In an effort to avoid falling into the trap of ad hominem argumentation regarding different sites, I would prefer to represent the need for legalisitic provisos with the use of a link sensitivity rating. The four main categories of rating are described further below. The intention of this rating system, is to provide the casual, unaccustomed, reader of the main site, and blog, with a fore warning (if necessary) about the content of the link provided. By this I mean that, for those unaccustomed to the topics, or the styles of presentation, featured at the links provided, the reader can prepare themselves for what is often encountered: emotive reactionism. I respectfully request that all contributors also adhere to this convention when providing links.
This rating is designated for various reasons, none of which are necessarily exclusive. A likely reason is that the presentation style and/or underlying innuendo leave a little to be desired. These are, of course, only my opinions, but what I mean is that the casual reader may find things a bit heavy going. This will not be necessarily due to content, but perhaps due to a predominance of an unwaivering insistance on agression, rather than conventionalism, in presentation.
My own views, of course, are by no means immune from this designation, and I feel very strongly about argumentation. I am no expert, however there ought to be an overriding objective behind sincere argumentation. Hopefully it is to resolve debates on their merits, using rational and logical methodology. I am very clear about the fact that I am involved in this specific project to learn whether what I think to be correct, is actually so. How can any of us really feel righteous about our views, unless we know we have fully tested them? Proceeding confidently on the basis of conjecture and theory is a dangerous game. All we can presume are that the facts are only facts, and the theories are only theories.
Without making moral judgements, the following matters are likely to influence a High rating for a link:
Excessive use of unreasoned statements of fact (whether correct or not)
Unreasonably agressive argumentation
Any use of agressive, emotive language
Any derogatory use of stereotypes and/or religious symbols for
effect
Unreasonably agressive images
Other similarly themed characterisitics
As the reader learns more about my understanding of certain subjects, and how that understanding influences my opinions, I trust my value judgement will be more obvious. My academic background is in honours degree level History, Politics and later Law. Each of these, very seperate, disciplines have their own unique 'jurisprudence'. Naturally, all of them overlap, and it is with this foundation that I have begun this project. After making the plunge of investigating what I could about Zionism, many facts and analysis that I was 'taught' were thrown into question; others, once reassessed, lead me in new directions. Even if I could show that the new 'analysis' I was 'learning' was sometimes flawed, how confident could I be in established historiography?
At this juncture, as well as elsewhere, I would like to make it clear that at no time do I intend to teach, or be understood as teaching, about any of the subjects I raise. I do intend however, to maintain a tone of academic consideration and presentation of subjects, rather than what I have felt has been a climate of angry evangelicalism. The study of Zionism is peppered with landmines just waiting to be triggered. This does not mean however, we should not, or indeed cannot, traverse the subject. For me, it means only that we must be careful. Landmines are set for intimidation rather than prohibition. Loosing a leg, or perhaps one's life, is just a fact of such an endeavour, but it can be minimised. Equally, the facts can be presented and assessed in such a way as to legitimately, rather than manipulatively, 'reach the people'. As such, I believe that in choosing to traverse these subjects, we must be true to the path rather than to our fear.
This rating is designated for those links which fall short of a High rating, but still could use a heads up. A likely reason is that the site takes a stance that on first glance could trigger emotive reactionism, but on proper consideration, makes an effort to stay true to the path. Conjecture and wishful logic feature much less heavily on these designated links.
This rating is designated for those links which fall short of a Medium rating, but could also use a heads up. A likely reason is that the site covers topics or promotes consideration of matters generally avoided in the mainstream. This rating exists as the lowest, not to represent nil sensitivity, but rather to indicate my view that those readers who would be offended by, or dismissive of considering such links, are not representative of the contributors desired for this project.
This rating is designated for those links which definitely deserve the High rating, but are only recommended for reference purposes. The views of these sites are fully incompatible with the spirit of this project and are only included, for reference and/or critical evaluation. Again, without making a value judgement, such a designation represents my view on how much relevance I attach to the link's evaluation or unreasonable determination to mislead on many of the topics herein discussed.
The above categories represent prudent norms and are not definitive, exhaustive, accusational
or without need for reevaluation and/or amendment. Suggestions and clarification requests are welcome, click the link below.
This blog reserves the right to publish any correspondence in relation to the content of this site.