Re: just checking...

> If it is to be a battle of experts I'll take my experts.

>"You have your Jews and I have mine," eh?  Well obviously that just begs
the question; it's an extension of that old fallacy, the appeal to
authority.  And it exposes the reason *why* that fallacy is, in fact, a
fallacy: we can always choose the "authorities" that appeal to us.<

No, it isn't.  You have no higher claim to say that it was offensive than I 
do.  And from what you have presented so far your claim is inferior to mine, 
I have presented objective facts that there are those, with standing, that 
say it should not be found offensive and that it is ridiculous to claim it 
is offensive.  Just who are the offensive/insensitive police and why do I or 
anyone else have to obey them?


>In any case, my argument has no need of "experts".  Everyone agrees what
the term originally meant.  The only point of disagreement now is over
whether the term is offensive *today*, and in *this context*.  And it is
an objective fact that, yes, to some people, it is.<

You haven't demonstrated that it is offensive to anyone.  Unless you think 
saying it repeatedly proves it.  And lets assume you can drag out someone 
who finds it offensive - do you hold that standard for everything you say - 
IOW, I'm sure you can find someone who thinks something is offensive.  So 
what?  People find all kinds of movies, tv shows, books, etc offensive, and 
there is historical evidence that some of the conduct portrayed in those 
mediums was considered taboo, wrong, evil, etc.  But so what.

Ha.  I have more evidence.  Offensive my largess ass.  This blood libel 
nonsense is manufactured outrage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html

That article is dated 1/10/2011 with "blood libel" in the headlines, in fact 
I'll bet that's where she got the term from.    A headline in a column two 
days before Palin made her speech and where's the outrage.  Apparently, it 
only becomes outrageous when Palin says it.

You haven't even demonstrated that the term was offensive historically - all 
you can show is that the *act* of creating a blood libel was offensive, not 
the term.  Unless of course you are saying that that term can *only* be used 
if you are Jewish and claiming that some one is accusing you of killing 
their children to use the blood for your matzahs..

Are you really trying to keep us captive to history?  Sure we can learn from 
it but I'm not going to live in it and I'm afraid I don't see where you get 
off expecting me or anybody else to do just that.


> I'm not sure how to explain it any better than that if you don't agree
> that the credibility of one making claims goes to the veracity of the
> claims.

>More of that appeal-to-authority fallacy.  We don't need to appeal to the
credibility of others when we can check the facts for ourselves. <

I'd be glad to check you facts when you present some on this issue.

Mike F.





-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot 


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot