Richard Stallman answer to me

[michf at post.tau.ac.il]

Quoting "Stan Goodman" <stan.goodman at hashkedim.com>:

> On Monday 06 June 2011 at 18:44:06 (GMT+2) michf at post.tau.ac.il wrote:
>
>> Quoting "Stan Goodman" <stan.goodman at hashkedim.com>:
>> > On Monday 06 June 2011 at 09:58:36 (GMT+2) Shachar Shemesh
>> >
>> > <shachar at shemesh.biz> wrote:
>> >> On 06/06/11 03:05, Stan Goodman wrote:
>> >> > Since they themselves are students or faculty in universities,
>> >> > it occurs to them to boycott other universities, never
>> >> > considering that universities are precisely where they are most
>> >> > likely to find their soul-mates.
>> >>
>> >> If, as you said, the Israeli academia were unanimously left wing,
>> >> then silencing them will not significantly decrease the diversity
>> >> of thought that the academia is supposed to encourage. It is
>> >> precisely because Israel is a potential source for dissenting
>> >> view that anyone calling for an academic boycott on Israel is
>> >> undermining their own academic legitimacy.
>> >
>> > Nowhere have I said that Israeli academics are unanimously left
>> > wing. Everyone know, however, that many are, and that Ilan Pappe
>> > was not alone before he took his nonsense to the more "kosher"
>> > environment of the UK. Nor have I said that the phenomenon is
>> > unique to Israel -- the same thing can be observed in the US,
>> > Canada, and especially almost anyplace
>> >
>> >  in Europe. I have CERTAINLY not intimated that I wish to stifle
>> >  dissent
>> >
>> > or silence leftists from expressing their ideas, foolish though
>> > they may be.
>> >
>> > I have not understood, on the other hand, why so many evidently
>> > intelligent people fall for a destructive philosophy. That is a
>> > relatively new phenomenon; I do not remember it from the time when
>> > I was at university.
>>
>> There is one big fault in your argument is that you are pushing
>> opinions as facts.
>
> Opinions are the only way that any mortal can express himself. I have
> never until now heard anyone claiming that the expression of opinions is
> a defect.
>

Not the way you do it. You are not claiming that those are your  
opinions, but rather state your opinions as fact and claim that the  
other sides opinions are stupid and destructive based on your opinion  
rather than facts. What you are doing is using your opinions to claim  
that your opinions are fact.

What you are doing is even worse, you are not only stating your  
opinions as know truths, but you are trying to strengthen your claim  
based on false, presumably factual, claims.

>> Right wing people claim that left wing ideas are foolish and
>> destructive and left wing people claim that right wing ideas are
>> foolish and destructive. You can't use one or the other to claim that
>> the other side is foolish.
>
> That's a perfect way to end any argument. Do you see that?
>

No, I want facts to base the opinions. Just putting opinions against  
opinions is a bad argument that goes around in circles and that should  
be ended in such a way. That is why I never go into political  
arguments because they always end in the same stale mate that they  
began with no movement in between. I never commented about you  
opinions, rather about the way they were stated.

> For the record, I have never seen myself as a "right winger", nor have
> others seen me as such. I was a registered Democrat in the US, never a
> Republican, and voted for whichever party I thought best. That is still
> the case, as I am a dual citizen. In Israel, I never considered voting
> for e.g. Meretz or Mapam, but I cannot be characterized as a "right
> winger" here either.
>
>> The only way to actually know who is right is to run with one opinion
>> or the other and see if we are still here to see the results.
>> Unfortunately, there is no way to know if the other course of action
>> wouldn't have yielded a better result.
>
> Yes, the only way to settle it is to wait for the outcome in the long
> term. Unhappily, in the long term we are all dead. So we form
> conclusions based on what facts we perceive. That is what discussion is
> all about.

There was no discussion here, there was only a claim that the other  
side is destructive and stupid based on your opinion. There was also a  
statement that the other side’s opinions are new, while I can  
personally attest to the fact that I've heard these opinions for over  
twenty years and I believe that others have heard them for a few  
thousand more. Same as the opposing opinions; the argument has been  
going on probably since around the time that Mosses crossed the  
dessert, if not since the time of Abraham.

>>
>> And it is not clear what is the relatively new phenomenon, left wing
>> ideas or universities (both of which by the way existed in mid-evil
>> England, where the king kept them far enough not to cause trouble and
>> close enough to keep an eye on. By the way, college heads at the time
>> head the right to execute students).
>
> Bearing in mind the way you think Medieval is spelled (and apparently
> what it must mean), I am content with withdrawing from the discussion.
>

Bad speller mistake, although considering that they were also called  
the dark ages, it's not that wrong in meaning.

> But, to sum up my position, I have advocated declining to permit the
> Palestinians to dictate that the proposed talks must not be presented on
> the premises of an Israeli university. In other words, to sign off on a
> boycott of Israeli uiversities. In my mind, what I have advocated is a
> dignified response as Israelis, and is an eminently defensible position.
> That is indeed my opinion, and is not a fact (how could it be?).
>

I also think that the boycott of the Israeli universities is wrong and  
is pretty much barking up the wrong wall. I also don’t think that we  
should cave in, and tell Richard stalman that we have a venue, if he  
wants to talk there good, and if not, it’s his choice. I didn't  
miss-agree on that point. I don't agree about the way it was made.

> Nothing prevents you from acceding to the Palestinian diktat, and indeed
> accepting all the positions of the Palestinian Authority and of Hamas if
> you like. Perhaps others will agree with your stance.

I never said I did. In fact, I never said what I believe in and I  
don't intend to. What I said is that the way you put your point down  
is wrong. You can go over what I wrote and you’ll see that you just  
inferred what you wanted regarding my opinions.

> --
> Stan Goodman
> Qiryat Tiv'on
> Israel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-il mailing list
> Linux-il at cs.huji.ac.il
> http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
>