Pangloss Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 The other guy's refering to the fact that much of the Southwest and California belonged to Mexico a century and a half ago. Or is there some sort of statute of limitations on territorial justice? Yes, it's called several centuries of treaties and trade agreements, and a mutual decision to let old business like that stop being an issue. We have that with Mexico. Israel and Palestine lack it. Next question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Yes' date=' it's called several centuries of treaties and trade agreements, and a mutual decision to let old business like that stop being an issue. We have that with Mexico. Israel and Palestine lack it. Next question?[/quote'] Well, of course, a lot more time has passed between the cessation of Texas then the gaza strip... but at any rate, this is one reason my edit in post 70 changed by opinion about this comparision. The other was that the Jordan attacked Israel and lost some territory during that conquest. I know you say that land passes ownership all the time, but surely that doesn't make that land any less Israel's? Wow, you're really dead set on spinning every possible thing your way. How can he not? It's how he views the situation K, I'm taking that as a consession on your part. I don't think it was... I'm pretty sure phc was claiming that Israel is a stable country. But stability is subjective anyway. Sure, it has a lot of external and internal conflicts, but it's less corrupt then certain Latin american countries, for sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 But he can agree to disagree on matters of opinion, rather than spinning them all assunder. Like ignoring the word "peaceful" and focusing on the word "stable" -- it's either a consession or it's spin, and either way it's impolite. Why not just say "hey it may not be peaceful, you have a point there, but I think it's pretty stable"? Isn't that more in the spirit of congenial debate? I don't want to nit pick, but since you asked and since we're talking about the level of congeniality of the board in the other thread, I'll go ahead and answer. It's not my purpose to pick on phcatlantis here, but it does serve to illustrate the point I'm trying to make in that other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phcatlantis Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Yes, it's called several centuries of treaties and trade agreements, and a mutual decision to let old business like that stop being an issue. We have that with Mexico. Israel and Palestine lack it. The US has laid claim of Mexican territory for only 157 years. And Israel has treaties and trade agreements with Jordan and Egypt, the previous controlling sovereigns, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over Gaza and the West Bank. Spin the wheel again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phcatlantis Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Wow, you're really dead set on spinning every possible thing your way. I'm really deadset against silently enduring patronizing lectures from the least knowledgable on these issues. K, I'm taking that as a consession on your part. You can take it that way and prove that silly yet persistent memes can overcome simple arithmetic. There's a difference between a straw man and a valid example. Yes, there is. And your Sharon point is an out of left field strawman that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're discussing. It's valid, it's exemplary of the overall situation, and it fits the discussion. Okay, I'll bite. Reflective of what overall situation? I'm disappointed in your tone and your animosity, phc. I'm equally disappointed, not only with the patronizing quality of your posts but the mismatch between the haughty tone and scattered shallowness of the points. I'm also extremely disappointed by the juvenile maneuvers for moral superiority in a discussion between two anonymous nobodies on an Internet forum. In a discussion like this one, I play to win; but I'll play at any level you'd like. I was hoping for a more objective and less ideological discussion from you. Then start. You can do so by by not confusing my point of view with the one you pulled out of thin air--specifically characterizing my argument as an attempt to convince people that peace and stability broke out in the Middle East decades ago. I hope you're going to be happy here... Yada, yada....I'm content to be here. Don't stress yourself over it. You want to be friendly? Cool, then let's be friendly. Either way, shall we get on with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phcatlantis Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 But he can agree to disagree on matters of opinion, rather than spinning them all assunder. Like ignoring the word "peaceful" and focusing on the word "stable" -- it's either a consession or it's spin, and either way it's impolite. Why not just say "hey it may not be peaceful, you have a point there, but I think it's pretty stable"? Isn't that more in the spirit of congenial debate? Because your point was remarkably stupid. Specifically, you attributed to me, with no cause other than contempt, the position that Israel was in an age of peace. If you expect a more civil tone, try it out first. It's not my purpose to pick on phcatlantis here, but it does serve to illustrate the point I'm trying to make in that other thread. The quality of discussion here has little to do with civility. The really only interesting point you raised in the other thread's original post was that there is a standard of discussion in the other forums that Politics hasn't met yet. You guess this is because of congeniality. I think it's trivial to show that quality in those forums falls from the abundance of posters with expertise in those domains. There's virtually nothing like that for any of the social sciences in any online community outside of the university. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 But in fact virtually none of what you've said in the last two posts is true. Sharon was not a straw man. My comments were not "stupid". My tone was civil. The other respondants in this thread have not been "patronizing". You've been here, what, five minutes, and you think you can determine that I've attacked you and need to be attacked back? Uh uh, you don't get to do that. So since you're uninterested in recognizing other points of view, unable to conceed other valid points when they're made, and have already stated that what you do is "play to win", regardless of the consequences to the quality of the discussion, you leave me with a choice of either allowing you to run roughshod over my perfectly valid opinion and just close my mouth and let you be the last man standing, or I can pop your little victory balloon and work instead towards the kind of debate I'm interested in fostering here. So long as I'm a moderator here, I choose the latter. The discussion is over, you're issued a warning, and if you keep that style up you'll be locked out of the politics board. It's nothing personal, and I'm sorry if you take it that way (which I would attribute to you spending too much time in places like DemocraticUnderground.com and not enough time amongst professionals and scientists and engineers), but we're going to have congenial debate here if I have something to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts