Sunday, July 30, 2006

An Exchange Between Nobody and Eric

eric i shall digest your post in bites with the necessary intellectual mastication to prevent gas.

>>Instead of posting articles can you write for yourself

i could consider that statement insulting, but not after considering the source.

>> Do you find this article to speak for your views?

there is no perfect isomorphic correspondence, but there is some (some being defined as more than one but less than all) simulacrum of similitude. since each view deserves it on venue and since no view has perfect correspondence, eric will need to particularize each.

>>And do you think Israel is doing something good in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories.

i do not ascribe to the concept of 'good'

>>the situation can in some regards be mirrored. Who is to determine terrorism as opposed to militarism and is there really any difference?

we can have a could but ones needs to as should before assuming would could be should. if the presumption of mirror is granted for argument sake, then each, with its cadre of supporters would and could say the other is a 'terrorist'.

what we need is an 'operational definition' of terrorist each ascribes to.

one example is the deliberate targeting of 'innocents' for the purpose of killing them. now let us get to qanafying this:

lots of dead civilian, women/children. was that in an of itself an act of terror?

for argument i employ this:

Article 28
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

and i employ this:

IDF: 150 rockets fired from Qana at Israeli cities
Yaakov Katz, Jpost staff, and AP, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 30, 2006

Speaking to reporters, Eshel added that Hizbullah rocket launchers were hidden in civilian buildings in the village. He proceeded to show video footage of rocket launchers being driven into the village following launches.

from which i input this:
so what you have is a deliberate effort by hezbollah to draw retaliation by Israel and deliberately making an effort to have Israel target civilian areas.

now some may argue that Israel should forgo retaliating because of the civilian population. but such a scenario would promote more intense use of civilian's as shields. thus creating a situation whereby hezbollah could attack Israel with impunity. how did Israel act? Israel broadcast by various media, that the civilian population should leave because Israel was targeting the area. how did hezbollah act. it did not remove the civilian population. the human shields remained. hezbollah still attacked. Israel retaliated.>>

now i will skip to this:

normally i do not answer such ignorance. but i will try. i look for internal consistency in argument. i also am of the belief that the adversarial environment is conducive to good argument.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

if eric read the mill's quote carefully then you will understand my position. make your argument within your limits and i will make my arguments within my limits. let the armies of ideas contest reality.

and this expression >>then I'm not really sure why you are posting anything at all>> will eventually be resolved. perhaps.

1 comment:

Rachel said...

Nobody is no nobody when it comes to succinct arguments.