Complaint about Israel thread

[andyfox]

So if I posted "Jews are lying sacks of crap," and suggesteed they be "dumped" somewhere, we could write that off to just some "unpleasant reality" because I could list dozens of them that Israeli leaders have made over the years? I could also list hundreds of lies that our leaders have made; would it be OK for me to post "Americans are lying sacks of crap"?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So if I posted "Jews are lying sacks of crap," and suggesteed they be "dumped" somewhere, we could write that off to just some "unpleasant reality" because I could list dozens of them that Israeli leaders have made over the years? I could also list hundreds of lies that our leaders have made; would it be OK for me to post "Americans are lying sacks of crap"?

[/ QUOTE ]


andy,

Let's note there are two separate and totally distinct issues here: 1) whether it is OK to make such a statement in some/any situations, and 2) how you might use such an assertion. #1 does NOT depend on #2 *unless* one is making a demonstrably false assertion that is far from the actual truth (yelling fire when there is no fire).

So regarding #1, the question is simply is it true? And since most assertions can vary in scope, the truth test has to be applied to that scope. So to use your hypo let's see the subcases:

a) all americans are lying POS
b) most americans are lying POS
c) some americans, but still a significant percentage, are lying POS
d) a very few or no americans are lying POS.

So there is a scale here and it is upon he who makes a specific assertion to provide reasonable proof/evidence of same, even if everyone wouldn't agree about the weight of such evidence and thus which of the possible conclusions above are true.

Now if someone makes an assertion that is both demonstrably false, and also needlessly inflammatory in the specific context being discussed, then that poster has done wrong. How wrong depends on how far away the assertion is from the actual truth, as in asserting a) above when d) is the truth, and how inflammatory an assertion is *if* it is false or possibly needless in the context.

To illustrate further, you can read this post in an old ATF thread on this forum and the assertion I asked iron about. I would say as I did there that I can prove that assertion. However it is certainly inflammatory regarding Islam. So the question then is do I need to make such an assertion in a specific context as with the thread we are discussing here and moslem/arab extremists in general. The answer I would say is no. However if we were discussing the truth/falsity of the Islamic religion, then I would say yes it is right to make that assertion despite its inflammatory nature.


So the standard I have articulated here is:

1) Is an assertion true?
2) If a true assertion is inflammatory is it necessary to make it in the context of the current debate?

If an assertion is both demonstrably false and far from the truth (i.e. 2 when the truth is 10 and not 8 when it is 10), *and* the assertion is also inflammatory, then a thread or poster should be moderated. Same also if it is both true and *needlessly* inflammatory.


Now notice how I haven't discussed the use to which an assertion which is both true and inflammatory might be put. That's because such a use has to be judged on its own merits and again such uses to which unreasonable persons might make of an inflammatory truth has NO bearing on whether such a truth should be spoken.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
The post is indeed a disgrace to 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

[dazraf69]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The post is indeed a disgrace to 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]