Again, that's not precisely what I said or how I said it. Your comment is a case study in taking things beyond context and casting them in a light of your choice. I've made quite clear that I am against violence and hatred, and abusive actions against others to that end. But don't let that stop you from venting your spleen and passing judgment.
Again, that's not precisely what I said or how I said it. Your comment is a case study in taking things beyond context and casting them in a light of your choice. I've made quite clear that I am against violence and hatred, and abusive actions against others to that end. But don't let that stop you from venting your spleen and passing judgment.
If you really want to hang your hat on тАЬexactlyтАЭ weтАЩll maybe you should also resort to тАЬjust asking questions.тАЭ
We all know exactly what you meant.
тАЬ It seems self-evident that we cannot condone extermination of people and terrorism in our midst. Personally, like you, I find it completely repugnant and abhorrent. But not everyone sees it the same way, and in a democracy we accept that as the price of the freedoms that we cherish. Our role is to counter them with facts and evidence and use our power of persuasion that comes with them to influence the argument, not to say or imply that those people should not be free. For my part I embrace that challenge without resorting to demonizing and stigmatizing groups stereotypically or citing exceptions and trying to make them the rule.тАЭ
I'm the person who knows best what I mean to say. It may not be the wording you want to see. You may not agree with it. Or maybe I'm not as articulate about it as I seek to be. But in the end facts matter more than opinions, and factually we do not shut down free speech simply because we disagree with it, no matter how repulsive we may find it to be. Sorry to be the bearer of the bad news, but the United States Constitution remains superior to your beliefs. What we do is counter their position statements with our own freely expressed ideas, and point out fallacies in their arguments where they exist.
If you know about college kids, you'll understand that the "you're wrong, and here's why" approach often just gets them to dig in their heels deeper and longer and become more active in their agenda, to prove you wrong as well as assert their beliefs. Try reasoning with them, presenting a better alternative, and winning them over by making them part of the discussion. That's the best approach that I've seen to break down that wall, or at least soften it enough to allow for compromise and upward growth. If my approach is so wrong, what's your solution? Show us a better way instead of just insulting someone else's. For all your talk, you haven't yet put any of your own skin into the game -- just objections and accusations. That requires no talent..
Lastly, reassure us that you know the difference between the good and the bad people in the debate. It is possible to be pro-Israel and sympathetic toward the victims of the terror attacks but also anti-mass destruction of civilian lives and infrastructure in the name of retaliation against or extermination of the enemy. And that one can be pro-Palestinian with regard to its non-terrorists and anti-Hamas for the evil extremists that they are. Do most college kids understand the differences? I don't know. So let's ask. Call out those who are pro-Hamas and challenge them accordingly. Those seeking to curb needless human casualties and destruction of personal property built up over a lifetime may well have a point. Let's make sure that we at least are as well informed as we expect for them to be.
Again, that's not precisely what I said or how I said it. Your comment is a case study in taking things beyond context and casting them in a light of your choice. I've made quite clear that I am against violence and hatred, and abusive actions against others to that end. But don't let that stop you from venting your spleen and passing judgment.
No. ThatтАЩs what you said.
If you really want to hang your hat on тАЬexactlyтАЭ weтАЩll maybe you should also resort to тАЬjust asking questions.тАЭ
We all know exactly what you meant.
тАЬ It seems self-evident that we cannot condone extermination of people and terrorism in our midst. Personally, like you, I find it completely repugnant and abhorrent. But not everyone sees it the same way, and in a democracy we accept that as the price of the freedoms that we cherish. Our role is to counter them with facts and evidence and use our power of persuasion that comes with them to influence the argument, not to say or imply that those people should not be free. For my part I embrace that challenge without resorting to demonizing and stigmatizing groups stereotypically or citing exceptions and trying to make them the rule.тАЭ
I'm the person who knows best what I mean to say. It may not be the wording you want to see. You may not agree with it. Or maybe I'm not as articulate about it as I seek to be. But in the end facts matter more than opinions, and factually we do not shut down free speech simply because we disagree with it, no matter how repulsive we may find it to be. Sorry to be the bearer of the bad news, but the United States Constitution remains superior to your beliefs. What we do is counter their position statements with our own freely expressed ideas, and point out fallacies in their arguments where they exist.
If you know about college kids, you'll understand that the "you're wrong, and here's why" approach often just gets them to dig in their heels deeper and longer and become more active in their agenda, to prove you wrong as well as assert their beliefs. Try reasoning with them, presenting a better alternative, and winning them over by making them part of the discussion. That's the best approach that I've seen to break down that wall, or at least soften it enough to allow for compromise and upward growth. If my approach is so wrong, what's your solution? Show us a better way instead of just insulting someone else's. For all your talk, you haven't yet put any of your own skin into the game -- just objections and accusations. That requires no talent..
Lastly, reassure us that you know the difference between the good and the bad people in the debate. It is possible to be pro-Israel and sympathetic toward the victims of the terror attacks but also anti-mass destruction of civilian lives and infrastructure in the name of retaliation against or extermination of the enemy. And that one can be pro-Palestinian with regard to its non-terrorists and anti-Hamas for the evil extremists that they are. Do most college kids understand the differences? I don't know. So let's ask. Call out those who are pro-Hamas and challenge them accordingly. Those seeking to curb needless human casualties and destruction of personal property built up over a lifetime may well have a point. Let's make sure that we at least are as well informed as we expect for them to be.