FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-20-2003, 02:54 AM   #11
Jat
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by echidna
From here,

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...828440535.html Much as I dislike him & disagree with the Israeli policy of settlement, I think it is quite politically courageous of Sharon to take on the settlers. This one is only testing the water & likely it's going to get much much worse.
Aren't most of the Settlements being dismantled ones which haven't been finished yet with no one living there?
Jat is offline  
Old 06-20-2003, 02:55 AM   #12
Jat
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Earlier you said that she was crushed because she wasn't visible to the bulldozer driver. The dozer is high, and has a bucket or a shovel in front, blocking her way.

Now you're suggesting that if she had sat down in the path of the dozer, she would have lived. Even though she would have been even less visible, due to being a smaller 'target' and closer to the ground.

Care to explain/backpedal this inconsistency?

And while you're at it, explain why sitting down should be a "safety zone" but standing up in front a dozer makes the peace activist fair game?
That's easy to explain, he's an apologist.
Jat is offline  
Old 06-20-2003, 02:44 PM   #13
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Not Mayaned
Posts: 96,752
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Earlier you said that she was crushed because she wasn't visible to the bulldozer driver. The dozer is high, and has a bucket or a shovel in front, blocking her way.

Now you're suggesting that if she had sat down in the path of the dozer, she would have lived. Even though she would have been even less visible, due to being a smaller 'target' and closer to the ground.

Care to explain/backpedal this inconsistency?

And while you're at it, explain why sitting down should be a "safety zone" but standing up in front a dozer makes the peace activist fair game?
She got run over because she fell where the driver couldn't see her--he thought she had jumped clear in their game of chicken. Thus the proper comparison is sitting vs laying down.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old 06-20-2003, 02:48 PM   #14
Jat
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
She got run over because she fell where the driver couldn't see her--he thought she had jumped clear in their game of chicken. Thus the proper comparison is sitting vs laying down.
What do the witnesses say, or does their account matter?
Jat is offline  
Old 06-20-2003, 04:20 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,194
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
She got run over because she fell where the driver couldn't see her--he thought she had jumped clear in their game of chicken. Thus the proper comparison is sitting vs laying down.
Loren,

Have you ever watched the everyday occurance of a large trucks carrying materials being offloaded? This happens at millions of industrial sites around the world daily and is in the majority of cases accomplished with a men on the ground waving red flags at people and checking blind spots.

Such caution is routine in everyday civilian situations and you don't think greater caution should be exercised in an explosive operation where there are protestors opposed to what you are doing? Please!

Also, I notice you fail to respond when it is quite rightly pointed out that you would have to explain why it is practical that the utmost respect and care for Isreali settlers should be exercised, but exercising such care would, to paraphrase your own arguments, "make implimenting government policy impossible and be impractical" where Palestinians and foreign protestors are concerned.

Your stubborn arguments on this topic are starting to look tired, desperate and weak.
Farren is offline  
Old 06-20-2003, 04:35 PM   #16
Jat
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Farren
Loren,

Have you ever watched the everyday occurance of a large trucks carrying materials being offloaded? This happens at millions of industrial sites around the world daily and is in the majority of cases accomplished with a men on the ground waving red flags at people and checking blind spots.

Such caution is routine in everyday civilian situations and you don't think greater caution should be exercised in an explosive operation where there are protestors opposed to what you are doing? Please!

Also, I notice you fail to respond when it is quite rightly pointed out that you would have to explain why it is practical that the utmost respect and care for Isreali settlers should be exercised, but exercising such care would, to paraphrase your own arguments, "make implimenting government policy impossible and be impractical" where Palestinians and foreign protestors are concerned.

Your stubborn arguments on this topic are starting to look tired, desperate and weak.
What do you expect, he's an apologist and you'll never get a straight answer out of them.
Jat is offline  
Old 06-20-2003, 06:04 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,589
Default

I doubt that anyone knows for certain whether she was run over (or whatever) on purpose. Perhaps it was purposeful, but unless there is an outbreak of protesters being crushed, I don't see how you can really feel confident about this. If you go running around in front of operating heavy machinery, something bad can happen. Truthfully, I was quite sickened by the situation, but we really don't know and probably never will. I doubt it was an order sent down from Sharon himself in any event.

Loren's point was that if she had been sitting down (preferably with many others for it to be effective) in a peaceful protest situation, there is no way the machine would have just nonchalantly run her over. It was her "game" of standing and moving around that made it so dangerous. That's not a moral judgement, just common sense.
Buddrow_Wilson is offline  
Old 06-20-2003, 06:34 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,194
Default

Buddrow the kind of lapses you describe around heavy machinery happen in environments where people constantly work with it and have become blase about it.

To make a case that these kind of industrial analogous to an extremely tense and volatile situation, where armed troops are present and everyones keeping a sharp eye on everyone else, is ludicrous in the least.

Its been pointed out to Loren time and again that its the standard practice of other more civilised nations to adopt tactics like moving in with riot gear and literally picking people up and moving them if you really want to enforce imflammatory policies.

Its inconceivable that this would have happened in say England, where "common land" protestors were chaining themselves to trees to be chopped down, or Germany, where squatters refused to leave house to be demolished, and to the best of my knowledge, it never has.

Sorry, weak excuses. And I have to agree with Jat. I have never once, ever, seen Loren concede a point on these fora. So I have little faith that these arguments are actually being considered
Farren is offline  
Old 06-20-2003, 08:16 PM   #19
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Not Mayaned
Posts: 96,752
Default

Originally posted by Farren
Loren,

Have you ever watched the everyday occurance of a large trucks carrying materials being offloaded? This happens at millions of industrial sites around the world daily and is in the majority of cases accomplished with a men on the ground waving red flags at people and checking blind spots.

Such caution is routine in everyday civilian situations and you don't think greater caution should be exercised in an explosive operation where there are protestors opposed to what you are doing? Please!


But such people would be very vulnerable to Palestinian fire. What would be trivial otherwise can become a big deal when facing enemy fire.

Also, I notice you fail to respond when it is quite rightly pointed out that you would have to explain why it is practical that the utmost respect and care for Isreali settlers should be exercised, but exercising such care would, to paraphrase your own arguments, "make implimenting government policy impossible and be impractical" where Palestinians and foreign protestors are concerned.

The Israeli settlers weren't going to shoot the soldiers.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old 06-20-2003, 08:17 PM   #20
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Not Mayaned
Posts: 96,752
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson

Loren's point was that if she had been sitting down (preferably with many others for it to be effective) in a peaceful protest situation, there is no way the machine would have just nonchalantly run her over. It was her "game" of standing and moving around that made it so dangerous. That's not a moral judgement, just common sense.
Exactly!
Loren Pechtel is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:51 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.