From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Name of Palestinian Deportees (part i)
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:33:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.105726.5011@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

# In article <1993Jan5.151453.7988@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >In article <1993Jan5.065144.1918@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad) writes:

# ># In <1993Jan5.024625.1717@ennews.eas.asu.edu> (David Makowsky) writes:
 
# ># >	Providing a context also helps justify for two other reasons.
# ># >One, it shows the neighborhood Israel is trying to survive in.
# ># >Certain behaviors which are not acceptable under certain conditions
# ># >may be acceptable in others.
 
# ># >	Two, the full range of facts and opinions on any given subject are
# ># >almost always never available.  Usually things are presented according
# ># >to the bias of those presenting them.  When someone presents material
# ># >in a hypocritical fashion by not providing the whole side, one can
# ># >assume that what is being given is being given in such a way as to
# ># >maximize the point of view that the presenter is trying to impress.
# ># >It might be that were everything (or at least more) presented, the
# ># >presenter's point of view might not have much sympathy.  In other
# ># >words, the credibility of the presenter is a key issue and therfor it
# ># >is relevent to bring up things like what would happen to Jewish
# ># >members of terrorist organizations in Arab countries.

# ># You seem to forget two simple facts:

# ># 1) You are not dealing with Arab governments in this case.  You are 
# >#    dealing with individuals.  So your argument is basically:  Since
# >#    Arab countries would probably do worse (remember, your whole premise
# >#    is hypothetical, after all), Israel is justified.  That argument won't
# >#    get you very far.
 
# >	I did not forget I am dealing with individuals and not with Arab
# >governments.  That point is not relevent anyway.  I am not claiming
# >that Israel is justified simply because Arabs do worse.  I am claiming
# >that those who fail to point out Arabs would do worse are good
# >candidates to be providing information that does not point out other
# >significant facts which could change the sympathies of the readers if
# >they knew them.
 
# Now you're just being silly.  While it would be a sign of bias to
# condemn one country for doing something which you support another
# country doing, no one has to go around posting things like:
 
# "The deportation of 400 alleged Hamas members is awful.  It's against
# international law, it's stupid, and it won't do any good.  Oh, and by
# the way, Iraq would have killed them."
 
	It is you who are being silly.  I never posted any such thing.

# >	I am also claiming that the neighborhood Israel lives in could
# >justify certain actions that would otherwise not be justifiable.  I am
# >not claiming that this automatically justifies those actions.
 
# Well, either it does justify it or it doesn't.  If you're claiming it
# doesn't, then there's no point in bringing it up.  If you're claiming it
# does, then you're claiming it does.

	In this case, it does provide PART of the basis for the
justification.  Hwoever, my argument was in response to a theoretical
position that was raised on whether a situation could be used to
justify something and not against the specific example.

# ># 2) The Arab governments are not conductiong discussions on USENET.  You
# >#    and I are.  And the fact that I am Egyptian, or that I like french fries
# >#    doesn't make my arguments any better or any worse.
 
# >	Just as in any court of law, a persons background is relevent when
# >it comes to the question of credibility.  It does not, in and of
# >itself, make or break credibility.  This applies to me, you, and the
# >man on the moon.
 
# ># You are wrong if you think you are presenting an 'eye for an eye' argument.
# ># That presupposes that the response is directed at the same person who 
# ># initiated the attack.  In your (hypothetical) case, the Arab governments
# ># attack, and the deportees are punished for it.
 
# >	I am not making an "eye for an eye" argument (although I probably
# >could).  I am making a "If you are a threat I will deal with you
# >before you have a chance to deal with me" argument.
 
# Which is usually the sign of a dictatorship, not a democracy.

	Nope.  It is the sign of a vigilant government, democracy or
dictatorship.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic,talk.politics.mideast