Israel

[Spiderman]

Thanks Lotus Mox, since it explains a bit more in detail than this history I question one of the conclusions however, that merely giving Palestine a "viable, independent state" would solve things; I believe that road was started with the establishment of the Palestine Authority yet isn't one of the Hamas aims the "total destruction of the state of Israel"? I could be mistaken... It also doesn't reconcile my site's statement of pograms begun by Arabs against the Jews in 1920-21. So something's missing from either site...

DUke: Frankly, since none of knows the truth or ALL of the facts behind the conflict, what does it hurt to ask for more? You're only dangerous when you think you have them all... for instance, what if I point you to this site which "debunks" the notion that Israelis are committed to preserving cease-fires. Would you say "Based on these "facts", Isreal must be in the wrong". Yet notice there are NO Israeli casualty figures given, nor the circumstances, which could be found elsewhere. Therefore you cannot base a knowledgeable opinion on just one resource.

I ask a lot to make sure people know or think they know what they're talking about. If what they base their opinion on is false, then their opinion is certainly circumspect. I admit it looks like a double-standard for me; however, I'm not pretending to know any final solution or answer. I'm trying to argue "the other side" and if I find stuff that helps me strengthen my opinion, well and good. If someone offers something that counters it, like Lotus Mox, I revise.

If everyone agreed on a position, there wouldn't be a discussion. Or if those who disagree merely remain quiet makes it look like everyone agrees. Like others, I'm not afraid to state my position but I seem to be more willing to question others and backing up mine than others are.

 

[DÛke]

...

Ah...and you think you can answer that question that easily? He posed the exact question onto me today, and I think he's right...

Let me shatter your reply, nicely...

Spiderman:

Frankly, since none of knows the truth or ALL of the facts behind the conflict, what does it hurt to ask for more?

It hurts, it hurts a lot, and it hurts like a son of a b***h. Nate, the guy who posed the question, explained it this way: if you are not sure of something, how can asking more lead to a better opinion (and in any case, it would still be an opinion)? When you don't know, asking more questions is the reason why we have countless roundabouts around this message board...because the answer for a question leads to the need to back up those answers, and in turn, the need for more back ups arise...and so on and so forth. When does it end?

From there on, the rest of your argument falls apart like rain...

Spiderman:

You're only dangerous when you think you have them all... for instance, what if I point you to this site [See original post for the site] which "debunks" the notion that Israelis are committed to preserving cease-fires. Would you say "Based on these "facts", Isreal must be in the wrong".

Would *you* say they are facts? Aside that site, given *any* site, how would you know it's based on some partial facts, biased facts, extream facts, or even...no facts?

Spiderman:

I ask a lot to make sure people know or think they know what they're talking about.

Where do *you* come in to the picture, then? If you're asking, you're doubting...if you're doubting, than you have a lack of information. When you have a lack of information, you have no way of verifying new information...and that's why, you keep asking...and that's why we never resolve, because *no* answer is "good enough," to put it in general terms.

Spiderman:

I'm trying to argue "the other side" and if I find stuff that helps me strengthen my opinion, well and good.

That's a good choice. However, when you say "strengthen my opinion," and when at the same time you're asking because you're not sure of the answer...than how would all that strengthen your opinion? Wouldn't that create a bisaed or a distorted opinion...because you, yourself, are not sure of the final answer (hence, you're asking the questions)?

Spiderman:

Like others, I'm not afraid to state my position but I seem to be more willing to question others and backing up mine than others are.

You can never back your opinion unless you know the answer. We all know that opinions sway, and are very subjective. When you reinforce *your* opinion, you are reinforcing something that is unstable and subjective...you are reinforcing something that is personal to you, and that is your perspective alone.

There are *many* opinions, and many theories out there. It is very, very possible to find a source that agrees and lives up to *your* opinion...does that mean your opinion is correct? No. Does it mean anything? No.

And honestly, most everyone here has been reinforcing a personal view rather than an actual fact.

That's why I stopped talking, and are not giving any sites or sources. When you gather a lot of information, some things just add up to create a picture less distorted. The more information you have, the better your general idea will be. Some information become appearant as being biased or untruthful...but some, survive, and are constantly repeated throughtout many, many texts...that's when an opinion becomes less subjective and more objective. That would be what I did...and I think rather than asking questions, it is much better for you to constantly read and observe texts, until you get a pattern of things repeating. Those things have a better shot at being real than any other thing...

I can't give sources...that would mean giving you a list of thousands of sources, a lot of which I naturally have forgotten. Giving you 1, 2, 3, 10, or a 100 sources may not be good enough...and in this issue, indeed it isn't.

Anyone, and I mean *anyone* who is interested in the true story, *do not listen to me.* Just keep an eye on many different sources; newspapers, television, and books; the more different, the better...after a year of good observation, everything will be more clear...that it becomes so stupid of anyone else to tell you "you're wrong." Call it arrogance, but truthfuly, that's the game...

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by DÛke
...

Ah...and you think you can answer that question that easily? He posed the exact question onto me today, and I think he's right...

Let me shatter your reply, nicely...

It hurts, it hurts a lot, and it hurts like a son of a b***h. Nate, the guy who posed the question, explained it this way: if you are not sure of something, how can asking more lead to a better opinion (and in any case, it would still be an opinion)? When you don't know, asking more questions is the reason why we have countless roundabouts around this message board...because the answer for a question leads to the need to back up those answers, and in turn, the need for more back ups arise...and so on and so forth. When does it end?

And the alternative is NOT to ask for more information? Again, asking for more info (which you explain further down below) helps to either show that your own opinion needs to be looked at because it's based on false or contradicting data or helps support your view. It ends when neither side has anything to give anymore or agree to disengage because despite all of the evidence shown, it is not enough for one to agree with the other or whatever (which usually happens but there have been enough times when people have conceded that the other is right in some respect).

From there on, the rest of your argument falls apart like rain...

Would *you* say they are facts? Aside that site, given *any* site, how would you know it's based on some partial facts, biased facts, extream facts, or even...no facts?

If it can be correlated somewhere else, especially on the opposing side, then it bears more weight. Certainly I view Lotus Mox's history link more credible since it's actually authored by Jews and takes from both Jewish and Palestinian sources. Perhaps "facts" has been the wrong term we have been using... just more research/resources.

Where do *you* come in to the picture, then? If you're asking, you're doubting...if you're doubting, than you have a lack of information. When you have a lack of information, you have no way of verifying new information...and that's why, you keep asking...and that's why we never resolve, because *no* answer is "good enough," to put it in general terms.

That's true and that's why I said in my post above I am not pretending to know any final solution or answer. I am asking to help myself become more knowledgeable without any regard of what other's opinion are (in terms of myself "knowing").

That's a good choice. However, when you say "strengthen my opinion," and when at the same time you're asking because you're not sure of the answer...than how would all that strengthen your opinion? Wouldn't that create a bisaed or a distorted opinion...because you, yourself, are not sure of the final answer (hence, you're asking the questions)?You can never back your opinion unless you know the answer. We all know that opinions sway, and are very subjective. When you reinforce *your* opinion, you are reinforcing something that is unstable and subjective...you are reinforcing something that is personal to you, and that is your perspective alone.

If you're not sure of the "answer" and have a "shaky" opinion, yet find more information that "strengthens" that opinion (information that so far is not contradicted by other information), then doesn't your opinion change from "shaky" to "less shaky", in other words strengthen? That's the whole point. Sure, it may be biased or distorted... but until someone else provides information (that is not contradictory in itself) that contradicts your information that is forming the basis of your opinion, it's what you have to go with.

There are *many* opinions, and many theories out there. It is very, very possible to find a source that agrees and lives up to *your* opinion...does that mean your opinion is correct? No. Does it mean anything? No.

If you want to get down to it, at some point, yes, it means your opinion is correct. I bet their are a lot of perceptions that Israel has always been attacked and on the defensive in its history, myself included. Thanks to the history links, I know they've been the aggressor in a couple of cases (specifically, the Sinai issue in 1956). So now my opinion has changed from Israel always being the victim to sometimes being the aggressor. And it's correct, because those facts are out there (concerning the past when it's all over and done with. Current events are more difficult to sort out).

And honestly, most everyone here has been reinforcing a personal view rather than an actual fact.

True, and that's why I like to dig deeper and ask on what basis are they forming their personal view. Usually it's because of some perceived fact.

That's why I stopped talking, and are not giving any sites or sources. When you gather a lot of information, some things just add up to create a picture less distorted. The more information you have, the better your general idea will be. Some information become appearant as being biased or untruthful...but some, survive, and are constantly repeated throughtout many, many texts...that's when an opinion becomes less subjective and more objective. That would be what I did...and I think rather than asking questions, it is much better for you to constantly read and observe texts, until you get a pattern of things repeating. Those things have a better shot at being real than any other thing...

I can't give sources...that would mean giving you a list of thousands of sources, a lot of which I naturally have forgotten. Giving you 1, 2, 3, 10, or a 100 sources may not be good enough...and in this issue, indeed it isn't.

I'm a bit confused why in one breath you say you have stopped giving sources yet in the next you say the more info you have, the general idea you get. I would think if this issue really means that much, you might be willing to go out on the extra limb and provide help. And actually, 1-3 unique sources are fine since a lot of stuff tends to repeats itself and cite the same places. But frankly, this issue doesn't mean all that much to me; if you notice, I never start these threads. I merely indulge those who wish to talk about them, which is why I'm not going out on my own time and reading up on this stuff. I'll do it while debating and if I find something new, cool, but truthfully, I too have better things to do.

Anyone, and I mean *anyone* who is interested in the true story, *do not listen to me.* Just keep an eye on many different sources; newspapers, television, and books; the more different, the better...after a year of good observation, everything will be more clear...that it becomes so stupid of anyone else to tell you "you're wrong." Call it arrogance, but truthfuly, that's the game...

True, true. Just be sure YOU don't fall into the trap of telling someone else that "they're wrong".