LickHerish, you're a reasonably intelligent person, but let me ask you, are you going to change to the right wing side anything soon?
West Point what point? You made assertions, lick has refuted them with a reasoned argument but rather than dispute his points you dismiss them because they come from him? Do you not see how irrational that is? It would be understandable if he was putting forward some completely wacky argument and presenting clearly bogus evidence but that is not the case. If you are unwilling to test your viewpoints in argument how do you know they would stand up? Are your views purely faith based not built on any rational thought? If so then your views would have all the worth of fairy tales. You dismiss the argument because you think it ‘boring’ is that your criteria of what you see as constituting a correct or incorrect fact how exciting it is? Is that what dictates your education you will only learn stuff that you find exciting (is that why so many Americans get what knowledge they have of history form Hollywood films?). To me is seems to indicate an incredible laziness, an unwillingness to make the slightest effort to back up or understand your own views let alone others. This attitude would seem to me to actively court ignorance. It is probably for this reason that your view of the Israeli / Palestinian problem seems to me so simplistic. You seem to have chosen a side (something that is more exciting especially when ‘your’ side seems to have more power) and then accepted their argument alone (this is also the easiest, that is to say the laziest option). You seem to support the right wing policies (and viewpoint) of the present Israeli government. The thing is that in such a dispute ‘taking’ a side can cloud your judgement and obscure the complexities of the situation. The thing is that there is a left and right wing on each side there are moderates, hard-liners and extremists on both sides. Please either show that you understand a little about the subject by becoming involved in the debate or do a bit of research on the problem so that you can. Remember that making an unsubstantiated statement or shouting a slogan is not the end of debate it is just the beginning PS: As to this talk of debating with soulrebel51 as far as I can see it wasn’t more than telling him to "go away".
I am not unwilling to debate any viewpoint of mine, I will do it and do it with an open mind. The problem is, as I said before, lickherish doesn't debate. He take's shots, throws insults, and overall displays a generous ammount of intollerence. I don't understand how my unwillingness to converse with the intollerent makes my views fairy tales. I will also dismiss whatever arguement I please, although I generally wont do so unless it is an arguement present by someone I know to be extremely hot headed. lickherish is very hot headed, intolerent of other peoples views, and makes overall insulting posts. There isn't much to argue there. If lickherish is going to present me with several lengthy articles, and some taunting on the side, screw that. I'm not taking the time to tear apart all that crap and get a shouting response with more taunts. We're on the frickin internet, I'm here to enjoy myself not waste several hours reading articles and writing a response. Occasions that I will do that are very rare. Hey guess what, americans do study what they find exciting, and we have the best colleges in the world. Hands down, no competition. I am willing to back up responses, but not to the point where it hinders the rest of my life and activities. With that being said the rest of your post got shot out the window. I know that I've said this before but I am a very patient and tollerent person. But if you decide to start throwing out insults and judgements about me and my views your going to get it right back in your face. I see intollerence as one of the biggest problems in politics today, so if anyone here is going to be intollerent, dont expect my patience in return. PS: This is not telling someone to go away, this is taking a debate head on http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13029&page=4&pp=10
You people are so hypocritical. You think Isreal is in the wrong for defending their country yet somehow it is ok for the Arabs to go and invade Isreal and kill thousdands of innocent Isrelies. So invading a country is ok as long as your not American right?
I think you could use a few history lessons and some closer scrutiny of the Israel-Palestine situation. I've already given my two cents on this issue in rather long posts in other threads, so I'm not particularly eager at the moment to talk at length on it here. To be brief, Israel really isn't any more "in the right" than the militant Palestinians. I don't regard either side to be innocent. Israel hasn't been invaded since the seventies, and currently their policies against Palestine are no less narrow-minded and hate-filled than their enemies. Remember that Israel is only there because the UN and the Western powers, out of understandable guilt after the Holocaust, supplanted the Palestinian Arabs who had originally lived there with the Jews. The Israeli mandate to their turf is pretty shaky as it is, and it isn't hard to see that if the Israelis (and Palestinians too) ever hope to leave in peace they're gonna have to learn to share someday.
West Point has some interesting arguing techniques or rather tricks to get him out of debate or answering any tough questions. One is to claim that the debater is so biased and has such extreme views that there is no need to argue with them or ‘close minded, left wing, ignorant anti-American asses’. The problem is that once this method has been revealed for what it is, no more than a trick, then it becomes even more glaringly obvious that he haven’t actually backed up any of his claims or answered any questions. Take another variation on this trick his claims of others intolerance. It should be asked, intolerance of what, and the answer seems to be his very own viewpoint. Think about it - A) says something B) puts up an argument against it A) claims that since (B) doesn’t agree with him (B) must be intolerant. When someone understands what’s going on this trick again can be seen as just another way of getting out of a debate. As to the charges of insulting and taunting behaviour OH pleeeeeease, this is a politics forum not the St Emmanuel’s nunnery choir discussing cake making (although some nuns can be more earthy than many think). I don’t believe for one minute that he is such a wuss but to claim that such thing’s effect him just make’s him seem like one. It is like enrolling in a boxing class then refusing to fight because people are punching you. To use this cheep trick to try and worm himself out of a debate is insulting, it is insulting our intelligence. ** WP (Balbus) If you are unwilling to test your viewpoints in argument how do you know they would stand up? Are your views purely faith based not built on any rational thought? If so then your views would have all the worth of fairy tales. (WP) I don't understand how my unwillingness to converse with the intollerent makes my views fairy tales. As shown the accusation of intolerance is just another trick to get out of debate and it didn’t go unnoticed that once again the questions went unanswered. If you are unwilling to test your views against those of others, how do you know they will stand up to scrutiny? As to my second point your persistent use of the term ‘intolerance’ is interesting, it is most widely used these days in a religious context so is it that you see your political views in that way, as a kind of religious doctrine that others must just accept and tolerate? The problem is that faith based beliefs are at there core irrational because they need no logical basis, it is not about weighting up rational views and alternative arguments it is about believing despite any fact or rational argument to the contrary. If this is the case then your protestations of intolerance and of others closed minds come across only as a sick joke since it is well known that such fundamentalist believers are the most close minded and intolerant of people, I mean just look at al qaeda. ** (WP)If lickherish is going to present me with several lengthy articles, and some taunting on the side, screw that. I'm not taking the time to tear apart all that crap and get a shouting response with more taunts. We're on the frickin internet, I'm here to enjoy myself not waste several hours reading articles and writing a response. Occasions that I will do that are very rare. This again comes back to the points I’ve already raised how do you know your viewpoints are worth having if you are unwilling to test them? Are you saying here that you don’t need to see or debate others viewpoints since you ‘know’, or have ‘faith’ that your argument is right without having to put it to the test? (WP)Hey guess what, americans do study what they find exciting, and we have the best colleges in the world. Hands down, no competition. I am willing to back up responses, but not to the point where it hinders the rest of my life and activities I do not disputing that the US has some good colleges and universities, but there is an old saying that ‘You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make it drink’. I think that is relevant in the light of your reply, you seem to be saying that you will only make an effort to learn if it suites you, it therefore has to interest you and not involve too much effort on your part. From what you say it is clear you don’t find anyone’s viewpoint other than your own interesting, and even the view you have you are not that willing to look into that much. That still seems like laziness to me, and an attitude that would seem to embraces wonton ignorance. In this medium (a political debating forum) a persons views and knowledge on any subject can only be gauged if they are willing to be involved in debate. If someone is unwilling to discuss their views and worse uses trick to get out of it, then of cause their depth of knowledge and reasons for holding certain views will be suspect. ** (WP)With that being said the rest of your post got shot out the window. I know that I've said this before but I am a very patient and tollerent person. But if you decide to start throwing out insults and judgements about me and my views your going to get it right back in your face. I see intollerence as one of the biggest problems in politics today, so if anyone here is going to be intollerent, dont expect my patience in return. I hope the reader can now understand this paragraph (and future WP posts) more clearly. Notice the notion of tolerance comes up three times, WP first brings it in to try and stamp his own credentials "I am a very patient and tollerent person" He is trying to put forward the idea that he is the willing debater who is the victim of scoundrels while hiding the fact that he is still not backing up any of his views and is not willing to debate them in any way. He then puts himself forward as the champion of ‘tolerance’. "I see intollerence as one of the biggest problems in politics today, so if anyone here is going to be intollerent, dont expect my patience in return." But as already shown his definition of ‘tolerance’ is unusual, for example someone that just doesn't accept anything he says without question seems to him to mean they are intolerant. His views on tolerance also comes across very clearly when you actually look at what "got shot out the window". "You (West Point) seem to have chosen a side and then accepted their argument alone. You seem to support the right wing policies of the present Israeli government. The thing is that in such a dispute ‘taking’ a side can cloud your judgement and obscure the complexities of the situation. The thing is that there is a left and right wing on each side there are moderates, hard-liners and extremists on both sides" This is a plea for understanding, one of the routes that can lead to genuine tolerance. It seemed to me that WP had accepted the viewpoint of one group on one side in the dispute and seemed unwilling to discuss or debate any other viewpoint. Since comments he made (questioned by lick) seem to indicate that his knowledge on the subject was a little shaky I asked him to debate. The fact that he still seems unwilling and again tries to hide that fact behind fake demands for ‘tolerance’ and the faux shock at supposed ‘insults’ is again very telling. It would seem to indicate that a desire for understanding is not his intention and that therefore the search for genuine tolerance is far from his mind.
