Re: [evol-psych] Response to Holloway, Thomas & O'Gorman
- On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:51 am, Herbert Gintis wrote:
> At 09:43 PM 12/23/2003 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:You are right to ask to be excused, because you are quoting my reply far
> >On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:16 am, Jeremy Bowman wrote:
> > > A hundred years ago, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick called
> > > for a boycott of Jewish businesses, which led to the "Limerick
> > > Pogrom".
> >I'm not sure what you think we should learn, but I think Gandhi
> > would have been shocked to discover that when he lead the Indians
> > to boycott British businesses he was committing the moral
> > equivalent of the murder of innocent people. Likewise the people
> > who boycotted Apartheid South Africa and Burma and even
> > corporations like Shell.
> Excuse me, but the Roman Catholic church's history of
> virulent and highly destructive anti-Semitism is well exhibited in
> this action. Comparing this particular action to civil rights
> boycotts is ludicrous. From your many other posts to this group, I
> don't believe you really mean this, of course.
out of context.
The exact paragraph of Jeremy's I was replying to is:
"Whatever his holiness the Bishop of Limerick may have imagined the
Jews as a whole to be guilty of, most Jewish tradesmen in Limerick
were probably completely innocent. And whatever his holiness
Professor Richard Dawkins imagines Israelis as a whole to be guilty
of, most Israeli academics are probably completely innocent. Have we
and as I went on say
"As such, peaceful protests such as Dawkins' suggested boycott has the
potential to put pressure on the Israeli government in three ways"
it should be obvious that my comparison is with Dawkin's academic
boycott, not Catholic pogroms against the Jews. I know that at times my
writings might not be as clear as they should be, but in this instance
for the life of me I can't see what I have written that could possibly
give people the impression I was defending anti-Jew pogroms as a form
of civil rights protest!