Comments | simsimm: feud on AIM

simsimm

feud on AIM

Feb 17, 2003 15:24

I like arguing. I like to think that sometimes people learn things about each other and about different viewpoints by arguing. But I realize that what happens most of the time is that people yell and get emotional and do not hear that the other person has said. So Kevin Gaudett and I had this conversation today. I corrected the spelling so that ( Read more... )

Comments 12

hey sugary lost_thisbe February 17 2003, 16:14:39 UTC

here's what you want to do:

in the post put ( type what you want here )

Re: hey sugary simsimm February 17 2003, 16:26:20 UTC

ok. thanks for telling me dear alisony. sorry for being bulky. :)

Re: hey sugary simsimm February 17 2003, 16:27:44 UTC

wait. so i just type "And" somewhere and it'll do that?

Re: hey sugary lost_thisbe February 17 2003, 16:36:14 UTC

dammit, it took it as a command.

<*lj-cut text="here's where you type stuff">

only without the asterisk

and criminy! lost_thisbe February 17 2003, 16:52:16 UTC

What a loaded argument!

Honestly it's hard to argue and be open to new ideas, new thoughts, and new opinions when there are lifetimes of persecutions and hate to muck through. I salute your effort to have a peaceful argument on such a heated subject. But you would probably have a lot more luck if you each tried to argue the other's side.

And remember: research can say whatever you want it to say.

Re: and criminy! simsimm February 17 2003, 23:30:33 UTC

You're right damnit! I wish you weren't, I really do, but you're right. Research can say whatever you want it to say and that makes everything all the more blurrier and makes the numbers matter even less. It leaves sciencey people feeling very flustered and nervous because then it questions whether there is such a thing as truth that can be attatched to numbers and facts. I guess I believe that numbers and facts and truth exist, but it's doubtable that humans are capable of collecting these things in an impartial way.

reiving February 17 2003, 18:54:23 UTC

I remember something similar in Chaim Potok's "The Chosen" about how the murder of one Jew was worth much more than one life because of all the offspring involved. Incidentally, that book also mentions how unpopular Zionism was among Jewish people when the movement began. Now you can see "free trip to Israel if you're Jewish" programs on campus to get American Jews in touch with this part of their culture, which otherwise they might not be involved in ( ... )

simsimm February 17 2003, 23:25:44 UTC

I've never heard of the monkey trap, but it sounds exactly like what is going on. When I was talking to my dad about the whole Israel/Palestine thing he asked me: "What if the Native Americans came to Texas and told you to move out because they wanted to live here? And then what if they wouldn't let you vote" and on and on and on. Well, I guess what he wanted was to make me feel angry too. To be honest, I would probably just leave! But for the Palestinians it's a different issue, because it's harder to just leave. I wish that there was a homeland for Jewish people. I think that would be wonderful. But you're right. The homeland they want is too bloody, and too full of memory. For both sides.

And I'll definitly make you some Muslim food next year when I have a kitchen. :)

Well anonymous February 17 2003, 20:54:41 UTC

I have a lot of things to say, but I'm not sure how to say them in a way that will engender constructive discussion. The things I most want to discuss are the things I am most sure will most piss people off.

I am willing to admit the weaknesses of the positions of both sides, as well as the strengths. But I feel most people are not. People on either side of this issue constantly and rightfully feel like their legitimacy is under attack, and they are more interested in defending their point of view than discussing all points of view. This most commonly takes place through declarations of moral equivalence and conveniently ignoring one set of facts to focus on another, even forgetting all the facts on which reasonable people could disagree.

Is it hopeless?

-- grouse

Re: Well simsimm February 17 2003, 23:16:48 UTC

You ask if it is hopeless, and I have two different reactions. The first reaction is from my brain and it says "no, there is no hope for the situation because of the way people are. It's as simple as that." Too much harm has already been done and both sides have so much to lose. The most natural thing in the world is to lash back when you are precieving a lashing from. When Kevin said that "at least my holy book doesn't promote the killing of innocent people" my first reaction was anger and so I typed angrily. This is what people do. It takes a great deal of will power to get past the words of another person and examine what is behind them, and it takes even more will power and a great deal of careful thinking to respond in such a way that will not be precieved as an attack, so that the other person has a chance of listening to and understanding what has been said. It's just so hard and frustrating! When presented with one extreme set of ideas, I feel like I have to respond with the exact opposite set of extreme ideas in ( ... )

That reminds me simsimm February 17 2003, 23:37:36 UTC

In my arabic lit class last semester we read an amazing story. I think it was absolutly the best thing anyone could read to try to understand both sides because it was equally personal. It wasn't about numbers or facts. It conveyed the pain felt by 2 families caught up in something beyond their control. It's a short story written by Ghassan Kanafani called _Returning to Haifa_ and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the whole Mid East situation.