- - - - - Nov06/89 20:32 42:184) Brian Holtz: IK, if there's a "problem" with the Daily, it's because of its content, and not because of society not being able to affect that content. _You_ might be happier in a society which can silence those it doesn't like, but _I_ wouldn't be. - - - - - Nov02/89 20:04 59:22) Brian Holtz: The state is good, because the maximization of liberty is more important than its inviolability. Opposing the state on grounds of tyranny is like opposing vaccine shots on grounds of pain. - - - - - Nov08/89 23:44 59:24) Brian Holtz: Do you deny, then, that the state is capable of increasing liberty? Haven't you ever heard of a place called "America"? - - - - - Nov09/89 00:52 59:26) Brian Holtz: Of course, all states reduce individual liberties to some extent. The issue is: can a state increase most liberties by restricting a few? I gave you an example of a state that does this: America. We infringe through taxes on your liberty to dispose of your property as you see fit, in exchange for a justice system that protects your life, your other liberties, and the rest of your property. This results in a net increase in liberty. - - - - - Nov17/89 21:49 59:38) Brian Holtz: Yes, Bryan, America has curtailed its citizens' liberty in a "less drastic fashion" than other states -- a _far_ less drastic fashion. That's my point: the American state curtails some liberties a little to protect most liberties a lot. Sure, America has (essentially unenforced) laws against sodomy and acid-dropping, but those things would be hard to enjoy in the war of all against all that would ensue if the state closed up shop tomorrow. But now you say you're a statist after all, just a libertarian one. Well, join the club. I disagree that 1890's America was very libertarian; indeed, it wasn't libertarian at all for African Americans, women, Amerinds, etc. I also disagree that corporations could perform the key functions of the state: provide a currency, protect the environment, regulate road-, air-, and water-ways, handle outbreaks of disease, defend against neighboring states, etc. - - - - - Dec13/89 23:56 59:41) Brian Holtz: Do any of those functions include the ones on my list in :38? - - - - - Oct27/89 01:26 86:67) Brian Holtz: Hi, _all_ animals "exploit" other living things. As for "malice", did you know that in lion prides and some other alpha-male-dominated social species, newly dominant alpha males _eat_ the females' young in order to bring the females into immediate fertility? - - - - - Nov01/89 19:27 86:81) Brian Holtz: Hi, animal husbandry is different from apartheid because Blacks are persons and cows aren't. Our only obligation to non-persons is to not cause them gratuitous pain. - - - - - Nov08/89 23:49 86:88) Brian Holtz: What's wrong with leather shoes, RV? Leather can be taken without causing cattle excessive pain, can't it? Or are you Hindu or something? - - - - - Nov17/89 22:07 86:93) Brian Holtz: So, Vamp, you want to see no pain caused to animals. Well, predators cause plenty of pain to animals, so we should declaw and defang them all, right? But predators are animals too, and that would cause them pain, wouldn't it? If you would let lions prey on zebra, why can't I prey on cattle? I have no ethical objections to eating dogs or chimps, although it's a silly thing to do. Dogs are natural symbionts with us, since they are good herders and guards, and are inefficient to raise as stock. Chimps are more useful for experimentation and observation than eating. - - - - - Nov20/89 22:13 86:101) Brian Holtz: Yes, Rad, animals are indeed totally different from humans. Humans have intelligence -- the ability to make and test inductions -- and other animals don't. Now again: if you'd let lions prey on zebra, why can't I prey on cattle? - - - - - Nov21/89 23:13 86:111) Brian Holtz: Rad, eating nonhuman animals is not the same as (even figuratively) eating humans, because humans have a trait that makes them fundamentally different from other animals: intelligence. How can you justify staying alive, with your immune system slaughtering wholesale the innocent bacteria that happen to be on the food you eat and in the air you breathe? As far as I can tell, you're a hypocrite unless you kill yourself immediately and stop the senseless slaughter your immune system is perpetrating. - - - - - Nov22/89 18:14 86:114) Brian Holtz: As I said in :101, I think intelligence is the ability to make and test inductions. I think that if the overwhelming majority of a species is intelligent, then the entire species should be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed to be persons. No, I don't consider anything less intelligent than I as potential food. (If I did, _everything_ would be potential food! ;) Rather, I consider something as eligible to be food if it is not a person. Retarded humans are persons. One more time, Rad: if you would let lions prey on zebras, why can't I prey on cattle? - - - - - Nov23/89 03:58 86:116) Brian Holtz: True: we kill our prey in a single stroke; lions clamp their jaws on the throats of their prey and slowly suffocate the beast. - - - - - Dec07/89 02:11 86:120) Brian Holtz: So it's ok for a lion to horribly mangle and suffocate a zebra, but it's not ok for my butcher to dispatch a steer raised in a nice pasture in one blinding instant? Why don't you carry your argument to its logical conclusion, and argue that since humans should know better, they ought not to burden the earth with their existence? - - - - - Dec14/89 00:23 86:134) Brian Holtz: Having a power that can do wrong doesn't mean that its every exercise is ipso facto wrong, Rad. As you said yourself, cattle are very well-fed and the ones I've been around seem very contented to me. Cattle are much safer from starvation, disease, and mangling predation than are zebra roaming the plains, and I don't think it makes much difference to cows which side of the pasture fence they have to stay on, as long as there's plenty of grass on the inside, and all the wolves are on the outside. Your romantic apotheosis of Nature, as if it were some static harmony that cannot but be spoiled by man's touch, is incredibly naive. The natural world is in fact always in flux, and man is as yet the _only_ species to ever evince any scruples whatsoever about despoiling the environment or hunting any species into extinction. Just because we _can_ despoil the environment and extinguish species, doesn't mean we _have_ to. - - - - - Dec15/89 22:55 86:137) Brian Holtz: Rad, just because _some_ cattle are raised in factory farms, doesn't mean that _all_ cattle are, and it especially doesn't mean that _any_ cattle need be so raised. Try to understand this point: just because humans can be cruel to animals doesn't mean that we are obligated not to interact with them. For example, that some men are rapists doesn't mean that in general men should avoid interacting with women. I don't "assume" that cattle don't know the difference (between freedom and a nice pasture); I _know_ they don't. Babies are different from cattle because babies are almost always destined to be intelligent. Handicapped people are different from cattle because they belong to a class of entities the overwhelming majority of which are intelligent, and so should be given the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt that cattle aren't intelligent. - - - - - Oct22/89 17:52 169:63) Brian Holtz: ECONOMIC ISSUES <= security/ | liberty => /\ control | || | | security/ | control TOTALITARIAN | RIGHTIST | SOCIAL/CIVIL ______________________________________________ | ISSUES | LEFTIST | LIBERTARIAN liberty | | || | \/ | "Extreme leftist" and "extreme rightist" usually mean "totalitarian"; the shorthand works because we libertarians are so rare that one can usually not bother with our quadrant of political space. I think the reason leftish totalitarians aren't held up so often as paradigmatic is that they pretend not to be totalitarian, while rightish totalitarians are usually up front about it. - - - - - Dec07/89 02:41 169:77) Brian Holtz: Are those last three sentences supposed to be anything but content-less, Gary? - - - - - Jan09/90 00:13 169:89) Brian Holtz: "The people have lost their voice." I'm sorry, Gary, but I don't know what that statement means, if it means anything at all. And are you going to maintain that Bush was elected for his "charisma"? - - - - - Jan09/90 23:33 169:95) Brian Holtz: What party loyalty, Bryan? Why do we have a permanently Republican White House, and a permanently Democratic Congress? - - - - - Jan10/90 23:53 169:97) Brian Holtz: What do you mean, "so much for 'permanence'"? The House has been Democratic since 1954, and the Senate has been Republican for only -- what? -- four years since then. Meanwhile, the Democrats haven't won more than eight states out of fifty since 1976, in which Carter eked out a narrow post-Watergate victory. So what you said in your first paragraph is true: party loyalty means very little, since national elections are decided by media/ideology, and local elections are decided by incumbency. - - - - - Jan11/90 00:30 169:99) Brian Holtz: How would we know whether the "people" were "speaking" or not? An untestable proposition is a contentless one; you mind telling us how to test yours? - - - - - Nov05/89 16:25 226:2) Brian Holtz: I've never heard of this guy before. What reason is there to believe that he had a chance of being elected president? - - - - - Nov05/89 18:27 226:4) Brian Holtz: If the Supreme Court didn't stop him, then the character of America would have. America doesn't have nationalist tensions for 3 reasons: 1) we have a(n admittedly over-rated) tendency to homogenize in our "melting pot". 2) We are a young nation of immigrants; we left our ethnic homelands behind, so we don't have any problems with ethno- geographic boundaries. 3) The people for whom America _is_ an ethnic homeland -- the Amerindians -- never populated our territory very densely, and were further thinned out by our European diseases and our European guns. - - - - - Nov05/89 23:25 226:7) Brian Holtz: But Mutant, internment of our Japanese-American citizens was permitted only after a split decision of the Supreme Court. But ok: what's the worst you could imagine? Do you think that this guy Stephenson could have ever, say, repealed the 13th Amendment and reintroduce slavery? 0 96 Multiple choice responses Item 2 0 0 Responses found - - - - - Nov19/89 09:50 230:168) Brian Holtz: Daniel, there's a difference between being a "moderate" and being a Quisling. - - - - - Nov19/89 10:15 230:170) Brian Holtz: Quisling was a Norwegian official who collaborated with the Nazis and was rewarded with power during the Nazi occupation. Arafat has recognized Israel's right to exist, and he's alive as far as _I_ know. Do you know something I don't? - - - - - Nov19/89 14:25 230:173) Brian Holtz: Nor should he. _I_ recognize Israel's right to exist, but I _don't_ recognize Israel's right to arbitrarily annex East Jerusalem or East Lansing. I heard him say on TV that Israel has a right to exist. I haven't heard any Israeli official say that about Palestine. That makes Arafat right, and Israel wrong. - - - - - Nov19/89 21:46 230:180) Brian Holtz: Daniel, what does it mean for security to be "assured"? Was Palestine's security "assured" when Israel was created in 1948? Apparently not, since Palestine is now most _assuredly_ occupied by Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons, the strongest military in the Middle East, and the $3 billion-a-year backing of the strongest superpower; how much more "assurance" does Israel need? Wasn't that basically Hitler's argument -- that Germans couldn't be safe from her neighbors unless they were enslaved? Jerusalem was _not_ given to Israel in the 1948 UN partition. It was to be an international city. - - - - - Nov20/89 23:18 230:184) Brian Holtz: Polo, there is at most a difference in degree between "enslave" and "occupy-and-deny-political-rights-and-exploit-as-cheap-labor". Also, Arafat has announced that he is willing to leave Israel alone, but Israel is insisting that it be "left alone" while it is occupying the _whole_ of the 1948 territory set aside for Palestine. Yes, Daniel, in 1948 the Arabs resisted a change in an unjust status quo towards a just compromise. In 1989, Israel resists a change in an unjust status quo towards a just compromise. Thus they would be morally equal, except Israel now has the benefit of hindsight, and should recognize that both extremes are unjust, as Arafat recognizes. Israel is therefore morally inferior to Arafat's PLO. - - - - - Nov22/89 00:16 230:190) Brian Holtz: So, Alan, the Palestinians will only deserve the 1948 homeland set up for them when every Palestinian has fallen in love with Israel and Jews? I could respond that there is plenty of evidence of anti-Palestinian sentiments among Israelis, but that would be irrelevant. The fact that two neighbors don't like each other does not give one the right to occupy the other's home. Are you saying that in 1974 Arafat "recognized" Israel's "right to exist", as he did in 1988? Wrong. I defy you to back up that claim with a citation from any reputable newspaper. Kissinger laid down the restriction at the beginning of the 70's that the US wouldn't talk to the PLO until it recognized Israel, which it only did in 1988. If the Palestinians didn't "develop their own nationalism" until 1948, you can say the same for every _other_ colony of Britain. Polo, "what is to guarantee the Israelis' safety with a sovereign Palestinian state within its borders?" ? Well, what is to guarantee the _Palestinians'_ safety with a sovereign _Israeli_ state within its borders? Apparently _nothing_, since Israel now brutally occupies the whole of Palestine's UN-mandated 1948 territory. Dan, the unjust status quo that was changed in 1948 was the presence of lots of stateless Jews west of the Jordan who wanted their own state. Now, when will Israel change the _current_ unjust status quo? - - - - - Nov23/89 04:11 230:196) Brian Holtz: Toby, it's kind of pedantic to expect the PLO to go back and revise every statement it's ever made. At the very least, in recognizing his enemy's right to a state, Arafat himself is morally superior to Israel. But why can't you and other Zionists take Arafat's "yes" for an answer? I guess occupying and subjugating people is just too much fun, eh? Daniel, your :191 doesn't make too much sense; who do the various pronouns refer to? I think you are asking "The Palestinians weren't satisfied with a two-state solution in 1948; why should Israel be satisfied with it in 1989?" If so, my answer (again) is hindsight: Israel should recognize that the might-makes-right notion that you are entitled to all the territory you can hold is straight out of _Mein Kampf_. - - - - - Nov23/89 14:34 230:199) Brian Holtz: But Shawn, America was _wrong_ in what it did to the Amerinds, and today we recognize that fact and make reparations when specific injustices can be cited. Today there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who can _point_ to the homes and farms that were stolen from them by Israel. The "Gentiles in the area" now recognize Israel's right to exist, and yet Israel blatantly continues to build new settlements on Palestinian-owned land in UN-mandated Palestine. - - - - - Nov23/89 17:46 230:201) Brian Holtz: Just a few months ago a bunch of land in Washington state was returned to an Amerindian tribe on the basis of a violated treaty. But Dan, doesn't it bother you that the morality of the "Light Unto The Nations" has been reduced to "everybody else does it"? - - - - - Nov23/89 21:42 230:204) Brian Holtz: Well, no one would be more pleased than I if Israel governed the West Bank as fairly as, say, America governs Texas. However, I have a strong hunch that the Palestinians would have a greater interest in governing themselves fairly than do the Israelis. Why do you favor statehood for Israel but mere UN trusthood for Palestine? If the PLO were occupying Haifa and the rest of Israel, would you be favoring mere trusthood for the Israelis? - - - - - Nov24/89 22:54 230:206) Brian Holtz: Daniel, do you even _read_ my responses? From 184: Yes, Daniel, in 1948 the Arabs resisted a change in an unjust status quo towards a just compromise. In 1989, Israel resists a change in an unjust status quo towards a just compromise. Thus they would be morally equal, except Israel now has the benefit of hindsight, and should recongnize that both extremes are unjust, as Arafat recognizes. Israel is therefore morally inferior to Arafat's PLO. - - - - - Nov25/89 11:21 230:210) Brian Holtz: Toby, why _shouldn't_ the Arabs be "at war" (whatever _that_ means) with Israel if Israel is occupying the _whole_ of UN-mandated Palestine? And what is the PLO to do? Hunt down every copy of every statement it every made and edit them? "Land for peace" my eye. Shamir has said that "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank) will always be Israeli territory -- when will he renounce _that_ statement? Yeah, Israel was reeeeal "moral" in giving back the Sinai, an empty desert that was never part of UN-mandated Israel in the first place. The suggestion that Sadat's assassination at the generic hands of "Arabs" has anything to do with the moral superiority of _one_ Arab -- Arafat -- borders dangerously on racism. What has Israel done other than "take over all of Palestine and push[ed] the" _Palestinians_ across the Jordan? The simple fact is that the leader of the PLO said on videotape that he recognizes Israel's right to exist; no leader of Israel has ever recognized Palestine's right to exist. That makes the leader of the PLO morally superior to the leaders of Israel. Shawn, why can't Arafat similarly demand that UN-mandated Israel be demilitarized so that it "never again is the jumping-off point for" the brutal, twenty-year long occupation of UN-mandated Palestine? Instead of arbitrarily disarming one side, why don't you instead call for multilateral _nuclear_ disarmament in the Middle East? - - - - - Nov26/89 16:55 230:214) Brian Holtz: Oh, Daniel, so if a nation resists a change to an unjust status quo, as the Palestinians did in 1948, then they forfeit all rights to statehood if they are unfortunate enough at some later point to find themselves without a state? In that case, I hope you won't mind if the PLO drives the Israelis out of the _current_ unjust status quo and into the sea, and say "the fact that they" brutally occuppied Palestine for 20 years "is a forfeit of their 'rights' as they might be to that land". The right of defending your territory DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to annex eternally the land of anyone who attacks you. You've got to lose this Old Testament notion that the sins of the fathers can be visited on the children. Arafat's PLO _no longer_ threatens Israel's existence, while Israel still denies _Palestine's_ existence. Arafat's position is morally superior to that of Israel. Alan, I _defy_ you to identify the response in which I said the Arabs are blameless. All I've said is that Arafat's PLO has renounced the idea of occupying its enemy, while Israel _hasn't_. Did you ever stop to think that if Israel indeed allowed Palestine to be created, _no_ Arab state might be at war with them? Israel's occupation of Palestine has forced the other Arab states to absorb hundreds of thousands of refugees in the Palestinian diaspora. The Arab states, and indeed freedom-lovers everywhere, are perfectly justified in opposing the occupation of Palestine. By your thinking, no one should - - - - - Nov26/89 16:55 230:215) Brian Holtz: have given a damn if the Nazis were only gassing Jews in their concentration camps; they weren't "occupying any land belonging to" France, England, or America. - - - - - Nov26/89 22:10 230:218) Brian Holtz: Laura (hi!), I propose that the state of Palestine have the same borders as proposed by the UN in 1948, and that Israel have the borders proposed for _it_ by the UN in 1948. Israel was happy with those borders then, but now seems to think that one deserves whatever one can hold. Telling Palestinians there is plenty of land in other Arab states is like telling Israelis there's plenty of land in New York. Polo, why is it that defenders of 'The Light Unto The Nations' are so eager to endorse a morality of doing anything in perpetuity as long as it was "inflicted upon [you] first", and even to say that "morals don't really play a role in the political world"? Have you been reading _Mein Kampf_ or something? - - - - - Nov27/89 22:37 230:223) Brian Holtz: That's a fine ideal, John, but I think it's peculiarly American. Remember, except for our Amerinds we are all descended from people who left their ancestral lands, either voluntarily or involuntarily. In most places in the world, people live where their great great great great grandparents lived, and inherit any neighboring enemies that their ancestors happened to have made. - - - - - Nov27/89 22:56 230:225) Brian Holtz: Daniel, are you really so dense that you think I hold the UN's 1948 partition to be unjust? It's only what I've been advocating in every response on this item. "An offensive action such as that perpetrated against Israel in '48 does not warrant return of lands lost in that action." So you think Stalin was justified in holding as buffer states the territory from which he was attacked in 1941? You think that we should have annexed Japan in 1945? For how long? Eternally? Are you and all your descendents really willing to be held responsible for any crime ever committed by a Weiner? Your thinking makes a good case for genocide: if in 1948 the Palestinians unjustly made lethal war on Israel, then Israel is justified in eternally making lethal war on descendents of Palestinians. - - - - - Nov27/89 23:17 230:227) Brian Holtz: Oh, I'm sorry, did I miss a date that you gave for when Palestinians should be given sovereignty over UN-mandated Palestine? Watch it -- you are no more justified in laying the assassination of Sadat by fanatics from the Moslem Brotherhood at the feet of all Arabs than I would be, say, in laying Menachim Begin's 1948 massacres of Palestinian women and children at the feet of all Jews. I don't "arbitrarily" favor giving in to the demands of Palestinians. I quite unarbitrarily agree with Yasir Arafat that the 1948 UN proposal for two states is a just one. You seem to agree too, but you are apparently too greedy for Israeli libensraum to call for the proposal's implementation. But OK: under what conditions would you lift all Israeli authority outside the territory set aside for Israel in 1948? - - - - - Nov27/89 23:29 230:229) Brian Holtz: Sorry, but I place as much stock in "Alan's reports" as I do in, say, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Cite me a New York Times article. Now hold on, Daniel. You say that you don't favor eternal occupation of attackers, and that you're willing to exchange land for peace "under certain conditions", but that now you're "no one to make conditions". Make up your mind. In scientific polls conducted by reputable newspapers like the Jerusalem Post and the New York Times, the PLO consistently gets higher approval ratings among West Bank Palestinians than do US Presidents among American voters. If you won't negotiate with your enemy (who nevertheless recognizes your right to exist), who _would_ you negotiate with -- the Knesset? But all this fretting about the composition of _negotiating teams_ is just a stall tactic. Would you call for the withdrawal of all Israeli authority to UN-mandated Israel if the Palestinians/PLO/whoever-you-want- to-negotiate-with agreed to a demilitarized Palestinian state with the UN-mandated 1948 borders? - - - - - Nov29/89 06:49 230:235) Brian Holtz: It seems to me that skinhead-ism is likely to just be an extreme form of adolescent rebellion. Do skinheads ever carry their rebellion as late into their lives as, say, John does? ;) - - - - - Dec01/89 22:20 230:241) Brian Holtz: No, Alan, my Nazi imagery had nothing to do with "the Jews", and everything to do with the Israelis. The terms are not synonyms. - - - - - Dec07/89 02:52 230:253) Brian Holtz: Alan, it's stupid to hold that because the Nazis did X, saying that Israel is doing something X-like is "offensive". I _defy_ you to show that any of my invocations of "Nazi imagery" have been anything but appropriate. (Watch this, folks; I bet he doesn't even try.) - - - - - Dec09/89 11:49 230:268) Alan Woronoff: Brian Holtz--your arrogance astounds me. To challenge me to prove offensive Nazi comparisons is unbelievable--especially when earlier you said that you don't put any stock in any of my responses. So why should i waste my time. But I will--simply because you think I won't. When using Nazi imagery specifically on Israel, what are you trying to accomplish? It is generally agreed upon that Nazis represent the most absolute evil in the history of the world. A major portion of their gross tendencies were directed at annihilating a specific population of people: i.e. the Jews (but also maybe homosexuals, gypsies. . .they were enslaved but died plenty too). To now use this imagery on the people who were attempted to be annihilated and to compare the nazis' program of extermination upon Israel which has no such program (nor can it be conjured that they do. . .) is very objectionable to Jews. Israel is composed of about 4 million Jews and 1 - 1.5 million Arabs. Nazi imagery used upon Israel, therefore, means JEWS are NAZIS, since you claim that Jews are the power there (and I agree somewhat on the claim of Jewish rule--but not on the NAzi bit). I could continue, but I waste everyone's time--especially since "you don't put stock in any of what I say." - - - - - Dec18/89 12:06 230:316) Brian Holtz: Sorry this response was so long in coming, Dan, but I had to get to a scrollable terminal emulator. In :180 I did _not_ say that Israel has no "valid security concerns". I also didn't say that "a concern like this [i.e., a "valid" one] is akin to the Nazi's enslaving their neighbors". What I _did_ say in :180 is that Daniel's notion that Israel's "security would [not] be assured" if the occupation of Palestine were ended is like Hitler's argument "that Germans couldn't be safe from her neighbors unless they were enslaved". I did _not_ "just jump from security to Nazis"; I jumped from security-through-the-occupation-of-one's-neighbors to Nazis, which is not a very long way. In :196 I did _not_ say that "all the people of Israel think [might makes right] just because [I] felt that" Daniel thought so. Nothing could be more racist than to say that because Daniel Weiner thinks X, all Israelis or Jews think X, and I would never say such a thing. Sure, other thinkers have held that might makes right, but none of them are so universally recognized to be evil as is Hitler. If Daniel were a slave-owner, would you want me to compare him to Thomas Jefferson? What are the odds that that comparison would shock him to his senses? The same goes for comparing [:218] Polo's "morals don't really play a role in the political world" [:217] with _Mein Kampf_. Again, when someone says something that could be taken straight out of _Mein Kampf_, - - - - - Dec18/89 12:06 230:317) Brian Holtz: why dignify the remark by comparing it to anything else? Instant Karma (:259), Israeli Arabs do _not_ "have absolutely full and equal rights in every single aspect of Israeli life, politically, socially, and economically." Israeli Arabs are not allowed to serve in the military or in the intelligence agencies. Israel has institutionalized a presumption of treasonousness on the basis of race. Yes, other Palestinians "fled" in 1948 "for reasons of their own": like, they were afraid of Irgun massacres of whole townfuls of women and children like the one led by Menachim Begin against the town of Deir Yasin. You might "also like to point out that as soon as Israel acquired the territories", "she immediately began a massive housing project" for Israeli settlers in what the majority party in Israel likes to call "Judea and Samaria": the West Bank. Israel has shown that it can defend itself quite well from terrorist attacks from Lebanon-like countries. Besides, the PLO has renounced terrorism, and the PLO would almost certainly control any Palestinian state on the West Bank. How long must the Palestinians wait for a state? Until they all become Quakers? Alan, I didn't say in :229 that I don't "put any stock in any of [your] responses". What I said was that when you assert that you heard Arafat reaffirm the destruction of Israel, but it escaped the notice of the New York Times, then I'm going to ignore your assertion. - - - - - Dec18/89 12:06 230:318) Brian Holtz: I have _never_ "compare[d] the Nazi's program of extermination with Israel which has no such program", and I again _defy_ you to cite any response in which I have. Using Nazi imagery in arguments about Israel does _not_ "mean JEWS are NAZIS". Again, it's stupid to hold that if the Nazis did X, then saying that Israel also is doing something X-like is the same as saying that Jews are Nazis. - - - - - Dec18/89 23:30 230:320) Brian Holtz: Dan, _when_ did I ever identify all Israelis (or Jews, for that matter) with the Nazis, because of someone's statements or for any other reason? In the three cases you've cited, I said 1) that security-through- occupying-one's-neighbors is Nazi-like, 2) that saying morality has no place in political affairs is Nazi-like, and 3) that saying you're entitled to whatever you can seize is Nazi-like. How can any of these three statements "spread more hatred around"? To rebut any of these three obviously-true statements with accusations of insensitivity to people's feelings is a blatant smokescreen that I have a hard time believing is anything but intentional. - - - - - Dec19/89 23:20 230:325) Brian Holtz: The difference, Pete, is that (as far as I know) only Daniel and the Nazis explicitly acknowledged that they were occupying their neighbors for no other reason than their own security. The Russians say they were supporting socialist revolutions, the Chinese probably said the same about Korea, and I don't know which neighbors renaissance France and America have ever occupied. You can read all you want into my analogies, but _no_: if I say that Israeli security-through-occupying-neighbors is like Nazi security-through-occupying-neighbors, I mean precisely _that_, and _not_ "that the analogy holds further", or that the moon is made of cheese, or anything else. Gene, name _one_ act of terrorism that Arafat's Al Fatah has committed since he renounced terrorism. The New York Times has reported no such act, and I somehow think they're in a better position to know than you. I don't think I ever said that a Palestinian state would "pose no threat to Israel". However, no one can deny that Israel poses a threat to a Palestinian state, since that is all that Arafat now wants, and that is what Israel is refusing to allow. If nuclear-armed Israel has remained so untouchable by your "220 million" surrounding enemies, what further threat could be posed by an extra -- what? -- 5 million citizens of a Palestinian state? - - - - - Dec20/89 22:20 230:328) Brian Holtz: Well, BGOC, I sort of take it as a given that people will often react emotionally and irrationally in a reasoned discussion, so in that sense the answer to your first question is "yes". But the fact that people might react unreasonably to my reasoning is not my problem. - - - - - Jan06/90 19:13 230:353) Brian Holtz: Dan Z., I never said that I have an "absolute mastery of logic, history, or morality", or that "because [I] offend people ... mean[s] that [I] am right or providing a valuable public service". I _do_ "take ... responsibility for [my] statements" (whatever _that_ means), but I still insist that the fact that people might react unreasonably to my reasoning is not my problem. Daniel W., there is a difference between "aggression for one's own security" and the eternal occupation of anyone who ever happened to have once threatened you. _Indeed_, "witness the recent invasion of Panama"! Do you think the US will now indefinitely occupy Panama to prevent future Noriegas, or do you think we will allow self-determination there? Of _course_ I don't dispute that the West Bank was overrun in a legitimate defensive war; what I _do_ dispute is your contention that eternal occupation of the West Bank is its just dessert for having once been a threat to Israel. By the way, it has been many years since terrorist attacks inside Israel have been launched accross its eastern frontier, and Arafat's Al Fatah has faithfully renounced the use of terrorism, so you are quite wrong in saying that "those security reasons have worsened and not improved". Your lawn/car analogy is worthless. You don't want to take away the _car_ that did the driving on your lawn; you want to take away the _home_ itself from the descendents of the car's driver. - - - - - Jan06/90 19:13 230:354) Brian Holtz: "We're not asking for anything more than our own security." And just when do the Palestinians get to ask for _their_ security? UN-mandated Palestine has been brutally occuppied for 23 years by Israel. Why can't the Palestinians assume your "never again" attitude and try to occupy _Israel_ "for the time being or forever, for that matter"? You don't "want peace", you want Israeli peace/security at the admitted price of indefinitely occupying another nation's homeland. How is that different from what Hitler wanted? Al Fatah is no longer a "terrorist organization". I publicly _defy_ you to name _one_ terrorist act committed by Al Fatah since Arafat's renunciation of terrorism. (Watch this, folks; he won't even try.) The only violence that Arafat advocates is against occupying Israeli forces in UN-mandated Palestine, and I am wholly in favor of that (perfectly just) kind of violence. - - - - - Jan07/90 19:38 230:357) Brian Holtz: First of all, Daniel, attacking troops by definition can never be a terrorist act. Terrorism is threatening or attacking innocent civilians for political purposes. Most of the breakaway factions of the PLO are Syrian and Libyan stooges. The vast majority of Palestinians in UN-mandated Palestine recognize Arafat's Al Fatah as their representatives, and Al Fatah _has_ (and not just "claims to have") forsaken terrorism. (He still hasn't found a counterexample, folks.) - - - - - Jan08/90 00:53 230:360) Brian Holtz: Daniel, the KKK endorsed Reagan in 1984, and KKK members -- i.e., Reagan "supporters" -- also lynched a young Black man in Mobile a few years back, too. Does that make Reagan a lyncher? If a person is a "PLO supporter" and commits terrorism, that of course doesn't mean the PLO has committed terrorism. This is obvious. I haven't heard of civilians killed by dropped cinder blocks; when and where did this occur? I _have_ heard of buses being stoned, but it usually happens inside UN-mandated Palestine, and the people on the buses are often Israeli settlers or occupiers of UN-mandated Palestine. If I were a Palestinian in occupied Palestine, I'd be doing the same thing. Since my last response I've _also_ heard that two more Palestinians were killed in occupied Palestine; they apparently had the gall to carry their national flag... Al Fatah and the breakaway factions of the PLO are totally separate organizations, led by power-hungry stooges of Damascus, Tripoli, and Teheran. Al Fatah can no more be blamed for their actions than can Likud or Labor be blamed for the fundamentalists who call for rebuilding the Temple on the ruins of the Dome of the Rock. I can just imagine you in 1776: "if you choose to throw tea into Boston Harbor or to defy the King's rule in the Colonies, YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE." - - - - - Jan09/90 00:33 230:364) Brian Holtz: Gee, Karma, I don't suppose you're editorializing when you equate Amnesty's "collaborating" with your "thinking for themselves", are you? The fact is that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, recruits and pays off Palestinians to infiltrate and inform on the organizers of the intifidah. When such Benedict Arnolds are executed, they indeed "get what they deserved". I don't condone arbitrary violence against tourists visting Israeli- occupied UN-mandated Palestine, and nor to my knowledge does Arafat or his Al Fatah. However, I can imagine that tourists in the West Bank can be hard to distinguish from Israeli settlers and occupation officials. At any rate, tourism in a land under such brutal and immoral occupation as if nothing were amiss is repugnant. - - - - - Jan09/90 23:38 230:370) Brian Holtz: Yeah, isn't that Israel's new motto -- "We're not as bad as Iraq" ? But you're right, it's Israel's commitment to democracy (for Israelis only) that gets it in so much trouble. - - - - - Jan10/90 00:34 230:372) Brian Holtz: IK, the big reason why the intifadah is bigger news than other human rights violations is that it is being supressed with $1 billion/year's worth of American military aid. Forgive me for feeling a little more guilty when Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian children with arms my taxes paid for, than when Iraq gases people all on its own. By "Israelis", I mean, of course, people who hold Israeli citizenship. Israel's is a curious "democracy", since hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who reside inside Israel's de facto permanent borders are denied representation. Like I said, Israel is committed to democracy for Israelis only. - - - - - Jan10/90 23:58 230:377) Brian Holtz: Whether occupied Palestine is annexed or not, West Bank Palestinians could not have less political representation than they do now. What kind of "democracy" does Israel qualify as just because it says "we can't annex you because that would be admitting that we don't want you to have rights, so we'll just eternally occupy you and moan about how much we want you to have rights"? - - - - - Jan12/90 23:36 230:386) Brian Holtz: Bob, Israel enunciates the position I attributed to her every day, by maintaining it's current stance: no annexation (can't have all those pro-PLO citizens), no self-rule (nobody but those evil renunciators of terrorism -- Al Fatah -- to run for office), and no withdrawal (can't have an impoverished nation of refugees so threateningly close to a US-backed nuclear power). Alan, I find it very hard to believe you've read too many of my responses in this item, because I've destroyed the points you raise so many times I can do it again in my sleep. Watch: 1. Egypt and Jordan don't occupy the West Bank, so they can't liberate it. I gladly criticize Jordan for its failure to establish a Palestinian state on the West Bank, because Jordan was in exactly the position that Israel is in now: it was refusing to accept the right of its enemy to exist. So both sides, when they were on top, were totally obstinate. Thus both sides would be morally equal, except _one_ side now recognizes the other's right to exist, while the _other_ side (_you_, bub) is taking Jordan's 20 years of obstinancy as carte blanche for its own 23-years-going-on-eternal obstinancy. Result? Al Fatah is morally superior to Israel. 2. Yes, "in 1947 Israel the only one who accepted the partition". And, since 1988 Arafat's Al Fatah has been the only one who accepted the partition. So both sides, when they were on top, rejected any negative change in the status quo. But do you really think that - - - - - Jan12/90 23:36 230:387) Brian Holtz: the Palestinians' 41 years of not accepting Israel's right to exist justifies Israel's 23-year-going-on-eternal refusal to accept _Palestine's_ right to exist? What, are you going to argue that Israel should finish a 41-year occupation of Palestine, out of some barbaric Old Testament eye-for-an-eye morality, and only _then_ withdraw from the West Bank? Or worse, do you still think Israel should eternally punish the descendants of those who dared in 1948 to resist an unfavorable change in the status quo, by eternally denying them a state? That kind of barbaric morality is a couple millennia out of date. - - - - - Jan13/90 22:24 230:389) Brian Holtz: Karma, Alan explicitly said that it was OK to occupy Palestine, because the Palestinians tried to occupy Israel. That's sounds like an-eye-for-an-eye to me, and I'll keep callin' 'em like I hear 'em. Since when does Israel listen to the UN? Get serious; Israel doesn't annex the West Bank for only two reasons: America wouldn't stand for it, and it doesn't want to explicitly acknowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of disempowered refugees within its de facto permanent borders. "_OPEN_ elections"? How can an election be "open", if Israel refuses to allow as a candidate anyone associated with the organization that every poll shows as the Palestinians' party of choice: Arafat's Al Fatah? What you're saying is "you can have an election, but you can't vote for the candidates you want". As for "no military withdrawal", the West Bank just isn't between Israel and Lebanon. - - - - - Jan16/90 03:20 230:392) Brian Holtz: Karma, are you saying that Yassir Arafat could run in Israel's proposed elections, as long as the terms "Al Fatah" and "PLO" and such don't appear on the ballot? If so, I'm reasonably certain you are wrong. My memory is that at the very least, no member of the PLO could run (unless she renounced her membership). - - - - - Jan19/90 02:48 230:394) Brian Holtz: So if Israel can conquer the three quarters or so of the world's population who do not currently enjoy home rule, it is allowed to brutally occupy them for eternity? You're right in this much, at least: _you_ know no morality when it comes to international politics. Countries aren't moral or immoral; countries' _policies_ are. You can't color the globe in black and white, according to which countries "act out of moral means" or not. You _can_ decide whether a given policy is moral or not, though, and Israel's occupation of Palestine _isn't. "The simple fact is--in a race war, a tribe (say, the Aryans or the Arabs) wins and others (say, the Jews) lose. And then you go on. Right or wrong. I will not judge." Open your eyes. - - - - - Nov23/89 14:37 253:28) Brian Holtz: Nobody wants another Cuba on our doorstep, but I don't see much wrong with another Nicarauga. - - - - - Nov23/89 17:55 253:30) Brian Holtz: Dan, Castro has imprisoned and tortured thousands of political prisoners since his revolution; many have remained in prison the whole time. Cuba has no free elections, no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, etc. If the Cuban government has so "MANY fewer" "faults" than our own does, how come the 100,000 refugees that have passed between our nations were all going north? Where is the American expatriate community in Havana that dreams of Washington's overthrow? Step into reality, Dan; even Gorbachev knows Castro is a loser. - - - - - Nov23/89 21:55 253:32) Brian Holtz: Do Dole and other companies still plunder down there? I sort of assumed that by now it was just the local oligarchs doing the pillaging. I think half the reason we're backing ARENA is that ARENA won the elections that we were hoping the Christian Democrats would win. Bush probably thinks he wouldn't be a very good democrat if he took his marbles home just because his man didn't win. He's wrong, though; D'Aubisson's crew is about as democratic as Castro. - - - - - Nov28/89 01:31 253:42) Gene Kavnatsky: Henry, I don't know if you noticed, but there is a war going on in El Salvador. In a war, due process is suspended. You cannot prosecute people for murder and give them a just trial. And the war was not started by the government. They have to defend the country against the rebels who are supplied by Cuba, Nicaragua, and the Soviet Union. If that means having to kill them... well, that's what a war is all about. Soviet Union during the WW2 executed anyone on the spot who expressed support for the Germans. You cannot have civil rights when you are under attack. If the rebels are supplied by our enemies, why can't we supply our friends? In the way I see things, Nicaraguan government is just as evil as Cuban in the same way as Brian Holtz described it in :30. - - - - - Nov29/89 07:05 253:56) Brian Holtz: Gene, Nicaragua is nothing like Cuba. Nicaragua has a mixed economy. Nicaragua has had elections only slightly less free and fair than El Salvador's. Nicaragua has an opposition press. Nicaragua doesn't have death squads that "disappear" people or leave their bodies in ditches. Nicaragua hasn't experienced a Cuba-style mass exodus of refugees, even though she _isn't_ an island and her borders are open. Nicaragua has a political opposition that (unlike El Salvador's) isn't afraid to live in her capital. I have no fear of revolution spreading in Latin America, because it already _is_. Democracy is breaking out all over south of the Panama Canal, and Mexico already had her leftist revolution in 1910 or so. With the Christian Democrats out of power, El Salvador joins Guatemala as the two worst regimes on the Latin American mainland. - - - - - Dec01/89 22:28 253:65) Brian Holtz: Henry, Mexico's regime is "Stalinist"? Get a grip. Mexico has an opposition, and semi-free elections that the opposition sometimes wins. Mexico has a free press and independent labor unions and a mixed economy. Stalin must be turning over in his grave. - - - - - Dec03/89 18:06 253:72) Brian Holtz: What's wrong with Nicaragua's type of government? - - - - - Dec03/89 22:09 253:74) Brian Holtz: Just because one party does all the winning at the Presidential level hardly makes a state "Stalinist". Has America been "Stalinist" since 1980? - - - - - Dec07/89 03:02 253:99) Brian Holtz: Gene, just because Iran went from a terrible autocracy to an even worse theocracy doesn't mean that the same thing will happen everywhere terrible regimes are in danger. What's wrong with a Nicaragua- or Mexico- style socialist regime in El Salvador? - - - - - Dec17/89 19:15 253:121) Brian Holtz: No way she could've been guilty; she's just too damn CUTE! :) - - - - - Dec18/89 23:36 253:125) Brian Holtz: No, she's a justice-loving humanity-loyal babe. - - - - - Dec19/89 23:23 253:128) Brian Holtz: Aww, Wendy, I've _always_ been on the side of justice, humanity, and beautiful brunettes. :) - - - - - Nov18/89 14:45 258:6) Brian Holtz: Steve, what do you mean by "understand"? Do you think those kids thought they were assaulting an inanimate object? Do you think those kids didn't comprehend what a scream of "No!" means? - - - - - Nov20/89 23:27 258:31) Brian Holtz: I disagree with the widespread assumption here that people should only be incarcerated until they're "rehabilitated", and that whether someone should be incarcerated at any given moment depends mainly on whether at that moment they're considered likely to commit a crime. Remember: in America, you're innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Incarceration should be for punishment, not for rehabilitation. A state in the business of freeing people because it divines that they are harmless isn't too different from a state that imprisons people because it divines that they are dangerous. - - - - - Nov23/89 21:49 258:48) Brian Holtz: What's wrong with punishment? Justice demands that the guilty be punished. Compensation only applies to crimes in which the victim can be made whole. What _is_ wrong is the idea that the state can lock someone up simply because it divines that he is dangerous. It would be bad enough to consider someone guilty until proven innocent of a _committed_ crime; it is utterly unconscionable to consider someone guilty until proven innocent of a crime which _has never taken place_. - - - - - Nov24/89 12:46 258:53) Brian Holtz: John, you're having trouble thinking again. Let me clear two things up for you: 1. Just because some religion says X doesn't mean that X is false. 2. Just because some state punishes victimless "crimes" doesn't mean that punishing _any_ crime is a bad idea. Reparations are really only appropriate in crimes of property. If you think owning a slave could even begin to make up for the death of a loved one, you must not have any loved ones. - - - - - Jan07/90 20:02 303:77) Brian Holtz: Chris, you are correct that Nature doesn't create or recognize personal rights, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful social constructs. Tania is exactly right: society works better when people agree not to step on each other's toes. Political equality is best summed up by the 14th amendment: we are all due the equal protection of the laws. - - - - - Jan09/90 23:49 303:83) Brian Holtz: I don't mind multi-screen responses, as long as they have multi-screen _content_. Chris, I don't know which are more vague, your complaints about liberals asserting rights or your "social structures" which would replace what we have now. Who do you hear saying that political rights are like "physical laws"? That's an utter straw man. You don't like to hear complaints from people who "feel wronged" -- did it ever occur to you that sometimes people "feel wronged" because they indeed _have_ been wronged? It's hard to tell from your responses, but it sounds like you favor equality of opportunity and oppose equality of outcome. If that's the case, you could probably say so with a little less frothing. - - - - - Jan11/90 00:13 303:91) Brian Holtz: Chris, the essential personal rights do not require "sustaining effort" or "impose responsibility". For instance, your right to life means that society won't let me murder you. Now, can you tell me what effort you're sustaining that, if you ceased, would make it ok for me to murder you? The whole idea of the social contract is that victims _aren't_ limited to "taking action themselves" about their situation. For instance, if I set up my 30-06 outside your house and start taking potshots at you through your windows, do you really think you should be confined to returning my fire, or would you rather be able to dial 911 and bring in a SWAT team? It's ridiculous to propose that economic and educational self-improvement could put an end to government-sanctioned discrimination. In 1950's Birmingham, Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus no matter _how_ wealthy or educated they were. 0 64 Multiple choice responses Item 3 0 0 Responses found - - - - - Dec19/89 23:45 316:12) Brian Holtz: Eric, if wearing an earring takes "guts", then you must really admire, say, a guy who cuts his ear completely off. I don't see why anyone should ever punch holes in his or her body, and I'll clue you ladies in: guys don't pay attention to earrings. The most revealing thing that a person can wear or not wear is a smile. - - - - - Jan09/90 00:38 321:42) Brian Holtz: Right. Anarchism would be fine, if only people didn't have a weakness for organizing into fascist Reichs, fundamentalist theocracies, totalitarian Pacts, etc. Because of that weakness, and the possibly related human fondness for extorting the weak, the state is necessary to protect personal freedom. - - - - - Jan11/90 00:16 321:48) Brian Holtz: Rumania hasn't had Soviet troops stationed there since the 50's, and hasn't participated in Warsaw Pact manouevres since the 60's. - - - - - Jan09/90 00:41 327:9) Brian Holtz: Sure, Tania, but arguing for _less_ government is libertarianism; this is the item for arguing for _no_ government. Anarchy is from the Greek for "no leader" -- no cops, no officials, no state. "Minarchy" is the name I've most often seen attached to your notion of minimal government. - - - - - Jan10/90 00:03 327:22) Brian Holtz: Jim, I submit that society _does_ have a right and even a responsibility to "modify the free actions of others", if those actions constitute aggression. The legitimacy of the state has nothing to do with its origins, or the level at which it wins the rabble's allegience. The legitimacy of the state is based on its objective performance in protecting personal liberty. Voice of Fate, if for you anarchy is any "government that is a process of the will of the people", then anarchy is nothing more than a synonym for "good government". If your stand is in favor of "good government", good luck finding people who disagree with you. - - - - - Jan11/90 00:27 327:34) Brian Holtz: The social contract isn't a contract in the legal since; it's a contract in the meta-legal sense. The social contract _couldn't_ be a legal contract, since the social contract is what _sets up_ the legal system. But that doesn't matter, because not many defenders of the social contract mind using coercion to enforce it. I don't mind losing the freedom to commit murder, Bryan; why should you? - - - - - Jan19/90 02:53 327:36) Brian Holtz: Bryan, I don't care _how_ many "living individuals" you say object to the social contract. I'm arguing that the social contract is for the good of those individuals, and that if very many of them objected to it, then the contracted-for society wouldn't work and would probably even be overthrown. Say, bub, you wanna answer my question? To wit: I don't mind losing the freedom to commit murder; why should you?