[RUEZ]

ReliableIntelligence ReliableIntelligence:

That's way over the line.

You can't handle the truth.

[Always4Iggy]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

If Ms. Basnicki told parliament about how sad she was to lose her husband, it would be OK, a sort of National Victim Impact Statement. She would deserve a sympathetic and patient hearing.

But if she indulges in such obviously tutored lines, then it should be clear that no other woman, widow or single or married or whatever is less qualified than her to think. She would get no special hearing at all.

The real truth is that whether it is Basnicki or Zaccardeli or Hillier, Harper is taking advantage of politically unsophisticated persons who do not understand that they are being exploited.

Let us consider a hypothetical case. Instead of a WTC widow, let us imagine a Canadian Soldier who is killed by a roadside bomb during a patrol mission. If the widow of the soldier told Canadians how bad if felt for her husband to be dead, we can all understand.

Upon meeting the widow and talking to her about the patrol mission in which her husband died, Hillier may feel that she is a exceptionally intelligent person with an aptitude for understanding how patrol missions are planned and executed.

But would it make sense for Hillier to invite widows to be a part of the team planning patrol missions? Definitely not. Not because women are stupid or incompetent. Not because women have no place in the army, but simply because the lady in question must go through a process of qualification, selection, training and experience.

This is exactly the mistake Harper is making. In logic it is considered a fallacy and is called 'appealing to an inappropriate authority'. In simple terms, it means 'using the wrong expert'.

Here are simple examples:

a. Asking your barber to recommend a tailor.

b. Asking your family doctor to select stocks for your investments.

c. Asking your postman what food will help you lose weight.

Now any of these may give you a correct reply, your barber could be a rather good dresser, your doctor may be a well known investor in his spare time, and your postman may have been successful in his weight loss program.

But in all these cases, you are asking for a different reason:

a. Not because he is a barber, but because he is a good dresser.

b. Not because he is a doctor, but because he is a good investor.

c. Not because he is a postman, but because he knows how to lose weight.

Similarly, we would listen to Maureen Basnicki but not because she is a widow, but if and only if she shows the political aptitude required for the recommendation.

For which, the first requirement is to stand for election and be elected.

[Always4Iggy]

USCAdad USCAdad:

He may actually be Jewish but is just so f'ed in the head that he never knows when he's arguing against his own side. Maybe not, but it is a possibility.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

So let me see, USCAdad, you deny that you are jewish, you claim to be a circumcised child of Zionist christian parents, but you know exactly WHAT 'the jewish side' is.

Does that sound plausible to you? Not to me, my friend!

USCAdad USCAdad:

Iggy, you are an idiot that rarely posts anything worthy of thought. What you are good for is class whipping boy. I'm going to take it up as my new sport.

In Yiddish, USCAdad, you would be called a 'klutz'. The best way to describe it is to a joke from my friend Yankl:

$1:

The men sat sipping tea for a while. Then the 'klutz' said 'Life is like a bowl of beet soup'

The other man asked 'Like a bowl of beet soup? Why?'

'How should I know?' said the klutz 'What am I, a philosopher?'

This is exactly what we seem to be going through with you.

$1:

USCAdad: A4I is arguing against his own Jewish side.

A4I: What is this 'jewish side'?

USCAdad: How would I know? Am I a jew?

Don't be a klutz, USCAdad.

[USCAdad]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

USCAdad USCAdad:

He may actually be Jewish but is just so f'ed in the head that he never knows when he's arguing against his own side. Maybe not, but it is a possibility.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

So let me see, USCAdad, you deny that you are jewish, you claim to be a circumcised child of Zionist christian parents, but you know exactly WHAT 'the jewish side' is.

Does that sound plausible to you? Not to me, my friend!

USCAdad USCAdad:

Iggy, you are an idiot that rarely posts anything worthy of thought. What you are good for is class whipping boy. I'm going to take it up as my new sport.

In Yiddish, USCAdad, you would be called a 'klutz'. The best way to describe it is to a joke from my friend Yankl:

The men sat sipping tea for a while. Then the 'klutz' said 'Life is like a bowl of beet soup'

The other man asked 'Like a bowl of beet soup? Why?'

'How should I know?' said the klutz 'What am I, a philosopher?'

This is exactly what we seem to be going through with you.

USCAdad: A4I is arguing against his own Jewish side.

A4I: What is this 'jewish side'?

USCAdad: How would I know? Am I a jew?



Don't be a klutz, USCAdad.

Another attempt at wit? Keep trying.

[Always4Iggy]

USCAdad USCAdad:

He may actually be Jewish but is just so f'ed in the head that he never knows when he's arguing against his own side. Maybe not, but it is a possibility.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

So let me see, USCAdad, you deny that you are jewish, you claim to be a circumcised child of Zionist christian parents, but you know exactly WHAT 'the jewish side' is.

Does that sound plausible to you? Not to me, my friend!

USCAdad USCAdad:

Iggy, you are an idiot that rarely posts anything worthy of thought. What you are good for is class whipping boy. I'm going to take it up as my new sport.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

In Yiddish, USCAdad, you would be called a 'klutz'. The best way to describe it is to a joke from my friend Yankl:

$1:

The men sat sipping tea for a while. Then the 'klutz' said 'Life is like a bowl of beet soup'

The other man asked 'Like a bowl of beet soup? Why?'

'How should I know?' said the klutz 'What am I, a philosopher?'

This is exactly what we seem to be going through with you.

$1:

USCAdad: A4I is arguing against his own Jewish side.

A4I: What is this 'jewish side'?

USCAdad: How would I know? Am I a jew?

Don't be a klutz, USCAdad.

USCAdad USCAdad:

Another attempt at wit? Keep trying.

Well it is puzzling that you classify that as 'wit'. It was a good analogy of what we are experiencing with you, but while you seem to be able to sense the logic of the joke, you cannot relate it back to your own exchange about 'Jewish side' and who is working for what.

A pity, though, because you sometimes show some ability to think which is unusual for a conservative.

[USCAdad]

When did I claim to speak for the Jews? I have some experience in Jewish communities thanks to the zionist parents, but no, I can't speak for them.

[Scrappy]

It wasn't a bad analogy Iggy it just wasn't applicaple. Widows of September 11 had their husbands (wives, mothers, fathers, children grandparents, brother, sisters, aunt and uncles etc.) murdered by Islamic Radicals. In criminal cases in Canada a victim is allowed to give a "Victim Impact Statement" prior to sentencing, while I don't agree with the Legislation I believe victims of terrorism should at least have a voice. Mothers against drunk drivers are victims Iggy and they sure as hell have made a diffence in the laws that are applicaple to drunk driving. Why do want their voiced silenced Iggy? Victims don't matter if you are a Liberal Iggy, only the criminals have a voice Iggy under a Liberal government? I don't believe that Iggy, only you seem to think the victims should be silenced. WHY?

[Always4Iggy]

USCAdad USCAdad:

When did I claim to speak for the Jews? I have some experience in Jewish communities thanks to the zionist parents, but no, I can't speak for them.

I think people would consider you as implicitly speaking for Jews when you write:

USCAdad USCAdad:

He may actually be Jewish but is just so f'ed in the head that he never knows when he's arguing against his own side. Maybe not, but it is a possibility.

This statement, implicitly or explicitly has the following meanings:

USCAdad, by implication, USCAdad, by implication, :

a. A4I may actually be Jewish - I neither confirm nor deny.
b. A4I is just so f'ed in the head - well that is an opinion, it cannot be confirmed or denied.
c. A4I argues against his own side - which has two branches:

c.1 If A4I is a Jew, then he is arguing against his own (Jewish) side.

c.2. If A4I is no Jew, then he is arguing against the Jewish side.

In both the branches of 'c' above, we end up at the same point:

According to USCAdad, A4I argues against the Jewish side.

Now you could say that if you knew one or both of two things:

a. A list of points where I argued something which was, according to you, against the Jewish side.

b. At least a list of points which in your view are helpful to the 'Jewish side' but you suspect that I would not argue in support of if required.

I hope I am making myself clear to you.

[USCAdad]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

USCAdad USCAdad:

When did I claim to speak for the Jews? I have some experience in Jewish communities thanks to the zionist parents, but no, I can't speak for them.

I think people would consider you as implicitly speaking for Jews when you write:

USCAdad USCAdad:

He may actually be Jewish but is just so f'ed in the head that he never knows when he's arguing against his own side. Maybe not, but it is a possibility.

This statement, implicitly or explicitly has the following meanings:

a. A4I may actually be Jewish - I neither confirm nor deny.
b. A4I is just so f'ed in the head - well that is an opinion, it cannot be confirmed or denied.
c. A4I argues against his own side - which has two branches:

c.1 If A4I is a Jew, then he is arguing against his own (Jewish) side.

c.2. If A4I is no Jew, then he is arguing against the Jewish side.
In both the branches of 'c' above, we end up at the same point:

According to USCAdad, A4I argues against the Jewish side.

Now you could say that if you knew one or both of two things:

a. A list of points where I argued something which was, according to you, against the Jewish side.

b. At least a list of points which in your view are helpful to the 'Jewish side' but you suspect that I would not argue in support of if required.

I hope I am making myself clear to you.

Ah from that, I was thinking about your questioning why a person that wasn't Jewish would have a problem with anti-semitism. You ever hear the phrase "You don't need to be a chicken to know a bad egg"? I speculate about the motives and rationals of many points of view that aren't my own. I could accuse someone of arguing against their own Muslim positions and not be a Muslim myself. This relies on my understanding of a position which can always be wrong, updated, or corrected. If you would like to substantiate your bona fides for being a Jew (not that anyone takes you at your word any longer), I'd be happy to receive your perspective and wisdom on the subject and stand corrected at least as far as it pertains to one individual... you. To me, arguing that non Jews can't be against anti-semitism seems spurious if not short sighted.

[Always4Iggy]

USCAdad USCAdad:

When did I claim to speak for the Jews? I have some experience in Jewish communities thanks to the zionist parents, but no, I can't speak for them.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

I think people would consider you as implicitly speaking for Jews when you write:

USCAdad USCAdad:

He may actually be Jewish but is just so f'ed in the head that he never knows when he's arguing against his own side. Maybe not, but it is a possibility.

This statement, implicitly or explicitly has the following meanings:

a. A4I may actually be Jewish - I neither confirm nor deny.
b. A4I is just so f'ed in the head - well that is an opinion, it cannot be confirmed or denied.
c. A4I argues against his own side - which has two branches:

c.1 If A4I is a Jew, then he is arguing against his own (Jewish) side.

c.2. If A4I is no Jew, then he is arguing against the Jewish side.
In both the branches of 'c' above, we end up at the same point:

According to USCAdad, A4I argues against the Jewish side.

Now you could say that if you knew one or both of two things:

a. A list of points where I argued something which was, according to you, against the Jewish side.

b. At least a list of points which in your view are helpful to the 'Jewish side' but you suspect that I would not argue in support of if required.

I hope I am making myself clear to you.

USCAdad USCAdad:

Ah from that, I was thinking about your questioning why a person that wasn't Jewish would have a problem with anti-semitism. You ever hear the phrase "You don't need to be a chicken to know a bad egg"? I speculate about the motives and rationals of many points of view that aren't my own. I could accuse someone of arguing against their own Muslim positions and not be a Muslim myself. This relies on my understanding of a position which can always be wrong, updated, or corrected.

That is exactly the point of the exchange, USCAdad.
Nobody is claiming that you need to be a Jew to spot an anti semite. But you certainly need to present your case!
In the absence from accusations on you part, we have the logical case of your calling for 'proof of the negative'. It goes approximately as follows:

$1:

USCAdad: A4I, you are anti semitic.
A4I: Me? What have I said is it that sounds anti semitic to you?
USCAdad: I cannot say, but unless you prove you are NOT anti semitic, then you are anti semitic!

Calling for 'proof of the negative' incidentally, is a common conservative fallacy, and is associated with religious orthodoxy quite strongly.

USCAdad USCAdad:

If you would like to substantiate your bona fides for being a Jew (not that anyone takes you at your word any longer), I'd be happy to receive your perspective and wisdom on the subject and stand corrected at least as far as it pertains to one individual... you.

That is a very mixed up USCAdad and you may wish to revise it.

a. First of all, why would you be interested in my bona fides as a Jew? You should, instead, present your case about why I am not a bona fide jew lover? I say I am a supporter of Isreal, and unless you can give an instance where I have written against Isreal, you have no reason to make the demand.

b. You make two contradictory statements:

$1:

(not that anyone takes you at your word any longer),

and at the same time:

$1:

If you would like to substantiate your bona fides... I'd be happy to receive your perspective and wisdom on the subject and stand corrected at least as far as it pertains to one individual... you.

USCAdad USCAdad:

To me, arguing that non Jews can't be against anti-semitism seems spurious if not short sighted.

This I agree and it is not an argument of mine. It would be spurious for you to state that this spurious argument was an argument of mine.

[PluggyRug]

fIggy....still waiting.

[USCAdad]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

That is exactly the point of the exchange, USCAdad.
Nobody is claiming that you need to be a Jew to spot an anti semite. But you certainly need to present your case!

Um, you did. I'll find your quote if I must but the search function on this site is so lame that I'll resent it.

$1:

In the absence from accusations on you part, we have the logical case of your calling for 'proof of the negative'. It goes approximately as follows:

$1:

USCAdad: A4I, you are anti semitic.
A4I: Me? What have I said is it that sounds anti semitic to you?
USCAdad: I cannot say, but unless you prove you are NOT anti semitic, then you are anti semitic!

No, you questioned Lily,my, and one other Cons concern about a little bit of anti-semitism...yours. It was an admittal of your own anti-semitism. Does that mean you aren't Jewish then? Self loathing is all too common.

$1:

Calling for 'proof of the negative' incidentally, is a common conservative fallacy, and is associated with religious orthodoxy quite strongly.

But being clueless is all yours in this instance. I'm usually a strong defender of religious orthodoxy.... yeah right.

$1:

$1:

If you would like to substantiate your bona fides for being a Jew (not that anyone takes you at your word any longer), I'd be happy to receive your perspective and wisdom on the subject and stand corrected at least as far as it pertains to one individual... you.

That is a very mixed up USCAdad and you may wish to revise it.

Seems clear to me.

$1:

a. First of all, why would you be interested in my bona fides as a Jew? You should, instead, present your case about why I am not a bona fide jew lover? I say I am a supporter of Isreal, and unless you can give an instance where I have written against Isreal, you have no reason to make the demand.

See above

$1:

b. You make two contradictory statements:

$1:

(not that anyone takes you at your word any longer),

and at the same time:

$1:

If you would like to substantiate your bona fides... I'd be happy to receive your perspective and wisdom on the subject and stand corrected at least as far as it pertains to one individual... you.

Well, you are always welcome to try and shoot straight. It will be difficult because you have squandered your cred.

$1:

USCAdad USCAdad:

To me, arguing that non Jews can't be against anti-semitism seems spurious if not short sighted.

This I agree and it is not an argument of mine. It would be spurious for you to state that this spurious argument was an argument of mine.

Again, it was in one of the circumcision threads. Perhaps someone else remembers the exact thread and could find it easily. It was the last post in the thread if I remember correctly.... before you dodged.

[Always4Iggy]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

That is exactly the point of the exchange, USCAdad.
Nobody is claiming that you need to be a Jew to spot an anti semite. But you certainly need to present your case!

USCAdad USCAdad:

Um, you did. I'll find your quote if I must but the search function on this site is so lame that I'll resent it.

That is another conservative mental deficiency, USCAdad, called 'diminished sense of responsibility'

It also violates the eight commandment for Zionist Christians as well as Jews.

Diminished sense of responsibility comes when you throw accusations and feel a sense of resentment when called upon to substantiate them.

Jews have a story that illustrates both 'Proving the Negative' and also 'Diminished Responsibility of accusers'

$1:

The Dayen (Rabbinial judge,) called the junior Rabbi and looked both sad and stern:

Dayen: Yakov, I am sad and disappointed to hear the rumours...

Yakov: But Dayen, they are unsubstantiated! Please do not go by them! They are simply untrue!

Dayen, in horror: True it should be yet? Isn't it bad enough there should be a rumour?

[USCAdad]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

That is exactly the point of the exchange, USCAdad.
Nobody is claiming that you need to be a Jew to spot an anti semite. But you certainly need to present your case!

USCAdad USCAdad:

Um, you did. I'll find your quote if I must but the search function on this site is so lame that I'll resent it.

That is another conservative mental deficiency, USCAdad, called 'diminished sense of responsibility'

It also violates the eight commandment for Zionist Christians as well as Jews.

Diminished sense of responsibility comes when you throw accusations and feel a sense of resentment when called upon to substantiate them.

Jews have a story that illustrates both 'Proving the Negative' and also 'Diminished Responsibility of accusers'

$1:

The Dayen (Rabbinial judge,) called the junior Rabbi and looked both sad and stern:

Dayen: Yakov, I am sad and disappointed to hear the rumours...

Yakov: But Dayen, they are unsubstantiated! Please do not go by them! They are simply untrue!

Dayen, in horror: True it should be yet? Isn't it bad enough there should be a rumour?

USCAdad USCAdad:

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

If you are not Jewish and not zionist, and SJ-24 is not Jewish either, and presumably Lily is Hugenot or something, why are you so quick to get worked up into a holy froth about anti-semiticism?

You really have to ask? We're all fairly decent people. So you admit to your anti-semiticism.... one of the few honest posts I think I've seen from you.

Chew on it. I won't ascribe your deficiencies to any group other than your very own.... you.

[Always4Iggy]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Always4iggy: A very strong concern about anti semitism is often noticed in Jews. It indicates you could be jewish.

My statement logically follows from yours, because your concern regarding anti semitism is unusually strong. But you cannot logically prove yours back from mine. Because, noticing that you have a heightened concern about anti semitism does not prove that the person who notices it is anti semitic.

You don't have to be a chicken, USCAdad, to spot a rotten egg!

A good example of heightened concern about anti semitism is the B'nai Brith, and Joseph C Ben Ami.

I am a member of B'nai Brith, and Joseph C Ben Ami gets substantial donations from me, but keeping my case aside for the moment, the vast majority of the members and contributors of B'nai Brith are Jewish.

If I meet someone at a B'nai Brith event and presume they are Jewish, they consider it quite understandable, given the probability. In a couple of cases, I have found out after a while that the person I was speaking to was non Jewish, even Muslim! But they do not make a ridiculous conculsion as you do, that because I presume them to be jewish, therefore it proves I am anti semitic!

But then, a muslim who attends a B'nai Brith event is probably a Liberal !