BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism

Subject: RE: BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism
From: GUEST,who cares?
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 06:29 PM

Why does it take these two so long to find these tiresome one-issue deliberately devisive threads? Or should I count my blessings that they're never in at the beginning?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 09:28 PM

I don't know, GUEST, and I don't care.

Anyway, McGrath, I'm not married to the idea. Just throwing around some possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 09:50 PM

P.S. I'm going off-line for a while so I can't continue this discussion anyway, even though I still find it interesting. But on the subject of the differences between men and women, I'm a believer in reincarnation, so I consider that I've had both male and female lifetimes. And also lifetimes as a member of many different ethnic groups, "races", religions, and nationalities. I don't think any patterns are embedded in the consciousness of a person or a soul. But I think the biological imperitive of motherhood causes a different set of priorities in individuals who have that biological makeup. But I could be wrong. (Although I don't think I am ;-)

Ta for now, all.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 07:43 AM

P.P.S. One last little factoid on the subject of men and women before I have to go of-line...

Ninety-something percent of all violent crime is committed by men. So men use violence more than women (by a huge percentage) even when they're not in positions of power.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 09:25 AM

True enough, and it is quite possible that there are inbuilt tendencies towards violence that are more prevalent in men than in women. But statistics can be misleading, because there are other factors as well as genetics.

For example, if statistics showed that in a particular society members of a particular ethnic group had a relatively greater tendency to commit some offence, or that some nation appears to have a history of aggressive war, it is not valid to assume a genetic explanation.

And modern war isn't so much about people wanting to be violent, but more about people willing to order other people to do things which have violent results. Storming into battle with a fixed bayonet or a blazing gun might appeal to some kind of atavistic blood-lust, but you don't need that to issue orders. And it is clear enough that army training methods are capable of producing women who are capable of acting as efficient and lethal military personnel.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 10:46 AM

mary garvey, what a profoundly wise thought. Undermined in only one trivial detail. Most nations don't happen to have "superior, overwhelming force" at their disposal (maybe they didn't build their wealth on the back of slave labour or something) and the one that does, has not got the slightest interest in good or bad. Only in being the one with most toys at the end of the game.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism
From: toadfrog
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:57 PM

Oh, gee Fionn! I don't know what you and Ms. Garvey are arguing about, and don't particularly care. Very likely I agree with you and not with Mary. But "maybe they didn't build their wealth on the backs of slave labor"?!!! That is truly gratuitous. It is not enlightening. It does not make any particular point. It serves no purpose but to make the other party angry. It lowers my opinion of you.

You often say say stuff like that. It gives the impression that you are mean-spirited and inclined to take cheap shots. Is that the reputation you are aiming for?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 06:40 PM

Not gratuitous at all toadfrog. We live in a world recently dominated by Britain, now dominated by the US, both of which got rich by behaviour we would now regard as criminal. If these countries were moving heaven and earth to restore some balance in the world, fine, but they're trying (successfully in the USA's case) to maintain their ill-gotten advantage. In the circumstances, gloating about "superior overwhelming force" was a crassly unilateral take on a global concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilar Rahola on leftist anti-Semitism
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 04:48 AM

Fionn, states above:

"We live in a world recently dominated by Britain, now dominated by the US, both of which got rich by behaviour we would now regard as criminal." If these countries were moving heaven and earth to restore some balance in the world, fine, but they're trying (successfully in the USA's case) to maintain their ill-gotten advantage."

The phrase, "both of which got rich by behaviour we would now regard as criminal" The "we would now" part is important, at the time they got rich of course it was not regarded as being criminal.

"If these countries were moving heaven and earth to restore some balance in the world, fine, but they're trying (successfully in the USA's case) to maintain their ill-gotten advantage."

Slavery was mentioned, greatest slave traders in the world were the Arabs, the foremost western nation in the fight to abolish the slave trade was Britain. Fionn would like to depict the period of the British Empire as totally evil, an Empire built on conquest and repression. There were of course elements of each, but predominantly, the British Empire was formed on trade, not conquest. If what Fionn would like us to believe was true - I would dearly love to hear what the explanation of how the Commonwealth came into being - it is the second largest international organisation of countries in the world, second only to the United Nations. Unlike the the United Nations, there are no members with special status, everybody has an equal voice. Currently there is a waiting list of countries whose histories have absolutely no connection with Britain, or it's empire, applying for membership.

Fionn also forgets the massive contribution the United States of America has made throughout the world in defending freedom and in alleviating suffering - The Marshal Plan, instigated towards the end of hostilities of the Second World War, basically rebuilt the world - but Fionn gives them no credit for it. Obviously that undeniable truth does not suit his/her arguement, or line of reasoning.