|
|
| Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar (1181952) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri May 9 14:40:06 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Mitch45 on Fri May 9 09:19:21 2014. 1. I agree. But unless everyone subscribes to it, it won't happen.Not necessarily. The European Union and Schengen treaty represent a small-scale implementation of free travel. Throughout the world, there are smaller areas where specific groups of nations allow limited free travel between them. (Australia/New Zealand, I'm pretty sure). Worldwide abandonment of exclusive citizenship can grow organically as similar groups expand and eventually interlink. 2. I agree that separation of church and state is a good idea, but forbidding religion itself is not. I don't advocate forbidding religion— if someone is wrong, trying to outlaw his incorrect belief will only further convince him that he's right. What we need is separation of church and state now, combined with teaching critical thinking and science (as in the process of, not just the things it's discovered) and over the centuries, religion will eventually dwindle on its own. 3. Also true, but when part of the population is irrevocably committed to toppling the state, this is what will occur. Depending on the definition of "toppling," then excluding people so devoted is hardly without reason, but every country on the planet excludes a lot more broadly than that. 4. If you can figure out a way to do this that everyone can agree with, you will win a Nobel Prize. Luckily, poverty is not an all or nothing affair. If I can get minimum wage increased in the US or bring drought-resistant crops to third world countries that lack them, I have alleviated poverty. Plenty of people do it all the time. Some of them even do get Nobel Prizes. 5. How do you think the United States grew in the 1800's? By killing numerous Indians and putting the rest of them on reservations. ...and ... that's ... a bad thing. 6. There has not been a real declared war since World War II. Every conflict since then, despite being called "wars" by historians and the media, were police actions, many with UN participation. No, but they were all precipitated by an act of war— an attack, an invasion, etc. That the current unpopularity of fighting has led countries to avoid formal declarations of war is irrelevant. 6a. What happens if the entity attacking your country does not have its own state, but are in fact an organized guerilla group? People die just the same from their bombs as from a formal nation's bombs. Contrary to popular rhetoric, there is no such thing as a "war on terror." Not a national entity? Not a war. If the entity attacking your country is just a run-of-the-mill terrorist group, then they're not qualitatively different from any other criminals; it'll just take different tactics to arrest them (or kill them if need be). Keep in mind, though, that if an entity governs territory or exerts a claim to territory that it will govern if it gets the chance, then it is a national entity and can potentially be a side in a war. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|