IRONY OF IRONIES: 'museum of tolerance' on Muslim graves...

[Sandman]

Bear in mind that Az supported an 'ethical' bloodbath in Gaza over an 'unethical' withdrawal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Az
It is unethical for the KKK to march in a jewish neighborhood.

Thanks.

I guess now we can discuss all the irrelevant stuff. You do know that you can be for complete free speech and still personally believe certain forms of speech are unethical, right?

[Az]

Bear in mind that Sandman is a paedophile!

as you see, talk is cheap.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Az is a self-professed Commie... we all know they are a bunch of liars .

[Az]

Thanks.

I guess now we can discuss all the irrelevant stuff. You do know that you can be for complete free speech and still personally believe certain forms of speech are unethical, right?

It's not what I said, and if that's what I said, it's not what I meant.

Wait, it's really not what I said:

wwwwwaaaaaiiiiit.

If we're not going to base our laws according to what's ethical and moral, what are we going to base our laws on?

That doesn't mean that we should ban all what is unethical. It's just that ethics are the only thing guides us.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not what I said, and if that's what I said, it's not what I meant.

Wait, it's really not what I said:

Well, if you want to misrepresent my argument, you can't complain when I do it to you.

That doesn't mean that we should ban all what is unethical.

That's a very strong implication in that quote.

[Az]

Well, if you want to misrepresent my argument, you can't complain when I do it to you.

I probably didn't understand your first post - I thought you meant that we discussed whether it was ethical or not that they have that right.

That's a very strong implication in that quote.

Not really - you have to assume a lot, as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not really - you have to assume a lot, as well.

That quote after I said they have the right, we were just discussing ethics, it doesn't require a lot of assumption.

[Az]

hence

I probably didn't understand your first post - I thought you meant that we discussed whether it was ethical or not that they have that right

[Sandman]

Center for Human Dignity website

Museum of Tolerance my arse. It's a Zionist theme park.

Watch the video.

[Az]

You're free not to go there.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
The Independent article was biased as hell (as you've grudgingly admitted), and you went right along with it, lapping it up like a thirsty puppy. You saw the opportunity for an Israel-bash and went for it. But oops, it wasn't the whole story.

Grudgingly? I admitted it omitted important information, I made no attempt to defend that fact despite your lame assumption...

However the kernel of the story is still there: Land that was stolen from the Palestinians was used to build a 'museum of tolerance' - that is hypocrisy right there, unless you're too dumb to figure that out...

And now I see you've made a bunch of other assumptions to try and shore up your position. Why am I not surprised?

I've made some logical deductions and cited an Israeli Human Rights website which asserts that this sort of practice is widespread...

Surely if the museum were really about 'tolerance' it would do the right thing and return the land to its rightful owners as an example of tolerance...

But no, apparently it's not a 'museum of tolerance' after all now that its true credentials appear to have been exposed, maybe building on the cemetery was a deliberate move after all...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
You seem to think I'm pro-Israeli. I'm not (neither am I pro-Palestinian). You like to make assumptions, MOBIUS. In this case, you assume I'm uneducated about Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. I am not (though I'm certainly not an expert).

The only person round here insisting on making assumptions is you...

At no point whatsoever did I ever claim to think you were pro-Israeli - so to 'assume' I think that is a total hypocrisy on your part since you insist on taking this idiotic line about who assumes what...

No, I know for a fact that, broadly speaking, our opinions are more or less similar. What I find highly entertaining about you however is the fact that your dislike for me is such (I'm not assuming that am I?) that you would rather argue for the other side than to be seen siding with me.

Take this thread. Despite the journalistic FUBAR of the Indy article its basic premise is still intact, however now your dislike for me has clouded your judgement to such an extent that you simply refuse to continue agreeing with the basic premise of this thread...

You say "you assume I'm uneducated about Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians." and yet YOU appear to have refused to read the the B'Tselem article I linked for you. You have allowed your dislike for me to turn so personal that you've willingly self-censored yourself from the very information that would corroborate my stance about why the description of this 'museum of tolerance' is ironic indeed...

I am very much against some of Israel's policies. But I'm also for fairness. The article you posted and the argument you made isn't even close to fair. It's ranting based upon your dislike of Israel.

I too am for fairness why is why almost everything the Israeli state stands for is contrary to that sentiment - my argument in its purest form (something any 12 year old could easily figure out) is: Is it right/fair for development that purports to be about tolerance, be built on stolen land from a people persecuted and marginalised by the powers that the development itself represents?

[Patroklos]

As long as the remains are buried somewhere else I don't see the problem. I would suggest a landfill.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Patroklos
As long as the remains are buried somewhere else I don't see the problem. I would suggest a landfill.

Way to confirm the kind of person I know you to be...