Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

Expand Messages
  • Stephan Pickering
    23 September 2011 CE / 24 Elul 5771  Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered the following remarks to U.N. this afternoon, focusing primarily on
    Message 1 of 22 , Sep 23, 2011
      23 September 2011 CE / 24 Elul 5771 

      Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered the following remarks to U.N. this afternoon, focusing primarily on the Palestinians' statehood bid:

      PRIME MIN. NETANYAHU: Thank you, Mr. President. 

      Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. On behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, I extend that hand again today. I extend it to the people of Egypt and Jordan, with renewed friendship for neighbors with whom we have made peace. I extend it to the people of Turkey, with respect and good will. I extend it to the people of Libya and Tunisia, with admiration for those trying to build a democratic future. I extend it to the other peoples of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, with whom we want to forge a new beginning. I extend it to the people of Syria, Lebanon and Iran, with awe at the courage of those fighting brutal repression. 

      But most especially, I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace. (Applause.)

      Ladies and gentlemen, in Israel our hope for peace never wanes. Our scientists, doctors, innovators, apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers, enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland -- it was then that this was braided -- branded, rather -- shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn't praised; it was denounced! And it's here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It's singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel -- the one true democracy in the Middle East.

      Well, this is an unfortunate part of the U.N. institution. It's the -- the theater of the absurd. It doesn't only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi's Libya chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; Saddam's Iraq headed the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.

      You might say: That's the past. Well, here's what's happening now -- right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world's security.

      You couldn't make this thing up.

      So here in the U.N., automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide -- they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.

      And yet even here in the General Assembly, the truth can sometimes break through. In 1984 when I was appointed Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubavich. He said to me -- and ladies and gentlemen, I don't want any of you to be offended because from personal experience of serving here, I know there are many honorable men and women, many capable and decent people serving their nations here. But here's what the rebbe said to me. He said to me, you'll be serving in a house of many lies. And then he said, remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide.

      Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel's prime minister, I didn't come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth. (Cheers, applause.) The truth is -- the truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through U.N. resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn't let that happen.

      Ladies and gentlemen, when I first came here 27 years ago, the world was divided between East and West. Since then the Cold War ended, great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, countless more are poised to follow, and the remarkable thing is that so far this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.

      That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have.(Applause.)

      Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents -- in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.
      Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday -- can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it's too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. That would be a tragedy. Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.

      This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.
      And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It's determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It's poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.

      Now, some argue that the spread of militant Islam, especially in these turbulent times -- if you want to slow it down, they argue, Israel must hurry to make concessions, to make territorial compromises. And this theory sounds simple. Basically it goes like this: Leave the territory, and peace will be advanced. The moderates will be strengthened, the radicals will be kept at bay. And don't worry about the pesky details of how Israel will actually defend itself; international troops will do the job.

      These people say to me constantly: Just make a sweeping offer, and everything will work out. You know, there's only one problem with that theory. We've tried it and it hasn't worked. In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. The Palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed a thousand Israeli lives.

      Prime Minister Olmert afterwards made an even more sweeping offer, in 2008. President Abbas didn't even respond to it.

      But Israel did more than just make sweeping offers. We actually left territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn't calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and make it stronger.

      Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn't defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM (ph) in Gaza didn't stop the radicals from attacking Israel.

      We left Gaza hoping for peace.

      We didn't freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.

      And I don't think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of -- out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even -- we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.

      Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.
      But ladies and gentlemen, we didn't get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day -- in one day.

      President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

      Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this,Israelis rightly ask: What's to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank? See, most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from Gaza. But in the center of the country, opposite the West Bank, our cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers away from the edge of the West Bank.

      So I want to ask you. Would any of you -- would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we're not prepared to have another Gaza there. And that's why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us.

      Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel's critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it's as if nothing happened -- just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.
      And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel's security. They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.

      So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel's legitimate security concerns.

      I believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed, but they will not be addressed without negotiations. And the needs are many, because Israel is such a tiny country. Without Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, Israel is all of 9 miles wide.

      I want to put it for you in perspective, because you're all in the city. That's about two-thirds the length of Manhattan. It's the distance between Battery Park and Columbia University. And don't forget that the people who live in Brooklyn and New Jersey are considerably nicer than some of Israel's neighbors.

      So how do you -- how do you protect such a tiny country, surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by Iran? Obviously you can't defend it from within that narrow space alone. Israel needs greater strategic depth, and that's exactly why Security Council Resolution 242 didn't require Israel to leave all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. It talked about withdrawal from territories, to secure and defensible boundaries. And to defend itself, Israel must therefore maintain a long-term Israeli military presence in critical strategic areas in the West Bank.

      I explained this to President Abbas. He answered that if a Palestinian state was to be a sovereign country, it could never accept such arrangements. Why not? America has had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for more than a half a century. Britain has had an airspace in Cyprus or rather an air base in Cyprus. France has forces in three independent African nations. None of these states claim that they're not sovereign countries.

      And there are many other vital security issues that also must be addressed. Take the issue of airspace. Again, Israel's small dimensions create huge security problems. America can be crossed by jet airplane in six hours. To fly across Israel, it takes three minutes. So is Israel's tiny airspace to be chopped in half and given to a Palestinian state not at peace with Israel?

      Our major international airport is a few kilometers away from the West Bank. Without peace, will our planes become targets for antiaircraft missiles placed in the adjacent Palestinian state? And how will we stop the smuggling into the West Bank? It's not merely the West Bank, it's the West Bank mountains. It just dominates the coastal plain where most of Israel's population sits below. How could we prevent the smuggling into these mountains of those missiles that could be fired on our cities?

      I bring up these problems because they're not theoretical problems. They're very real. And for Israelis, they're life-and- death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel's security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won't be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.

      The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this. After such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first. (Applause.)

      And there's one more thing. Hamas has been violating international law by holding our soldier Gilad Shalit captive for five years.

      They haven't given even one Red Cross visit. He's held in a dungeon, in darkness, against all international norms. Gilad Shalit is the son of Aviva and Noam Shalit. He is the grandson of Zvi Shalit, who escaped the Holocaust by coming to the -- in the 1930s as a boy to the land of Israel. Gilad Shalit is the son of every Israeli family. Every nation represented here should demand his immediate release. (Applause.) If you want to -- if you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today, that's the resolution you should pass. (Applause.)

      Ladies and gentlemen, last year in Israel in Bar-Ilan University, this year in the Knesset and in the U.S. Congress, I laid out my vision for peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Yes, the Jewish state. After all, this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don't you think it's about time that Palestinians did the same?

      The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day -- in fact, I think they made it right here in New York -- they said the Palestinian state won't allow any Jews in it. They'll be Jew-free -- Judenrein. That's ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That's racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

      Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don't want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. (Applause.) We want to give up -- we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.

      President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that's odd. Our conflict has been raging for -- was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the -- I guess that the settlements he's talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be'er Sheva. Maybe that's what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn't say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)

      The settlements have to be -- it's an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.

      I think it's time that the Palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized, from Lord Balfour and Lloyd George in 1917, to President Truman in 1948, to President Obama just two days ago right here: Israel is the Jewish state. (Applause.)

      President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises. We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they're ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel's security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.

      I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That's like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we're called "Jews"? Because we come from Judea.

      In my office in Jerusalem, there's a -- there's an ancient seal. It's a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there's a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That's my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin -- Binyamin -- the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria 4,000 years ago, and there's been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.

      And for those Jews who were exiled from our land, they never stopped dreaming of coming back: Jews in Spain, on the eve of their expulsion; Jews in the Ukraine, fleeing the pogroms; Jews fighting the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazis were circling around it. They never stopped praying, they never stopped yearning. They whispered: Next year in Jerusalem. Next year in the promised land. (Applause.)

      As the prime minister of Israel, I speak for a hundred generations of Jews who were dispersed throughout the lands, who suffered every evil under the Sun, but who never gave up hope of restoring their national life in the one and only Jewish state.

      Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace. I've worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn't respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn't respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again -- no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever.(Scattered applause.) Once again -- you applaud, but there was no response. No response.

      In the last few weeks, American officials have put forward ideas to restart peace talks. There were things in those ideas about borders that I didn't like. There were things there about the Jewish state that I'm sure the Palestinians didn't like.

      But with all my reservations, I was willing to move forward on these American ideas.

      President Abbas, why don't you join me? We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let's just get on with it. Let's negotiate peace. (Applause.)

      I spent years defending Israel on the battlefield. I spent decades defending Israel in the court of public opinion. President Abbas, you've dedicated your life to advancing the Palestinian cause. Must this conflict continue for generations, or will we enable our children and our grandchildren to speak in years ahead of how we found a way to end it? That's what we should aim for, and that's what I believe we can achieve.

      In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I'll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We've both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we're in the same city. We're in the same building. So let's meet here today in the United Nations. (Applause.) Who's there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?

      And I suggest we talk openly and honestly. Let's listen to one another. Let's do as we say in the Middle East: Let's talk "doogli" (ph). That means straightforward. I'll tell you my needs and concerns. You'll tell me yours. And with God's help, we'll find the common ground of peace. (Applause.)

      There's an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace. I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand -- the hand of Israel -- in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah -- (speaks in Hebrew) -- "The people who walk in darkness will see a great light." Let that light be the light of peace. (Applause.) 

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
      Temple Illuminatus G-ddess Jew / Starfleet Yeshiva Apikorus Spiritist
    • Robert Karl Stonjek
      RKS: Netanyahu blaming the world for finding fault in Israel s actions is a bit like a shoplifter blaming the courts for discrimination for repeatedly
      Message 2 of 22 , Sep 23, 2011
        RKS:
        Netanyahu blaming the world for finding fault in Israel's actions is a bit like a shoplifter blaming the courts for discrimination for repeatedly sanctioning him.  Israel's behaviour has been deplorable.  They have constantly blamed the good people and the governing bodies of Palestine for the actions of a few terrorists and extremists and have acted just like those terrorists in retaliation, usually at a much greater cost to the Palestinian people than was inflicted against Israel.
         
        Note that withholding resources from Palestine (and the intentional bombing of numerous police stations ten years ago and the killing of numerous Palestinian police) and shutting down the employment opportunities for Palestinians in Israel has left the government very low on resources and unable to raise the money to pay for the elaborate police network they would need to keep extremists at bay.  The Palestinian authority did once have a helicopter but the Israelis destroyed it ~ no compensation was offered, as usual.
         
        Note that Israelis collect and show off all the rockets that Palestinian terrorists send over.  So inefficient are these rockets that they can not even destroy themselves, let alone do any substantial damage to Israel.  If the rockets were effective there would be no remnants to display.  The only bombs that Palestinians could display that were dropped on them are those, if any, that did not explode.
         
        But on a practical level, the water that Israel desperately needs comes from underground streams that run under the westbank.  The Palestinians are not allowed to tap their own water by law, are not allowed to buy parts for old or traditional wells and are not allowed, by law, to repair them if they break down.  Israelis are given a water allowance nearly ten times that of Westbank Palestinians and charged much less for it (less than half per litre).  Israel proposed to fix the water shortage by pumping filtered seawater to the wesbank, right across Israel, charging the Palestinians twice as much for it because of the pumping cost.  The Pumping station and desalination plant was to be placed right next to a large Israeli city.  No seawater would be pumped to the city, they were getting clean water from the West Bank...Who in their right mind could possibly imagine that this is fair. 
         
        And what did the Israelis go for when they invaded the Westbank during incursions?  They bulldozed olive groves claiming they were launching sites for terrorist rockets.  They then took away the farmer's water allocation (because they no longer have any olive trees) and refused a license to plant new olive trees.  Olives and cut flowers are the two main industries of the west bank, both attacked by Israel (physically) at every opportunity.
         
        And what of Palestinians wanting to build a house on their own land?  They need Israel's permission, which is never granted.  If Israel subsequently wants their land they either bulldoze the 'illegal' dwelling or simply evict the owners and sell it to Israelis.
         
        And what if the house you live in is older than the Israeli state?  You don't have documents for a hundred year old house, Israel will issue you with none so you are evicted and your house is taken over by an Israeli family.  These evictions are a constant feature in and around Jerusalem.
         
        The UN does not condemn the actions of others without VERY good reason.  The Palestinians have opened their hearts to the UN, asked for UN peace keepers to patrol their boarder and asked for other help from the neutral body.  Israel and the USA always block these efforts.
         
        Thus Israel deserves everything it gets from the UN ~ it is simpy not a team player.  This has everything to do with Israel and her policies against the Palestinians and nothing to do with the inherited status of the majority of the individuals living in Israel (Jewish people), especially considering that Jews and Arabs come from the same genetic stock and are essentially the same people.
         
        As for Libya and Iraq taking their rightful turn as head of various bodies, Netanyahu didn't mention their performance in those roles.  It was exemplarity and nobody complained about their performance in those roles.  So what is he complaining about?  The fact that their performance as peacemakers outshone Israel's???
         
        Netanyahu's attempt to insult the UN will further guarantee Palestine's eventual success in the general assembly.  You wall off part of your own country and you have already shown that you are not one country but two ~ Israel, by its actions, has already decided the outcome.
         
        It is a pity that the majority of Israelis, who are good and just people, appear to be so disempowered these days.
         
        Robert
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 11:26 AM
        Subject: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

        23 September 2011 CE / 24 Elul 5771 

        Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered the following remarks to U.N. this afternoon, focusing primarily on the Palestinians' statehood bid:

        PRIME MIN. NETANYAHU: Thank you, Mr. President. 

        Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. On behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, I extend that hand again today. I extend it to the people of Egypt and Jordan, with renewed friendship for neighbors with whom we have made peace. I extend it to the people of Turkey, with respect and good will. I extend it to the people of Libya and Tunisia, with admiration for those trying to build a democratic future. I extend it to the other peoples of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, with whom we want to forge a new beginning. I extend it to the people of Syria, Lebanon and Iran, with awe at the courage of those fighting brutal repression. 

        But most especially, I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace. (Applause.)

        <Snip>
      • Don Zimmerman
        ... DWZ: Yes. It is important to emphasize that opposition to Israel s political actions is not necessarily an indication of anti-Semitism any more than
        Message 3 of 22 , Sep 24, 2011
          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...> wrote:

          > It is a pity that the majority of Israelis, who are good and just people, appear to be so disempowered these days.


          DWZ:
          Yes. It is important to emphasize that opposition to Israel's political actions is not necessarily an indication of anti-Semitism any more than opposition to China's political actions is an indication of racism of Caucasians regarding Asians, or the scientific study of Black intelligence is an indication of racism in America, etc.

          On the other hand, it is also important to recognize that many people who vehemently oppose Israel do in fact exhibit anti-Semitism, that is, some critics use Israel's failings as an excuse for their own short-sighted ethnic prejudices. A few people who study black intelligence may indeed be racists and hate blacks, and so on. Those views on various issues are not inevitably related, but they are to some extent correlated.

          Best regards,

          Donald W. Zimmerman
          Vancouver, BC, Canada
          dwzimm@...
          http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
        • R A Fonda
          ... devoted to refuting the smears being repeated by the counter-revolutionary wreckers who oppose the Will of the Dear Leader. President Obama s opponents
          Message 4 of 22 , Sep 24, 2011
            This excerpt from one of Justin Raimondo's columns is apposite:

            > a special web site, and a twitter feed, attackwatch.com, which
            is devoted to refuting the "smears" being repeated by the counter-revolutionary wreckers who oppose the Will of the Dear Leader. "President Obama's opponents have falsely suggested that the President has not been a strong ally to Israel," the Obamaites whine. How dare anyone suggest that the US isn't at Tel Aviv's beck and call! Even the suggestion of something less than absolute fealty is considered a "smear." If that doesn't underscore what's wrong with American foreign policy in the Middle East, then I don't know what does. <

            As an American, I can certainly understand how alienating and demoralizing it is to have an 'occupation government' :-( 

            RAF
          • R A Fonda
            ... its brutal policies are accurately reflecting the will of the people. The latest polls show that the majority of Israeli Jews support ethnic cleansing of
            Message 5 of 22 , Sep 24, 2011
              "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...> wrote:
              >
              > > It is a pity that the majority of Israelis, who are good and just
              > people, appear to be so disempowered these days.


              Gilad Atzmon:

              > Israel, for instance, regards itself as a democracy, and as such,
              its brutal policies are accurately reflecting the will of the people.
              The latest polls show that the majority of Israeli Jews support ethnic
              cleansing of the Palestinians. 94 per cent of Israelis supported the
              carpet bombardment of Gaza at the time of Operation Cast Lead.

              "We are dealing with a severe level of complicity here. It may as well
              be that some people out there are anti-Jewish. But we must ask what it
              is they oppose. Is it really the Jews as a people, a race, an ethnicity?
              I don't think so. In my lifetime, I have never come across anyone who
              hated Jews for being Jews. Opposition to Jews is a direct outcome of
              Jewish politics..." <

              RAF
            • Don Zimmerman
              ... DWZ: Agreed. But if personal motives are strongly related to the topic under discussion, it is natural to be suspicious of arguments, to look closely for
              Message 6 of 22 , Sep 24, 2011
                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                > Just as views about Chinese, African, and even German conduct can and do
                > sometimes involve racism/prejudice of one form or another.
                >
                > But the issue is whether it is reasonable for advocates for China,
                > Africa (or nation within), or Germany to attempt to create suspicion of
                > racism toward those who make criticisms as a way to avoid criticism?
                >
                > More to the point, if the criticism can be stated in terms of acceptable
                > shared principles then why should the matter of personal motive even be
                > a factor?


                DWZ:
                Agreed. But if personal motives are strongly related to the topic under discussion, it is natural to be suspicious of arguments, to look closely for possible selection of evidence, glossing over of negative instances or data that would be contrary to preconceived beliefs. If a certain observer claims and presents evidence that "Toyotas are better than Chevrolets," one would scrutinize that evidence more closely when knowing that the observer is a Toyota dealer.

                Suspicions of lack of objectivity arise naturally from a vast wealth of common experience as to how peoples' hidden motives corrupt supposedly objective logic and argumentation. We are all aware of it at the grocery store and the car dealership, but the fact it occurs in politics, medicine, financial advice, the courts of law, philosophy, and scientific theory, perhaps was not fully recognized until recently in modern culture.

                Best regards,

                Donald W. Zimmerman
                Vancouver, BC, Canada
                dwzimm@...
                http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
              • Robin Whittle
                From the thread Re: Benjamin Netanyahu s words for peace -- peace ... There are widespread demonstrations about the cost of living, but not about government
                Message 7 of 22 , Sep 24, 2011
                  From the thread "Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace
                  refused by the 'Palestinians'", I too find this hard to believe:

                  > "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >> It is a pity that the majority of Israelis, who are good and just
                  >> people, appear to be so disempowered these days.

                  There are widespread demonstrations about the cost of living, but not
                  about government support for settlements in the West Bank and military
                  attacks on Palestinians.

                  The USA and Australia are democracies too, but the US President and
                  Foreign Minister, and our Prime Minister are dismissive of the plight of
                  the Palestinian people. So there's a degree of complicity in us putting
                  up with political systems which elect such governments.

                  Opposition to the politics of the Israeli government, of the apparent
                  majority of Israelis and of influential people (primarily but not wholly
                  Jewish people) in the USA and Australia who support such politics is
                  not, in itself, anti-Jewish. It is arguably pro-Jewish if it is
                  motivated by the desire that some or many Jewish people and Israelis in
                  particular might be saved from their own worst mistakes.


                  > Gilad Atzmon:
                  >
                  > Israel, for instance, regards itself as a democracy, and as such,
                  > its brutal policies are accurately reflecting the will of the people.
                  > The latest polls show that the majority of Israeli Jews support ethnic
                  > cleansing of the Palestinians. 94 per cent of Israelis supported the
                  > carpet bombardment of Gaza at the time of Operation Cast Lead.
                  >
                  > "We are dealing with a severe level of complicity here. It may as well
                  > be that some people out there are anti-Jewish. But we must ask what it
                  > is they oppose. Is it really the Jews as a people, a race, an ethnicity?
                  > I don't think so. In my lifetime, I have never come across anyone who
                  > hated Jews for being Jews. Opposition to Jews is a direct outcome of
                  > Jewish politics..." <
                  >
                  > RAF

                  This is from a review by Eric Walberg of Gilad Atzmon's book: "The
                  Wandering Who? A study of Jewish Identity Politics". The review seems
                  to have been published in the last day or so:

                  http://ericwalberg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=382

                  In an interview with the Weekly, Atzmon explained that while there
                  is Judaism the religion, there is no Jewish race or even ethnicity,
                  but only a Jewish ideology - what he calls Jewishness. "At a
                  certain stage when it became clear to me that Jews do not form a
                  racial or ethnic continuum, I realised that I would have to search
                  for answers somewhere else. It was also obvious to me that though
                  Jews are not a race, Jewish politics is clearly racist to the
                  bone." Thus, the genesis of "The Wandering Who?".

                  . . .

                  Interestingly, Atzmon defends the original Zionist project.
                  "Zionism was initially an interesting insight. It was a rare moment
                  of Jewish self-reflection. Some Jewish intellectuals thought that
                  they may have managed to grasp the root cause of the 'Jewish
                  abnormal condition'. They believed that once in their homeland,
                  Jews would become people like all other people.

                  "It is clear that they were wrong. The anti-Zionists argue that
                  Zionism failed to fulfill its promise because the homeland
                  narrative was a myth. Zion was actually Palestine and 'the bride
                  wasn't free'. I try to take the discourse one step further. I
                  argue that the desire to become 'people like other people' is in
                  itself nothing less than an inauthentic destructive aspiration. It
                  is doomed to fail because no people wish to become other peoples.

                  "In short, Zionism was and is a form of self-imposed detachment.
                  But what about other forms of Jewish political identities? Are
                  they any different? Not really, Jewish socialists or the Bund fall
                  into the exact same trap. Instead of just joining humanity as
                  equal amongst equals, they, for some reason, insist on exercising
                  universalism in a tribal racially-exclusive setting. They are
                  deceiving themselves for they 'speak universal' but in practice
                  'think tribal'. It has transformed the Holy Land into a Jewish
                  bunker."

                  . . .

                  "I basically learned to love myself hating myself. And once I
                  became subject to Jewish progressive vengeance, the penny had
                  dropped - I realised that there was a clear continuum between
                  Zionism and the so called Jewish 'anti' Zionism. The Jewish
                  secular political discourse is largely a supremacist exclusivist
                  discourse. The image of pluralism and internal debate are mere
                  spin."

                  In The Wandering Who? Atzmon writes: "My emerging devotion to jazz
                  had overwhelmed my Jewish nationalist tendencies; it was probably
                  then and there that I left Chosen-ness behind to become an ordinary
                  human being." I suggested that in realising his superior musical
                  talent, he unconsciously discarded his faux sense of racial
                  superiority, that he was indeed "Chosen" but, to paraphrase Woody
                  Allen, not because he was a Jew. It is the wannabe Chosen who fall
                  back on this racial crutch, which sadly makes it very, very hard
                  for them to discard and realise they too can walk without the
                  crutch.

                  . . .

                  "I am pretty certain that there is no collective solution to the
                  Jewish Question. For Jewish assimilation to be a success Jews must
                  integrate into humanity for real. Universalism (as oppose to
                  tribalism) is the only valid option for the morally troubled Jew.
                  This would mean leaving choseness and supremacy behind."

                  . . .

                  "It is also important to mention that Jewish Orthodoxy has always
                  been impervious to the dilemma posed by the Jewish Question.
                  Orthodox Jews have a lucid and coherent understanding of their
                  Jewish identity. We have to remember that the only Jewish
                  collective that supports Palestinians are the Torah Jews. Unlike
                  the Marxist Jews and the so called progressive Jews, the Torah Jews
                  do not try to steer the Palestinian solidarity movement; they are
                  actually humble and sincere. Also, we have to remember that in
                  spite of disturbing ideas explored in the Talmud, it is actually a
                  Jewish secular movement that matured into a genocidal collective
                  (Zionism/ Israel)."

                  I had not heard of "Torah Jews". Googling this leads straight to:

                  http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com

                  ... the dilemma that the duality of tribalism and universalism "has
                  never been properly resolved. Instead of redeeming the Jews it
                  imposes a certain level of dishonesty."

                  He told me, "The difference between the Jewish tribal ideology and
                  other tribal concepts is that Jewish tribalism is an exilic
                  concept. Judaism as we know it was formed in the Babylonian exile.
                  * Jewish tribalism became a template of negations. It is there to
                  * alienate the Jew from his surrounding reality. Jewish tribalism is
                  * imbued with hostility toward others and otherness. Jewishness can
                  be celebrated without God or the Torah, but one thing is clear, the
                  exilic conditions always remain intact. Most importantly, the
                  Jewish Question cannot be resolved as long as Jews fail to overcome
                  the exilic mindset. The exilic mindset aspires to Zion. It is
                  detached from its surroundings while in the Diaspora, and once in
                  Zion, the exilic identity collapses completely since its raison
                  d’etre vanishes. In other words, Jews are locked in a limbo; their
                  identity complex cannot be resolved."

                  . . .

                  "Jews have been perfecting their exilic model for two millennia."

                  Two thousand years of culture would surely have had its influence on
                  reproductive success of Jewish people according to how well their
                  thoughts, emotions and behaviour complied with this culture. So it
                  would not be surprising if a lot of the problems which Gilad Atzmon
                  attributes to this exilic model are not just a result of cultural
                  conditioning, but have a significant genetic component too.

                  If so, then what sort of cultural changes would be required to overcome
                  such genetically determined innate proclivities?


                  - Robin
                • Don Zimmerman
                  ... DWZ: Yes, I think you are correct about those things. There is many a slip twixt textbook descriptions of objectivity and scientific method, legal
                  Message 8 of 22 , Sep 27, 2011
                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                    > Hi Don - I agree of course that there is always motive and reasons to
                    > question impartiality. True impartiality is probably more of an ideal.
                    >
                    > But what do you think of the idea that people find it more difficult to
                    > be objective the closer the issue is to their own tribal/instinctual
                    > sense of interest? I should think the four groups with the most
                    > individuals struggling to be objective about the Israel/Palestinian
                    > situation would be antisemites, Jews, Arabs, and islamophobes (and after
                    > that all the other people who were got to first by whichever group)
                    >
                    > It's hard to scrutinize oneself for objectivity because our partiality
                    > probably manifests unconsciously from the outset...the sorts of detail
                    > we are drawn to, the facts that strike us as compelling, our willingness
                    > to trust the word of offical positions, as opposed to an inclination to
                    > drill into details and interrogate.
                    >
                    > More generally in this vein, a behaviour when disagreeing that seems
                    > almost ubiquitous, even from quite disciplined/accomplished thinkers, is
                    > that if the current fact being considered supports the side they
                    > consider right, they tend to accept the fact there and then. But if the
                    > fact goes the other way, but is still basically a fact, people tend to
                    > enter into a process of undermining the fact by questioning first
                    > underlying assumptions, and if no result from that then ultimately the
                    > methodologies used in ascertaining the fact, and after that simply
                    > undermining the character of the people that did the work.
                    >
                    > I'm not talking about the ME conflict particularly. I see this approach
                    > all the time. I think it's pretty much second nature, maybe an aspect of
                    > evolved nature. It's a very effective strategy so perhaps it has become
                    > ingrained somewhere in the architecture of our brains. But the point is,
                    > it's procedurally such a biased approach - completely different
                    > standards applied to scrutinizing information depending on whether it is
                    > welcome or not. It's hard to see how any debate can qualify as
                    > rational/objective when we deploy such strategies and barely register we
                    > are doing that.


                    DWZ:
                    Yes, I think you are correct about those things. There is many a slip twixt textbook descriptions of objectivity and scientific method, legal principles of impartiality, business and financial ethics, and such, and the implementation of those lofty principles in practice. In general, I would say that scientists, as well as researchers and scholars generally, approach the ideal more closely than most people, but even there achievement is far less than 100%. In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics, etc. pretense and deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal being more of a gimmick for purposes of misleading others than a governing principle toward which one strives.

                    Best regards,

                    Donald W. Zimmerman
                    Vancouver, BC, Canada
                    dwzimm@...
                    http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                  • Martin Swain
                    Hi Don, In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics, etc. pretense and deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal being more of a gimmick
                    Message 9 of 22 , Sep 28, 2011
                      Message
                      Hi Don,
                       
                      " In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics, etc. pretense and deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal being more of a gimmick for purposes of misleading others than a governing principle toward which one strives.
                      "
                       
                        I think this is a bit of a slippery slope, since it implies agency, which would mean that there is some individual who is responsible. This is essentially the same as saying some corporation is "evil", (think, companies who create GMO foods, or just about any pharmaceutical company, etc).
                       
                        The problem is, there is no agency, since for example in advertising there generally isn't one person who we can point our finger at and say, "they lied". This is clear if we consider the number of steps that have to occur to bring a new product to the market. From conception to manufacture there are, generally speaking, many people involved, and that's before a single ad has been created. Then there is the advertising. Not only do the ads have to be created, but they have to be aired in a public forum.
                       
                        As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if all ads were let's say, 100% truthful. Now lets assume someone created an ad that wasn't 100% truthful. In which public forum would that ad be welcome? It would stick out like a sore thumb no matter where it aired. Ads have to blend into the forum where they're aired, they have to be geared towards the audience and fit within the standards for that forum.
                       
                        So, if one ad is less than truthful, then chances are they all are. Which may well be the case, however, if it is so then there is no agency, unless we plan to blame everyone, including the audience, since as I said, ads have to conform to the standards of the forum they're aired in, which are determined by the audience.
                       
                        Which is not say there isn't a problem there, I'm just pointing out that if there is a problem you and I are just as much to blame as the people who make the ads. Also, as a corollary I would point out how prone we all are to ascribe agency where there is none. That kind of reductionist thinking seems to be intrinsic to human nature, and as such is a suitable topic for this forum I think.
                       
                      Regards,
                       
                      Martin
                       

                      Martin Swain

                      Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                       

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Zimmerman
                      Sent: September 27, 2011 12:17 PM
                      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                       

                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                      > Hi Don - I agree of course that there is always motive and reasons to
                      > question impartiality. True impartiality is probably more of an ideal.
                      >
                      > But what do you think of the idea that people find it more difficult to
                      > be objective the closer the issue is to their own tribal/instinctual
                      > sense of interest? I should think the four groups with the most
                      > individuals struggling to be objective about the Israel/Palestinian
                      > situation would be antisemites, Jews, Arabs, and islamophobes (and after
                      > that all the other people who were got to first by whichever group)
                      >
                      > It's hard to scrutinize oneself for objectivity because our partiality
                      > probably manifests unconsciously from the outset...the sorts of detail
                      > we are drawn to, the facts that strike us as compelling, our willingness
                      > to trust the word of offical positions, as opposed to an inclination to
                      > drill into details and interrogate.
                      >
                      > More generally in this vein, a behaviour when disagreeing that seems
                      > almost ubiquitous, even from quite disciplined/accomplished thinkers, is
                      > that if the current fact being considered supports the side they
                      > consider right, they tend to accept the fact there and then. But if the
                      > fact goes the other way, but is still basically a fact, people tend to
                      > enter into a process of undermining the fact by questioning first
                      > underlying assumptions, and if no result from that then ultimately the
                      > methodologies used in ascertaining the fact, and after that simply
                      > undermining the character of the people that did the work.
                      >
                      > I'm not talking about the ME conflict particularly. I see this approach
                      > all the time. I think it's pretty much second nature, maybe an aspect of
                      > evolved nature. It's a very effective strategy so perhaps it has become
                      > ingrained somewhere in the architecture of our brains. But the point is,
                      > it's procedurally such a biased approach - completely different
                      > standards applied to scrutinizing information depending on whether it is
                      > welcome or not. It's hard to see how any debate can qualify as
                      > rational/objective when we deploy such strategies and barely register we
                      > are doing that.

                      DWZ:
                      Yes, I think you are correct about those things. There is many a slip twixt textbook descriptions of objectivity and scientific method, legal principles of impartiality, business and financial ethics, and such, and the implementation of those lofty principles in practice. In general, I would say that scientists, as well as researchers and scholars generally, approach the ideal more closely than most people, but even there achievement is far less than 100%. In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics, etc. pretense and deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal being more of a gimmick for purposes of misleading others than a governing principle toward which one strives.

                      Best regards,

                      Donald W. Zimmerman
                      Vancouver, BC, Canada
                      dwzimm@...
                      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899

                    • hibbsa
                      I would personally agree with Don s comment about certain areas of commerce. In sales/marketing....successful approaches tend to use psychology at every stage
                      Message 10 of 22 , Sep 28, 2011
                        I would personally agree with Don's comment about certain areas of
                        commerce. In sales/marketing....successful approaches tend to use
                        psychology at every stage in order to maximize the number of potential
                        buyers.

                        Truth is not really a word that ever gets used. There's no hostility to
                        truth if the truth happens to help the campaign. But that's the only
                        time it really exists as a meaningful concept. Thinking about it, not
                        really even then because in situations like that, truth and what is
                        beneficial to the campaign should be seen more as coinciding.

                        That said, lies are avoided like the plague as well, because lies can
                        get you into trouble. It's more of the variety "when you sell candy you
                        don't say it rots your teeth". But this sort of principle can go a long,
                        long way.

                        I'm not criticizing the industry in this...I just think it's important
                        to understand that objective truth plays a walk-on, rather than leading
                        role.

                        rgds, hibbsa


                        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Swain"
                        <martin.swain@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi Don,
                        >
                        > " In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics, etc. pretense
                        and
                        > deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal being more of a
                        > gimmick for purposes of misleading others than a governing principle
                        toward
                        > which one strives.
                        > "
                        >
                        > I think this is a bit of a slippery slope, since it implies agency,
                        which
                        > would mean that there is some individual who is responsible. This is
                        > essentially the same as saying some corporation is "evil", (think,
                        companies
                        > who create GMO foods, or just about any pharmaceutical company, etc).
                        >
                        > The problem is, there is no agency, since for example in advertising
                        there
                        > generally isn't one person who we can point our finger at and say,
                        "they
                        > lied". This is clear if we consider the number of steps that have to
                        occur
                        > to bring a new product to the market. From conception to manufacture
                        there
                        > are, generally speaking, many people involved, and that's before a
                        single ad
                        > has been created. Then there is the advertising. Not only do the ads
                        have to
                        > be created, but they have to be aired in a public forum.
                        >
                        > As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if all ads were
                        let's
                        > say, 100% truthful. Now lets assume someone created an ad that wasn't
                        100%
                        > truthful. In which public forum would that ad be welcome? It would
                        stick out
                        > like a sore thumb no matter where it aired. Ads have to blend into the
                        forum
                        > where they're aired, they have to be geared towards the audience and
                        fit
                        > within the standards for that forum.
                        >
                        > So, if one ad is less than truthful, then chances are they all are.
                        Which
                        > may well be the case, however, if it is so then there is no agency,
                        unless
                        > we plan to blame everyone, including the audience, since as I said,
                        ads have
                        > to conform to the standards of the forum they're aired in, which are
                        > determined by the audience.
                        >
                        > Which is not say there isn't a problem there, I'm just pointing out
                        that
                        > if there is a problem you and I are just as much to blame as the
                        people who
                        > make the ads. Also, as a corollary I would point out how prone we all
                        are to
                        > ascribe agency where there is none. That kind of reductionist thinking
                        seems
                        > to be intrinsic to human nature, and as such is a suitable topic for
                        this
                        > forum I think.
                        >
                        > Regards,
                        >
                        > Martin
                        >
                        >
                        > Martin Swain
                        >
                        > Software Developer, Spartek Systems
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        > [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don
                        Zimmerman
                        > Sent: September 27, 2011 12:17 PM
                        > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace --
                        peace
                        > refused by the 'Palestinians'
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        > <mailto:evolutionary-psychology%40yahoogroups.com> , "hibbsa" hibbsa@
                        > wrote:
                        >
                        > > Hi Don - I agree of course that there is always motive and reasons
                        to
                        > > question impartiality. True impartiality is probably more of an
                        ideal.
                        > >
                        > > But what do you think of the idea that people find it more difficult
                        to
                        > > be objective the closer the issue is to their own tribal/instinctual
                        > > sense of interest? I should think the four groups with the most
                        > > individuals struggling to be objective about the Israel/Palestinian
                        > > situation would be antisemites, Jews, Arabs, and islamophobes (and
                        after
                        > > that all the other people who were got to first by whichever group)
                        > >
                        > > It's hard to scrutinize oneself for objectivity because our
                        partiality
                        > > probably manifests unconsciously from the outset...the sorts of
                        detail
                        > > we are drawn to, the facts that strike us as compelling, our
                        willingness
                        > > to trust the word of offical positions, as opposed to an inclination
                        to
                        > > drill into details and interrogate.
                        > >
                        > > More generally in this vein, a behaviour when disagreeing that seems
                        > > almost ubiquitous, even from quite disciplined/accomplished
                        thinkers, is
                        > > that if the current fact being considered supports the side they
                        > > consider right, they tend to accept the fact there and then. But if
                        the
                        > > fact goes the other way, but is still basically a fact, people tend
                        to
                        > > enter into a process of undermining the fact by questioning first
                        > > underlying assumptions, and if no result from that then ultimately
                        the
                        > > methodologies used in ascertaining the fact, and after that simply
                        > > undermining the character of the people that did the work.
                        > >
                        > > I'm not talking about the ME conflict particularly. I see this
                        approach
                        > > all the time. I think it's pretty much second nature, maybe an
                        aspect of
                        > > evolved nature. It's a very effective strategy so perhaps it has
                        become
                        > > ingrained somewhere in the architecture of our brains. But the point
                        is,
                        > > it's procedurally such a biased approach - completely different
                        > > standards applied to scrutinizing information depending on whether
                        it is
                        > > welcome or not. It's hard to see how any debate can qualify as
                        > > rational/objective when we deploy such strategies and barely
                        register we
                        > > are doing that.
                        >
                        > DWZ:
                        > Yes, I think you are correct about those things. There is many a slip
                        twixt
                        > textbook descriptions of objectivity and scientific method, legal
                        principles
                        > of impartiality, business and financial ethics, and such, and the
                        > implementation of those lofty principles in practice. In general, I
                        would
                        > say that scientists, as well as researchers and scholars generally,
                        approach
                        > the ideal more closely than most people, but even there achievement is
                        far
                        > less than 100%. In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics,
                        etc.
                        > pretense and deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal
                        being
                        > more of a gimmick for purposes of misleading others than a governing
                        > principle toward which one strives.
                        >
                        > Best regards,
                        >
                        > Donald W. Zimmerman
                        > Vancouver, BC, Canada
                        > dwzimm@... <mailto:dwzimm%40telus.net>
                        > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                        >
                      • Martin Swain
                        Hi hibbsa, Not to be cute (nor curt) but realistically, objective truth is a matter of opinion. Regards, Martin Martin Swain Software Developer, Spartek
                        Message 11 of 22 , Sep 28, 2011
                          Message
                          Hi hibbsa,
                            Not to be cute (nor curt) but realistically, objective truth is a matter of opinion.
                           
                          Regards,
                           
                          Martin
                           
                           

                          Martin Swain

                          Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                           

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hibbsa
                          Sent: September 28, 2011 10:57 AM
                          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                           


                          I would personally agree with Don's comment about certain areas of
                          commerce. In sales/marketing....successful approaches tend to use
                          psychology at every stage in order to maximize the number of potential
                          buyers.

                          Truth is not really a word that ever gets used. There's no hostility to
                          truth if the truth happens to help the campaign. But that's the only
                          time it really exists as a meaningful concept. Thinking about it, not
                          really even then because in situations like that, truth and what is
                          beneficial to the campaign should be seen more as coinciding.

                          That said, lies are avoided like the plague as well, because lies can
                          get you into trouble. It's more of the variety "when you sell candy you
                          don't say it rots your teeth". But this sort of principle can go a long,
                          long way.

                          I'm not criticizing the industry in this...I just think it's important
                          to understand that objective truth plays a walk-on, rather than leading
                          role.

                          rgds, hibbsa

                          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Swain"
                          <martin.swain@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hi Don,
                          >
                          > " In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics, etc. pretense
                          and
                          > deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal being more of a
                          > gimmick for purposes of misleading others than a governing principle
                          toward
                          > which one strives.
                          > "
                          >
                          > I think this is a bit of a slippery slope, since it implies agency,
                          which
                          > would mean that there is some individual who is responsible. This is
                          > essentially the same as saying some corporation is "evil", (think,
                          companies
                          > who create GMO foods, or just about any pharmaceutical company, etc).
                          >
                          > The problem is, there is no agency, since for example in advertising
                          there
                          > generally isn't one person who we can point our finger at and say,
                          "they
                          > lied". This is clear if we consider the number of steps that have to
                          occur
                          > to bring a new product to the market. From conception to manufacture
                          there
                          > are, generally speaking, many people involved, and that's before a
                          single ad
                          > has been created. Then there is the advertising. Not only do the ads
                          have to
                          > be created, but they have to be aired in a public forum.
                          >
                          > As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if all ads were
                          let's
                          > say, 100% truthful. Now lets assume someone created an ad that wasn't
                          100%
                          > truthful. In which public forum would that ad be welcome? It would
                          stick out
                          > like a sore thumb no matter where it aired. Ads have to blend into the
                          forum
                          > where they're aired, they have to be geared towards the audience and
                          fit
                          > within the standards for that forum.
                          >
                          > So, if one ad is less than truthful, then chances are they all are.
                          Which
                          > may well be the case, however, if it is so then there is no agency,
                          unless
                          > we plan to blame everyone, including the audience, since as I said,
                          ads have
                          > to conform to the standards of the forum they're aired in, which are
                          > determined by the audience.
                          >
                          > Which is not say there isn't a problem there, I'm just pointing out
                          that
                          > if there is a problem you and I are just as much to blame as the
                          people who
                          > make the ads. Also, as a corollary I would point out how prone we all
                          are to
                          > ascribe agency where there is none. That kind of reductionist thinking
                          seems
                          > to be intrinsic to human nature, and as such is a suitable topic for
                          this
                          > forum I think.
                          >
                          > Regards,
                          >
                          > Martin
                          >
                          >
                          > Martin Swain
                          >
                          > Software Developer, Spartek Systems
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                          > [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don
                          Zimmerman
                          > Sent: September 27, 2011 12:17 PM
                          > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace --
                          peace
                          > refused by the 'Palestinians'
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                          > <mailto:evolutionary-psychology%40yahoogroups.com> , "hibbsa" hibbsa@
                          > wrote:
                          >
                          > > Hi Don - I agree of course that there is always motive and reasons
                          to
                          > > question impartiality. True impartiality is probably more of an
                          ideal.
                          > >
                          > > But what do you think of the idea that people find it more difficult
                          to
                          > > be objective the closer the issue is to their own tribal/instinctual
                          > > sense of interest? I should think the four groups with the most
                          > > individuals struggling to be objective about the Israel/Palestinian
                          > > situation would be antisemites, Jews, Arabs, and islamophobes (and
                          after
                          > > that all the other people who were got to first by whichever group)
                          > >
                          > > It's hard to scrutinize oneself for objectivity because our
                          partiality
                          > > probably manifests unconsciously from the outset...the sorts of
                          detail
                          > > we are drawn to, the facts that strike us as compelling, our
                          willingness
                          > > to trust the word of offical positions, as opposed to an inclination
                          to
                          > > drill into details and interrogate.
                          > >
                          > > More generally in this vein, a behaviour when disagreeing that seems
                          > > almost ubiquitous, even from quite disciplined/accomplished
                          thinkers, is
                          > > that if the current fact being considered supports the side they
                          > > consider right, they tend to accept the fact there and then. But if
                          the
                          > > fact goes the other way, but is still basically a fact, people tend
                          to
                          > > enter into a process of undermining the fact by questioning first
                          > > underlying assumptions, and if no result from that then ultimately
                          the
                          > > methodologies used in ascertaining the fact, and after that simply
                          > > undermining the character of the people that did the work.
                          > >
                          > > I'm not talking about the ME conflict particularly. I see this
                          approach
                          > > all the time. I think it's pretty much second nature, maybe an
                          aspect of
                          > > evolved nature. It's a very effective strategy so perhaps it has
                          become
                          > > ingrained somewhere in the architecture of our brains. But the point
                          is,
                          > > it's procedurally such a biased approach - completely different
                          > > standards applied to scrutinizing information depending on whether
                          it is
                          > > welcome or not. It's hard to see how any debate can qualify as
                          > > rational/objective when we deploy such strategies and barely
                          register we
                          > > are doing that.
                          >
                          > DWZ:
                          > Yes, I think you are correct about those things. There is many a slip
                          twixt
                          > textbook descriptions of objectivity and scientific method, legal
                          principles
                          > of impartiality, business and financial ethics, and such, and the
                          > implementation of those lofty principles in practice. In general, I
                          would
                          > say that scientists, as well as researchers and scholars generally,
                          approach
                          > the ideal more closely than most people, but even there achievement is
                          far
                          > less than 100%. In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics,
                          etc.
                          > pretense and deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal
                          being
                          > more of a gimmick for purposes of misleading others than a governing
                          > principle toward which one strives.
                          >
                          > Best regards,
                          >
                          > Donald W. Zimmerman
                          > Vancouver, BC, Canada
                          > dwzimm@... <mailto:dwzimm%40telus.net>
                          > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                          >

                        • Don Zimmerman
                          ... DWZ: Agreed that these generalizations always have exceptions, but nevertheless they can be useful. In Milton s poetry, even the Devil possessed some
                          Message 12 of 22 , Sep 28, 2011
                            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Swain" <martin.swain@...> wrote:

                            > I think this is a bit of a slippery slope, since it implies agency, which
                            > would mean that there is some individual who is responsible. This is
                            > essentially the same as saying some corporation is "evil", (think, companies
                            > who create GMO foods, or just about any pharmaceutical company, etc).
                            >
                            > The problem is, there is no agency, since for example in advertising there
                            > generally isn't one person who we can point our finger at and say, "they
                            > lied". This is clear if we consider the number of steps that have to occur
                            > to bring a new product to the market. From conception to manufacture there
                            > are, generally speaking, many people involved, and that's before a single ad
                            > has been created. Then there is the advertising. Not only do the ads have to
                            > be created, but they have to be aired in a public forum.
                            >
                            > As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if all ads were let's
                            > say, 100% truthful. Now lets assume someone created an ad that wasn't 100%
                            > truthful. In which public forum would that ad be welcome? It would stick out
                            > like a sore thumb no matter where it aired. Ads have to blend into the forum
                            > where they're aired, they have to be geared towards the audience and fit
                            > within the standards for that forum.
                            >
                            > So, if one ad is less than truthful, then chances are they all are. Which
                            > may well be the case, however, if it is so then there is no agency, unless
                            > we plan to blame everyone, including the audience, since as I said, ads have
                            > to conform to the standards of the forum they're aired in, which are
                            > determined by the audience.
                            >
                            > Which is not say there isn't a problem there, I'm just pointing out that
                            > if there is a problem you and I are just as much to blame as the people who
                            > make the ads. Also, as a corollary I would point out how prone we all are to
                            > ascribe agency where there is none. That kind of reductionist thinking seems
                            > to be intrinsic to human nature, and as such is a suitable topic for this
                            > forum I think.


                            DWZ:
                            Agreed that these generalizations always have exceptions, but nevertheless they can be useful. In Milton's poetry, even the Devil possessed some admirable qualities.

                            The statement that corporations do both good and evil itself can be seen as a sweeping generalization! There may be some corporations that are all good and others that are all evil, although probably not very many fitting those extremes.

                            The fact that generalizations have exceptions, should never be used as an excuse for not criticizing or investigating something! The fact that drug companies do both good and evil should not prevent us from raking a particular company over the coals for putting an unsafe drug on the market. The fact that politicians and lawyers do both good and evil does not stop me from laughing at politician-jokes and lawyer-jokes.

                            If I understand what you mean about "agency" I agree with that too, but the same caution applies: The fact that no one individual is responsible for "corporate greed" or for wars in the Mid Eastis not an excuse for letting corporations have their way or for not criticizing the war effort.

                            Best regards,

                            Donald W. Zimmerman
                            Vancouver, BC, Canada
                            dwzimm@...
                            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                          • Peter
                            ... Hello Martin, This has been a bone of contention for many centuries in philosophy, google Plato s cave for more background. Nowadays I think it is about
                            Message 13 of 22 , Sep 28, 2011
                              On Wednesday 28 Sep 2011 18:12:04 you wrote:
                              > Hi hibbsa,
                              > Not to be cute (nor curt) but realistically, objective truth is a matter
                              > of opinion.
                              >
                              > Regards,
                              >
                              > Martin

                              Hello Martin,

                              This has been a bone of contention for many centuries in philosophy, google
                              "Plato's cave" for more background.

                              Nowadays I think it is about understanding that, the terms 'ontological' and
                              'epistemological' are opposites.

                              The epistemological universe is the one inside your head and the onotogical
                              universe, is the one your head is inside of.

                              As probably one of greatest SciFi writers ever, Phillip K Dick put it.

                              "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

                              Regards,

                              Peter.

                              http://dollyknot.com/nonlinear/HELLO.html
                            • Edgar Owen
                              Objective truth is a matter of opinion !!! Besides the fact that statement is an oxymoron and doesn t even make sense, it is also totally untrue in its intent
                              Message 14 of 22 , Sep 28, 2011
                                "Objective truth is a matter of opinion"!!!

                                Besides the fact that statement is an oxymoron and doesn't even make sense, it is also totally untrue in its intent and demonstrates a total ignorance of how truth is arrived at in science and the everyday thinking that at least intelligent rational people engage in.

                                Statements like this are most often made by those who are unable to rationally defend their often delusional beliefs and thus must falsely claim that no belief is more accurate than any other belief...

                                Edgar



                                On Sep 28, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Martin Swain wrote:

                                 

                                Hi hibbsa,
                                  Not to be cute (nor curt) but realistically, objective truth is a matter of opinion.
                                 
                                Regards,
                                 
                                Martin
                                 
                                 

                                Martin Swain

                                Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hibbsa
                                Sent: September 28, 2011 10:57 AM
                                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                 


                                I would personally agree with Don's comment about certain areas of
                                commerce. In sales/marketing....successful approaches tend to use
                                psychology at every stage in order to maximize the number of potential
                                buyers.

                                Truth is not really a word that ever gets used. There's no hostility to
                                truth if the truth happens to help the campaign. But that's the only
                                time it really exists as a meaningful concept. Thinking about it, not
                                really even then because in situations like that, truth and what is
                                beneficial to the campaign should be seen more as coinciding.

                                That said, lies are avoided like the plague as well, because lies can
                                get you into trouble. It's more of the variety "when you sell candy you
                                don't say it rots your teeth". But this sort of principle can go a long,
                                long way.

                                I'm not criticizing the industry in this...I just think it's important
                                to understand that objective truth plays a walk-on, rather than leading
                                role.

                                rgds, hibbsa

                                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Swain"
                                <martin.swain@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Hi Don,
                                >
                                > " In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics, etc. pretense
                                and
                                > deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal being more of a
                                > gimmick for purposes of misleading others than a governing principle
                                toward
                                > which one strives.
                                > "
                                >
                                > I think this is a bit of a slippery slope, since it implies agency,
                                which
                                > would mean that there is some individual who is responsible. This is
                                > essentially the same as saying some corporation is "evil", (think,
                                companies
                                > who create GMO foods, or just about any pharmaceutical company, etc).
                                >
                                > The problem is, there is no agency, since for example in advertising
                                there
                                > generally isn't one person who we can point our finger at and say,
                                "they
                                > lied". This is clear if we consider the number of steps that have to
                                occur
                                > to bring a new product to the market. From conception to manufacture
                                there
                                > are, generally speaking, many people involved, and that's before a
                                single ad
                                > has been created. Then there is the advertising. Not only do the ads
                                have to
                                > be created, but they have to be aired in a public forum.
                                >
                                > As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if all ads were
                                let's
                                > say, 100% truthful. Now lets assume someone created an ad that wasn't
                                100%
                                > truthful. In which public forum would that ad be welcome? It would
                                stick out
                                > like a sore thumb no matter where it aired. Ads have to blend into the
                                forum
                                > where they're aired, they have to be geared towards the audience and
                                fit
                                > within the standards for that forum.
                                >
                                > So, if one ad is less than truthful, then chances are they all are.
                                Which
                                > may well be the case, however, if it is so then there is no agency,
                                unless
                                > we plan to blame everyone, including the audience, since as I said,
                                ads have
                                > to conform to the standards of the forum they're aired in, which are
                                > determined by the audience.
                                >
                                > Which is not say there isn't a problem there, I'm just pointing out
                                that
                                > if there is a problem you and I are just as much to blame as the
                                people who
                                > make the ads. Also, as a corollary I would point out how prone we all
                                are to
                                > ascribe agency where there is none. That kind of reductionist thinking
                                seems
                                > to be intrinsic to human nature, and as such is a suitable topic for
                                this
                                > forum I think.
                                >
                                > Regards,
                                >
                                > Martin
                                >
                                >
                                > Martin Swain
                                >
                                > Software Developer, Spartek Systems
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                > [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don
                                Zimmerman
                                > Sent: September 27, 2011 12:17 PM
                                > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace --
                                peace
                                > refused by the 'Palestinians'
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                > <mailto:evolutionary-psychology%40yahoogroups.com> , "hibbsa" hibbsa@
                                > wrote:
                                >
                                > > Hi Don - I agree of course that there is always motive and reasons
                                to
                                > > question impartiality. True impartiality is probably more of an
                                ideal.
                                > >
                                > > But what do you think of the idea that people find it more difficult
                                to
                                > > be objective the closer the issue is to their own tribal/instinctual
                                > > sense of interest? I should think the four groups with the most
                                > > individuals struggling to be objective about the Israel/Palestinian
                                > > situation would be antisemites, Jews, Arabs, and islamophobes (and
                                after
                                > > that all the other people who were got to first by whichever group)
                                > >
                                > > It's hard to scrutinize oneself for objectivity because our
                                partiality
                                > > probably manifests unconsciously from the outset...the sorts of
                                detail
                                > > we are drawn to, the facts that strike us as compelling, our
                                willingness
                                > > to trust the word of offical positions, as opposed to an inclination
                                to
                                > > drill into details and interrogate.
                                > >
                                > > More generally in this vein, a behaviour when disagreeing that seems
                                > > almost ubiquitous, even from quite disciplined/accomplished
                                thinkers, is
                                > > that if the current fact being considered supports the side they
                                > > consider right, they tend to accept the fact there and then. But if
                                the
                                > > fact goes the other way, but is still basically a fact, people tend
                                to
                                > > enter into a process of undermining the fact by questioning first
                                > > underlying assumptions, and if no result from that then ultimately
                                the
                                > > methodologies used in ascertaining the fact, and after that simply
                                > > undermining the character of the people that did the work.
                                > >
                                > > I'm not talking about the ME conflict particularly. I see this
                                approach
                                > > all the time. I think it's pretty much second nature, maybe an
                                aspect of
                                > > evolved nature. It's a very effective strategy so perhaps it has
                                become
                                > > ingrained somewhere in the architecture of our brains. But the point
                                is,
                                > > it's procedurally such a biased approach - completely different
                                > > standards applied to scrutinizing information depending on whether
                                it is
                                > > welcome or not. It's hard to see how any debate can qualify as
                                > > rational/objective when we deploy such strategies and barely
                                register we
                                > > are doing that.
                                >
                                > DWZ:
                                > Yes, I think you are correct about those things. There is many a slip
                                twixt
                                > textbook descriptions of objectivity and scientific method, legal
                                principles
                                > of impartiality, business and financial ethics, and such, and the
                                > implementation of those lofty principles in practice. In general, I
                                would
                                > say that scientists, as well as researchers and scholars generally,
                                approach
                                > the ideal more closely than most people, but even there achievement is
                                far
                                > less than 100%. In some areas such as sales, advertising, politics,
                                etc.
                                > pretense and deception certainly is rampant, with the ethical ideal
                                being
                                > more of a gimmick for purposes of misleading others than a governing
                                > principle toward which one strives.
                                >
                                > Best regards,
                                >
                                > Donald W. Zimmerman
                                > Vancouver, BC, Canada
                                > dwzimm@... <mailto:dwzimm%40telus.net>
                                > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                                >



                              • Martin Swain
                                Hi Edgar, Who then is the keeper of objective truth ? You? Now that s funny. Martin Martin Swain Software Developer, Spartek Systems ... From:
                                Message 15 of 22 , Sep 29, 2011
                                  Message
                                  Hi Edgar,
                                    Who then is the keeper of "objective truth"? You? Now that's funny.
                                   
                                  Martin
                                   
                                   

                                  Martin Swain

                                  Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                   

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                                  Sent: September 28, 2011 1:03 PM
                                  To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                   

                                  "Objective truth is a matter of opinion"!!!


                                  Besides the fact that statement is an oxymoron and doesn't even make sense, it is also totally untrue in its intent and demonstrates a total ignorance of how truth is arrived at in science and the everyday thinking that at least intelligent rational people engage in.

                                  Statements like this are most often made by those who are unable to rationally defend their often delusional beliefs and thus must falsely claim that no belief is more accurate than any other belief...

                                  Edgar
                                   
                                  <snip>
                                • Martin Swain
                                  Hi Don, Thanks for responding. My purpose in posting was just to point out that how we characterise these things; i.e. as being the actions of individuals, is
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Sep 29, 2011
                                    Message
                                    Hi Don,
                                      Thanks for responding. My purpose in posting was just to point out that how we characterise these things; i.e. as being
                                    the actions of individuals, is not only incorrect, but it also leads to futility.
                                     
                                      So let's say we characterise the business activities of some corporation as "evil". That implies some sort of malicious
                                    intent, which indicates some agency (individual) behind the whole business. We start off on the right foot, by recognising
                                    a problem, however we falter at the next step, proposing a solution, because we have incorrectly characterised the problem
                                    as stemming from some individual. Since we can't find that individual (since they don't in fact, exist) we're stumped. Or worse
                                    yet, we set off with our hair on fire on a witch hunt.
                                     
                                      The fact is, there mostly is no individual responsible, however, there is a culture at work, which allows many individuals to act in
                                    concert, and do things that are bad. This is true whether it's a corrupt govt. engaging in illegal or immoral wars, or a pharmacuetical
                                    company pursuing profit to the point where they end up actually damaging people's health.
                                     
                                      If we could stop the incorrect characterisation of cultural activities as being attributable to some individual, (which itself is a cultural
                                    activity) we would be a lot closer to being able to deal with these types of problems. In fact I see this as one of the major challenges
                                    of modern living, since it's clear that very little happens due to the actions of individuals these days. Everything is an interlocking
                                    group effort, and so these cultures, both micro and macro, are critically important.
                                     
                                    Regards,

                                    Martin
                                     
                                     

                                    Martin Swain

                                    Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                     

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Zimmerman
                                    Sent: September 28, 2011 12:25 PM
                                    To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                     

                                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Swain" <martin.swain@...> wrote:

                                    > I think this is a bit of a slippery slope, since it implies agency, which
                                    > would mean that there is some individual who is responsible. This is
                                    > essentially the same as saying some corporation is "evil", (think, companies
                                    > who create GMO foods, or just about any pharmaceutical company, etc).
                                    >
                                    > The problem is, there is no agency, since for example in advertising there
                                    > generally isn't one person who we can point our finger at and say, "they
                                    > lied". This is clear if we consider the number of steps that have to occur
                                    > to bring a new product to the market. From conception to manufacture there
                                    > are, generally speaking, many people involved, and that's before a single ad
                                    > has been created. Then there is the advertising. Not only do the ads have to
                                    > be created, but they have to be aired in a public forum.
                                    >
                                    > As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if all ads were let's
                                    > say, 100% truthful. Now lets assume someone created an ad that wasn't 100%
                                    > truthful. In which public forum would that ad be welcome? It would stick out
                                    > like a sore thumb no matter where it aired. Ads have to blend into the forum
                                    > where they're aired, they have to be geared towards the audience and fit
                                    > within the standards for that forum.
                                    >
                                    > So, if one ad is less than truthful, then chances are they all are. Which
                                    > may well be the case, however, if it is so then there is no agency, unless
                                    > we plan to blame everyone, including the audience, since as I said, ads have
                                    > to conform to the standards of the forum they're aired in, which are
                                    > determined by the audience.
                                    >
                                    > Which is not say there isn't a problem there, I'm just pointing out that
                                    > if there is a problem you and I are just as much to blame as the people who
                                    > make the ads. Also, as a corollary I would point out how prone we all are to
                                    > ascribe agency where there is none. That kind of reductionist thinking seems
                                    > to be intrinsic to human nature, and as such is a suitable topic for this
                                    > forum I think.

                                    DWZ:
                                    Agreed that these generalizations always have exceptions, but nevertheless they can be useful. In Milton's poetry, even the Devil possessed some admirable qualities.

                                    The statement that corporations do both good and evil itself can be seen as a sweeping generalization! There may be some corporations that are all good and others that are all evil, although probably not very many fitting those extremes.

                                    The fact that generalizations have exceptions, should never be used as an excuse for not criticizing or investigating something! The fact that drug companies do both good and evil should not prevent us from raking a particular company over the coals for putting an unsafe drug on the market. The fact that politicians and lawyers do both good and evil does not stop me from laughing at politician-jokes and lawyer-jokes.

                                    If I understand what you mean about "agency" I agree with that too, but the same caution applies: The fact that no one individual is responsible for "corporate greed" or for wars in the Mid Eastis not an excuse for letting corporations have their way or for not criticizing the war effort.

                                    Best regards,

                                    Donald W. Zimmerman
                                    Vancouver, BC, Canada
                                    dwzimm@...
                                    http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899

                                  • artemistroy
                                    Here here. See the post Is economics science? to learn how truth and facts can be SUCCESSFULLY manipulated. Artemis ...
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Sep 29, 2011
                                      Here here. See the post "Is economics science?" to learn how truth and facts can be SUCCESSFULLY manipulated.

                                      Artemis

                                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > "Objective truth is a matter of opinion"!!!
                                      >
                                      > Besides the fact that statement is an oxymoron and doesn't even make sense, it is also totally untrue in its intent and demonstrates a total ignorance of how truth is arrived at in science and the everyday thinking that at least intelligent rational people engage in.
                                      >
                                      > Statements like this are most often made by those who are unable to rationally defend their often delusional beliefs and thus must falsely claim that no belief is more accurate than any other belief...
                                      >
                                      > Edgar
                                      >
                                      >
                                      <snip>
                                    • Edgar Owen
                                      If you had an inkling of epistemology or scientific method or the international community of science the answer to your question would be obvious.... The
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Sep 29, 2011
                                        If you had an inkling of epistemology or scientific method or the international community of science the answer to your question would be obvious.... The answer is not any individual, but humanity's rational scientific culture as a whole.

                                        Edgar



                                        On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Martin Swain wrote:

                                         

                                        Hi Edgar,
                                          Who then is the keeper of "objective truth"? You? Now that's funny.
                                         
                                        Martin
                                         
                                         

                                        Martin Swain

                                        Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                         

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                                        Sent: September 28, 2011 1:03 PM
                                        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                         

                                        "Objective truth is a matter of opinion"!!!


                                        Besides the fact that statement is an oxymoron and doesn't even make sense, it is also totally untrue in its intent and demonstrates a total ignorance of how truth is arrived at in science and the everyday thinking that at least intelligent rational people engage in.

                                        Statements like this are most often made by those who are unable to rationally defend their often delusional beliefs and thus must falsely claim that no belief is more accurate than any other belief...

                                        Edgar
                                         
                                        <snip>


                                      • Martin Swain
                                        Hi Edgar, Oh that s rich. What s next, are you going to tell me it s stored in the Akashick Record. ? Don t stop, I m enjoying this. Martin Martin Swain
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Sep 30, 2011
                                          Message
                                          Hi Edgar,
                                            Oh that's rich. What's next, are you going to tell me it's stored in the "Akashick Record."?
                                           
                                            Don't stop, I'm enjoying this.
                                           
                                          Martin
                                           
                                           

                                          Martin Swain

                                          Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                           

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                                          Sent: September 29, 2011 8:02 PM
                                          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                           

                                          If you had an inkling of epistemology or scientific method or the international community of science the answer to your question would be obvious.... The answer is not any individual, but humanity's rational scientific culture as a whole.


                                          Edgar



                                          On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Martin Swain wrote:

                                           

                                          Hi Edgar,
                                            Who then is the keeper of "objective truth"? You? Now that's funny.
                                           
                                          Martin
                                           
                                           

                                          Martin Swain

                                          Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                                          Sent: September 28, 2011 1:03 PM
                                          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                           

                                          "Objective truth is a matter of opinion"!!!


                                          Besides the fact that statement is an oxymoron and doesn't even make sense, it is also totally untrue in its intent and demonstrates a total ignorance of how truth is arrived at in science and the everyday thinking that at least intelligent rational people engage in.

                                          Statements like this are most often made by those who are unable to rationally defend their often delusional beliefs and thus must falsely claim that no belief is more accurate than any other belief...

                                          Edgar
                                           
                                          <snip>


                                        • Edgar Owen
                                          Well Martin, you might at least learn how to spell things you comment on. It s Akashic not Akashick. Maybe you were think it had something to do with the razor
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Sep 30, 2011
                                            Well Martin, you might at least learn how to spell things you comment on. It's Akashic not Akashick. Maybe you were think it had something to do with the razor brand?

                                            Apparently you don't believe there is any such thing as a rational scientific culture?! Could that be because you have no inkling of what goes on within the global scientific community? The Akashic Record may be a step up from Bible stories but neither has anything to do with rational scientific culture.

                                            Edgar


                                            On Sep 30, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Martin Swain wrote:

                                             

                                            Hi Edgar,
                                              Oh that's rich. What's next, are you going to tell me it's stored in the "Akashick Record."?
                                             
                                              Don't stop, I'm enjoying this.
                                             
                                            Martin
                                             
                                             

                                            Martin Swain

                                            Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                             

                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                                            Sent: September 29, 2011 8:02 PM
                                            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                             

                                            If you had an inkling of epistemology or scientific method or the international community of science the answer to your question would be obvious.... The answer is not any individual, but humanity's rational scientific culture as a whole.


                                            Edgar



                                            On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Martin Swain wrote:

                                             

                                            Hi Edgar,
                                              Who then is the keeper of "objective truth"? You? Now that's funny.
                                             
                                            Martin
                                             
                                             

                                            Martin Swain

                                            Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                                            Sent: September 28, 2011 1:03 PM
                                            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                             

                                            "Objective truth is a matter of opinion"!!!


                                            Besides the fact that statement is an oxymoron and doesn't even make sense, it is also totally untrue in its intent and demonstrates a total ignorance of how truth is arrived at in science and the everyday thinking that at least intelligent rational people engage in.

                                            Statements like this are most often made by those who are unable to rationally defend their often delusional beliefs and thus must falsely claim that no belief is more accurate than any other belief...

                                            Edgar
                                             
                                            <snip>





                                          • yanniru
                                            Edgar, Something like the Akashic Records, a record of every physical interaction in the universe and the megaverse, can be found in my String Megaverse
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Oct 1, 2011
                                              Edgar,

                                              Something like the Akashic Records, a record of every physical interaction in the universe and the megaverse, can be found in my String Megaverse Cosmology:
                                              http://knol.google.com/k/implications-of-a-conjectured-multiverse-string-theory-in-26-dimensions#

                                              Onwards,
                                              Richard

                                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Well Martin, you might at least learn how to spell things you comment on. It's Akashic not Akashick. Maybe you were think it had something to do with the razor brand?
                                              >
                                              > Apparently you don't believe there is any such thing as a rational scientific culture?! Could that be because you have no inkling of what goes on within the global scientific community? The Akashic Record may be a step up from Bible stories but neither has anything to do with rational scientific culture.
                                              >
                                              > Edgar
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > On Sep 30, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Martin Swain wrote:
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              > > Hi Edgar,
                                              > > Oh that's rich. What's next, are you going to tell me it's stored in the "Akashick Record."?
                                              > >
                                              > > Don't stop, I'm enjoying this.
                                              > >
                                              > > Martin
                                              >

                                              <snip>
                                            • mark hubey
                                              Objective truth is a matter of opinion !!! That sentence is a perfect example of equivocation or what is now even better clearly explicable as a case of
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Oct 1, 2011

                                                "Objective truth is a matter of opinion"!!!


                                                That sentence is a perfect example of equivocation or what is now even better clearly

                                                explicable as a case of ambiguity and vagueness. Opinion is just another word for belief

                                                and truth is defined (way back in Ancient Greece and presently in philosophy) as "justified true belief",e.g. it is a very special subset of opinion. The play is on the contrast between (i) any old opinion, and (ii) the very special kind of opinion.

                                                This, thanks to the Inhumanities, is probably the main reason why rationality is so rare.


                                                This contrast between vagueness and ambiguity is obscured by the fact that most words are both vague and 

                                                ambiguous. 'Child' is ambiguous ...








                                                On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                                                 

                                                Well Martin, you might at least learn how to spell things you comment on. It's Akashic not Akashick. Maybe you were think it had something to do with the razor brand?


                                                Apparently you don't believe there is any such thing as a rational scientific culture?! Could that be because you have no inkling of what goes on within the global scientific community? The Akashic Record may be a step up from Bible stories but neither has anything to do with rational scientific culture.

                                                Edgar


                                                On Sep 30, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Martin Swain wrote:

                                                 

                                                Hi Edgar,
                                                  Oh that's rich. What's next, are you going to tell me it's stored in the "Akashick Record."?
                                                 
                                                  Don't stop, I'm enjoying this.
                                                 
                                                Martin
                                                 
                                                 

                                                Martin Swain

                                                Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                                 

                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                                                Sent: September 29, 2011 8:02 PM
                                                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                                 

                                                If you had an inkling of epistemology or scientific method or the international community of science the answer to your question would be obvious.... The answer is not any individual, but humanity's rational scientific culture as a whole.


                                                Edgar



                                                On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Martin Swain wrote:

                                                 

                                                Hi Edgar,
                                                  Who then is the keeper of "objective truth"? You? Now that's funny.
                                                 
                                                Martin
                                                 
                                                 

                                                Martin Swain

                                                Software Developer, Spartek Systems

                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
                                                Sent: September 28, 2011 1:03 PM
                                                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Benjamin Netanyahu's words for peace -- peace refused by the 'Palestinians'

                                                 

                                                "Objective truth is a matter of opinion"!!!


                                                Besides the fact that statement is an oxymoron and doesn't even make sense, it is also totally untrue in its intent and demonstrates a total ignorance of how truth is arrived at in science and the everyday thinking that at least intelligent rational people engage in.

                                                Statements like this are most often made by those who are unable to rationally defend their often delusional beliefs and thus must falsely claim that no belief is more accurate than any other belief...

                                                Edgar
                                                 
                                                <snip>








                                                --
                                                Regards,
                                                Mark Hubey

                                                "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion." — Robert Heinlein--Spoken by character Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love (1973). In Leon E. Stover, Heinlein (1987)


                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.