![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 6:03:04
> > Ask the French, who would be German now, if it weren't for the U.S. dying by the 1000's to save their lazy asses.
>
> > Just don't tell me our troops are evil and mindless and that one American life isn't worth saving.
>
> Did someone say our troops are evil and mindless and an American life isn't't worth saving? Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't
> be sarcastic, post anything that could lead them to feel put down, or exaggerate or overgeneralize, thanks.
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, they may be deleted.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Here's a paradox: Terrorists in our society are supposedly evil. The definition of a terrorist is a person who plots to kill an innocent civilian. Yet our allied forces conspire to kill the same number of `enemy' human beings who died in the World Trade Towers.
Our allied forces are not terrorists?http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216112.html
I don't think this statement was sensitive to the feelings of others. It was also logically flawed. I would call it an overgeneralization. It equates innocent civilians with enemy human beings. This is a slur against truly innocent civilians. Chemical Ali is not the same as the women and children he gassed. The coalition forces who killed Ali in war are not the same as terrorists.I don't think there is any factual support for her claim that there is a "conspiracy" to kill a particular number of enemy . I don't think it is civil to post inflammatory statements without any suporting facts.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:57:11
In reply to Re: please be civil? » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 6:03:04
> > > > Here's a paradox: Terrorists in our society are supposedly evil. The definition of a terrorist is a person who plots to kill an innocent civilian. Yet our allied forces conspire to kill the same number of `enemy' human beings who died in the World Trade Towers.
> > > > Our allied forces are not terrorists?
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216284.html
> > >
> > > Just don't tell me our troops are evil and mindless and that one American life isn't worth saving.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216663.html
> >
> > Did someone say our troops are evil and mindless and an American life isn't worth saving?
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216892.html
>
> I don't think [the first] statement was sensitive to the feelings of others. It was also logically flawed. I would call it an overgeneralization. It equates innocent civilians with enemy human beings.It's hard to discuss something controversial and still be sensitive to the feelings of others, and isn't always easy to know where to draw the line. I know I'm not perfect, but I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole.
Logically flawed is one thing, uncivil is another.
IMO, it doesn't "equate" innocent civilians with enemy human beings, or terrorists and allied forces, it suggests (note the question mark) parallels.
> I don't think there is any factual support for her claim that there is a "conspiracy" to kill a particular number of enemy .
I think "conspire" may have been used in the sense of "to act in harmony toward a common end":
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?conspire
Hoping we can get along with each other,
Bob
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 11:52:29
In reply to Re: Hoping we can get along with each other, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:57:11
> > > > > Here's a paradox: Terrorists in our society are supposedly evil. The definition of a terrorist is a person who plots to kill an innocent civilian. Yet our allied forces conspire to kill the same number of `enemy' human beings who died in the World Trade Towers.
> > > > > Our allied forces are not terrorists?
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216284.html
> > > >
> > > > Just don't tell me our troops are evil and mindless and that one American life isn't worth saving.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216663.html
> > >
> > > Did someone say our troops are evil and mindless and an American life isn't worth saving?
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216892.html
> >
> > I don't think [the first] statement was sensitive to the feelings of others. It was also logically flawed. I would call it an overgeneralization. It equates innocent civilians with enemy human beings.
>
> It's hard to discuss something controversial and still be sensitive to the feelings of others, and isn't always easy to know where to draw the line. I know I'm not perfect, but I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole.
>
> Logically flawed is one thing, uncivil is another.But logically flawed doesn't mean it is NOT civil. It is an overgeneralization. And it suggests that enemy and innocent civilian are equivalent.
> IMO, it doesn't "equate" innocent civilians with enemy human beings, or terrorists and allied forces, it suggests (note the question mark) parallels.
And suggestings okay with you?
>
> > I don't think there is any factual support for her claim that there is a "conspiracy" to kill a particular number of enemy .
>
> I think "conspire" may have been used in the sense of "to act in harmony toward a common end":What about particular number? I don't think killing anyone is the objective of this war. This implies that killing a particular number is a goal.
>
> http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?conspire
>
> Hoping we can get along with each other,
>
> BobWell that's a lovely hope!
However I don't think putting a ? at the end of a sentence makes everything ok.
Is this civil?
France does not support the war against Saddam Hussein.
Saddam does not support the war against himself.
Saddam is a war criminal
France is a war criminal?I suggest parallels and use a question mark so will this be okay?
You really don't get it do you? (And I kind of hope you don't. I wouldn't want to think you were making these erratic decisions on purpose.) Your bobliness astonishes me.
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 12:11:25
In reply to Re: Hoping we can get along with each other, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:57:11
Well, Dr. Bob, I'm with Oddipus on this one.
I'm amazed you don't see it. And I must say that if the posters on this board are allowed to compare the fine young men and women of our military to terrorists (or to find "parallels" to terrorists), I won't be able to be as supportive as I would prefer to be. It would be against every principle I have to allow that sort of statement to go unchallenged. And while I try very hard to put my objections civilly, it is quite difficult to be civil under some circumstances.
And I if I end up with a PBC, I'll consider you completely to blame for allowing an atmosphere that forces me into a position I do not wish to be in, and should not have to be in on a board dedicated to support and education.
Phissshhhhh.
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 12:18:01
In reply to Re: Hoping we can get along with each other » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 12:11:25
I think you should send apologies to the family of those military personnel who were killed while trying to aid a screaming pregnant woman.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the enemy has a better opinion of the humanity of our soldiers than our citizens do.
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 12:18:29
In reply to Re: And BY the way, posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 12:18:01
Posted by Phil on April 7, 2003, at 12:36:04
In reply to Re: Above for Dr. Bob (nm), posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 12:18:29
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 13:08:23
In reply to You can lie about America, just don't be sarcastic (nm), posted by Phil on April 7, 2003, at 12:36:04
Phil, I think you should wear this PBC proudly.
In fact, Dr. Bob, I'd like one for myself to wear proudly. I assure you that what I'm thinking about you is not at all civil. And wipe that smile off your face.
Our military is willing to put their life on the line to defend us if it's necessary. It doesn't seem right not to defend them from completely unfair "parallels" on a public site.
Geez, Phil. You should see my ponytails quivering and the steam rising from my ears.
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 14:16:48
In reply to Re: Hoping we can get along with each other, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:57:11
> > > > > Here's a paradox: Terrorists in our society are supposedly evil. The definition of a terrorist is a person who plots to kill an innocent civilian. Yet our allied forces conspire to kill the same number of `enemy' human beings who died in the World Trade Towers.
> > > > > Our allied forces are not terrorists?
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216284.html
____________________________________________________________________________Why are you referring me to a link quoting Goerhing? What are you suggesting? How is that relevant? I have NEVER suggested anyone should not oppose the war or questioned anyone's patriotism.
> > Logically flawed is one thing, uncivil is another.
>
> IMO, it doesn't "equate" innocent civilians with enemy human beings, or terrorists and allied forces, it suggests (note the question mark) parallels.
>
enemy
adj : of or belonging to an enemy; "enemy planes" [syn: enemy(a)] n 1: an opposing military force; "the enemy attacked at dawn" 2: an armed adversary (especially a member of an opposing military force); "a soldier must be prepared to kill his enemies"http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enemy
What parallel do you think it suggests?
You refer to Goerhing. Neonazis refer to Goerhing. Am I allowed to draw any vile parallel as long as I end with a question mark?
Posted by beardedlady on April 7, 2003, at 14:52:22
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 14:16:48
You're kidding, right?
beardy
Posted by IsoM on April 7, 2003, at 15:38:28
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize » Dr. Bob, posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 14:16:48
Please, Oddipus Rex, don't you see what I was trying to get at when I posted that quote from Goering? He was a monster - horrible beyond words, but it was the gist of the message, not who spoke it, I wanted people to see. What if it came from Aristotle or Einstein instead?
No matter what nation we live in, if the people in that nation are patritotic & love their country, the majority will see themselves as the "good guy" & the other side as the aggressors. If people didn't believe that, who'd be willing to go to war for something they believed wasn't true?
And if we don't believe that the leaders of any nation aren't carefully crafting their words & the image they project, we're deluding ourselves. That's why there are speech writers & public relation peoples working to show the best they can. I watch leaders (of many countries, none in particular) give speeches & I watch their faces carefully. They're watching for the reactions to their comments - you can see their eyes moving over the audience, calculating the effect of their words. There's a great deal of psychology behind all this that's carefully used for the greatest impact on each nation's citizens.
I don't see one side as good & the other bad. I don't see one leader as evil & the other righteous. I see mistrust & hate & fear-mongering & confusion. I see pain & grief & horrors from all sides.
I watched the news of one US female soldier who was killed & she left behind 2 little girls, 3 & 4 years old, & my eyes filled with tears. I watched an Iraqi father sobbing next to a bed where his child that was seriously wounded in the bombing lay, & my eyes filled with tears. So much hate, so many blaming each side, so much death. Does one have to be for or against? Can't one just loathe all this without choosing sides?
I don't even pretend I'd know what to do. There's no easy answer - maybe there is no answer. Hasn't wars, hate, & killing been going on for many thousands of years? But even if I don't know the right answer, I can at least say what's a wrong answer. If someone came up with "highway construction" as the answer for a complex math equation, one wouldn't have to know the right answer to know that it wasn't the right answer for the equation. It's a lousy example, but all I'm trying to say that killing & hate is not the right answer for the problems facing this world.
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 15:49:23
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize » OddipusRex, posted by IsoM on April 7, 2003, at 15:38:28
>I don't see one leader as evil & the other righteous.You don't see Saddam as evil? Wow. I'm pretty much speechless. Why not?
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 15:52:34
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize » OddipusRex, posted by IsoM on April 7, 2003, at 15:38:28
It really doesn't matter if you don't see Saddam as evil, and I don't really need to know your reasons.
My objection was to the vilification of the military, not to the redemption of Saddam Hussein.
I'm sorry to have been diverted. It really isn't any business of mine what you feel about Saddam.
Posted by fayeroe on April 7, 2003, at 16:20:35
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize » OddipusRex, posted by beardedlady on April 7, 2003, at 14:52:22
> You're kidding, right?
>
> beardycoming out of my self-imposed banning....you ARE kidding, aren't you?
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 16:54:02
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize » OddipusRex, posted by IsoM on April 7, 2003, at 15:38:28
> Please, Oddipus Rex, don't you see what I was trying to get at when I posted that quote from Goering? He was a monster - horrible beyond words,
................
Iso didn't you just make a judgement about righteousness and evil?
I understand your quote. I was asking Bob why he linked to it in reference to my objections to another post. I am not being led blindly. I am not objecting to anyone's pacifism or questioning their patriotism.
I was using the quote as an example of false parallels being used to defame someone you don't agree with.(When I suggested that Neonazis also quote goehring as Bob did etc.)
Should I just sit by like a muddleheaded sheep and agree that there is a parallel between American soldiers and terrorists? That there is a parallel between murdering unarmed civilians and killing enemy soldiers in a war? Isn't that what you were warning about-not questioning what your told? So, I questioned. I objected and still do.
I've criticized the media too. And I'm not some blind idiot who believes everything he reads. Or why would I have objected?
>
> I don't see one side as good & the other bad. I don't see one leader as evil & the other righteous. I see mistrust & hate & fear-mongering & confusion. I see pain & grief & horrors from all sides.
....................
True but sometimes hard decisions have to be made. Everything isn't black or white. There is no perfect solution. And even if you don't agree with the actions of the coalition it doesn't follow that they are morally equivalent to terrorists or the Saddam Hussein regime. Did you read the story about "Chemical Ali"? Do you really think he is no more evil than Tony Blair and should have been left alone? Being non-judgmental is very fashionable but people do have to make judgements every day. I don't think anyone underestimates the grief and suffering on all sides but that is different from pretending there is no difference between the two sides.>
Can't one just loathe all this without choosing sides?Of course, but not choosing is a choice too. And one can loathe it whatever choice he makes.
..............................It's a lousy example, but all I'm trying to say that killing & hate is not the right answer for the problems facing this world.
...............................
I would agree. Hitler and Chemical Ali might not though. And if no one stops the people who believe it is the answer they will prevail. I respect true Pacifists but I don't think they have to resort to untrue comparisons to make their point. And I respect people who simply disagree with the way things are being done or the timing etc. There are arguments against it that don't rely on overgeneralizations false paralells and slurs.Iso My questions about the post were directed to Bob because he pasted a link to it. I don't think it was appropriate in that context. I found it patronizing and insulting as well as accusatory in that context. My post on Admin was not directed to you. I hadn't even read your post until Bob linked to it.
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 16:57:18
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize, posted by fayeroe on April 7, 2003, at 16:20:35
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 16:59:27
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize » OddipusRex, posted by beardedlady on April 7, 2003, at 14:52:22
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 17:34:09
In reply to Re: Hoping we can get along with each other, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:57:11
> > IMO, it doesn't "equate" innocent civilians with enemy human beings, or terrorists and allied forces, it suggests (note the question mark) parallels.
>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parallel&r=2
parallel\Par"al*lel\, n. .
3. Conformity continued through many particulars or in all essential points; resemblance; similarity.
Twixt earthly females and the moon All parallels exactly run. --Swift.
4. A comparison made; elaborate tracing of similarity; as, Johnson's parallel between Dryden and Pope.
5. Anything equal to, or resembling, another in all essential particulars; a counterpart.
None but thyself can be thy parallel. --Pope.
Amen your Holiness !
(mild jest to relieve tension)
Posted by jane d on April 7, 2003, at 17:57:18
In reply to Please don't post to me again. Thanks (nm) » beardedlady, posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 16:59:27
Oddipus,
I hope I'm not violating your "don't post to me" request. I haven't had a chance to read that entire thread yet. I suspect when I do I will strongly object to the whole idea and your post will become exhibit a for my objections. I'd hate to be caught judging another poster's motives (so uncivil after all) but I think it's safe to say that Beardedlady's "you're kidding" was another expression of her low opinion of Bob, as in "you must be kidding if you think you'll get an apology" rather than a comment one way or another on your beliefs. If you go back in the archives you'll find a number of similar comments. Unfortunately if you tell people not to post to you there's no chance you'll get a clarification.Jane,
who doesn't want to lose this board over politics. not even her own.
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 18:02:47
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize » IsoM, posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 16:54:02
You expressed that so wonderfully that I really can find nothing to say except to apologize for sticking my own two cents in. :)
(But I do think Jane was right about Beardy. She was insulting Bob again.)
Posted by beardedlady on April 7, 2003, at 18:35:24
In reply to Re: Please don't post to me again. Thanks » OddipusRex, posted by jane d on April 7, 2003, at 17:57:18
It seems some people will just never get it. They would rather believe that everyone is out to get them that someone could actually be on their side.
I don't recall Bob having ever apologized or admitted a mistake, even when an overwhelming majority of posters asked him to rethink a decision.
But it's fine. Oddipus spends her time picking apart single words in my posts and giving them meanings I've never assigned them.
I'd prefer she didn't post to me, either.
beardy
Posted by beardedlady on April 7, 2003, at 18:36:33
In reply to Re: You are my hero » OddipusRex, posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 18:02:47
Posted by IsoM on April 7, 2003, at 18:59:12
In reply to Re: Hoping you'll apologize, posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 15:49:23
Sorry, Dinah, I didn't make my comment clear. I DO see Hussein as very cunning & cruel - almost psychopathical. But I see much that's wrong with Bush & Blair too. What I meant was I don't see one side as simply evil & the other as simply good. Old movies used to have it clear cut who the good guys were & who were the bad. Think of it as a story where there's no happy ending & no obvious hero, though plenty of villians.
No one comes out of this smelling of roses. Some just stink more than others but a bad stench comes from all sides.
Those last two sentences will definitely be my opinion only. Others will disagree & I don't mind - we all look at a situation through different eyes. But we're all powerless to do anything about it what's happening anyway.
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 19:11:22
In reply to Need to Clarify My Comment » Dinah, posted by IsoM on April 7, 2003, at 18:59:12
Thanks for saying some stink worse than others. :)
I really did mean my apology. It really isn't my business if you vote for Saddam in the next election. (that's a joke, btw)
I'm not a black or white thinker either. And if I try, I can think of some legitimate reasons Saddam might have for being angry. But I can't bring myself to think of him as anything but evil. But that's just me.
But again, I really did mean my apology.
Posted by beardedlady on April 7, 2003, at 19:21:42
In reply to Re: You are my hero » OddipusRex, posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 18:02:47
> (But I do think Jane was right about Beardy. She was insulting Bob again.)
I have disagreed with Bob, but I have not insulted him (except for one time a year ago, and I didn't mean the word I used as an insult).
Anyway, I wasn't insulting him. I was saying, "not gonna happen." It's not been his way to apologize.
beardy
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.