dagblog - Comments for "Former Shin Bet chief: Netanyahu not interested in peace talks"

The insiders speaking out

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 01 May 2012 00:03:01 +0000

The insiders speaking out against Netanyahu's push for attack on Iran is encouraging but I take that speaking out as evidence that those insiders believe the threat of an attack is very real, and very stupid, as opposed to just being a political ploy to maximize negotiation leverage.
AlJazeera has a video interview on the subject.

http://warincontext.org/

More on the political

artappraiser — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:52:20 +0000

In reply to Former Shin Bet chief: Netanyahu not interested in peace talks

More on the political particulars of all this, @ NPR;

excerpt:

Erdan accused Dagan and Diskin of voicing their discontent with Netanyahu out of spite because they weren't awarded additional terms in office.

Dagan, through clenched teeth, minced few words when he replied to Erdan.

"You are lying, sir," Dagan said. "And maybe [it's] not polite, but I prefer that ministers of the state of Israel speak the truth."

Whoops, yeah, I posted my

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 01:36:19 +0000

In reply to Did you mean to post your

Whoops, yeah, I posted my comment in the wrong place. Fortunately the subjects were enough different that it was obvious. And yeah again, it looks like they used weak evidence to support their conclusion.

I agree completely with your comment about Diskin and also with how it brings Colin Powell to mind. For a couple years his name couldn't be brought up in the media without a statement that he was a person of the highest integrity, highly respected by all. His former aid, Larry Wilkerson, is speaking out and saying things I think need to be said but his career in the Army is no longer at stake. I don't know how he was during his time of service when he probably wanted a Star on his shoulder just like any other Colonel.

Did you mean to post your

artappraiser — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 23:08:12 +0000

In reply to It seems to me that this

Did you mean to post your comment on the news item below this one?

http://dagblog.com/link/homophobic-maybe-you-re-gay-13641

Wherever you put it, I'm glad I caught it, you make a lot of interesting points.

Actually, I think the cited study is not that great, I wasn't that impressed; to me it sounds a bit to much in the vein of non-scientific psychobabble that one could easily argue with the conclusions. BUT I have heard and read of previous studies where they had participants wired for judging actual genital arousal, with homophobes looking at homosexual pornography getting aroused, while non-homophobe heteros not showing arousal. I just figure the more the merrier with deterring homophobia in this society, and that's why I posted that link in the news section.

On Bibi & friends, my first impulse is to be snarky and say: tell us something we don't know, Mr. Diskin. But then I think I shouldn't, because we really really need people like him to speak out, all governments do. What he's doing and saying should be lauded, it's much easier for someone in his position to stay silent (Now why does Colin Powell come to mind? )

Could this, then, be

erica20 — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:11:11 +0000

In reply to It seems to me that this

Could this, then, be considered a more scientific description of the "It just creeps me out and I don't know why" tenet?

It seems to me that this

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:37:08 +0000

In reply to Former Shin Bet chief: Netanyahu not interested in peace talks

It seems to me that this 'scientific evidence' is in support of an idea which is very old and very common. Those that doth protest too much have long been suspect.
I found the description of the testing to be quite interesting but I had already become critical of the article until it was redeemed by the last paragraph.

It’s important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance....

I would change part of that paragraph and then take it further. I would offer a theory as to why some who have not been victims of oppression and non-acceptance still became homophobic.

I believe that there are people in the category of homophobe [including those who feel aversion less strong than would be described as phobic] whose reason for being homophobic is never considered and that the reason is probably that if the explanation is in fact correct it would complicate dealing with the condemnation of homophobia. Whether I am in fact correct or not is way beyond my ability to demonstrate or prove in any way, but I strongly believe that it is a legitimate hypothesis.
If I believe that there is a mechanism in my brain, or whatever complex of bodily systems creates my mind, that predisposes me to be attracted to certain and various heterosexual acts, I have to then think that it is possible for a mechanism within that same complex make some specific sexual acts repulsive. If evolution is involved in making heterosexuality the predominate norm by increasing the chances of the species lasting because heterosexual desires increased the likelihood of procreation, then the same evolutionary input could cause homosexuality to be felt as repulsive for an inverse of the same reasons. If this is the case for a particular person, then their homophobia is no more a character flaw or a result of conditioning than is another person's homosexuality.