Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3 (since 2012-11-21 01:56:49)

worried we're doomed

Showing comments 3 - 1

  • 'Why I am a Zionist'
    • Name a more obscene privilege than forcing people to endure your slaughter of them until your conscience has awakened, assuming you have one. Your point is that any just solution must be conditioned on these privileged people–who, at best, have falsely and obscenely drawn a moral equivalence between their professed anxiety, on the one hand, and the interest of Palestinians in not being slaughtered, on the other–coming to some new sensibility. I can think of other ways to accomplish a just solution, and they don't require soul chats with deeply bigoted, narcissistic, sociopathic, imperialists.

  • 'Forward' editor says Presbyterian vote was anti-Semitic
    • Do the anti-PCUSA posters here really not get it, or are they just pretending not to get it? Eisner is clearly arguing in bad faith, and I suspect the same holds true for many of the former.

      PCUSA has accused Israel of specific wrongs. But rather than squarely address the issues PCUSA has presented, Eisner attempts to evade them entirely, by countering with a completely unrelated accusation–PCUSA’s alleged bias–which Eisner necessarily implies is MORE deserving of examination than anything the PCUSA has raised.

      Which begs the question: does Eisner ever provide evidence that would justify such a prioritization, beyond the emotional appeal of her position? Emphatically, no. Furthermore, her argument has no persuasive force except to the extent we, her audience, accept her invitation to engage in a logical fallacy, namely, that she has established, without evidence, the superior priority of her accusation. And that's bad faith.

      You'd have to think at some point Eisner's argument would prove self-defeating. Those who invoke moral norms to imply the superiority of their position presuppose we're all living in a moral universe. But Eisner's whataboutery lives in another universe entirely, that of moral relativism, where claims of moral superiority are as useful as a belief in magic.

  • Yes the Palestinians got 'screwed' -- John Judis defends vernacular at Museum of Jewish Heritage
    • Assuming you've quoted Gribetz accurately, his desperation is as apparent as his contempt for your intelligence, given the depth he was willing to go in bullshitting you.

      As any first year law student can tell you, the traditional view is that land is NOT fungible, and it is precisely because of this that the law provides for special remedies (i.e., beyond the payment of money) in disputes over land, including, as he well knows, the remedy of "specific performance".

      In most lawsuits, courts attempts to figure out the dollar value (called "damages") of the claimed injury. But in a minority of cases the law recognizes that damages alone would be an inadequate remedy, because the injury can't readily be ascertained or expressed as a dollar value. Breached contracts for the sale of land are a famous example. A jilted buyer who's awarded specific performance gets a court order that forces the seller to turn over title to the property, in addition to any money the court might also award.

      The point is, Gribetz knows all this, but apparently thought he could pull one over on you. Next time you see him, you might ask him to name the parcels under Israeli control that he doesn't consider "fungible" (if the question throws him into a stupor, try gently singing "Location, Location, Location"; that should bring him around). And please tell him we look forward to his answer.

Showing comments 3 - 1