|
|
Post by digger1 on Mar 14, 2009 12:09:01 GMT
Sorry if someone has pointed this out but this IS the answer to your original question: Cam Gaza Sol BlogNo drama, no "toy throwing" or anything else can realistically be attributed to this topic, it's clear what CGS is. Whether or not it leaves myself and others feeling slightly excluded is a glib point If you want to discuss what CGS Should ( I shall not be drawn on the Is-Ought debate  ) be then I would suggest you have that as a topic. Sol S |
|
|
|
Post by digger1 on Mar 14, 2009 12:10:41 GMT
Great so now I'm on page 2. should have got on the bandwagon earlier
|
|
|
|
Post by cisneros on Mar 24, 2009 17:59:49 GMT
Getting a bit stuck in definitions here...
please, people, less pedantry.
digger1, official definitions are different from identity, and when a group identity is quite wrapped up in its purpose as CGS is, and as changeable as CGS is, 'is' and 'ought' get a bit wrapped up inside each other, and it really does not take a detailed knowledge of Hume to start being constructive...
So lets try to help come to a collective understanding?
On the subject of another definition: Eleftherios and Beccy, your Zionisms need sorting out: If anti-zionism does not mean being opposed to Israel's existence, and zionism just means wanting to allow Israel to exist, then one is not, after all, anti-theother.
We are against (presumably) any expansion of the state of Israel, and so we are, in Eleftherios' sense, anti-Zionist. But it makes little sense to call ourselves that if people will assume we are after the destruction of Israel. Respecting self-definition seems to be important, and if we cannot acheive consistent intersubjective definitions then we should use different terminology.
We are a network of individuals, and I do not believe it would be helpful for the group to choose to label itself as anything: I do believe, however, that there is a place for collective statements on the things we are agreed on, when it would be useful to do so.
I personally do not think that we ought to have any layer of group policy or politics above that, and I am suspicious of affiliations with any other group
So, I would say, with a nice dose of irony: we are rarely justified in making statements, and when we do i think we should require unaninimity (like we had in condemning the invasion).
What unifies us is concern for the people of Gaza, what we do is actions on specific issues and to promote general understanding, and a raft of official policy documents on different political groups and political stances would be an unecessary and harmful distraction.
comments?
|
|
) be then I would suggest you have that as a topic.