Paris Slams Sharon for Urging Jews to Quit France

Nestcape Network News ^ | 07/18/2004 19:44 | Megan Goldin

[newfarm4000n]

So to your way of thinking, the only valid economic decision on earth is one based purely on price/value? There's never a time when morality or patriotism should enter into a purchasing decision. Do I understand you correctly?


No your comprehension skills are severely lacking . What I am saying is that you may consider your moral views as much as you want in making a decision BUT IT IS SELF EVIDENT THAT IT WILL THEN NO LONGER BE AN ECONOMIC DECISION (There is nothing wrong with that as long as you do so voluntarily). You are free to make a patriotic non-economic decision if you feel like it( such as when you buy badges to support our troops) - what you will have to concede then is that you are not buying these things purely for self interest ( as our economic system is based on). IT IS BETTER TO HONESTLY ACCEPT THAT WE ARE MAKING A WILFUL NON-ECONOMIC DECISON BECAUSE OUR CONSCIENCE OUTWEIGHS PURE PROFIT RATHER THEN DELUDE OURSELVES INTO SOMEHOW JUSTIFYING ALL EMOTIONAL DECISONS AS BEING BETTER TO OUR BOTTOM LINE.

[samtheman]

I don't understand why you're so adamant about pointing out the obvious. To the point where you have to scream in capital letters. Yes, we all know that boycotts aren't done to save money. Obvious. Tautological. Unimportant to the point of being irrelevant.

Your loud insistence in emphasizing this utterly uninteresting tautology makes me wonder if you don't have another agenda. Perhaps what you're really doing is trying to talk us out of boycotting France. Is that true?

Are you a closet Francophile?

(I know the question will make you angry, but nothing else I can think of explains your obsession with explaining that which needs no explanation. Yes. We get it. You don't make money holding boycotts. Got it.)

[newfarm4000n]

Are you a closet Francophile? I dislike France as much as the next person. I just received so many responses to what i thought was a merely obvious statement . If what i said was a tautology then why so many negative responses to my post ? I mean why even bother responding to a "meaningless statement ".

Just because i oppose a certain measure as being impractical doesn't mean i sympathize with the enemy.It's like saying because you oppose a Federal Homeland Security bureaucracy then you must be pro-terrorist . I really do hope that the Islamic Republic of France gets destroyed I just think that boycotts harm us more than them.



You are just irritated that your B-grade economic analysis is clearly indefensible and are trying to back flip your way out of it.

[samtheman]

I made no economic analysis. None. I said simply this:

There are more important things than economics. You appear to agree with that statement in the middle of each of your posts but by the end of each post you come around to your uninspiring conclusion that boycotts are unsound economics.

For the record: Boycotts worked against South Africa and would work against France if more people participated.

If Americans completely stopped visiting France, it would hurt their economy. You say it would also hurt American tourists. Because they'd be making something other than a "sound economic decision". But the desire to tour France is not an "economic decision" in the first place, but a life-style/quality-of-life decision. Pure economics would mean you only go to work, home, school, grocery store, etc. No pleasure travel at all.

So let's stop talking about "pure economics", ok? There's no such thing. Not with free people in a free country. We do things we like to do because we feel like doing them and that's the way we act all the time. Economics is involved, but in some cases only peripherally, as in the case of tourism. (We try to get a good travel deal to our destination, but we don't choose our destination based on price alone. Otherwise, we'd only visit Iowa.)

So if you post on this subject again, please don't end your post with a little lecture-byte on personal economics.

The fact is, none of us have to visit France ever again. Our household budgets will survive such a decision. There are thousands of other cool places on the planet to go.

If we all stuck together on this, not only would the French suffer (economically), but we'd all be doing the right thing.

[newfarm4000n]

So let's stop talking about "pure economics", ok? There's no such thing. Not with free people in a free country. We do things we like to do because we feel like doing them and that's the way we act all the time. Economics is involved, but in some cases only peripherally, as in the case of tourism. (We try to get a good travel deal to our destination, but we don't choose our destination based on price alone. Otherwise, we'd only visit Iowa.)



I guess you have a point. I just hope we don't pick and choose which tyranny is acceptable to deal with. For the record i wholeheartedly agree with you that France is not our ally.