Is Israel a Rogue State? A Discussion on International Controversy

[DaveC426913]

The analogy is being dismissed as comedy, because it is comedy, rather than any sort of serious political commentary. You think otherwise?

The fact (or opinion) that it is couched in humour does not negate its validity as an argument. To claim it does would be an ad hominem (dismissing a valid argument based on who is doing the arguing).

It is no accident that Jon Stewart couches biting political discourse in seemingly harmless mockery. Indeed, one of the reasons it is so funny is because of how well it hits the mark.

It seems some people are mixing up cause and effect here.

It is is not that: it is a good argument because it is funny,
it is that: it is funny because it is a good argument.



This entire objection would go away of kyleb simply removes Jon Stewart from the equation and restates the analogy as if it were his own. Then objecters can simply attack kyleb's argument directly.

 

[tiny-tim]

"rogue state"

A lion will attack even if it is not attacked.

Any elephant will attack if it is attacked.

A rogue elephant will attack even if it is not attacked.​

Any state will attack if it is attacked.

A rogue state will attack even if it is not attacked.

You can't call Israel a rogue state just because it responds to attacks on its own citizens … that may or may not be over-reaction, but it certainly isn't being a rogue state, in the way that ordinary people use the adjective "rogue".

The definition quoted from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue+state?r=75" …

a state that does not respect other states in its international actions

… is simplistic and wrong.

A dictionary should reflect common usage of a word (or phrase), and this does not.

Incidentally, this definition is virtually the same as that normally given for "pariah state" (although dictionary.reference.com itself, surprisingly does not have a definition for "pariah state"!) … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_state" …

A pariah state is one whose conduct is considered to be out of line with international norms of behavior.

 

[Hurkyl]

Indeed, one of the reasons it is so funny is because of how well it hits the mark.

It seems some people are mixing up cause and effect here.

Yes, you and kyleb. It would be a ridiculous statement no matter who said it. The fact it's funny doesn't make it any stronger of a statement -- except to people who are easily swayed by that sort of thing.

But, just for fun, we can answer humor with humor. They keep the guy locked in the hallway because he keeps throwing rocks at them whenever they let him into the living room. :tongue:

 

[kyleb]

This entire objection would go away of kyleb simply removes Jon Stewart from the equation and restates the analogy as if it were his own.

Yeah, I'm not one to present something as my own which isn't though. Regardless, I do thank you for emphasizing the distinction between the arguer and the argument.

You can't call Israel a rogue state just because it responds to attacks on its own citizens …

Nor was I, but rather because Israel refuses to respect Palestinians rights under international law.

The definition quoted from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue+state?r=75" …

… is simplistic and wrong.

A dictionary should reflect common usage of a word (or phrase), and this does not.

As I said previously when others made this argument, feel free to present whatever you might consider a more authoritative source for the definition.

The fact it's funny doesn't make it any stronger of a statement...

I wouldn't find it funny if I didn't find it analogous to the situation. Like I see no humor in this:

They keep the guy locked in the hallway because he keeps throwing rocks at them whenever they let him into the living room.

How do you figure "whenever they let him into the living room" is when the "rocks" are "throw[n]"? it seems to me the rockets are a response to Israel's refusal to respect the rights of the refugees, and the rights of Palestinians to sovereignty over what little of their homeland is still legally theirs under international law.

 

[Hurkyl]

Like I see no humor in this:

I didn't expect you to; you don't seem like the kind of person who could enjoy a jab at something he believes in. Similarly, I expected you to be far more critical of an analogy "illustrating" an opposing point of view than one "illustrating" your own point of view.

But I am genuinely surprised that you cannot even see what aspect of the situation the analogy tries to capture.

 

[Evo]

This thread should have been closed a long time ago.