SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Fermion
Topic Author
Posts: 4486
Joined: November 14th, 2002, 8:50 pm

bronto will have a fit....

September 14th, 2010, 4:40 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurusQuoteA piece of pseudo-science. Selective methods on selective data by an organization with an agenda. The abstract alone betrays their intentions clearly.The difference between NGO Monitor and HRW is that NGO Monitor have a clear and stated agenda, and are open about their claim to be defending Israel's interests. Human Rights Watch, on the the hand, are self-declared neutral judges found out to be taking bribes from criminals. If this were a court of law, the evidence of NGO Monitor would not be dismissed simply because they are representing the defendant. You need to back up your claim that NGO Monitor's report showing bias on HRW's part is selective use of evidence by NGO Monitor. Not liking them is not a good enough reason. You need to show that HRW's reports are untrue. But you can't, so like the sites you cite, you smear them. QuoteQuoteA smear based on the hypothesis that HRW's continual battle with Israeli attempts to discredit itIts obvious, as a conclusion, not a hypothesis, that HRW Middle East Division has become politically activist and is no longer neutral. Even Robert Bernstein says so, do you know who he is?QuoteAS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group?s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast, by Robert L Bernstein Perhaps you should try again.It's Israel that is hell-bent on becoming a pariah state. So you attack HRW for pointing out the obvious.BTW, did you actually read the Bernstein article? If so you will have noticed that his argument is that "open" "democratic" countries are allowed to commit human rights abuses because they are "open" and "democratic". In other words, Israel has carte blanche to commit such abuses because it has a press and judiciary that sometimes criticize the govenrment after the fact. He openly confesses that HRW was originally set up with this exclusion for capitalist "democracies" as a tool for berating the socialist countries during the cold war! Anyone who has read the UN Declaration of Human Rights would know how fraudulent this is.
Last edited by Fermion on September 13th, 2010, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
brontosaurus
Posts: 2035
Joined: May 10th, 2004, 8:33 pm

bronto will have a fit....

September 15th, 2010, 2:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionYou need to show that HRW's reports are untrue. But you can't, so like the sites you cite, you smear them.The point I made to you, which you are avoiding, is that there is excessive focus on Israel, not that Israel does not commit human rights violations. I showed you a report which did rather simple things like compare language used about Israel and its neighbors in HRW reports, count the number of condemnations issued by HRW about Israel relative to its neighbors, that clearly show a double standard. You claim that it was selective use of evidence. But you can't show why. QuoteIt's Israel that is hell-bent on becoming a pariah state. So you attack HRW for pointing out the obvious.Why is it obvious to you Fermion? I'll hazard a guess that its obvious because organizations like HRW focus on Israel excessively, ignoring the Middle East's worst human rights abuses. That focus inevitably influences the image of which you are so you are certain. And then it becomes obvious. Well, I challenge you to read the report and get back to me on its findings. Right now, you have offered nothing.QuoteBTW, did you actually read the Bernstein article? If so you will have noticed that his argument is that "open" "democratic" countries are allowed to commit human rights abuses because they are "open" and "democratic". In other words, Israel has carte blanche to commit such abuses because it has a press and judiciary that sometimes criticize the govenrment after the fact. He openly confesses that HRW was originally set up with this exclusion for capitalist "democracies" as a tool for berating the socialist countries during the cold war! Anyone who has read the UN Declaration of Human Rights would know how fraudulent this is.What he actually said was this:At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them ? through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag ? and the millions in China?s laogai, or labor camps.Its pretty clear that he saw Human Rights Watch as playing an important role in public debate in open societies that should ultimately result in an end to human rights violations. It is not all a case of him saying that Israel, the US, or any open society, can do things because it has an open press. That is really misreading him.And - please for the record - do you not agree that there is no moral equivalence between a closed and an open society? You seem to not mind that Saudis kill homosexuals and deny women their rights. I think I've heard you condemn it once or twice, with more cases of your turning a blind eye to their wrong doing. Why the dictator coddling? Let's leave the Middle East -- was Stalin evil or good, or neither? I'd like to know what you think.
 
User avatar
Fermion
Topic Author
Posts: 4486
Joined: November 14th, 2002, 8:50 pm

bronto will have a fit....

September 15th, 2010, 2:47 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurusQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionYou need to show that HRW's reports are untrue. But you can't, so like the sites you cite, you smear them.The point I made to you, which you are avoiding, is that there is excessive focus on Israel, not that Israel does not commit human rights violations.Clutching at straws when your other attempts to smear them failed. QuoteI showed you a report which did rather simple things like compare language used about Israel and its neighbors in HRW reports, count the number of condemnations issued by HRW about Israel relative to its neighbors, that clearly show a double standard. You claim that it was selective use of evidence. But you can't show why.Leaving aside the selectivity of an organization with an agenda choosing what to count and when, any "excessive" focus on Israel is appropriate because of the constant lying propaganda from pro-Israeli sources trying to discredit it and the overwhelming excessive coverage this propaganda receives. Is HRW not allowed to defend itself from these smears with real data? Is HRW not allowed to focus on the areas that are most obscured by uncritical reporting of lies? QuoteQuoteBTW, did you actually read the Bernstein article? If so you will have noticed that his argument is that "open" "democratic" countries are allowed to commit human rights abuses because they are "open" and "democratic". In other words, Israel has carte blanche to commit such abuses because it has a press and judiciary that sometimes criticize the govenrment after the fact. He openly confesses that HRW was originally set up with this exclusion for capitalist "democracies" as a tool for berating the socialist countries during the cold war! Anyone who has read the UN Declaration of Human Rights would know how fraudulent this is.What he actually said was this:At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them ? through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.The sentence in bold is meaningless garbage put in there as an attempt at an excuse. The simple truth is that they don't correct them.QuoteIts pretty clear that he saw Human Rights Watch as playing an important role in public debate in open societies that should ultimately result in an end to human rights violations. It is not all a case of him saying that Israel, the US, or any open society, can do things because it has an open press. That is really misreading him.Exposing the truth beneath his mealy-mouthed bullshit is not misreading.QuoteAnd - please for the record - do you not agree that there is no moral equivalence between a closed and an open society? I do not play silly games with your bullshit about "moral equivalence" that you bring up every time you don't like an appropriate comparison.QuoteYou seem to not mind that Saudis kill homosexuals and deny women their rights.You seem to beat your wife every day.QuoteI think I've heard you condemn it once or twice, with more cases of your turning a blind eye to their wrong doing. Why the dictator coddling?Why the wife beating?QuoteLet's leave the Middle East -- was Stalin evil or good, or neither? I'd like to know what you think.Ah, the Argumentum Ad Stalinum. If you don't know what I think about Stalin after everything I've posted in OT over the years, then you are as thick as two short planks. Besides which it is irrelevant to the issues of HRW, Soros and Israel.When are you going to stop all these distractions and focus?
Last edited by Fermion on September 14th, 2010, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On