I appreciate your help in demonstrating how to develop a consistent ethical framework. I've been copying our conversation into an article I'm working on regarding Kennedy. Would you prefer that I include your e-name, if others want to respond, or just link back to here?
What I talk about is systematic debate, starting with defining the qu…
I appreciate your help in demonstrating how to develop a consistent ethical framework. I've been copying our conversation into an article I'm working on regarding Kennedy. Would you prefer that I include your e-name, if others want to respond, or just link back to here?
What I talk about is systematic debate, starting with defining the question and why it matters, and then defining all the terms within it. I mentioned 'Muslim is the New Black' as the title of a radio episode I did 12 yrs ago, during the Israeli Operation Cast Lead, to show Mary that this wasn't a new concern for me. But it's not the topic we're debating.
You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling. 'The Palestine issue' means ending US military support for Israel. You stated your ethical framework as 'First, do no harm.' So the question is whether NOT ending US military support for Israel is morally inconsistent with 'First do no harm.'
Defining terms, 'First' would mean that this would be your priority for actions, donations or endorsements that you take. 'Do', to me, means not only direct actions to physically harm someone but those you pay for through your taxes and support with your voice and your votes. 'No' seems self-explanatory. And 'Harm' is something I quantified in my first response to Mary by what I would least want to have happen to my daughters, starting with torture, being buried alive under rubble, being starved to death, or anally gang-raped.
I showed you irrefutable proof that the US supports Israel causing these harms militarily with $300B and escalating, and politically with 58 standing ovations in Congress. You've said the 'intelligence community' is sending money to Palestine but have given no evidence for that. Even if it was covertly true, what we as taxpayers and voters endorse is what candidates campaign on. Bobby Kennedy has said that he'd do whatever it takes to help Israel and Trump is assembling his 'Zionist Dream Team,' which I'll be writing about in my article. You're splitting hairs to say that Kamala and Trump haven't debated, so you don't know how much money she'd give to Israel. Mary's post is on whether we should endorse Bobby and therefore Trump, and we know his views from the debate with Biden.
What I said: “Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal. “
What you say I said: “You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling.”
These statements are not the same.
Therefore you lied about what I said.
You also imposed your definition of the Palestinian issue limited to “ending US military support for Israel”, on my statement. My definition of the Palestinian issue encompasses the entire history of the region.
Since you are not accurate in quoting nor paraphrasing what I say, you do not have my permission to carry my content elsewhere. I find your misstatements of what I say to be prohibitive to the so called effort to construct consistent ethical frameworks, and do not wish to collaborate or associate with you, nor engage what is at best, word salad, and at worst willful dissembling.
I didn't ask your permission, weedom. You posted in a public venue. But I will extend the courtesy of changing your name to a different pseudonym, if you don't want to be associated with what you've said. I've copy-and-pasted your comments so they are accurate quotes. Readers or listeners can decide for themselves if my paraphrase is dissembling or word salad.
When you wrote, "Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal" it was in response to my comment talking about: "the sacrifice of Palestinian children," that Bobby "could have stood up for Palestine," "no candidate is anti-war when they say they'll do whatever it takes to defend Israel" and "Israel is engaged in genocide."
You weren't making a generic comment, you were telling me I was morally inconsistent in a third-person roundabout way. And I certainly wasn't talking about the history of the region, I was talking about US military support for genocide.
You're insulting, not just me, but all the people who oppose US support for Israel. Some of these have been expelled from college without the degrees they paid for. Some have lost jobs. Some have been beaten and injured. Some journalists have been imprisoned. They've lost the freedom to travel, homes have been raided, and criminal charges filed against them ... for journalism.
And you have the nerve to smugly call this virtue signaling. And to have compete confidence that you're right until you realize other people won't see it that way. I publish my comments under my own name and I stand behind them. If you don't want to defend your position, that's your prerogative. But to insult me and others and then forbid me to quote you is not a choice you have.
Here's what I posted as a comment in Tereza's most recent piece: "I've been struggling with how to respond to the back-and-forth that I "hosted" in my comment section. My instinct is to step in and try to build a bridge, to clear up what I view as misunderstandings between parties. But I also know that it's not, actually, my responsibility to do so.
But what I've come to believe dovetails with what you [Tonika, of Visceral Adventure] said at the end of your comment: "To move on, we need to agree that harming anyone is not the path forward, controlling anything is not the path forward, leaving anyone resentful is not the path forward."
I don't need or want to convince anyone of anything. I used to, but I don't anymore. I want to find common ground. The "path forward" requires a joining of hearts -- even if our minds can't find communion.
I appreciate your help in demonstrating how to develop a consistent ethical framework. I've been copying our conversation into an article I'm working on regarding Kennedy. Would you prefer that I include your e-name, if others want to respond, or just link back to here?
What I talk about is systematic debate, starting with defining the question and why it matters, and then defining all the terms within it. I mentioned 'Muslim is the New Black' as the title of a radio episode I did 12 yrs ago, during the Israeli Operation Cast Lead, to show Mary that this wasn't a new concern for me. But it's not the topic we're debating.
You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling. 'The Palestine issue' means ending US military support for Israel. You stated your ethical framework as 'First, do no harm.' So the question is whether NOT ending US military support for Israel is morally inconsistent with 'First do no harm.'
Defining terms, 'First' would mean that this would be your priority for actions, donations or endorsements that you take. 'Do', to me, means not only direct actions to physically harm someone but those you pay for through your taxes and support with your voice and your votes. 'No' seems self-explanatory. And 'Harm' is something I quantified in my first response to Mary by what I would least want to have happen to my daughters, starting with torture, being buried alive under rubble, being starved to death, or anally gang-raped.
I showed you irrefutable proof that the US supports Israel causing these harms militarily with $300B and escalating, and politically with 58 standing ovations in Congress. You've said the 'intelligence community' is sending money to Palestine but have given no evidence for that. Even if it was covertly true, what we as taxpayers and voters endorse is what candidates campaign on. Bobby Kennedy has said that he'd do whatever it takes to help Israel and Trump is assembling his 'Zionist Dream Team,' which I'll be writing about in my article. You're splitting hairs to say that Kamala and Trump haven't debated, so you don't know how much money she'd give to Israel. Mary's post is on whether we should endorse Bobby and therefore Trump, and we know his views from the debate with Biden.
What I said: “Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal. “
What you say I said: “You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling.”
These statements are not the same.
Therefore you lied about what I said.
You also imposed your definition of the Palestinian issue limited to “ending US military support for Israel”, on my statement. My definition of the Palestinian issue encompasses the entire history of the region.
Since you are not accurate in quoting nor paraphrasing what I say, you do not have my permission to carry my content elsewhere. I find your misstatements of what I say to be prohibitive to the so called effort to construct consistent ethical frameworks, and do not wish to collaborate or associate with you, nor engage what is at best, word salad, and at worst willful dissembling.
I didn't ask your permission, weedom. You posted in a public venue. But I will extend the courtesy of changing your name to a different pseudonym, if you don't want to be associated with what you've said. I've copy-and-pasted your comments so they are accurate quotes. Readers or listeners can decide for themselves if my paraphrase is dissembling or word salad.
When you wrote, "Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal" it was in response to my comment talking about: "the sacrifice of Palestinian children," that Bobby "could have stood up for Palestine," "no candidate is anti-war when they say they'll do whatever it takes to defend Israel" and "Israel is engaged in genocide."
You weren't making a generic comment, you were telling me I was morally inconsistent in a third-person roundabout way. And I certainly wasn't talking about the history of the region, I was talking about US military support for genocide.
You're insulting, not just me, but all the people who oppose US support for Israel. Some of these have been expelled from college without the degrees they paid for. Some have lost jobs. Some have been beaten and injured. Some journalists have been imprisoned. They've lost the freedom to travel, homes have been raided, and criminal charges filed against them ... for journalism.
And you have the nerve to smugly call this virtue signaling. And to have compete confidence that you're right until you realize other people won't see it that way. I publish my comments under my own name and I stand behind them. If you don't want to defend your position, that's your prerogative. But to insult me and others and then forbid me to quote you is not a choice you have.
Here's what I posted as a comment in Tereza's most recent piece: "I've been struggling with how to respond to the back-and-forth that I "hosted" in my comment section. My instinct is to step in and try to build a bridge, to clear up what I view as misunderstandings between parties. But I also know that it's not, actually, my responsibility to do so.
But what I've come to believe dovetails with what you [Tonika, of Visceral Adventure] said at the end of your comment: "To move on, we need to agree that harming anyone is not the path forward, controlling anything is not the path forward, leaving anyone resentful is not the path forward."
I don't need or want to convince anyone of anything. I used to, but I don't anymore. I want to find common ground. The "path forward" requires a joining of hearts -- even if our minds can't find communion.