you talk sense pure
but some have closed minds
have fixed thoughts..they would rather die
than admit the dont know..or worse admit..they believed the lie

good thing deebait is done by opposing parties
all to often..those on the same side are more divided

anyhow again fraud science raised its head last night
but to try to point that our..or worse correct it
is floging a dead horse

as i fear the moderator
has left the room

couldnt face the thought
that fruited from his one anz thought

left without a zac
all the right answers
but not asking..the right question's
for the wisdom of pre digested thought..to supply a reply

Dear Poirot,

I appreciate your attempt at peacemaking. You wrote: “Here's the perfect opportunity to challenge exactly that human behaviour which separates us and leads to enmity.”

Better not to have enemies and live in peace. Hopefully we can live in peace with our enenies. One way is by being separate. Sometimes it is impossible to avoid confrontation. Then one must either fight or find some way to avoid fighting. That is not the case here.

Squeers maintains that Marx was not an antisemite. We have both read "On the Jewish Question" which Marx wrote. I don't see how one can deny the antisemitism of the man who wrote it. Yet Squeers does. I see no point in further discussion of the matter.

I object to being characterised as having bigotry. I don't want to call names in return, get an apology or get more explanation from Squeers justifying his comments. I just want to end my part of the discussion. That is what I did. It is also bigotry to deny prejudice when it exists.

I realise that Squeers is frustrated when he called names. How could someone see things so differently from the way he does? Yet I do. How could someone see things so differently from the way I do? Yet he does.

I would rather have Squeers as a friend. However, I accept that I probably cannot.

Sure we have differences. I no longer wish to explore that particular difference or discuss it since I don’t see that it can be resolved or that it has to be resolved.

I see hope for the end of war in avoiding conflict. Let us live in peace with those with whom we disagree. Let us avoid discussion where there is little chance for agreement or necessity for agreement. I hate the slanging matches in the Australian Parliament.

You mentioned rhetoric or action. I don’t want to produce more rhetoric. The only action I want is to remove myself from this conflict. I prefer to do other things with my time.

I wish all in this discussion well.

davidf,
I apologise for giving offence. I was rather blunt. I agree that it seems futile arguing these points as in any case the matter could not possibly be resolved one way or the other in the space allotted here or the time available probably to either of us. I only urge that antisemitism is a relative term in history and has degrees of virulence at any time.
I hope we can continue to discuss other subjects in future as I value and mostly agree with the things you say.

David f.,

I accept that you do not relish being characterised other than you see yourself.

You complained that Squeers attacked you as a person and , therefore, you had no further wish to engage with him further.

I noted in preceding posts, however, that you had no compunction in characterising Marx in terms which you object being turned upon yourself.

"....my recognition of Marx for the bigot he was..."

"He was a horrible anti-Semite."

"His bigotry was not confined to the Jews."

Do you believe we should then employ a different principle for those at an historical remove - or should we employ "one" principle to govern all discourse where defining someone's character in an unfavourable manner is likely to lead to enmity?

i blog to pass the time
before finding 'blogging'..i was an activist
before that i read books...[while listening to radio..and tv..at the same time]

i love science..knowledge..
when i found much that pases as science was fraud
and activism [protes]..dont work..and media was full of spin.lies

i began reading the so called holy texts
[of all the tribes]...soon found that was filled with lies as well

no doudt david has walked a simular path
but not come to the same conclusions

so im wondering why we bother to post
is it to make some point...debait that we believe
express..or impress..

in short im confused
about just what others are doing here

what is belief..that is faulse
or what is belief..that is in a fixed mind
or is stuck in the past glories..or past misseries

we can all agree marx and lennon and hitler
pol pot/idi amin/and obami bin larden are vile
that they diss-credit anything they claimed to believe in

just as blind deaf and dumb religeonists make dumb wars
when carefull reading of them reveals they were trying to bring peace

we get the same delusions..in armed forces
suggest to them that they are the problem
they say..but were only killing raping
murdering bombing civilians..killing kids

..destroying towns cities
whole civilisations..
to bring peace

its funny how david was just fine
argueing about that nasty marxism
but when i revealed the ABSURDITY*..of

energy=mass[weight]..times the speed of light
[times the speed of light]..to wit a enegy unit is what
a jule..a horse-power..a watt..in short its a loose thing[spin]
sold to ignorants

as a mantra..to hypnotize the great unwashed..
into taking their next mercury laced vacination
that will dumb them down..[or make them even more docile]

so the war monger-als
can make more war

murder the next...'jew'
be they arab..or smokers..or whatever
you either say all war is wrong..or take the blue pill

if you take the ignorant pill
its hard to see what good posting lies can do..to end the wrongs

we are all children'of the one god
live with.it..or prove those lot..arnt gods own..neither

OUG:

"we can all agree marx and lennon and hitler
pol pot/idi amin/and obami bin larden are vile
that they diss-credit anything they claimed to believe in"

OUG,
I don't agree. I fail to see how you can associate Marx and John Lennon with the others.

And OUG,
I wish you would substantiate the claims that you insist with such conviction. I'm still waiting for a single thread of logic or shred of evidence that might make your religious claims, for instance, look like more than eccentricity.

On science, I don't accuse it of deliberate fraud, only of naive complicity in the maintenance of the status quo, the same fault I find with religion and indeed all the institutions.