Would I be banned for questioning the rationality/morality of relationship w/Israel?

Esav Benyamin said:
Please read my entire statement and try to integrate what I said. I did not say anything about narrow-mindedness. I said by slanting the definitions he gave to each side -- rationality and morality -- he distorted the debate from the start.

It's called "begging the question": assuming your conclusions as axiomatic.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly be willing to use any definition of "moral" or "rational" in the dictionary.

"moral"•concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I would ask, for starters, for agreement that one Israeli's life, wealth, freedom and happiness is just as important, and no more, than any other person's.


"rational"
•consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


I just wanted to get at what is in the United States's economic or strategic interest, rather than "what is rational for canidate x to advocate" in terms of political expediency.
 
A question supposes, at a minimum, a certain willingness to listen and at least consider whatever answers might be forth coming. Raising a question while "detesting", in this case, both sides suggests that the minimum is unlikely to be met.
 
Politics and religion............

Talk about a volatile and seedy mix. Even if it is through slightly different means, in the end they are both out to achieve the same thing. They both seek control over the majority of the population and both are happy to use fear and deception to get the job done. The need for excessive wealth is never far behind either.

There is some good to come out of both institutions but it is generally over shadowed by the negative.

Keep your eyes wide open and think for yourself because rationality and morality in politics or religion are for the most part hollow words used as a smoke screen.
 
scotchleaf said:
Would I be banned for questioning the rationality/morality of relationship w/Israel?.
Click to expand...

That depends on what you mean?

Keep in mind that the basic requirement to start a discussion in our politic forum is tha you must take and defend a position, express some thoughts or ideas or opinions of your own in your own words. So, to just question that relationship, to post, " What do you guys think about the rationality/morality of a relationship w/Israel?" would be good for an infraction and a locked thread. To say, "I think a relationship with Israel sucks! What do you think?" would also be good for an infraction and locked thread because while you may have expressed an opinion and taken a position, you really didn't defend that position or say anything very thoughtful.

But, if you would like to take a position one way or the other and then explain and defend your position, "I think that a relationship with Israel is/isn't rational and moral because...," that would be a welcome post to start a welcome thread -- assuuming that it was done in a civil and intelligent tone.

If anyone else tried to take the resulting thread away from an intelligent and civil discussion of the topic, it would be that other poster who would be at risk of infractions and even banning.
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen,

THIS thread is in the Service and Support forum, NOT the political forum. Do not discuss political issues here. The OP has asked whether nor not it would be permissible for him to start a certain thread in the political forum. That is the topic of this thread.
 
If a question isn't phrased in a "when did you stop beating your wife" way where the question assumes things in a male fide way, then almost any question should be permissible.
If the discussion proceeds in a rational and respectful way, then there should be no reason for any problem.
But if the question asked is substantively asinine, you'd better be ready to take a beating - substantively, of course. And this question is, as a matter of substance, completely asinine, so you'd better bring your best game to it if you really want to discuss it.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Here's the first overt problem. By setting one side equal to Macchiavelli and Cheney, you are suggesting a raw appeal to power which is most often portrayed as inhumane. By setting the other side equal to Jesus, you cloak it in sanctity.

In other words, the fix is in, the debate is slanted by definition. I would point out as well that the Land of Israel in Jesus' time, and the State of Israel today, are both majority Jewish, a significant point which your definitions ignore.
Click to expand...


No, you misunderstand, I would argue that it is neither rational nor moral to follow the current path, except in the sense of domestic political expediency.
 
scotchleaf said:
No, you misunderstand, I would argue that it is neither rational nor moral to follow the current path, except in the sense of domestic political expediency.
Click to expand...

Wow, there's a lot of "ifs" and "woulds" going on! Seems like you are making a point without really "making" it.

If I called a mod, say Esav, a knuckle dragging dullard...would I get in trouble?

Not that I would, but if.
 
scotchleaf said:
No, you misunderstand, I would argue that it is neither rational nor moral to follow the current path, except in the sense of domestic political expediency.
Click to expand...
If you genuinely believe in this point of view and can discuss it intelligently, then perhaps it's worthwhile to get it out in the open. I'll start the thread: you bring your best game ;)
 
marcinek said:
If I called a mod, say Esav, a knuckle dragging dullard...would I get in trouble?

Not that I would, but if.
Click to expand...

Not if you made it into a very cleverly composed rhyme. Esav might cut you some slack. Not that he would, but he might.
 
I started a thread on topic.
Abandon all hope ye who enter there....

About Israel, i mean, not Esav. I'm not completely crazy :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top