in 2006 without provocation, they're just "defending" their territory, or when they kill 1400 civilians in Gaza in 2009, again, purely defensive, even though they brook the ceasefire on purpose to restore their "deterrence capacity" as they call it. "4. Saying you hate Pat Condell was kind of a sarcastic critique of your opinions on Pat Condells hate. I don't have any proof that you hate Pat Condell, but, then, we don't have any proof Pat Condell hates anything, and that was kind of my point. " I don't hate Pat Condell, I have no respect for him, he's nothing, people like him don't deserve hate, and again, you don't have any proof because you made a base accusation just like all the others. If someone proves themselves to be untrustworthy once, is that not enough to discredit them? Noam Chomsky is someone I have always taken seriously (I've watched'listened to almost every lecture he's ever done, interview he's ever given, debate he's ever taken part in. I've read 7 of his books even though he's written well over a hundred, I've read hundreds of his op-eds and opinion pieces, and much more) - that doesn't mean I agree with every single thing he's even said, thought, and written, but when I listen to him i know I am getting as close to 100% objectivity as is possible with a scholar/commentator, however if I ever saw him carrying on the way Condell does I would be immediately turned off, but I know that's not going to happen. "5. Not sure how I'm supposed to prove to you I like my information with a grain of salt, but," I was only referring to following baseless accusation: "you, on the other hand, spew black and white opinions on this issue." "6. I don't know how to prove this other than to say that I don't support/condemn either Israel or Palestine as passionately as you " Well clearly you don't know as much as I do on this topic, and if you do you can;t prove it, or else you simply don't care that genocide is being committed against a largely innocent group of people. "I don't know how to prove this other than to say that I don't support/condemn either Israel or Palestine as passionately as you and Pat Condell seem to support/condemn them," Stop insinuating I have anything in common with Condell, I've already told you i find it highly insulting, I asked you to justify that small minded view of yours but all you can you can do is reiterate the same garbage as before. "It's a matter of opinion based on what I've heard from the two of you and what I know of myself. " Well considering you haven't been able to successfully prove any of your baseless accusations, and considering you have been completely torn to shreds in this debate I think "your opinion", "what you've heard", and "what you know" about this matter isn't worth much at all. "So why not call the 70 IQ a moron and the smart one misinformed?" A person with 70 IQ would struggle to operate a keyboard. "Not baseless in the sense that it's your opinion of my opinion," No, in the sense that I provided facts pertaining to the discussion we were having. "but I still don't see why you wanted to start name calling so early. " Everything I said was in response to you, I have overreacted a tad, but I wasn't all that bad, get over it, for instance: "Perhaps you could define apartheid for me, in garry terms, because all the research I've done on the word has led me to believe it means, basically, "separation." Which is evident in Arab on Arab discrimination." On the whole, you were asking for what you got. Saying you wanted it in "garry" terms when you clearly had no cluse what aparthied even was, I mean come the fuck on, you tried to say aparthied is when people in a country aren;t granted the same rights as its citizens, can you not see how stupid that is? Are mexicans suffering from aparthied when the enter the states illegal? What the africans who try to get into mainland europe and Austrlia, are they under apartheid? You didn't even know what apartheid was and you tried to get snarky, don;t complain just becuase your position was shown for what it was. "What's your mission in debating? " I have multiple motives, in fact I have a different mission for every different person I debate with, I am not willing to disclose any. "I think people are rarely shamed into silence or convinced to convert over to another way of thinking when others attack their opinions with undue ferocity." I think your 100% wrong, when someones position is ridiculed and made to look stupid by using unquestionable facts - they start to have niggling doubts that maybe that person was right, I mean after all they made me look stupid, they start to think things like: "well even if he was only half right that still means my current position is half wrong", etc. That's exactly how religion is being shown to be stupid, by people ridiculing it and showing how believing cretain things is simply idiotic. It's an exceptionally powerful technique you really couldn't;t be more wrong on that one, i admit it may not work on everyone, but what does? It's almost impossible to get people to change their minds on anything anyway. "But if you're not trying to convince anyone of anything and this is just a hobby for you I suppose it doesn't matter." Again, I have multiple motivations none of which i am willing to disclose. This shit is getting really old really fast, we're not even really debating any issues anymore so i doubt Ill be responding to your next post. Side: No
1
point
2
points
Ah, Islam's no worse than any other religion. A handful are a bit nutty, but show me a religion where there aren't nuts. I do get the feeling that he is suffering from what I call "Hitchens Syndrome". Hitchens Syndrome is where an eloquent and formidable speaker takes specific knowledge of one subject, and haphazardly applies it to another. For example, Hitchens' knowledge of religion was great, but he failed when applying it to politics. This guy has a similar issue. His area of expertise is probably extremism, and yet he's trying to use his oratory skills to transfer this over to the religion of Islam, and a bit of politics. He's kind of dumb. Side: No
1
point
"Ah, Islam's no worse than any other religion" Depends on the context. In total level of violence, it definetly beats it's rival major religions. As the guidelines for a social order, it does even worse. " but he failed when applying it to politics." As evidence by his support of the war on terror or something else? Side: Yes
2
points
Depends on the context. In total level of violence, it definetly beats it's rival major religions. As the guidelines for a social order, it does even worse. Eh, but most of Islam is taken straight from the other two major monotheisms. I don't think there's that much of a difference between all three, certainly not enough to warrant abuse at one of them in particular. Although, as you said, it does depend on the context. As evidence by his support of the war on terror or something else? That is one example, yes. Islamophobia did not justify the Iraq War, yet Hitchens thought it did. He saw Islam as the main issue. Fair enough, but it is stupid to deny a nation the right to defend itself because of their religion. Hitchens tried to blend the two, and failed, in my eyes. Side: No
1
point
"Eh, but most of Islam is taken straight from the other two major monotheisms." Which doesn't say anything about the extremity of its advocation of violence. " I don't think there's that much of a difference between all three" Not a truly large one, but it is amusing to see the overall level of violence increasing over time with the major religions. "Hitchens tried to blend the two, and failed, in my eyes" Is this your sole example? Just curious. Side: Yes
2
points
Which doesn't say anything about the extremity of its advocation of violence. It takes its inspiration from somewhere though. Not a truly large one, but it is amusing to see the overall level of violence increasing over time with the major religions. Agreed. Modern day extremist Islam is just like medieval Christianity, only with bombs instead of swords. Is this your sole example? Just curious. No, but it's the strongest. His reaction to the issuing of a fatwa to Salman Rushdie, and his critiques of Mother Teresa are other examples. Side: No
1
point
2
points
1
point
I don't think so. A misguided view on foreign policy is bad, but (by your own admission necesary) criticism of those who lack it and a fierce dedication to free speech wouldn't mean Hitchens " failed when applying it to politics" utterly. And as your defense of Mother Teresa might imply, the advocacy of his good views far outweigh his negatives. Side: Yes
2
points
2
points
Besides the fact that there are fundamentalists in every religion, he forgets to address the fact that a) Iran has yet to create a nuclear weapon, b) They have no wish for a war with either Israel or the U.S. as they only want to survival for their country and c) In the case that they do get nuclear weapons, it does not signify that they'll go out in a mass war against other countries. Case in point: Nuclear weapons are more of a deterrent for war than a reason. Pakistan and India have had over 50 years of peace since they both created nuclear weapons. Israel doesn't like Egypt but just because they have nuclear weapons that doesn't mean they'll use it against the Egyptians. Also, the U.S. are worried about terrorists getting control of nuclear weapons. Why would Iran give up it's new toys (if they ever get them) after sacrificing so much for it? The people would rebel and turn it into another Libya. Side: No
this guy doesn't know anything about Islam. He even doesn't know what is mean of Islam. Islam mean peace not killing or involved in violence. He just keep saying that Muslim people are more violate then other religions people. thats totally absurd. From my point of view,a people who involved in Violante dint have any religion because they are not educated by religion way. If we relay read qua ran we will understand that how Qua ran described about peace. This guy also said that In Afghanistan men dint let women to get out from the house. I dint know why he mention this thing. I even dint want to argue anymore because he needs to know more before he involved in argument. Side: No
|
3
points
"He does not know how safe and wonderful life was in the old Islamic empires. He does not know that West Africans long time ago adopted Islam beacuse they thought it was fair and peaceful, they adopted it by themselves when it was introduced." Life in those Empires was peaceful when all cultures were accepted, not a trait you can credit Islam itself with. In regards to Africa, when a religion is designed to appeal to the lower class of civilization it can be expected to catch on to places like that. The altruistic morality of the Qu'ran nothing less then evil. One example would be charity. Charity is one of the five pillars, a precondition to entering heaven in the religion. How can obligated charity be called charity at all? How can we call it moral when the justification for it is nothing more then a master making his dogs do a trick for a treat? Side: Yes
i don't agree with him saying that it's not the culture. The culture and the religion are intertwined. Religion makes up a culture. These tyrannical cultures like Saudi Arabia and Iran are based on the religion of Islam. And he's right about Islamic culture coming into Britain. Now, the Quar'an is like the bible, in that it's not 100%. Islam CAN be a religion of peace, but as we have seen it can also be a religion of bigotry, hatred, and violence. Christianity has been a religion of peace and a religion of violence at times. currently, Christian fundamentalists are not a very violent movement that matches up to al-Qaeda, so it doesn't make sense when people like Rosea O'Donnel say that radical christianity is just as dangerous as radical islam. instead, it makes more sense what Bill Maher said, that you don't see Christians blowing themselves up in train stations or crashing planes into buildings (in the name of Christianity). I would say that the West's sin is Big Government and Patriotism, but it's gotten past letting religion be its doctrine for mass murder... now it's the collective. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
" No fundamentalist is a Muslim or Christian." What an ignorant statement. I'm sure the fundamentalist would disagree with you. Since your book is just another collection of subjective unjustifiable premises, you cannot make a statement about the validity of another's faith when you hold nothing more then a different interpretation. "The Taliban have so many laws which not only are not in the Qua'an but are prohibited by the quar'an" Books like that are easy to twist to justify anything. I'm sure a radical would have justifications for those laws based on his interperation of the book. Books like the Qu'ran fall in love with it's own poetry, easy to see how that tendency bites religion in the ass is it not? Side: Yes
1
point
I meant a true, Muslim. A fundamentalist would do anything to bring his religion. "Books like that are easy to twist to justify anything." They don't really "twist" it they don't read the entire verse and chapter from top to bottom if they take only ONE verse then of course people are going to take it the wrong way. If you compare the Taliban with the Quar'an then you will see how bad of Muslims they are. In fact, a moral non-Muslim is better in the sight of God than The Taliban. Side: No
1
point
"I meant a true, Muslim" Not in your jurisdiction to determine. "A fundamentalist would do anything to bring his religion." Which has nothing to say about the validity of their belief versus yours. "ONE verse then of course people are going to take it the wrong way." That is your claim, an extremist might say otherwise. "If you compare the Taliban with the Quar'an then you will see how bad of Muslims they are. " They would say the same about you. "In fact, a moral non-Muslim is better in the sight of God than The Taliban." Not your call at any rate. Side: Yes
1
point
By this I suppose your main argument is perspective? The only perspective we Muslims take is the perspective of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Muhammad would not have condoned it (fact). If you disagree with the Taliban does that mean you disagree with both my humanitarian and Islamic perspective of them? Side: No
1
point
"By this I suppose your main argument is perspective?" My main argument is that your claims on "real" Islam are unjustifiable and subjective. "Muhammad would not have condoned it (fact)" So you say, the Hadith are just as interpretative as the Qu'ran is. "humanitarian and Islamic perspective of them?" I hold the same view of the Taliban's Islam as I do yours, that they are both evil. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
By this I suppose your main argument is perspective? The only perspective we Muslims take is the perspective of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Muhammad would not have condoned it (fact). If you disagree with the Taliban does that mean you disagree with both my humanitarian and Islamic perspective of them? Side: No
1
point
By this I suppose your main argument is perspective? The only perspective we Muslims take is the perspective of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Muhammad would not have condoned it (fact). If you disagree with the Taliban does that mean you disagree with both my humanitarian and Islamic perspective of them? Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
I came across Pat Condell while looking for support for my Atheist opinions quite some time ago. Like most atheist propaganda (any propaganda, really) everything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. These are supposed so be comedy videos with political and religious themes; Pats not exactly a pillar of unshakeable authority and reason on anything he talks about. But he has some interesting opinions and some decent support for them. Furthermore he doesn't shy away from speaking his mind even if it's an unpopular opinion. I do like that. In regards to Islam Pat seems to have taken a bit of a stand. I think he does this because of the three main monotheistic religions Islam is predominant and driving in a number of barbaric cultures, and, living in the UK, he's getting to witness the Islamization of his country one day at a time. He's stated that Islam isn't the problem, religion and the freedom we allow religion is the problem. If this manifests itself most clearly in the Middle East, that's just how the ball bounces. Again, this doesn't make him an irrefutable authority on the subject, but I think his opinions are just as valid and well supported as anyone elses I've heard on Islam. Side: Yes
1
point
Just one slight quibble... How is the UK becoming "Islamized/Islamfied"? I really don't see much evidence myself. There's the odd sensationalist news report, and the odd racist headline by the Daily Mail, but certainly nothing to suggest a radical religious upheaval. The British public is largely Christian, as is our PM and our Queen. It is highly unlikely that Islam will become the dominant religion/culture. Side: No
1
point
Population projections coupled with Islamic values held and enforced both in Muslims countries and in Europe. This is obviously not solely a Muslim phenomenon, but surely you've noticed the rigor that religious fanatics try to enforce their will with, and do, when allowed. I think it makes sense if he is against religious values being pushed on him that he would express as much distain for the incoming Islamic nutjobs as he does the current Christian ones. Side: Yes
|
