Originally Posted by sew12

Do you even read the rest of the blog? They posted at least one post from the blog that definitely constituted hate speech.

The intention of the group is clearly hateful, intolerant and disgusting. Just taking the title and saying oh all they did was create a group titled Palestine, not Israel is deliberately ignoring the intention for whatever reason. Its clearly a group to spread hatred for Israel and Jewish people or "subhumans" in the words of one of the group members. Hmmm, I seem to remember someone else who had similar feelings on Jews.

The point kind of is that there is further elaboration and even if there wasn't there's obviously a reason they're saying it and its not b/c they think Palestine is a cooler name for the area.

I think you missed what I'm getting at.
First, the notion that we can judge someone by the actions / statements of others in the same group isn't a notion I subscribe to (this refers to your characterisation of the group based on the statements of "one of the group"). There seems to be two fallacies in your argument - one when you first generalized the group from a statement made by a single member, and then when you added this new generalized characteristic to all the other group members. The Hitler inference doesn't do much for the argument either - you've basically taken a theme based on multiple points and then first generalized it to inherently anti-Semitic before making ridiculous inferences towards Nazism. While the single poster may be anti-Semitic, this hardly serves as a point of generalization for the entire 'group' entity, let alone every element within that group!

Second, as far as I'm aware, supporting 'Palestine' over 'Israel', or whatever 'A' cause over 'B' cause, isn't necessarily only due to a single factor. While other supporters may have different causes (in this case, anti-Semitism associated), it follows from the previous point that this is not the case for all the group members. In other words, there's a lot of reasons why someone would support 'A' over 'B' (or 'B' over 'A', whatever) - in this case, there's plenty of reasons that someone could support Palestine over Israel, not just the single reason of anti-Semitism, like you make it seem. This may be a factor in the motivation of certain individuals in the group (eg. the member you referred to), but I hope you do see why it's fallacious to apply this broadly.

Originally Posted by jo87

Since you can't read, it said " It's called Palestine, not Israel"

I would give you an answer too, but I don't really know what your point is...

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I think you missed what I'm getting at.
First, the notion that we can judge someone by the actions / statements of others in the same group isn't a notion I subscribe to (this refers to your characterisation of the group based on the statements of "one of the group"). There seems to be two fallacies in your argument - one when you first generalized the group from a statement made by a single member, and then when you added this new generalized characteristic to all the other group members. The Hitler inference doesn't do much for the argument either - you've basically taken a theme based on multiple points and then first generalized it to inherently anti-Semitic before making ridiculous inferences towards Nazism. While the single poster may be anti-Semitic, this hardly serves as a point of generalization for the entire 'group' entity, let alone every element within that group!

Second, as far as I'm aware, supporting 'Palestine' over 'Israel', or whatever 'A' cause over 'B' cause, isn't necessarily only due to a single factor. While other supporters may have different causes (in this case, anti-Semitism associated), it follows from the previous point that this is not the case for all the group members. In other words, there's a lot of reasons why someone would support 'A' over 'B' (or 'B' over 'A', whatever) - in this case, there's plenty of reasons that someone could support Palestine over Israel, not just the single reason of anti-Semitism, like you make it seem. This may be a factor in the motivation of certain individuals in the group (eg. the member you referred to), but I hope you do see why it's fallacious to apply this broadly.



I would give you an answer too, but I don't really know what your point is...

If you join a group called I hate Jews and you don't but someone else in the group does post a hateful rant against Jews I'm going to assume you share similar feelings.

You're completely and possibly deliberately ignoring the intention of the group altogether. The fact that she is a member is very important regardless of whether or not the hateful post made was by her or not. Also according to the blog it sounds like she created the group, I'm not sure if that's correct but that's the way it sounds.

Personally I don't care why she supports the idea of Palestine over Israel, its hateful and it makes her just as bad as what is being condemned. Its hypocritical. People get away with being overtly anti-Semitic under the guise of supporting Palestine and its disgusting. Here were are condemning Ann Coulter for her remarks on Muslims but somehow its okay for anti-Israel sentiments to be spread around b/c they might have reasons to support them. I'm pretty sure sensationalist ******* Ann Coulter's larger justification for her remarks in this case is terrorism but the fact that terrorism is perpetrated by some Muslims doesn't make it okay for her to make these kind of remarks about Muslims. In the same way its not okay to be hateful towards all Israelis and Jews b/c of your issues with certain conflicts.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I would give you an answer too, but I don't really know what your point is...

My point is that you can't read.

Originally Posted by sew12

Personally I don't care why she supports the idea of Palestine over Israel, its hateful and it makes her just as bad as what is being condemned. Its hypocritical. People get away with being overtly anti-Semitic under the guise of supporting Palestine and its disgusting.

You do know that before Israel was Israel, it was Palestine, right? Im sure there are more than a few members in all the Israel-Palestine groups (yes, there are all kinds of them) who joined the groups because they want their country's name back, not because they're anti-semitic. Yes, I know many people in the groups are gonna have deep seeded hate for Israelis, but stop saying that the group is hateful just because it exists. There are many reasons people join these groups, and not all of them do because they're racists.

Originally Posted by sew12

If you join a group called I hate Jews and you don't but someone else in the group does post a hateful rant against Jews I'm going to assume you share similar feelings.

Indeed - that's explicit, though, isn't it? You're (or the blog article you're sourcing is) interpreting this group to have thought 'x,y,z' - but then you're skipping a whole ton of steps in your deduction. You're basically going "Palestine over Israel" + "hateful poster" ----> "anti-Semitic group". There's the problem.

You're completely and possibly deliberately ignoring the intention of the group altogether. The fact that she is a member is very important regardless of whether or not the hateful post made was by her or not. Also according to the blog it sounds like she created the group, I'm not sure if that's correct but that's the way it sounds.

Right. Since I was only going off what I read in the article, I decided to actually go to facebook and check out this supposedly 'hateful', 'anti-Semitic' group. Yes, there is a possibly offensive image of a Palestinian flag check-marked and an Israeli flag crossed out - does this make the page 'hateful', 'racist', and 'anti-Semitic'? Other than that, the description is "People think that it is called Israel, but called Palestine and it will always do". Again - what's so hateful and anti-Semitic about that?

First - I don't think you have considered the possible biases of the blog. Basing your entire argument off an obviously biased source doesn't give your argument much credibility.

Personally I don't care why she supports the idea of Palestine over Israel, its hateful and it makes her just as bad as what is being condemned. Its hypocritical. People get away with being overtly anti-Semitic under the guise of supporting Palestine and its disgusting. Here were are condemning Ann Coulter for her remarks on Muslims but somehow its okay for anti-Israel sentiments to be spread around b/c they might have reasons to support them.

Sorry, but I don't follow. As far as I'm aware, 'Palestine' and 'Israel' are not synonymous with 'Islam' and 'Judaism'. I don't see why support of Palestine is immediately equated with anti-Semitism.
As for the second part - I once again don't see how you can liken one to the other. There's a pretty big difference between "I support one political / national entity over the other" and outright 'racism' against a particular community.

Personally, while I too support Israel's right to exist, I also support the freedom of speech and criticism towards any national entity. It looks like you're (maybe deliberately) amalgamating 'Israel' and 'Judaism', while they are entirely seperate issues - one overlaps with the other in Zionism, but not much else...

Let's put forward an alternate scenario. If I went and created a facebook group called "it's called Persia, not Iran", would you be saying the same? I doubt it, because you haven't forced the face of a religion onto a county in that case (or religions onto two entities), so I doubt you would call me anti-Muslim and turn it into a Muslim-Zoroastrian issue (keep in mind this is hypothetical).

I'm pretty sure sensationalist ******* Ann Coulter's larger justification for her remarks in this case is terrorism but the fact that terrorism is perpetrated by some Muslims doesn't make it okay for her to make these kind of remarks about Muslims. In the same way its not okay to be hateful towards all Israelis and Jews b/c of your issues with certain conflicts.

Again, you seem to be speaking in vague generalities. There's a huge logical gap between 'supporting one state over another' and 'being hateful towards everyone in the unsupported state', let alone 'being hateful towards everyone of a religion that is loosely associated with the unsupported state'. By your deductions, these are hardly comparable situations.

obviously free speech doesn't mean being able to be racist to people in canada, that violates their own rights. it's not like we'd let hitler give a speech at McMaster.

Originally Posted by jo87

My point is that you can't read.

It obviously wasn't an issue, so I don't understand why you're trying to make it one.

Would anyone go to see her at Mac?

I probably would. Not because I agree with her but because I think it would be interesting to listen too. I prefer to listen/read/watch things that I don't necessarily agree with because I prefer to understand the opposing sides viewpoints no matter how outrageous they are. It would also be much more interesting then a preaching to the choir type speaker, those are just boring.

I would because I like riots. ;D

and/or starting them.

Originally Posted by Goce

Would anyone go to see her at Mac?

I definitely would not.

Not because I do not agree with her, but because I become extremely uncomfortable when radicals in the crowd allow passions to overtake logic and start shouting and screaming and harassing the speaker or other audience members.

I went to go see Gwyn Dyer speak a few months ago, and during the Q/A part of the speech, some very passionate individuals I can only assume were pro-Israeli took issue with his commentary on the situation. They began making a fuss and one women stormed out, disrupting the entire evening for everyone.

I do not believe that is civil discourse...I believe engaging in those actions is selfish, petty and uneducated. Use emotions in your arguments, but do not show someone conducting a lecture that little respect. It is painfully ignorant.

No doubt the same lack of respect would be shown to Ms. Coulter were she to come here.

I wouldn't just b/c I don't like to waste my time listening to idiots like her spew their crap.

I would also oppose her speaking here, but I wouldn't get violent about it.

I agree with c.erl though, if you're going to go to a speaking engagement don't be an ******* just b/c you disagree. Either speak up and try and engage them in a rational debate or don't go in the first place. I don't want to see Ann Coulter speak but I wouldn't go see her speak just to cause a fuss or storm out or whatever.

I don't think Ann Coulter has earned respect but it makes you an ******* to to deliberately disrespect her.

Right but the key point to what yuo're saying is "try engaging them in rational debate."

There isn't anything rational about Ann Coulter.

(ps im lyk kleerly unejukaetd)

Originally Posted by Goce

Would anyone go to see her at Mac?

Definitely. Theres nothing more amusing than a single person pissing off thousands, especially when the thousands are doing exactly what she wants by giving her attention, then call her an idiot, when they've done nothing but what she wants them to do in the first place. She's like a real life troll with many for her, and many against her. Like a racist, blonde Boxxy. Though Im sure many people would say Boxxy is more intelligent and less annoying

Realistically, I probably wouldn't go see her. Every time I want to see a speaker at Mac, something happens where I can't make it. >.<

I would like to see her though, if everything worked out.