it is possible that one side may rightly use violence when sufficiently oppressed. Otherwise, the colonized could never rightfully rebel against colonizer. It makes no sense to say that white south africans were equally justified in using violence. Or perhaps the North versus the South if we take a simplistic view of the civil war. So, the argument is bankrupt to the extent it fails to supply the missing premise that this is NOT a colonized-colonizer situation.
Brad DeLong <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: > > Brad DeLong says:
>> > there are people on both sides--more
>> > on the Arab side, I think, however--who love the smell of napalm
>>
>> Ah yes, when the argument isn't going your way, simply resort to pure,
>> unadulterated racism. Where are the cries from the rest of the list about
>> the "smell test" the supposedly comes into play whenever someone says
>> anything about "the Jews"? But say "the Arabs" and make allusions to their
>> violent, aggressive, terrorist nature (while simultaneously playing the
>> stupid and bankrupt "violence is bad on both sides" non-argument) and ...
> > hey man, it's all good.
Dear Brainless:
I was thinking of, among others, Binyamin Netanyahu. I was unaware that he was an Arab.
I was also unaware that "people on both sides--more on the Arab side, I think, however--" was equal to "Arabs".
More disturbing is the idea that in this day and age there are still people stupid enough to call the argument that "violence is bad on both sides" "stupid and bankrupt". For which side do you think that violence is good? And why?
Brad DeLong
--------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020514/1ba56dbb/attachment.htm>