You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Being offended is part of learning.
People need to be offended. You can't very well challenge outmoded or mistaken thinking patterns about anything significant without irritating or offending their established sensibilities.…
Article comments
26 - bhw
True. I mean, look what happened after we let blacks and whites marry each other. How icky is THAT?
27 - Al Barger
Bringing over your arguments from an irrelevant Rice thread [starting with comment 22], BHW, this is where we get to the problems with being OFFENDED. I suspect that your gut reaction of being offended has blinded you from seeing what's actually there on Yeagley's BadEagle.com page.
The gorilla picture was illustrating a story specifically about Janet Jackson. Further, the specific photo involved a gorilla exposing and presenting one breast, in fairly direct mockery of Janet Jackson personally and her Superbowl act very specifically.
To deny that this is satirical [the use of wit, sarcasm,and ridicule to attack the vice and follies of humankind] is to purposefully not see what is in front of you.
You may consider it FAILED or weak satire (you don't consider it "witty"). You may say that it reflects the guy having broader issues with black folk. He surely does. You may consider Yeagley a jerk. Nonetheless, the idea was at least supposed to be funny and satirical.
But many Blogcritics have demonized him, and insisted on making him in their minds far worse than he is. He may have some issues about people of color, but there's no reason based on anything I saw to think that he just hates black people and has some universal contempt.
For example, I doubt that he would express anything but admiration for Condoleeza Rice. Likewise, I suspect that he would be fine with what he understood to be upstanding professional women of color.
Whereas, on the other hand, slutty pop stars bring out the worst in him. I bet he'd express similarly low regard for Britney Spears and Madonna. Janet being black just draws out the uglier side of his outlook on top of that. A lot of his objection is to what he takes as sexual immorality rather than race, though.
If you actually hear him out or someone else with objectionable racial outlook, you might start to understand their issues. You might then even be able to address some of those issues, and try to steer a brother toward the path of righteousness. You might even, Rand forbid, question some of your own comfortably nice views.
However, once he has been demonized and branded as evil and untouchable, you're simply not going to understand any of those nuances, or any legitimate concerns he may have. He's a monster [despite never having actually done anything to anyone], and blind, raging hatred is the only valid response.
Personally, I would not consider this response to be a TRUE and accurate description of an actual human being. Nor would I consider stoking such an emotion conducive to happiness, wisdom, or reconciliation.
That's just me, though, and everyone knows that I am Deeply Offensive, so therefore my thinking is invalid.
28 - Dan
Hmm, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Do you mean the dirty laundry of someone of the same sex, or heterosexual dirty laundry, or one's own personal laundry? :)
29 - Al Barger
BHW, I don't think this is equivalent to gay marriage: look what happened after we let blacks and whites marry each other. How icky is THAT?
A man and a woman starting a family is not the same thing as two guys marrying. It does not challenge the basic definition of marriage, and interracial marriage is not a modern invention.
The distinction between marriage partners of different ethnic backgrounds is completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the function of the institution of marriage. Both partners having a wanger is not.
30 - Al Barger
I might consider marrying Jodie Foster's dirty laundry, per comment 25.
31 - boomcrashbaby
A man and a woman starting a family is not the same thing as two guys marrying.
Not in YOUR household, Al.
So if the purpose of marriage and all it's 1,700 benefits are solely for marriage, then celibate heterosexuals, seniors, couples who decide to not have children, impotent men, men in prison with their no-esteem female pen pals, and all sorts of other heterosexuals are tromping all over your definition of marriage and getting away with it. And let's face it, in this day and age, many many people are having children outside of marriage. So if someone is going to hang that poor excuse over my head, they better at least be consistent and apply it to everybody.
And for the record, in some states in this country, folks, cousins CAN marry. Personally I don't think it is the best thing to do but I would never ever think to impose my definition of morality on the general populace. It's not my place to define their family just as it's nobody-on-this-board place to determine my families relationship with my government. I need some hard data please, as to exactly how Jesus passed his holy authority onto you folks. Judge not and ask yourselves who are the real sinners here. We all are.
32 - boomcrashbaby
So if the purpose of marriage and all it's 1,700 benefits are solely for marriage
I mean are solely for family (procreating).
I'd also like to point out that my daughter is biologically mine. We have followed your definition of family to a T, we just skipped the whole vagina part.
33 - bhw
I was saying that the "ick" factor is not a sound legal -- or reasonable, if you ask me -- reason for banning gay marriage. The "ick" factor, as well as the bible, was used to defend laws that prohibited blacks and whites from marrying.
Someone's personal distaste for an adult relationship is not a basis for law.
34 - bhw
However, once he has been demonized and branded as evil and untouchable, you're simply not going to understand any of those nuances, or any legitimate concerns he may have.
Yes, that must be it. I must be unable to understand his concerns [legitimate or not].
Al, my opinion of Yeagley is based on what he wrote. I understood him quite well, and I don't need you to interpret his words for me.
He may have some issues about people of color, but there's no reason based on anything I saw to think that he just hates black people and has some universal contempt.
Oooooookay, Al. Whateeeeever you say.
It's not very nuanced to say that "even babies" have a "natural aversion" to dark faces, which is what he said, that they prefer white faces over dark faces. That was just one of his arguments for the inferiority of dark skinned people. Where's the nuance in that?
35 - bhw
...and blind, raging hatred is the only valid response.
Go ahead and find some of that in my words, btw. And then get back to me.
36 - Al Barger
BHW, I was not specifically talking about you personally with the "blind, raging hatred" comments, though perhaps I failed to distinguish when I crossed over from talking about you to the broader response of Blogcritics (sorry), which WAS in numerous instancesApr 09, 2004 at 9:01 pm
37 - bhw
Alright, Al, thanks.
I remember when I first figured out Yeagley was an Indian because I couln't make that mesh with what he wrote about dark skin vs. white skin. [I think I commented on it in that thread, too.] I still can't explain it, except to acknowledge it as either simple self-loathing or some sort of odd desire to be white, since he thinks it's naturally superior to be so.
38 - Dan
"I still can't explain it, except to acknowledge it as either simple self-loathing or some sort of odd desire to be white, since he thinks it's naturally superior to be so."
Why not just consider it as one mans opinion based on the evidence he considered. Why does he have to have "odd desires" or be "self-loathing"
Beauty is a subjective thing, but if I as a white guy were to give evidence and say that dark women are more attractive and exciting than white women, very few would have such hysterical emotional reactions to it. Why the diff?
39 - bhw
Once again, what's with the "hysterical emotional reaction" bit?
The difference is that Yeagley is not making his statements as a matter of personal preference. He said that white people *are* more attractive because it's just naturally that way. And he said that people -- you know, all of us -- have a natural sexual aversion to dark skinned people.
He didn't say that he finds white people attractive as a matter of personal preference or as a personal standard of beauty. He said it is a so-called natural standard of beauty.
This one man's opinion reflects his belief in the superiority of one race. If you're okay with that idea, so be it.
40 - Dan
"If you're okay with that idea, so be it."
I may disagree, but I don't take offense. It's his opinion, but he doesn't have the power to make it true.
As I said, I doubt that a reverse opinion would be met with such hostility. So I wonder why.
41 - bhw
It's his opinion, but he doesn't have the power to make it true.
No, but he has the power to cast a vote. And it hasn't been that long since people who shared his opinions on race had enough voting power and voice in our country to put those opinions into action.
I had never heard of the guy before that other thread. It was a good reminder to me that people like him still exist, probably in greater numbers than I'd like to admit.
42 - bhw
Oh yeah, you asked about hostility. I think it stems from the fact that there is a long history of those particular opinions being written into law and being acted upon in our society [and others]. It's not like it's just some fantasy in that one guy's head. It was *real* for a very long time.
43 - Al Barger
I don't put any stock in his natural beauty of whitey theories, but I don't get too bent out of shape because there is no sign of intention of doing anything bad to dark people- and this preference would be against ANY but white folk. It covers blacks, Asians, and Injuns, as he mentions specifically, and pretty much all non-Caucasian races.
Now, if he were Klan, or some other group lynching or threatening or just trying to intimidate some minority group, I'd get shitty in a hurry. Screw writing bad things about him, I'd be trying to get the FBI up his ass.
Look at the situation, though. It's one disgruntled Injun with a bit of a chip on his shoulder writing on a website. He is not, however, advocating discriminatory laws against blacks, much less any kind of active abuse. He just doesn't seem to dig them much personally. Oh, well. No brown sugar for him.
Some black folk can be pretty hateful in their talk too, but they get some slack. As much crap as their families have been through, a little bitching is understandable. Injun's got just as much right to have issues as anyone else, though.
As long as he's not advocating violence or legal discrimination, I don't see much to be overly mad about. I have not seen him make any move or express any desire to in any way oppress anyone.
Some of exactly the same people who were most crappy about Yeagley would be counseling pateince and understanding for the Palestinians. Palestinians are murdering Israelis (and visiting Americans and other foreigners) by the thousands. I have a LOT harder time just waving that off.
To ME, the Palestinians are HIGHLY offensive. The North Korean regime also offends me personally.
A kvetching American Indian with a modem does not, by contrast, work up much sense of offense.
It's not like Injuns were oppressing black folks. Whatever problems the black dude has, they sure weren't caused by native Americans.
Hell, Injuns were the one group lower on the totem pole than the black man. At least blacks were 3/5 of a person. Indians weren't even that.
44 - bhw
You are perfectly free to not be offended. We each have our own tolerance levels for that kind of stuff.
45 - Al Barger
BHW- One thing though, once you make the choice to feel offended, critical listening and thinking tends to get shut down rapidly.
Consider also that there is a whole range of responses between thinking a statement is cool and going nuclear, as a number of Blogcritics did- absolutely and explicitly wishing him personal pain and suffering and death... over posting a photo of a monkey.
The best word for my personal response to the gorilla picture and related offenses would be "yuck." He's an educated man with some interesting things to say, but the flavor of some of that stuff makes me disinclined to hang around to listen.
All in all, though, his offenses here rate as no more than a low level of misdemeanor. He's not even intending to oppress or violate anyone. The absolutely malicious nature of some of the lynch mob reaction here at Blogcritics was FAR more morally offensive than ANYTHING from the Bad Eagle site.
By the way, re comment 41, do you think that Yeagley should not be allowed to vote? Should there be some kind of test where people with certain inappropriate opinions don't get to vote?
As to "people like him," he seems like a fairly unique character to me. Also, generalizing about "people like him" seems like you're heading rapidly towards stereotyping. You de-individuate people like that, and that's where the trouble starts.
46 - bhw
By the way, re comment 41, do you think that Yeagley should not be allowed to vote? Should there be some kind of test where people with certain inappropriate opinions don't get to vote?
WTF?
47 - Al Barger
BHW, you were justifying the harshness of your reaction based on the fact that he gets to vote. So how do you deal with that?
If you're going to accept that "people like him" should be allowed to vote, then it seems like you would need to engage them, and try to talk sense to them as you see it.
Simply rebuking and shunning Them is not likely to change their attitudes, but to reinforce them in their negative beliefs.
48 - bhw
I don't admit any "harshness" in my reaction to Yeagley. I think it's quite reasonable and defendable. I answered Dan's question about hostility, but I didn't express any.
My comment about voting is that, no, he doesn't have the power to make his opinions true, but he does have the power to cast a vote for someone who has the same beliefs as he does. So it's not like he's completely powerless or that his opinions are not put into action in any way. They are every time he writes and gets published, when he speaks in front of a group of people, when he votes, ets. So I *do* find action where you only find ideas. And, as I said, not too long ago there were enough people with those ideas to create and enforce a bunch of laws based on them.
I don't need to engage Yeagley or people like him [he's not that unique; that stuff about the superiority of the white race is kinda old]. I don't need to reconsider his opinions for the thousandth time. I know what I think about them.
I don't have any illusions that I'd change Yeagley's mind, nor should he have any that he'd change mine. I'll continue to say what I believe, and I'm sure he'll do the same. But I won't be debating any "issues" with him directly. It's not worth my time.
49 - Ms. Tek
Don't... Yeagely came to my site for a little bit, wanting to "debate". It was tiresome to say the least.
50 - Al Barger
BHW- Perhaps I'm harshing on you inappropriately. Despite your moniker, you are generally fairly measured in your discourse. I'm glomming on the sins of the group to you.
Actually, Ms Tek was one of the harsher individual voices in that mob scene.
Now, saying that Yeagley is "not worth my time" seems like a measured judgment. That would reflect a measured tolerance. He just don't do nothing for you, and you don't wish to associate.
Fair enough.
51 - RJ Elliott
BHW:
What about adults that are related by 'blood'? Brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons, fathers and daughters - if everyone is an adult? Is this alright too? If not, then why? Why do we have laws against it?
"The ick factor."
Really? That's one of the main reasons beastiality and gay sex have been taboo for so long. But if we merely "educate" our children into realizing that sexual relations between sisters and brothers (perhaps in a group setting!) is completely normal, then the vile discriminatory "ick factor" will go away, in time...
"Also, the belief that too much inbreeding causes genetic problems [see the Hapsburg chin]."
Do we presently ban couples from marrying, even if both parties carry the same recessive gene? Nope...
"But about a year ago or so, scientists said that, genetically speaking, it'd be okay for first cousins to reproduce.
Que bueno for the scientists...
"That's kind of gross to me. I love my cousins, but you know, not THAT way."
Yabut, you see, you're just a mindless bigot who has no yet opened your eyes to all the possibilities of a truly liberated humanity! Imagine a world in which parents do not merely talk about the "birds-and-the-bees" with their offspring, but they actually act it out in front of their kids! What great lessons can be learned! Tolerance and close family-ties would both receive a great boon from such a society.
I, and all other non-bigoted people, demand that incest be decriminalized, so that future generations of horny teens will not be oppressed and discouraged from fucking their siblings.
Fight The Power!
52 - RJ Elliott
Has anybody else noticed that black men are vastly more likely to partner with white women, than white men are to partner with black women?
Is this an MTV-driven phenomenon? Or is there something inherently attractive about black dudes and white women, and something lacking with white men and black women? And if so, why don't lonely white men go for black chicks, and vice-versa?
53 - boomcrashbaby
White women have less issues to deal with than white men.
54 - Ms. Tek
You know... I've made a vow to myself NOT to respond to Barger or R.J. Elliot...
Unfortunately, this is going to be one of the few times I break that:
Has anybody else noticed that black men are vastly more likely to partner with white women, than white men are to partner with black women?
Is this an MTV-driven phenomenon? Or is there something inherently attractive about black dudes and white women, and something lacking with white men and black women? And if so, why don't lonely white men go for black chicks, and vice-versa?
EXCUSE ME?? Once again...
EXCUSE ME??
My father is white. My mother is black.
Of all the "mulatto/mixed" chicks who I went to grade school and high school with, only Three have I known to be vice versa. (And I went to school with quite a few)
Of the "mulatto/mixed" people I know on the net, seems to be an even mixture.
RJ, I have no idea what you have "observed", and I have no idea where you live, but I would suggest getting out into the big city, stop watching MTV, and STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.
As far as Yeagely goes:
Damn right! He deserves to have his testicles kicked right back up into his body cavity as does any racist or anyone who associates with racists (except those who associate with racists need a good kick in the head as well... because they are just as guilty by condoning such people. It is no different than if you knew your friend was beating his wife. If you still remain friends, or support someone who is beating their spouse, you are just as much of a maggot as they are.)
I abhor Nazis and racism in any form. I abhor the people who participate in it and collaborate it.
Fuck them. They should die (as much as the Palestinians that you so despise Barger).
55 - Al Barger
Yeah, see Ms Tek, this is just the kind of hateful rant I'm talking about. Yeagley is not beating anyone, or murdering anyone- like the Palestinians. He's really not even so much as using racial epitaphs.
I consider your malicious voodoo wishes for harm and death a far worse trespass than Yeagley's sexual distaste for dark women. I definitely consider your hateful sentiments a much worse transgression than whatever sin I may be committing by not being righteously indignant against the Injun.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
56 - Ms. Tek
**rolls eyes**
Whatever Barger... You might want to check your halo, seems to be a little crooked.
people, just so you know... it is WRONG to hate racists. ;)
57 - Al Barger
Noting that it is early on Easter morning. We expect Jesus to be getting up in a few hours, so I'll just say that I don't consider hate a virtue.
I am probably guilty of it on occasion myself, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I certainly would not present it as something to be PROUD of, however.
Also, I mostly commit sins of hate against, like, mass murdering dictators and such- people who are actively causing destruction and suffering.
I would never, on the other hand, wish that someone have their genitals stuck in a meat grinder- not even Saddam Hussein. That's purely sadistic. He needs to be put down in the name of public hygiene like a rabid dog, but I certainly get no joy in contemplating some extended physical suffering.
Nor would I be wishing death on ANYONE who is non-violent, such as Mr Yeagley.
58 - Ms. Tek
Ah, well I am not a hippie and I accept all feelings as being what they are, neither good nor bad. Its only how you act on such feelings that is the "sin". There is nothing wrong with hating someone so long as you don't hurt them. If you wish them to be hurt, that isn't a nice thing however, when it comes to racists, rapists, murders, and their ilk, I don't give a shit. 1001 tortures for them. That being said, Yeagley should have his genitals in a meat grinder, among a few other people I have in mind.
BTW. words can cause as much destruction as deeds.
I thought not too long ago you said that the Palestinian children deserved suffering because their parents brought it on themselves.
Either way, you are speaking out of both sides of you mouth.
I accept hate as much as I accept love. Both are very good at balancing things out in the end. People need to get over thie bullshit the hipple crap.
59 - Al Barger
No, I've never said that Palestinian children deserve suffering, and I find it difficult to believe that you could have ever honestly thought I said such a thing.
I also find it difficult to believe you honestly think that Yeagley should be classified in a group with rapists and murderers.
You act as if you are positively PROUD of indulging blind, indiscriminating hatred and ill-will.
And calling ME of all people out as indulging "hippie" crap, well I'm not sure how to respond to THAT.
60 - bhw
Ah, well I am not a hippie and I accept all feelings as being what they are, neither good nor bad. Its only how you act on such feelings that is the "sin". There is nothing wrong with hating someone so long as you don't hurt them.
Careful, Tek. This is exactly Al's argument about Yeagley.
61 - bhw
I should add that I'm not at all in favor of any kind of "thought police," but I do believe that thoughts/beliefs aren't just benign ephemera: most people act on them in some way.
Most of the time, it's in a legal way [like voting, evangelizing, etc.]. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a signficant impact. So the idea is to keep saying what *you* believe is true so that the voice of the ignorant minority doesn't get too loud.
62 - Ms. Tek
Not really bhw.
I was thinking about that before I went to bed and I think I should blog it. I just woke up an I need to cycle 15 miles before I can be coherent enough to do a thought out blog on my position on "hate".
I don't think that is going to be a post that is appropriate for blogcritics so it will just go up on my site. You are welcomed to read my full response there.
I will try to say it very simplistically and quickly now.
All feelings and emotions are natural. They are there for a reason. They are what helps one survive. Feelings are not "wrong", they just are there. Feelings can come from illogical or logical reasons. I hate anything with over eight legs. I'm actually fearful of centipedes. I know they can't hurt me, are not interested in me, more than likely do not perceive my existence. Still, if given the opportunity, I will squish, squish, squish, or run. This is an illogical reaction- this creature cannot harm me or the world I live in. On the other hand there are vile people like racists who by their words and and goal, want harm to come to me,my own, my lifestyle, etc. I hate them and wish them ill because they are anathema to balance. Now, ACTING upon that hate is wrong. Murder is illegal in most cases, so is torture and property damage. On top of it those things aren't worth the trouble. This doesn't mean its bad to hope that harm comes to them- they are anathema. They disturb harmony and balance. To wish them out of the equation is logical and natural as that they are a force who desire negative affect on groups that have nothing to do with them. It is logical to want to defend that which is dear to you.
They too have every right to think they way they do, speak the way they do- it doesn't make it correct or logical. Preaching is just as damaging as doing.
Barger,
You enjoy putting emotions and words, and feelings into my mouth... I think I am animated enough without your help, thank you very much. But in order to clarify I will tell you exactly what I think and feel in plain English-
I am not proud of hate or ill will. I do not care. I am proud of my actions and my deeds such as fixing things or helping people out. How one feels and what one thinks is no cause for celebration or even concern actually. It is the ACTION that speaks.
As far as blind- I think not. Seems to be I have sorted what quite a few people are about very quickly. I have gift of character judgment. It doesn't take me long to figure what people are about and what they want and what motivates them. Thinks I don't know, I take the time to read up on and study both sides. I don't make a call until I feel I have observed enough and read enough- from both sides. It's called "being fair".
Indiscriminating hatred - I'll remind you of this post. You might want to go over the comments again because I directly challenged you about Palestinian children and you were pretty clear that you thought they deserved suffering.
You want to play the moral high ground because I hate a racist and wish him ill will. Kind of funny coming from a guy who thinks the innocent children of a race of people deserve pain and suffering because of what some militants do. Talk about indiscriminating hatred. At least I have the since not to hate a race of people or a religion and give individuals a chance. I don't make mass judgments based on ones color/nationality/ or religion.
Pot. Kettle. Black... and all that jazz (actually not really... because one again, I'm not wishing bad things on children or innocents)
So spare the the song and dance.
Finally, the Nazis were racists. They didn't like Jews and thought that they "DESERVE their oppression and misery." because a few of them pissed off some Germans. The Nazis also were mass murderers and did not care that the Jews were suffering and dying in their ghettos. They were Jewish. They brought it on themselves.
Sound familiar?
Yeah, racists belong in the same category as murders and rapists. No question about that.
63 - Roger
The term "homophob" sholud never have even become a ligitimate term. Obviously phobia is fear of something. If I don't beleive in the practice of homosexuality am I afraid of a gay? Hell no.
Don't forget that even though Bill Clinton's "don't as don't tell" policy has allowed more homo's to join the military, if it was up to the US military then the old policy would still stand strong. Are they homophob? No, maybe they no something a lot of us don't.
64 - boomcrashbaby
if it was up to the US military then the old policy would still stand strong. Are they homophobic? No, maybe they know something a lot of us don't.
Their reasoning is that it would harm unit cohesion, because they acknowledge that a lot of soldiers are afraid of being cruised on the battlefield or in the barracks. It has to do with allowing ignorance and fear to continue because it's easier than attempting to eradicate it.
65 - Roger
Fear? I've been in the Military have you? In the past when entering in to basic training you got a better understanding of the policy. Now I suppose it's a little different. Ignorant? I think not...
The past being 1988.
66 - boomcrashbaby
Fear? I've been in the Military have you?
No, Roger, you forget. I am not allowed to be in the military, unless I use deception and pretend to be something I'm not.
Ignorant? I think not...
I think so. Imagine that you and a gay soldier are in a fox hole with missiles and gunfire whizzing about overhead. Thinking that the gay soldier is drooling over your body rather than being concerned with his current situation is pretty ignorant if you ask me.
67 - Roger
You're plain stupid. You are really shallow if you think I'm going to be worried about a gay dude drooling over me with missles and gun-fire whizzing by. If that is your perception then say no more. Damn I've heard it all, lol!
Further I don't personally have anything against gays or anything against having them in the military. I'm just pointing out obvious issues that exist.
That was really funny. ("Man I'm getting away from you and going into gunfire". "You're checking out my ass").
68 - Al Barger
Ms Tek, you keep saying again and again that I have wished suffering on children claiming that they deserve it. The fact that you repeat that lie again and again does not make it true.
Here is the direct relevant quote from the post you invoked in your last comment to justify this lie: "It's unfortunate that the children suffer, but it is their own people who are bringing that on them, not the Israelis." That's totally and obviously different than what you're claiming.
Certainly the majority of adult Palestinians are complicit in their own bad plight. THEY bring this on their own children. The Israelis try to avoid hurting innocents, but they have to deal with people who are coming to murder THEIR children.
The responsibility for the suffering of Palestinian children, then, rests directly with their own parents and community, not the Israelis. That is based on the actions of the ADULTS not the children.
Unfortunately, being raised up in the swirling wickedness of modern Palestinian culture, the children get ruined pretty quickly. Some of them are not even teenagers yet before they're getting drawn into the intifada nonsense.
By the time they're throwing rocks at Israelis and learning to chant 'Death to Jews' or such, they're beginning to assume the moral liability themselves.
Beyond the willful untruth that you insist on repeating about me, there is what I'm calling "blind, indiscriminating hatred" from you. You are equating Yeagley, who has never done violence to anyone as best I know, nor advocated such, to Nazis gassing Jews. Classifying Yeagley in with genocidal Germans shows a willful moral blindness, and lack of any proper discrimination.
You display again the willful lack of discrimination by comparing the Israelis' position to the Nazis, because they both said the other guy deserved it. That involves what I can only see as willful and wicked dishonesty for someone to claim not to see the glaringly obvious difference.
See, the Jews in Germany were peaceable citizens going about their business, running shops, going to jobs, raising children. They were not in fact waging war against other Germans.
Palestinians, on the other hand, are murdering Israelis every chance they get. They do this with, by all indications, wide majority support amongst the whole Palestinian population. When the Israelis DO respond, it is to specific acts of provocation, ie MASS MURDER, by the Palestinians.
That's just a LITTLE BIT different than the Nazis and German Jews, isn't it?
I would gently suggest that someone who can't make the obvious moral distinction between Nazis and Israelis shouldn't be putting too much stock in their self-proclaimed skills at character judging.
69 - boomcrashbaby
You are really shallow if you think I'm going to be worried about a gay dude drooling over me with missles and gun-fire whizzing by. If that is your perception then say no more. Damn I've heard it all, lol!
That's not what I think, that's what the Pentagon thinks. source 1
source 2
source 3
Apparently, soldiers like you are proving the military wrong though, (see source 3) so you should write your former commanders a letter and tell them how shallow and stupid they are.
70 - Ms. Tek
Actually Barger, there is no difference. The Palestinians which you dislike so much didn't just suddenly decide to get nasty. They have a reason. I may not agree with their methods but they ARE fighting back. There is a reason.
And the Nazis and some of the things that the State Of Isreal have done are too similar for comfort.
But this is one dance I will not entertain with you. If you feel you must call me "blinded", so be it, I consider the source. Then you and I are both "blinded" and attempting to tango. I know what I see. You see what you see. Only when the endtimes come will we know who was right and who was wrong.
I'm not worried. I've all the patience in the world.
71 - RJ Elliott
Tekky said:
"My father is white. My mother is black.
Of all the "mulatto/mixed" chicks who I went to grade school and high school with, only Three have I known to be vice versa. (And I went to school with quite a few)
Of the "mulatto/mixed" people I know on the net, seems to be an even mixture.
RJ, I have no idea what you have "observed", and I have no idea where you live, but I would suggest getting out into the big city, stop watching MTV, and STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS."
The hard data back up my statement. It is quite more likely for black men to marry (or have children with) white women than white men and black women to "couple." I could look up the cite, though I make no guarantees as to finding it again.
But I promise, this was no mere assumption I garnered from watching MTV. I never watch MTV. ;-]
72 - RJ Elliott
"the Nazis and some of the things that the State Of Isreal have done are too similar for comfort."
First off, common mistake, it's "Israel," not "Isreal."
Secondly, comparing a nation of holocaust survivors and their decendents to the Nazis is both ill-informed and disgusting.
BTW, it's the Arabs who are the ones eating up the Nazi propaganda. Mein Kampf sells quite well in the Middle East...