Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't have to offer up editorial comment at the time.
If it would offer up a comment for a White Nationalist full page ad, which it would assuming that the ad would be printed at all, then it does have to offer an editorial comment at the time of the Jewish ethnonationalist ad if it does not want to be viewed as hypocritical.
Quote:
It presented an argument.
An argument that is considered beyond the pale for other groups. Hence, the double standard.
Quote:
David Duke's positions are also arguments.
The NYT has no obligation to give them equal time.
No formal obligation. But it has a social obligation should it not want to be seen as hypocritical. Thus, the NYT is hypocritical on this issue and, thus, without a moral platform to critique it.
Quote:
However, Mr Duke is free to purchase advertising space if he can afford it.
I doubt it.
Quote:
As for the Israeli/Palestinian situation, it's not race driven. The desire to maintain a majority in Israel is about security, not about race.
Again, read the advertisement. Security was not the offered reasoning for Jewish desire for a Jewish majority.
The ad clearly made its case based on population percentages, and the resultant 'loss of the Jewish Dream'.
It states:
Quote:
"No separation today means a Palestinian majority by 2020".
It further states:
Quote:
According to a recent poll, 97% of Israeli Jews wantto live in a Jewish state.
It then went on to make the point that a bi-national state, one that is half Arab and half Jewish, will mean:
Quote:
"the dream of a Jewish state will be lost".
the article then goes on to state:
Quote:
"Separation today means a Jewish majority State of Israel now and for generations ahead"
This is not an argument from security, but from ethno-nationalism. This is clear and not debatable given the arguments presented in the advertisement.
Quote:
Which is why your argument is silly.
It's your desperate spin that is silly.
You know, a major tactical folly of your side is to always think that things require a response, no matter how utterly factual or concrete they are in their evidence and conclusion.
These desperate, counter-factual responses make it look like you will attempt to lie your way out of anything, which damages any position that you take on every other relevant topic.
Quote:
Because you don't see the distinctions, and because, more importantly, you don't want to.
What distinctions? I've read the ad. It doesn't seem like you have.
Quote:
And you don't even see the irony of your posts, that you are trying to take to task the NYT on its morality, while you are defending bigotry.
That's funny. Truly. On multiple counts.
On the first count:
Applying your standard, you're defending the "bigotry" of a Jewish ethno-nationalist state.
You make a weak plea to "security", but that argument is nullified by the advertisement. And really, the entire world knows that the Jewish justification for ethnic separation is not security. The world knows that its an attempt to frame themselves as victims to justify chauvinism. As the advertisement makes that clear. Your security argument is tired, weak, and old. And nullified by the advertisement.
On the second count:
A second irony is that you attempted to take me to task for supposedly not seeing distinctions, but you then fail to properly reiterate the frame of my original post on this topic. I took the NYT to task for a lack of moral consistency, and thus its lack of moral platform, not on any objective morality that it is defending. Simply, it does not consistently defend any moral system. It merely furthers agendas. It is not immoral, but amoral. See the distinction?
This is problematic because all modern politics is built on the pretense of an objective moral foundation. Without such a foundation, then the justification for any brand of politics erodes.
It is problematic for the NYT, and newspapers like it, because they are the front line of globalist politics.
This conversation has the potential to go down a bad path. I suggest that it ends here.
If it would offer up a comment for a White Nationalist full page ad, which it would assuming that the ad would be printed at all, then it does have to offer an editorial comment at the time of the Jewish ethnonationalist ad if it does not want to be viewed as hypocritical.
The old hypothetical if argument. When a White Nationalist full page ad is taken out, get back to us.
An argument that is considered beyond the pale for other groups. Hence, the double standard.
An argument for security is not considered beyond the pale.
No formal obligation. But it has a social obligation should it not want to be seen as hypocritical. Thus, the NYT is hypocritical on this issue and, thus, without a moral platform to critique it.
YOUR argument about a social obligation is just spin.
I doubt it.
Again, read the advertisement. Security was not the offered reasoning for Jewish desire for a Jewish majority.
They didn't delve into the reasoning for the Jewish desire for a Jewish majority because they didn't need to. It's a country surrounded by enemies, where security is ALWAYS a primary concern.
The ad clearly made its case based on population percentages, and the resultant 'loss of the Jewish Dream'.
The "Jewish Dream" is always at risk in that part of the world because Israel is surrounded by enemies.
It states:
It further states:
It then went on to make the point that a bi-national state, one that is half Arab and half Jewish, will mean:
the article then goes on to state:
This is not an argument from security, but from ethno-nationalism. This is clear and not debatable given the arguments presented in the advertisement.
This is your opinion. It is most certainly debatable. Since your perspective is informed by bigotry, and not by the reality that the Jewish people of Israel are dealing with, that their enemies would like to wipe them off the face of the earth. That the Holocaust was real and shows that genocide against the Jewish people is possible.
It's your desperate spin that is silly.
Methinks the desperate label is misapplied by you. Look how desperately you ignore the facts that don't suit you.
You know, a major tactical folly of your side is to always think that things require a response, no matter how utterly factual or concrete they are in their evidence and conclusion.
LOL.
These desperate, counter-factual responses make it look like you will attempt to lie your way out of anything, which damages any position that you take on every other relevant topic.
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL...
What distinctions? I've read the ad. It doesn't seem like you have.
That's funny. Truly. On multiple counts.
I know, I'm laughing out loud. Not only do you fail in your arguments, but you turn to personal attacks. Desperate, much?
On the first count:
Applying your standard, you're defending the "bigotry" of a Jewish ethno-nationalist state.
Actually, no, I didn't defend the ad at all. But that went right over your head. And you decided to wage a personal attack. Desperate, much?
You make a weak plea to "security", but that argument is nullified by the advertisement. And really, the entire world knows that the Jewish justification for ethnic separation is not security. The world knows that its an attempt to frame themselves as victims to justify chauvinism. As the advertisement makes that clear. Your security argument is tired, weak, and old. And nullified by the advertisement.
YOUR entire world. The one colored by its own bigotry?
On the second count:
A second irony is that you attempted to take me to task for supposedly not seeing distinctions, but you then fail to properly reiterate the frame of my original post on this topic. I took the NYT to task for a lack of moral consistency, and thus its lack of moral platform, not on any objective morality that it is defending. Simply, it does not consistently defend any moral system. It merely furthers agendas. It is not immoral, but amoral. See the distinction?
YOU argued from YOUR moral high ground (the moral high ground of bigotry--how twisted is that?) that the NYT is immoral. I apprehended this perfectly.
This is problematic because all modern politics is built on the pretense of an objective moral foundation. Without such a foundation, then the justification for any brand of politics erodes.
It is problematic for the NYT, and newspapers like it, because they are the front line of globalist politics.
This conversation has the potential to go down a bad path. I suggest that it ends here.
While this conversation will most certainly go down a bad path, your suggestion is ridiculous. You attack someone and then tell them not to respond. And you think that's an intelligent proposal?
Please review the definition of "white supremacist". There's nothing supremacist about that. It's a wimpy formulation, but it is true that culture comes from the people who create it as a product of their genes. People with different genes producing different cultures will change our culture if they come here.
Yes, this is nothing new. It's been happening since the founding of this nation. Culture changes. The paranoid posters here are getting silly with their racist rhetoric and delusions of how great they are for simply being white. Other whites and people of color are passing you guys by. Change is the only constant.
While this conversation will most certainly go down a bad path, your suggestion is ridiculous. You attack someone and then tell them not to respond. And you think that's an intelligent proposal?
It was just a suggestion, with thread life and forum decorum in mind.
I wasn't attacking you, I was debating you; using mostly the terms with which you were debating me.
My suggestion has been rejected. Noted. By all means, please continue.
For fun, next I think that I'll replace the text of the ad, wherever it says "Jewish", with either "White", or maybe "German", and see how that reads.
We can then envision what the media / NYT response would have been to such an ad. After all, there is no double standard; right?
Or maybe another forum member will be kind enough to do it for me. The result should be interesting.
People will do anything to make sure that their pure bred dog or horse or rabbit or goat maintains a pure bloodline, but dont give a second thought to their own children!
This guy loves riding that racial line, doesn't he? And why is he chiming in on an election in another country to boot when he's an American elected official?
"All whites are racists and everything is racism." Anyone else sick of that mentality? I know I am.
Imagine for a moment that a black man or woman who is an elected official from the UK points to abortion rate and murder rate among black Americans, and point out that "black Americans are exterminating themselves." Is that racist? Or does it represent a legitimate concern? Would you be offended and say, "You have no right to say anything on the matter!"?
The birth-rate for all westerners (the man never said "white") is at an all-time low. At present, it is below replacement levels. So it is fair to say that westerners of all colors currently are breeding themselves out of existence. Meanwhile, Africans and Muslims have an extraordinarily high birth rate. With the influx of Muslims and Africans into Europe and the extremely low birth-rate of ethnic Europeans, it won't take very long for white Europeans to be in the minority. Will a Muslim majority institute Sharia Law and toss the values and culture of Europe in the garbage? It's a distinct possibility. So the statement that, “We Can’t Restore Our Civilization With Somebody Else’s Babies” seems pretty factual to me. European civilization is well on it's way to being replaced. Does that make the man a racist? Compare to the prior example. It isn't racist to discuss black America's self destruction. So why is it racist to discuss white Europe's self destruction?
Will a Muslim majority institute Sharia Law and toss the values and culture of Europe in the garbage? It's a distinct possibility. So the statement that, “We Can’t Restore Our Civilization With Somebody Else’s Babies” seems pretty factual to me. European civilization is well on it's way to being replaced.
A Muslim majority in the United States is unlikely, and even if it came to pass, the Constitution of the United States prevents Muslims from instituting Sharia Law.
As for the statement, "We can't restore our civilization", that's true. We can't go backwards in time. More importantly, we don't want to. And culture is something that is constantly evolving. A stagnant culture is a BAD thing.
It's pretty obvious what he meant. Modern western nations decline the more they let "certain" cultures into their borders. It's true, whether it sounds "nice" or not. One would have to be blind to not see how Europe has begun to decline due to their love affair with muslims.
It's pretty obvious what he meant. Modern western nations decline the more they let "certain" cultures into their borders. It's true, whether it sounds "nice" or not. One would have to be blind to not see how Europe has begun to decline due to their love affair with muslims.
While the cultures of the world are constantly evolving, I think characterizing them as in "decline" is a matter of perspective. I understand that increased crime could be considered a sign of "decline", and that that is probably where you are coming from. However, urbanization is often marked by a rise in crime. More people equal more crime, and, of course, immigrants do bring different cultures, and cultural clashes do occur. On the other hand, the different cultures introduce people to different perspectives, different ways of thinking, different ways of doing things, and this can enrich a culture tremendously.
America cannot and will not go back to the 1950's. No amount of wishing will make that happen.
While the cultures of the world are constantly evolving, I think characterizing them as in "decline" is a matter of perspective. I understand that increased crime could be considered a sign of "decline", and that that is probably where you are coming from. However, urbanization is often marked by a rise in crime. More people equal more crime, and, of course, immigrants do bring different cultures, and cultural clashes do occur. On the other hand, the different cultures introduce people to different perspectives, different ways of thinking, different ways of doing things, and this can enrich a culture tremendously.
America cannot and will not go back to the 1950's. No amount of wishing will make that happen.
No doubt that we cannot go back. "Perspective" seems to be a way to sugarcoat that certain groups (muslims) simply will not assimilate, and will use violence to get their way. Orientals and Cubans do not cause these problems and subsequent declines, but crazy and angry muslims sure do. Let the Islamic countries solve their own problems- we need to stay out of their business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
