5 ms·

So you're saying if someone were pointing a gun at your family, and you also had a gun pointed at them, you would refuse to use it out of a belief that you occu

by tnash 14y ago

So you're saying if someone were pointing a gun at your family, and you also had a gun pointed at them, you would refuse to use it out of a belief that you occupy some moral high ground?

click170 14y ago
Rarher, I think they were saying that it would be prudent to be skeptical and cautious of anyone attempting to impose draconian laws or practices under the thinly veiled guise of "the british are coming" -- er sorry, "the baddies are coming".
potatolicious 14y ago
I see that "non sequitor straw man analogy" is the special on the menu today. So, to be clear, I'm not saying anything about guns pointed my families. I'm talking about people's natural right to privacy and the overreach of government. These two things have nothing to do with each other and your attempt to connect them is both misleading and disingenuous.
- tnash 14y ago
  Well, since you weren't clear, and still aren't, straw man it was. Your point is what? That privacy is sacrosanct? That we should live in a world where libertarianism rules all? What is your point? Stop me anytime. We're talking about the same thing here. Security abuses privacy, but is necessary. My point was, and still is, that for some it is more necessary than others. As we in the US and Western Europe don't live under constant threat to our lives, we accept less. However, Israelis do live under that threat, so they accept more.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    >As we in the .. Western Europe don't live under constant threat to our lives Some of us did living in Belfast - and we would like to thank all those nice Americans in Boston for making it all possible.
ajross 14y ago
That seems like a digression. The tourists in question were presumably unarmed, both literally and figuratively. Yet they had the metaphorical gun pointed at them anyway. I'm guessing that an implied part of your point is that because they had arab names, they might have had metaphorical guns? Yeah. That's the part that drew the downvotes.
- tnash 14y ago
  I'm not sure asking for email credentials is a "metaphorical gun". 99% of the violence committed against Israelis is done by Arabs. You suggest that profiling is wrong (and it is! Don't we all wish we lived in a world where it wasn't necessary!), but it works. It's stopped countless terror attacks.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Not sure I want to get involved, but I'm curious - given that you separated "Israeli" from "Arab" (are there not Israelis who are also Arab? Why are you mixing citizenship with ethnicity?), using the same scale, what is the percentage of violence committed against Arabs by Israelis? Don't some of those fall into the category of "terror attack"? Isn't there a power imbalance which prevents Arabs from profiling and being able to restrict what Israelis can do? If Arabs were able to profile and exclude certain classes of people, wouldn't that help stop further "countless terror attacks" against them? If I understand your view rightly, I think you are in favor of having the Israelis out of the West Bank, as that would reduce the overall amount of attacks. Is that correct?
    - tnash 14y ago
      "are there not Israelis who are also Arab?" Yes. And in fact, many serve in the Knesset, and the army. "Why are you mixing citizenship with ethnicity?" It's the ethnicity that they use to profile. "using the same scale, what is the percentage of violence committed against Arabs by Israelis?" I don't know. More Arabs are killed by other Arabs than by Israelis. If you're talking about just Palestinians, yes, it would be by Israelis. "Don't some of those fall into the category of "terror attack"?" No. No. No. That's the biggest problem with education about the conflict. How do you define a "terror attack"? I define it as violent acts towards civilians with the intent of causing mass psychological damage. Israel does not commit such acts. They attack military targets in the Gaza Strip, and sometimes kill civilians, as any army in the world has had the difficult issue of doing. A British soldier stood up in the UN and proclaimed that during the last Israeli/Gaza offensive (operation cast lead), Israel did more to protect Gazan civilians than any nation has ever done previously (http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409 http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKI...). He was referring to the Goldstone report, which was later rescinded and apologized for. "Isn't there a power imbalance which prevents Arabs from profiling and being able to restrict what Israelis can do?" No, not at all. Try getting into Egypt with an Israeli passport. Multiple acquaintances that have were harassed by Egyptian police. In actuality, it is much more difficult for Israelis in Arab countries than it is for Arabs in Israel. "If Arabs were able to profile and exclude certain classes of people, wouldn't that help stop further "countless terror attacks" against them?" What terrorist attacks? "If I understand your view rightly, I think you are in favor of having the Israelis out of the West Bank, as that would reduce the overall amount of attacks. Is that correct?" I am 100% for a two-state solution with two people living side by side peacefully. Settlements in the West Bank are an issue that needs to be figured out. You have to realize that these "settlements" are sometimes small, and sometimes (like Ariel) are large cities with thousands of residents. It's not simple to just get them to up and move. Remember, Israel did that (The unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip) and all they have gotten in return is more than 9000 rockets and mortars fired on Israeli citizens. (edit) Ah yes, downvoted for the inconvenient truth.

by tnash 14y ago

So you're saying if someone were pointing a gun at your family, and you also had a gun pointed at them, you would refuse to use it out of a belief that you occupy some moral high ground?

click170 14y ago

Rarher, I think they were saying that it would be prudent to be skeptical and cautious of anyone attempting to impose draconian laws or practices under the thinly veiled guise of "the british are coming" -- er sorry, "the baddies are coming".

potatolicious 14y ago

I see that "non sequitor straw man analogy" is the special on the menu today. So, to be clear, I'm not saying anything about guns pointed my families. I'm talking about people's natural right to privacy and the overreach of government. These two things have nothing to do with each other and your attempt to connect them is both misleading and disingenuous.

tnash 14y ago
Well, since you weren't clear, and still aren't, straw man it was. Your point is what? That privacy is sacrosanct? That we should live in a world where libertarianism rules all? What is your point? Stop me anytime. We're talking about the same thing here. Security abuses privacy, but is necessary. My point was, and still is, that for some it is more necessary than others. As we in the US and Western Europe don't live under constant threat to our lives, we accept less. However, Israelis do live under that threat, so they accept more.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  >As we in the .. Western Europe don't live under constant threat to our lives Some of us did living in Belfast - and we would like to thank all those nice Americans in Boston for making it all possible.

ajross 14y ago

That seems like a digression. The tourists in question were presumably unarmed, both literally and figuratively. Yet they had the metaphorical gun pointed at them anyway. I'm guessing that an implied part of your point is that because they had arab names, they might have had metaphorical guns? Yeah. That's the part that drew the downvotes.

tnash 14y ago
I'm not sure asking for email credentials is a "metaphorical gun". 99% of the violence committed against Israelis is done by Arabs. You suggest that profiling is wrong (and it is! Don't we all wish we lived in a world where it wasn't necessary!), but it works. It's stopped countless terror attacks.
- dalke 14y ago
  Not sure I want to get involved, but I'm curious - given that you separated "Israeli" from "Arab" (are there not Israelis who are also Arab? Why are you mixing citizenship with ethnicity?), using the same scale, what is the percentage of violence committed against Arabs by Israelis? Don't some of those fall into the category of "terror attack"? Isn't there a power imbalance which prevents Arabs from profiling and being able to restrict what Israelis can do? If Arabs were able to profile and exclude certain classes of people, wouldn't that help stop further "countless terror attacks" against them? If I understand your view rightly, I think you are in favor of having the Israelis out of the West Bank, as that would reduce the overall amount of attacks. Is that correct?
  - tnash 14y ago
    "are there not Israelis who are also Arab?" Yes. And in fact, many serve in the Knesset, and the army. "Why are you mixing citizenship with ethnicity?" It's the ethnicity that they use to profile. "using the same scale, what is the percentage of violence committed against Arabs by Israelis?" I don't know. More Arabs are killed by other Arabs than by Israelis. If you're talking about just Palestinians, yes, it would be by Israelis. "Don't some of those fall into the category of "terror attack"?" No. No. No. That's the biggest problem with education about the conflict. How do you define a "terror attack"? I define it as violent acts towards civilians with the intent of causing mass psychological damage. Israel does not commit such acts. They attack military targets in the Gaza Strip, and sometimes kill civilians, as any army in the world has had the difficult issue of doing. A British soldier stood up in the UN and proclaimed that during the last Israeli/Gaza offensive (operation cast lead), Israel did more to protect Gazan civilians than any nation has ever done previously (http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409 http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKI...). He was referring to the Goldstone report, which was later rescinded and apologized for. "Isn't there a power imbalance which prevents Arabs from profiling and being able to restrict what Israelis can do?" No, not at all. Try getting into Egypt with an Israeli passport. Multiple acquaintances that have were harassed by Egyptian police. In actuality, it is much more difficult for Israelis in Arab countries than it is for Arabs in Israel. "If Arabs were able to profile and exclude certain classes of people, wouldn't that help stop further "countless terror attacks" against them?" What terrorist attacks? "If I understand your view rightly, I think you are in favor of having the Israelis out of the West Bank, as that would reduce the overall amount of attacks. Is that correct?" I am 100% for a two-state solution with two people living side by side peacefully. Settlements in the West Bank are an issue that needs to be figured out. You have to realize that these "settlements" are sometimes small, and sometimes (like Ariel) are large cities with thousands of residents. It's not simple to just get them to up and move. Remember, Israel did that (The unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip) and all they have gotten in return is more than 9000 rockets and mortars fired on Israeli citizens. (edit) Ah yes, downvoted for the inconvenient truth.