|
|
| Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar (1173451) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 16 of 22 |
||
|
| (1182410) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 13:37:48 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by AlM on Fri May 9 15:58:44 2014. It's a crack at the awkward wording of his statement. He implied Israel was launching terrorist attacks on civilians, so I pointed it out with the level of snark I've come to accept as necessary for this thread. |
|
|
| (1182411) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 13:38:01 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by TerrApin Station on Fri May 9 16:15:56 2014. Mathematically invalid. Please try again. |
|
|
| (1182418) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 13:41:26 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Fri May 9 16:06:12 2014. You said:You might be appalled to know what most of the "left" thinks Israel should do vis a vis the Palestinians. So I told you what I suspect most of the left thinks on the topic. If you can prove I'm wrong or show why I should be appalled, be my guest. |
|
|
| (1182419) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat May 10 13:42:57 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 13:37:48 2014. But it's the crux of your criticism of Israel. |
|
|
| (1182424) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 13:48:20 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Fri May 9 16:09:38 2014. Your catchphrase for when you can't handle the fact that things in the past don't support your opinions.The fuck? You were talking about how the thread got started. I told you what the thread was about now. Conversations drift. Deal with it. I'm not saying one has to have lived through an experience to comment on it, but you might feel differently if you've had to go through those experiences. Perhaps. But I lived through 9/11 and I was one of the few people not stirred into a panicked fit so don't bet your house on it. Although it's curious you note about how a rational person might react, given that personal connection to an issue generates emotional reactions that often defy reason. I know that if someone killed someone close to me, I'd want him tortured to death, but that's not a rational response. If it were someone else, I'd be the first person to protest torture and/or murder and if it were me, I'd probably be glad for such people later. Especially if the guy turned out to be innocent. |
|
|
| (1182427) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 13:51:21 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by TerrApin Station on Fri May 9 16:26:10 2014. I had to check myself to confirm how all this started, but it would appear that I never changed the subject at all, let alone to avoid addressing any issues. |
|
|
| (1182428) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat May 10 13:53:15 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 13:48:20 2014. I was one of the few people not stirred into a panicked fit so don't bet your house on it.How close were you? I was 2 miles away and did not see a single panicked person. |
|
|
| (1182533) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:31:08 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by AlM on Sat May 10 11:23:01 2014. Civilians are killed by Israel. Tactics are available that would result in civilians not being so readily killed by Israel. It may not be "deliberate" (and I don't think I ever claimed it was) but it's a fairly compelling circumstantial case.What's your similar circumstantial case that I'm an agent provocateur for the CIA? |
|
|
| (1182535) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:33:59 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by AlM on Sat May 10 11:53:26 2014. If all the other Arabs want to wipe out Israel, that's their fault.That statement is only open to two interpretations: (a) He believes all other Arabs want to wipe out Israel or (b) He does not believe all other Arabs want to wipe out Israel. If (a) then he's racist. If (b) then he posted something completely irrelevant of no meaning or value to the discussion. Since it is common practice to assume in favour of the relevancy of a statement, I went with (a). |
|
|
| (1182536) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:35:28 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat May 10 11:58:37 2014. Just one person? I thought you meant a category. |
|
|
| (1182543) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:45:15 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by AlM on Sat May 10 13:24:57 2014. Given the choice between (a) getting rid of the entity building the bombs and (b) leaving civilians in a state of poverty where basic construction materials are unavailable, I'd say (a) is the better option. |
|
|
| (1182544) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:47:19 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by AlM on Sat May 10 13:32:47 2014. Compared to Hamas/Palestine, they're a military superpower. Come on, they can think of something.Keep in mind that the need to "withdraw" and maintain a "two state solution" are self-imposed problems. That Israel has decided to maintain both at all costs doesn't mean they're actual limitations that must be accounted for. |
|
|
| (1182546) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:48:41 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by AlM on Sat May 10 13:42:57 2014. Hardly. |
|
|
| (1182548) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:51:21 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by AlM on Sat May 10 13:53:15 2014. I'm not talking about immediate physical panic; I'm talking about the nationwide reaction. Across America, people reacted to the 9/11 attacks by supporting war, torture, and holding political prisoners on the basis of a powerful leader's empty assurance that it would "protect" them from another attack. I was two miles away give or take and I never supported any of that nonsense. |
|
|
| (1182550) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:54:04 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:51:21 2014. ...and w00t! I am done with minutes to spare! :) |
|
|
| (1182580) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sat May 10 23:57:13 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 11:53:28 2014. Something like all the people of Japanese descent were locked up after the US declared an area theoretically vulnerable to attack. Meanwhile, there were Jews who got into the US (and Canada, and England, etc).The question is how many Japanese who tried to emigrate to America vs. how many Jews. The fact that they're a country which can set its immigration policy? How many persecuted refugees are there today who have already been turned away by most other countries? That's your basis of your viewpoint that Israel can take more refugees? Can you try being more specific about how that follows? Announcing a policy does not justify it. Considering that the policy doesn't appear to be illegal, I'd say making it clear from the outset is enough. |
|
|
| (1182591) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 04:00:24 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Fri May 9 14:02:15 2014. Oops forgot to respond to the rest again.The whole point of this debate is whether Israel should have a double standard. Add to that question about what is doable for Israel. Then you'll have your answer. (b) Even if they were generally tolerant and accepting, what would happen if the Christians became a majority and started demanding their holidays be recognised as official and opening businesses on Shabbos and so forth? Israel would lose its Jewish character you seem so protective of; are you OK with that? If they can reproduce and/or convert enough people to Christianity to create a Christian majority, then that's a problem Israel will have to deal with. Does it matter? If Israel's policy was that any Jew fleeing persecution was welcome, that would be understandable— a double standard, perhaps, but not a thoroughly odious one. However, that's not the case. Israel's policy is that any Jew is welcome for any reason even while people fleeing persecution are turned away. That's what I have a problem with. It would be a little weird to reject Jews from entering a supposed Jewish haven and homeland, without a really good reason (like the person is a serial killer or a terrorist). No, but ideas like democracy and equality have been consistently gaining traction Democracy? Maybe. Equality? Not so much. If anything, it's brought the inter-demographic hatred to the forefront. You're right about Asia, though— a good chunk of the continent is controlled by the Soviet Union which is highly unpleasant and... ...no, wait, the Soviet Union collapsed. The countries carved out of its former territory are hardly paradises but all to most of them are doing better than in Soviet days. Places like Georgia are approaching "reasonably tolerable," Poland seems to be doing pretty well, and the Soviet half of Germany seems to have nearly caught up. Except Poland and Germany are not in Asia. China, Myanmar, and Thailand are, for example. And lately they've been demonstrating how enlightened they are. And the countries carved out of the Soviet Union? The majority of the ones in Asia have turned into corrupt tinpot dictators, if not outright puppets of Russia. The point is, you used the Republicans as an example to show that historical progress is being reversed and I pointed out it shows the opposite. Hmm, a party that was known for being conservative but reasonable - sometimes even liberal - has turned into an amalgamation of corporatist elitist jerks, illogical fanatics, and Christian evangelicals. Yet they carry nearly half the states in the Union, and have a majority in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives. That does not sound like progress. You missed the point entirely. Dictators can't come to power without, at minimum, the tolerance or passivity of the population. If more than a few Germans were willing to oppose him (or if other countries were less accepting of him, or if they hadn't squeezed Germany to bursting under the treaty of Versailles) then he'd never have had the chance to kill anyone. By the time military power is the only solution, humanity has already failed. I mostly agree, but the point is that your example of changing human nature involved a massive military campaign, trials, imprisonment, and executions. Moreover, you did a nice job of confusing a subset of humanity defined by geography with a subset defined by an ideology. Last time I checked, Germany still exists and its nature has been quite definitively changed since the 1940s. In fact, they've actually banned statements in support of Naziism. Why it's almost as if some people who didn't accept Naziism as an inevitable product of human nature stepped in and changed the prevailing beliefs and habits of a lot of people. Since you mentioned Nazis, I mentioned Nazis. Germany still exists because we were primarily after NAZIS not Germans as a whole. And after all that, we STILL have Nazism (as neo-Nazism), even in Germany (though much more underground). So an Afghan atheist, a Saudi Christian and a Canadian Jew all have to go through the same naturalisation process and risk not making it through? No, the Jew would go through a different one. Nice dodge. Sarcastic answer for a sarcastic question. I asked how the religious persuasion of a given number of refugees determines whether or not it's an achievable goal to take them in. Try answering that. 1) Why was Israel created? 2) Given its stated purpose, how much further beyond that purpose can it support, given its available resources? That's your answer. |
|
|
| (1182594) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 04:45:33 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Fri May 9 15:33:15 2014. Not necessarily. Taking care of the ones closest to you first is not hypocrisy, unless you stated beforehand you will take everyone equally. |
|
|
| (1182595) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 05:23:55 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 11:41:31 2014. Irrelevant. You claimed all Arabs not living in Israel want to destroy Israel. That's racist.Subjunctive mood "The beginning" was 1948. It is no longer the beginning. And now they are letting in other people, including refugees. The aforementioned Ugandan is a lower priority for entry permission that the person who shows up at their border and says "I'm from Canada (and I'm also Jewish) and I want to come in because it looks like fun or summat." So did Israel's policy prevent him from trying to emigrate to the US? Or Canada? Or Europe? How am I supposed to have "empathy" for the hypothetical victims of the 2014 holocaust that isn't happening? You can't even begin to imagine what it was like to be through the Holocaust or a pogrom, or at least have a relative who did and told you about it, and then you expect the Jewish members of this board to take you seriously?? For real?? You asked whether I'd trust other countries to take me in if I were in the late 1940s and had just watched my friends and relatives killed. I pointed out that it was moot, because Israel was set up for that specific purpose. Dodging by omission. I said "And since this is a hypothetical situation where you don't like Israel's Law of Return policy, we'll leave that out and you'll have to go through the hoops just like everyone else." Not to mention that up until 1948, there was no Israel. Although it's curious that you'd accuse me of lack of empathy when your own empathy stops abruptly at the in-group border. Jews were not the only people to be killed in the Holocaust (and turned away from other countries) so why wasn't Israel just as inclined to welcome them? Their first priority was their own people. Remember what I said about achievable goals? Not to mention that a lot of the other people who died already had a home country. I wouldn't exactly call the current Israel/Palestine arrangement a "working solution." And that racism and sexism are problematic hardly helps your point— you've dismissed "the Arab race" as evil and I recall hearing that Israel has a pretty big problem with sexism. You wouldn't, but the people who moved to Israel would. Nobody said it was a perfect solution. Unlike yours, it's actually been implemented. On the contrary. Trying to make sure there are a few places you can flee to in a pinch is a more robust solution than declaring that you can absolutely rely on one country that may be gone, no longer accepting, or no longer safe when you actually need to flee. Considering that the one country is going to be around in the foreseeable future, it's better than no country you can rely on. And like I said before, they succeeded in creating that country. How about your solution? OK, you got me there. Doing nothing and assuming everything will be OK is a damn sight more achievable than actually improving matters. Carving out a country and making it livable is hardly doing nothing. And they seem to have gotten farther with their solution than yours. |
|
|
| (1182597) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 06:34:04 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Fri May 9 15:30:41 2014. Yeah, that's debatable. |
|
|
| (1182607) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 10:19:21 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sat May 10 23:57:13 2014. The question is how many Japanese who tried to emigrate to America vs. how many Jews.No it isn't. You claimed that Jews were singled out for special mistreatment by countries like the United States; I demonstrated that this was not the case. That's your basis of your viewpoint that Israel can take more refugees? Can you try being more specific about how that follows? Not sure what you mean. It seems to me that the number of people fleeing persecution is small enough that Israel can accept their fair share regardless of the refugees' religious persuasions. Considering that the policy doesn't appear to be illegal, I'd say making it clear from the outset is enough. Seriously? That's your justification? That it's not "illegal?" Given that Israel is a country that gets to write its own laws, this is basically just repeating your previous claim that they've announced it, therefore it can't possibly be wrong. |
|
|
| (1182615) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 11:11:15 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 04:00:24 2014. Add to that question about what is doable for Israel. Then you'll have your answer.Accepting refugees is doable. If they don't want to, that's their problem. If they can reproduce and/or convert enough people to Christianity to create a Christian majority, then that's a problem Israel will have to deal with. And they will deal with it in what way...? It would be a little weird to reject Jews from entering a supposed Jewish haven and homeland, without a really good reason (like the person is a serial killer or a terrorist). Yet again, you declare a double standard without offering even the slightest attempt to justify it. Do you simply not believe that everyone is created equal? Democracy? Maybe. Equality? Not so much. If anything, it's brought the inter-demographic hatred to the forefront. I'm sure plenty of black people who lived through segregation would care to disagree with you. Except Poland and Germany are not in Asia. My point was that the Soviet Union, which controlled a good swath of Asia, has collapsed and its former territories are now generally better off for it. China, Myanmar, and Thailand are, for example. And lately they've been demonstrating how enlightened they are. China has abandoned its failed attempt at "communism" and has also abandoned the idea of totalitarianism— over the last few decades, it's gone from economic stagnation brought on by the policies of a single moronic ruler and complete control of citizens' private lives to an economic powerhouse with limited personal freedom. Myanmar's military dictatorship has officially ended and the country's human rights record has shown signs of improvement. Thailand has had some troubles, but nothing to suggest human progress is moving backwards (and Thailand by itself couldn't disprove a global trend anyway). And the countries carved out of the Soviet Union? The majority of the ones in Asia have turned into corrupt tinpot dictators, if not outright puppets of Russia. Russia represents a good chunk of Asia and it's doing better than in the Soviet days. I haven't looked up the details of all former Soviet territories in Asia, but some improvement over the Soviet Union seems present by and large; I'm pretty sure Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are showing obvious signs of improvement. Hmm, a party that was known for being conservative but reasonable - sometimes even liberal - has turned into an amalgamation of corporatist elitist jerks, illogical fanatics, and Christian evangelicals. I'm not sure when they were ever "liberal," unless you're going back to the 19th century (maybe early 20th). Yet they carry nearly half the states in the Union, and have a majority in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives. That does not sound like progress. No, but the fact that even the states they control most completely (like Arkansas) have legalised gay marriage in spite of their best efforts does. The fact that racial equality is at an all-time high despite their best efforts does. The fact that they have failed to ban abortion despite their best efforts does. The fact that they have failed to dismantle Social Security despite their best efforts does. The fact that they can only cling to power through artificial techniques like propaganda and voter suppression as the populace rejects their toxic ideology does. That's the point. The Republicans are doing everything they can to reverse historical progress and despite the amount of power they have, they are failing. I mostly agree, but the point is that your example of changing human nature involved a massive military campaign, trials, imprisonment, and executions. No, my example is that an unwillingness to change human nature on behalf of the German populace and/or the Allied powers produced a situation where a military campaign was necessary. As I said, by the time military power is the only solution, humanity has already failed. Of course, even once that point is reached, it still serves as an example of changing terrible policies rather than ascribing them to unchangeable human nature and ignoring them. Since you mentioned Nazis, I mentioned Nazis. Germany still exists because we were primarily after NAZIS not Germans as a whole. And your point is...? The Nazis did bad things. The people of Germany passively accepted (or even supported) them by and large. And some people decided that those bad things were not the inevitable product of human nature not worth doing anything about and stopped those bad things. My original point here was that trying to change bad policies and end injustices (on whatever scale they may be) is not a futile endeavour because bad policies and injustices are not unshakable aspects of human nature. As of now, I consider this point to be proven. Although given the circumstances of Israel's creation, I would tend to think you believed it all along. And after all that, we STILL have Nazism (as neo-Nazism), even in Germany (though much more underground). No need to be perfectionist. I'm willing to accept reducing Nazism from "absolute ruling power over a country" to "a bunch of dudes whose opinions are completely irrelevant to the vast majority (which never even gets to see them)" as sufficient improvement. France still has its monarchists, Germany still has its Nazis, America still has its pro-slavery advocates, and none of them matter because all of them are tiny minorities justifiably viewed as crazy by everybody else. No, the Jew would go through a different one. And that's exactly my point. The persecuted refugees have to go through a more difficult process and risk being turned away, while the non-persecuted Jew gets fast-tracked through the whole thing. And I though the argument I had with Chris and/or Spider Pig over birthright citizenship was bad. Sarcastic answer for a sarcastic question. No, it was a serious question with a sarcastic addendum unrelated to its content. If the addendum was confusing you, I can remove it (it's conveniently detachable) and offer only the question with a less sarcastic followup: So Israel can take in hundreds of thousands of refugees in a short time span, but only if they're Jewish? How does Judaism make the refugees easier to accommodate? 1) Why was Israel created? Irrelevant. Unless you want to argue that the circumstances under which a country was founded place a permanent chokehold on its development and progress over decades and centuries. Remember, America was founded as a slave state. Most countries in Europe were founded as monarchies. That Israel's founding charter is less odious is a function of its relatively recent birth. 2) Given its stated purpose, how much further beyond that purpose can it support, given its available resources? Also irrelevant. My point is that its "stated purpose" isn't justification for anything it does. Stating you intend to do something doesn't justify it. Stating that it's your "purpose" to do something still doesn't justify it. That's your answer. OK, so your answer, then, is that their religious persuasion doesn't matter, but Israel has chosen to enforce a double standard, and while double standards are generally considered anathema in any civilised country, this one is OK because Israel has declared their "purpose" is to have a double standard. |
|
|
| (1182616) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 11:14:19 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 04:45:33 2014. The ones closest to you involves the people you know personally and have an emotional attachment to. It does not include strangers defined only by their adherence to the same set of rituals.When you declare you will treat one broad demographic differently from another, that is a double standard. And if you believe that everyone is created equal, then a double standard is hypocritical. |
|
|
| (1182628) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 13:19:32 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 10:19:21 2014. No it isn't. You claimed that Jews were singled out for special mistreatment by countries like the United States; I demonstrated that this was not the case.Wrong. My point was that more Jews were turned away from entering those countries than other demographics. Not sure what you mean. It seems to me that the number of people fleeing persecution is small enough that Israel can accept their fair share regardless of the refugees' religious persuasions. The problem is that you want Israel to be the catchall for any refugees no one else will take. I'm asking what is your basis for thinking it can do that and still continue to be the haven and homeland for all Jews? Seriously? That's your justification? That it's not "illegal?" Given that Israel is a country that gets to write its own laws, this is basically just repeating your previous claim that they've announced it, therefore it can't possibly be wrong. Then what international law is it breaking? |
|
|
| (1182630) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 13:22:00 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 05:23:55 2014. Subjunctive moodYes. I'm familiar with the concept. It is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and does not address my point in any way. My point is this. You stated the following: Israeli Arabs seem to live relatively peacefully in Israel. If all the other Arabs want to wipe out Israel, that's their fault. That would imply you believe all non-Israeli Arabs want to wipe out Israel. Do you believe that all non-Israeli Arabs want to wipe out Israel? And now they are letting in other people, including refugees. Except that Jews are still given priority. A double standard is still in place. So did Israel's policy prevent him from trying to emigrate to the US? Or Canada? Or Europe? If he did and they turned him away, that's wrong and that's their fault. However, that three other people have stood by and done nothing in the face of injustice does not excuse your own apathy, especially when you have plainly demonstrated the ability to address that injustice. You can't even begin to imagine what it was like to be through the Holocaust or a pogrom, or at least have a relative who did and told you about it, and then you expect the Jewish members of this board to take you seriously?? For real?? Now you're just making up random bullshit. You seem to have broken up the lines, but you originally said this: I was commenting on your total lack of empathy and possibly imagination, which explains your overly idealistic views and in your inability to respond to the situation I proposed. And my reply was this single cohesive argument: How am I supposed to have "empathy" for the hypothetical victims of the 2014 holocaust that isn't happening? As you can see, I never said, suggested, or implied that I "can't even begin to imagine what it was like to be through the Holocaust or a pogrom," I pointed out that neither exists in 2014, and your argument based on the political situation of the 1940s is not relevant to what policies should be implemented today. A point you seem to have missed as evidenced by your further statements: Dodging by omission. I said "And since this is a hypothetical situation where you don't like Israel's Law of Return policy, we'll leave that out and you'll have to go through the hoops just like everyone else." Not to mention that up until 1948, there was no Israel. (a) If I'm not mistaken, 1948 is, in fact, the "late 1940s." (b) I have/had/would have had no objections to Israel's Law of Return policy in 1948, so asking me to ignore it in your hypothetical is unfair. That a law was expected or acceptable in different circumstances does not justify its existence now. Their first priority was their own people. Indeed. However, I think it's time they managed to move on to second and third priorities. The situation re: Judaism and worldwide acceptance thereof seems pretty much sorted. Remember what I said about achievable goals? History is filled with many examples of countries being persuaded to abandon a double standard. I'll call it "achievable." Not to mention that a lot of the other people who died already had a home country. The Romani still have trouble finding a country that will accept them. They didn't fare much better than the Jews during the Holocaust, so maybe Israel can grant them "right of return" as well? You wouldn't, but the people who moved to Israel would. And the people in Palestine wouldn't. It's easy to support a policy you're not on the wrong side of. Nobody said it was a perfect solution. Unlike yours, it's actually been implemented. Frankly, the same could be said about the Holocaust itself. Come on, the best justification you can think of for the policy is the fact that it exists? You can't seriously believe that. Considering that the one country is going to be around in the foreseeable future... There's going to be no massive worldwide persecution of Jews in the "foreseeable" future either. Another Holocaust and Israel becoming unlivable are both possibilities and neither is clearly more likely than the other. ...it's better than no country you can rely on. My point is that it's not an optimal solution. Having a lifeboat on an ocean liner is better than not having one, but it is neither preferable to nor precludes the possibility of having enough lifeboats for all of the passengers. And like I said before, they succeeded in creating that country. How about your solution? This goes back to my previous remarks about passively accepting a bad policy as the inevitable product of human nature vs. actually working to change it. You're trying to use your apathy as justification for itself— other countries don't currently accept me, so there's no reason to persuade them to. Although given how concerned you seem to be about another holocaust, did it not occur to you that campaigning for other countries to be more accepting wouldn't just provide a backup haven to flee to but also eliminate the chance of that country participating in the antisemitism you think any country is about to erupt into? I would think that preemptively combatting antisemitism before another holocaust is even a remote possibility would be right up your alley. Carving out a country and making it livable is hardly doing nothing. I proposed an effort to change other countries' immigration policies. You said that not doing so would be easier than doing so. I pointed out that yes, apathy is always easier than action. I'm glad you weren't around in the 1940s, since you'd probably be telling everyone that creating a Jewish State is an unachievable goal and that America's semi-open immigration policy was better than nothing since there won't be anything else in the foreseeable future. And they seem to have gotten farther with their solution than yours. Once again, you use your apathy to justify itself. "It hasn't been built yet, so there's no reason to try building it." |
|
|
| (1182639) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 13:52:53 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 13:19:32 2014. Wrong. My point was that more Jews were turned away from entering those countries than other demographics.That's your assertion, but you have yet to provide evidence of it. The problem is that you want Israel to be the catchall for any refugees no one else will take. I'm asking what is your basis for thinking it can do that and still continue to be the haven and homeland for all Jews? See, that's your problem right there. You continue to insist that Israel must, at all costs, be willing to accept any Jew (and only Jews) for any reason and remain majority-Jewish at all times. Now obviously Israel can't accept any immigrant that comes knocking. If their admissions criteria were based on marketable skills and expected tax paid vs. services consumed by the prospective immigrant with an exception for those who would be persecuted in their own countries, then I could understand those logistical calculations (even if they'd kind of bug me). However, accepting any immigrant who comes knocking if they're Jewish while applying more stringent standards to anybody else is a double standard, and unless you want to argue that Jews are inherently superior then you'll be forced to admit it's hypocritical. Then what international law is it breaking? Just off the top of my head? Intentionally killing civilians in Palestine. (If you aim a missile at a mosque full of civilians, you have intentionally killed them, and saying you only "meant" to kill one guy does not change this fact.) Occupation and annexation of Palestinian territories. Enforcing an apartheid system via wall in the West Bank. Blockade of Gaza. Keep in mind that international law only covers the most flagrant violations of peoples' rights and has nothing to say on the topic of individual states' immigration policies, so obviously those policies don't violate international law and the four examples I posted are therefore unrelated to it. But hey, you asked for it. |
|
|
| (1182658) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 15:20:32 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 11:11:15 2014. And they will deal with it in what way...?Since they have never proposed a solution to that hypothetical problem, you will have to ask someone in the Israeli government. Yet again, you declare a double standard without offering even the slightest attempt to justify it. Do you simply not believe that everyone is created equal? I guess I would say yes. Now, here's a question to you. If you have an extra room or apartment that you promised a friend will always be available for them to live in, then a total stranger comes and demands you give him that place to live in, are you going to give it to him? Note that the place is not on the market, the stranger just happened to hear you had an empty room. I'm sure plenty of black people who lived through segregation would care to disagree with you. And I'm sure all the ones who were raped, killed, etc., by widespread rampaging bands of people of a different religion or tribe would probably think segregation was the least of their problems. My point was that the Soviet Union, which controlled a good swath of Asia, has collapsed and its former territories are now generally better off for it. So don't use countries in Europe as an example of how much better Asia is doing. China has abandoned its failed attempt at "communism" and has also abandoned the idea of totalitarianism— over the last few decades, it's gone from economic stagnation brought on by the policies of a single moronic ruler and complete control of citizens' private lives to an economic powerhouse with limited personal freedom. Myanmar's military dictatorship has officially ended and the country's human rights record has shown signs of improvement. Thailand has had some troubles, but nothing to suggest human progress is moving backwards (and Thailand by itself couldn't disprove a global trend anyway). China is still pretty totalitarian, in that they don't brook dissent and keep a hammerlock on the media. Maybe not to the level of Mao, but still. And being an Uighur or a Tibetan tends to suck more than usual. Being a Muslim in Myanmar is not very good thing these days. Thailand isn't moving forward either, with a festering racism problem. And nobody said Thailand by itself is disproving a global trend, just that the trend isn't as widespread as you claim. Russia represents a good chunk of Asia and it's doing better than in the Soviet days. I haven't looked up the details of all former Soviet territories in Asia, but some improvement over the Soviet Union seems present by and large; I'm pretty sure Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are showing obvious signs of improvement. But only one has had free elections, and to say that they're doing better than under the Soviets is a really mixed bag. Definitely not "all" or "most". And your point is...? Your statement: "Moreover, you did a nice job of confusing a subset of humanity defined by geography with a subset defined by an ideology." My original point here was that trying to change bad policies and end injustices (on whatever scale they may be) is not a futile endeavour because bad policies and injustices are not unshakable aspects of human nature. As of now, I consider this point to be proven. Although given the circumstances of Israel's creation, I would tend to think you believed it all along. No, I just think your approach to solving those problems is incredibly naive, flawed, and will end up causing more problems than it solves, at least in the short term. No need to be perfectionist. I'm willing to accept reducing Nazism from "absolute ruling power over a country" to "a bunch of dudes whose opinions are completely irrelevant to the vast majority (which never even gets to see them)" as sufficient improvement. France still has its monarchists, Germany still has its Nazis, America still has its pro-slavery advocates, and none of them matter because all of them are tiny minorities justifiably viewed as crazy by everybody else. My point is that human nature hasn't really changed, all we've done is knock out a particularly egregious example of it. The fact that such an evil philosophy as Nazism or various other racist tendencies are embraced by people who otherwise aren't mentally ill or mentally defective proves it. So Israel can take in hundreds of thousands of refugees in a short time span, but only if they're Jewish? How does Judaism make the refugees easier to accommodate? OK, since that was too much for you: the founders of Israel saw a need for a Jewish haven, and planned a solution they felt was doable and fulfilled that need. They were able to carve out a small country with fairly limited resources, but it's enough to accomplish that goal in the long term. However, in order to do that, they have to limit who can enter and stay in the country, or else the solution they created would become unfeasible in a much shorter span of time. The solution isn't perfect, but it's the best one they have for now. Now do you get it? |
|
|
| (1182660) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 15:25:44 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 11:14:19 2014. The ones closest to you involves the people you know personally and have an emotional attachment to. It does not include strangers defined only by their adherence to the same set of rituals.Except among the people who adhere to the same religion, they feel a strong, common bond that tends to transcend many other beliefs. |
|
|
| (1182685) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 16:45:53 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 15:20:32 2014. Since they have never proposed a solution to that hypothetical problem, you will have to ask someone in the Israeli government.Nice dodge. Would a Christian majority cause an unacceptable loss of Israel's Jewish character or not? I guess I would say yes. If you deny equality, then I'm not sure what else to say. I gave up on CHIMM when I learned he was a Jewish supremacist. Now, here's a question to you. If you have an extra room or apartment that you promised a friend will always be available for them to live in, then a total stranger comes and demands you give him that place to live in, are you going to give it to him? Apples to oranges. A single private home is not a country, and giving special consideration to a friend is not the same as giving special consideration to any stranger who happens to perform certain rituals regardless of all other factors. Incidentally, having a house to rent would be a better analogy since then in both cases we'd be extending consideration to strangers we don't plan to share private space with, and it's not like refugees aren't expected to work and pay rent. If I was renting a property, it would actually be illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion. At least it would be in America— is an Israeli landlord allow to tell prospective tenants that only Jews are allowed to rent from him? And I'm sure all the ones who were raped, killed, etc., by widespread rampaging bands of people of a different religion or tribe would probably think segregation was the least of their problems. This statement is open to multiple interpretations which range from unpleasant to disgusting. I'd hate to assume, so please clarify exactly what you mean by it. So don't use countries in Europe as an example of how much better Asia is doing. I used countries in Europe as an example of how much better the planet was doing. That former Soviet territories are now modern democracies hardly supports your claim that historical progress is being reversed no matter where in the world they might be. China is still pretty totalitarian, in that they don't brook dissent and keep a hammerlock on the media. Maybe not to the level of Mao, but still. And being an Uighur or a Tibetan tends to suck more than usual. Being a Muslim in Myanmar is not very good thing these days. Thailand isn't moving forward either, with a festering racism problem. And nobody said Thailand by itself is disproving a global trend, just that the trend isn't as widespread as you claim. You claim that historical progress is being reversed. That the countries you hold up as examples of the trend have, in fact, progressed from completely horrible to slightly less horrible which is sort of the opposite of what you suggest. If you had to live in China but could pick the era, choosing today over the 1960s would be a no-brainer. Pity about the Muslims in Myanmar. If only there was a state that was specifically created to provide a guaranteed haven for people facing religious persecution because they believe God told them not to eat pork. But only one has had free elections, and to say that they're doing better than under the Soviets is a really mixed bag. Definitely not "all" or "most". You asked for signs of progress, I gave you the end of the Soviet Union. You demanded an ex-Soviet country in Asia and I offered you one. Now you say that's not enough. By the way, my response to your argument about the Republicans is absent from your reply. Am I led to believe you accept my point that the Republicans' failures to roll back progress in the country they control despite concerted efforts to do so serves as evidence that historical progress is not, in fact, being reversed? Your statement: "Moreover, you did a nice job of confusing a subset of humanity defined by geography with a subset defined by an ideology." What about it? I pointed out that people managed to change the Germans' minds about the whole Nazi thing, but you rejected the idea by conflating "Germans" with "Nazis" and pointing to the latter as evidence that we had to destroy them because they couldn't be convinced. No, I just think your approach to solving those problems is incredibly naive, flawed, and will end up causing more problems than it solves, at least in the short term. You're free to disagree on my position, but that's a separate debate. If you concede that current policies are not fixed products of human nature and attempting to change them is not a futile endeavour, then we can consider this point settled. My point is that human nature hasn't really changed, all we've done is knock out a particularly egregious example of it. The fact that such an evil philosophy as Nazism or various other racist tendencies are embraced by people who otherwise aren't mentally ill or mentally defective proves it. Everyone is different. "Human nature" is sort of an average. That Nazism has been diminished from the guiding principle of an entire country to a universally despised and frequently banned position across the planet represents a fundamental change not consistent with the idea that human nature is fixed and unchanging. For that matter, the creation of Israel is not consistent with that idea either. You talk about how much work went into achieving that goal while at the same time declaring bigger and better goals to be futile because human nature can't be changed. OK, since that was too much for you: the founders of Israel saw a need for a Jewish haven, and planned a solution they felt was doable and fulfilled that need. They were able to carve out a small country with fairly limited resources, but it's enough to accomplish that goal in the long term. However, in order to do that, they have to limit who can enter and stay in the country, or else the solution they created would become unfeasible in a much shorter span of time. The solution isn't perfect, but it's the best one they have for now. Now do you get it? Yes, and that they limit who can enter and stay by their subscription to a particular religion is a bigoted double standard not consistent with the idea of equality that has been embraced across the civilised world. You haven't yet answered why Judaism makes 100,000 refugees easier to accommodate even while saying Israel can take in them but not a tenth as many of any other religious persuasion. Banging on about how Israel was founded is irrelevant— America's founders explicitly intended that black people should be enslaved and indigenous people should be excluded (and killed or forced off their land whenever a single white person wanted it). That these were explicitly intended by America's founders and codified into America's founding charter does not justify them, it is not a valid reason to continue them, and it is not a valid argument for any country to make. Incidentally, I notice you passed over this bit: And that's exactly my point. Any comments? |
|
|
| (1182686) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 16:49:53 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 15:25:44 2014. What you call a "strong common bond" is really just the basic in-group bias that we, as a species, should really have moved beyond.Calling someone "close to you" when you only know he exists in theory is absurd on its face. |
|
|
| (1182689) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 17:01:58 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 16:49:53 2014. Calling someone "close to you" when you only know he exists in theory is absurd on its face.Saying that someone is closer to you than another person is not. |
|
|
| (1182693) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 17:08:57 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 17:01:58 2014. Saying that someone is closer to you than another person is not.If you want to call someone "close to you" in the emotional sense that term normally implies, then you must, at minimum, be able to describe them in a manner that distinguishes them uniquely from other people. |
|
|
| (1182694) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 17:10:41 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 17:08:57 2014. If you want to call someone "close to you" in the emotional sense that term normally implies, then you must, at minimum, be able to describe them in a manner that distinguishes them uniquely from other people.To describe someone as "closer to you", you only to describe why they are closer to you. |
|
|
| (1182697) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 17:30:39 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 17:10:41 2014. You can describe them as "closer to you" if you want, but if you don't know them then you can't have the emotional bond normally implied by the phrase "close to you." That emotional bond is generally accepted as an excuse for prioritising one individual over others even if the others have greater need. In the absence of such an emotional bond, declaring one stranger to be "closer" to you than another is just in-group bias, which is not justification for a double standard. |
|
|
| (1182708) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 18:41:59 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 16:45:53 2014. Nice dodge. Would a Christian majority cause an unacceptable loss of Israel's Jewish character or not?Not a dodge. I'm not concerned with a Christian majority, I'm concerned with how Israel deals with it. Apples to oranges. A single private home is not a country, and giving special consideration to a friend is not the same as giving special consideration to any stranger who happens to perform certain rituals regardless of all other factors. No it's not. You're promising to provide shelter to a persecuted person if the same faith, because you've experienced, or knows someone whose experienced, the same persecution. This statement is open to multiple interpretations which range from unpleasant to disgusting. I'd hate to assume, so please clarify exactly what you mean by it. Would the people who are experiencing these atrocities think that the overall situation is getting better because segregation was stopped in one place? I used countries in Europe as an example of how much better the planet was doing. That former Soviet territories are now modern democracies hardly supports your claim that historical progress is being reversed no matter where in the world they might be. Of the "modern democracies" (if you can call them that), only ONE of them has free and fair elections. I used countries in Europe as an example of how much better the planet was doing. That former Soviet territories are now modern democracies hardly supports your claim that historical progress is being reversed no matter where in the world they might be. Except the point is Asia isn't really moving forward, and it's much bigger than Europe. You claim that historical progress is being reversed. That the countries you hold up as examples of the trend have, in fact, progressed from completely horrible to slightly less horrible which is sort of the opposite of what you suggest. If you had to live in China but could pick the era, choosing today over the 1960s would be a no-brainer. Over the past 70 years, China went from bad to really horrible and back to bad, unless you were an Uighur or Tibetan, in which case it went from OK to bad. Myanmar went from 'ehhh' to bad to not so bad. Except if you were Muslim in which case it went to horrible. Pity about the Muslims in Myanmar. If only there was a state that was specifically created to provide a guaranteed haven for people facing religious persecution because they believe God told them not to eat pork. Gee, you mean there are no Muslim countries which take other Muslims? You asked for signs of progress, I gave you the end of the Soviet Union. You demanded an ex-Soviet country in Asia and I offered you one. Now you say that's not enough. You said there was progress in Asia, you provided the remnants of the Soviet Union and examples in Europe. I said the majority of the new countries from the Soviet Union, among others in Asia, aren't all that great. You provided ONE example, possibly 3, out of a possible 8, and expect that to be representative of Asia. Am I led to believe you accept my point that the Republicans' failures to roll back progress in the country they control despite concerted efforts to do so serves as evidence that historical progress is not, in fact, being reversed? I missed it. A couple of your points were right, but since abortion rights are being eroded away, and since a very large portion of the population has not rejected their toxic ideology, I would call that a mixed bag. If you concede that current policies are not fixed products of human nature and attempting to change them is not a futile endeavour, then we can consider this point settled. Only until a better solution is implemented. Until then, changing the current policies is not a good idea. That Nazism has been diminished from the guiding principle of an entire country to a universally despised and frequently banned position across the planet represents a fundamental change not consistent with the idea that human nature is fixed and unchanging. It actually hasn't been banned that frequently, and unfortunately, it's possible it's not even universally despised. And if the German economy were to collapse into what is was like during the Weimar Republic, I wouldn't bet against the rise of a hateful philosophy akin to Nazism. For that matter, the creation of Israel is not consistent with that idea either. You talk about how much work went into achieving that goal while at the same time declaring bigger and better goals to be futile because human nature can't be changed. No, I'm saying that human nature hasn't changed nearly enough for those goals to be practically implemented. Yes, and that they limit who can enter and stay by their subscription to a particular religion is a bigoted double standard not consistent with the idea of equality that has been embraced across the civilised world. Their first priority is to protect their people. Whether they can handle more is debatable, but considering their size and resources, it's understandable that they don't take on the world's refugees. You haven't yet answered why Judaism makes 100,000 refugees easier to accommodate even while saying Israel can take in them but not a tenth as many of any other religious persuasion. It doesn't make them easier to accommodate, it fits with the goal they set for themselves when they founded Israel. As for the "tenth as many", I already answered that. Incidentally, I notice you passed over this bit: And that's exactly my point. The persecuted refugees have to go through a more difficult process and risk being turned away, while the non-persecuted Jew gets fast-tracked through the whole thing. Any comments? Answered elsewhere. I didn't feel like duplicating. |
|
|
| (1182728) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 20:06:57 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 18:41:59 2014. Not a dodge. I'm not concerned with a Christian majority, I'm concerned with how Israel deals with it.Well, considering that Israel has tried to prevent a Muslim majority by declaring a large chunk of the Muslims to be no longer Israeli, it's a fair question as to how they'd deal with a potential Christian majority. No it's not. You're promising to provide shelter to a persecuted person if the same faith, because you've experienced, or knows someone whose experienced, the same persecution. Yes it is. There is a world of difference between you, personally, providing shelter to a persecuted person and simply not raising a fuss if a persecuted person rents the house next door. Incidentally, you ignored my improvement on your analogy: Incidentally, having a house to rent would be a better analogy since then in both cases we'd be extending consideration to strangers we don't plan to share private space with, and it's not like refugees aren't expected to work and pay rent. If I was renting a property, it would actually be illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion. At least it would be in America— is an Israeli landlord allow to tell prospective tenants that only Jews are allowed to rent from him? The question at the end was not simply rhetorical. Is an Israeli landlord allowed to tell prospective tenants that only Jews are allowed to rent from him? Or is religious discrimination illegal like it is in the US? Would the people who are experiencing these atrocities think that the overall situation is getting better because segregation was stopped in one place? No, but a hell of a lot fewer people would be experiencing those atrocities. It's not like the US and South Africa are tiny little places. If a treatment cured skin cancer, the suffering of bone cancer patients does not diminish its success nor stop it from demonstrating a positive trend. Of the "modern democracies" (if you can call them that), only ONE of them has free and fair elections. Just off the top of my head, Poland and Georgia appear to have free and fair elections. I know you're going to quibble over the definition of "free and fair," but Romania, Mongolia, and Bulgaria all have at least some degree of democratic representation despite having been absolute dictatorships under or closely tied with the Soviet Union. Except the point is Asia isn't really moving forward, and it's much bigger than Europe. Yeah, Asia has stagnated. Unless you count China and India - the two largest countries by population - which have advanced from backwaters to economic powerhouses, with slow creaking but noticeable steps towards greater freedoms as they do. Then, of course, South Korea somehow managed to transform itself from a backwater that was worse than its northern neighbor to a prosperous democracy in the last few decades. Taiwan isn't doing too poorly. Hong Kong and Macau remain as free as ever despite being handed over to China, with Hong Kong rumbling towards universal suffrage. Despite being a militant dictatorship in the era you're so fond of referencing, Japan is now fairly democratic as well. And if you're willing to look outside of Asia, you will notice that countries across Latin America have overthrown the dictators the US installed, and countries like Egypt and Syria are in the difficult transition period when a popular uprising ousts an unpopular dictator. Meanwhile, a good chunk of Europe has gone beyond democracy and instituted the free travel policy you've insisted is impossible due to "human nature." Over the past 70 years, China went from bad to really horrible and back to bad, unless you were an Uighur or Tibetan, in which case it went from OK to bad. Myanmar went from 'ehhh' to bad to not so bad. You're not seriously trying to claim that colonialism and civil war was better than the current situation in either country. Gee, you mean there are no Muslim countries which take other Muslims? Missing the point again, I see. How goes that? My point was twofold: (1) From where I'm sitting, Judaism and Islam are basically the same thing and drawing a distinction between them is a completely arbitrary division, and (2) The idea of specific states for specific religions and/or demographics is absurd and religious states even more so regardless of which religion or demographic is involved. Although I expect at least someone will ignore this point because it doesn't fit with their assumption that I'm somehow singling out Israel for special criticism. You said there was progress in Asia, you provided the remnants of the Soviet Union and examples in Europe. I said the majority of the new countries from the Soviet Union, among others in Asia, aren't all that great. You provided ONE example, possibly 3, out of a possible 8, and expect that to be representative of Asia. I said there was progress worldwide. The dissolution of the Soviet Union is a major example thereof. The Soviet Union covered territory in both Europe and Asia, and so it left remnant states in both Europe and Asia. Then you moved the goalposts and demanded exclusively Asian examples, so I gave you one. Now you've moved the goalposts again and demanded progress throughout ex-Soviet states in Asia. That I showed positive trends within Asia's biggest players is likely to be met by another goalpost shift— they weren't ex-Soviet. So how are things in the Asian ex-Soviet states you're trying to claim are representative of the whole of Asia and/or Earth? Well they're certainly doing better than under Soviet days even if they're not all that great. However, my point is that the trend of historical progress across the globe is positive and has not stagnated or started reversing— and if you can find a few local areas in which that is the case, then you're beating up another straw man. Global trends can and do have local exceptions. I missed it. A couple of your points were right, but since abortion rights are being eroded away, and since a very large portion of the population has not rejected their toxic ideology, I would call that a mixed bag. With six years of complete control (and a panicked population willing to accept anything for a few years), the Republicans have managed to make abortion more inconvenient and more expensive in some counties. Roe v. Wade is still the law. Meanwhile, even Arkansas is now allowing gay marriage. Shootings like that of Trayvon Martin (the modern day version of lynchings) still happen but they're much less common— enough to make the news when they do happen, and inevitably provoking national outrage when they do. And, of course, we have a black president. Sure, a disconcerting number of people still accept the Republicans, but nowhere near a majority and the remaining die-hards are slowly dying off as younger generations embrace more liberal policies. But if you want to make claims about worldwide trends, here's a wonderful little demonstration: Only until a better solution is implemented. Until then, changing the current policies is not a good idea. So we can't implement a better solution until a better solution is implemented. Yuh huh. It actually hasn't been banned that frequently, and unfortunately, it's possible it's not even universally despised. The right to free speech is fairly well established, so banning an idea is a truly extreme measure. That it has been banned at all in generally free countries show how thoroughly rejected it is. If you want to argue it's not all that universally despised, you can point to the populations or countries that accept it but I'll need more than "it's possible." And if the German economy were to collapse into what is was like during the Weimar Republic, I wouldn't bet against the rise of a hateful philosophy akin to Nazism. Yes, and if an asteroid the size of... Last time I checked, Germany is quite stable (even if some of its banks might have to eat bad loans, and even if they need to be bailed out) and it's also part of a larger union of countries with interlinked economies and a shared currency, all of which have a direct need to keep Germany from collapsing. Which is sort of the opposite to what happened under the Weimer Republic, when Germany was battered and broken by a failed war and then crushed under the debts that those other countries expected it to pay. No, I'm saying that human nature hasn't changed nearly enough for those goals to be practically implemented. So first you claim human nature is fixed, and now you claim it changes at a steady rate? The point I've been making repeatedly is that what you call "human nature" is mostly a product of culture which can and has been changed by a deliberate effort on many occasions. Can we establish worldwide free travel within the next ten years? Of course not. But we might be able to convince a few countries to accept anyone fleeing persecution, or shift popular opinion on the sort of foreign aid that's needed to help countries impoverished by colonial history reach the level of development needed to make free travel feasible without risk of a permanent one-way exodus. Doing nothing and declaring "human nature" just isn't ready for you is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The idea that people can be convinced your position has merit is not disproved by the fact that they don't agree with that position before you've even tried to convince them. Their first priority is to protect their people. Yes, and declaring a fairly arbitrary chunk of the worldwide population to be "our people" is called in-group bias, aka double standard, aka bigotry, and generally considered a bad thing. Whether they can handle more is debatable, but considering their size and resources, it's understandable that they don't take on the world's refugees. If they can take on any Jew, anywhere, anytime, then why can't they take on an equivalent number of refugees? More specifically, why do the non-persecuted Jews take priority over the persecuted refugees simply by virtue of religion? It doesn't make them easier to accommodate, it fits with the goal they set for themselves when they founded Israel. I've already addressed this point but you seem unable to understand the arguments— that a country's founders had a specific goal in mind does not mean the country must be permanently shackled to it. It does not mean the goal is justified in perpetuity. It doesn't necessarily mean the goal was ever justified. You have repeatedly stated: "Jews take priority because Israel was founded to give Jews priority." You have yet to explain why Jews should take priority. As for the "tenth as many", I already answered that. Answered elsewhere. I didn't feel like duplicating. Links, then. |
|
|
| (1182796) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 22:43:28 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 13:22:00 2014. That would imply you believe all non-Israeli Arabs want to wipe out Israel.Do you believe that all non-Israeli Arabs want to wipe out Israel? Nope. My point of view is based on the point you make that Palestinians should be incorporated into Israel. If he did and they turned him away, that's wrong and that's their fault. However, that three other people have stood by and done nothing in the face of injustice does not excuse your own apathy, especially when you have plainly demonstrated the ability to address that injustice. The question is when you claim that the immigration policy is "at his expense", what exactly did it take away from him that he had before? As you can see, I never said, suggested, or implied that I "can't even begin to imagine what it was like to be through the Holocaust or a pogrom," I pointed out that neither exists in 2014, and your argument based on the political situation of the 1940s is not relevant to what policies should be implemented today. Actually you are implying it, or at least your still dodging it. I never said "place yourself in the Holocaust happening right now in country XYZ", I said this was a HYPOTHETICAL situation where you and your group are being targeted. You are demonstrating again and again that you are unwilling or unable to even try to imagine what it's like to be in that situation. (a) If I'm not mistaken, 1948 is, in fact, the "late 1940s." (b) I have/had/would have had no objections to Israel's Law of Return policy in 1948, so asking me to ignore it in your hypothetical is unfair. That a law was expected or acceptable in different circumstances does not justify its existence now. a) Isn't that great that somebody was nice enough to create a haven for you. What would happen if it was between 1939 and 1947? b) Ah, so you ARE for the Law of Return if it was around 1948 or so, when it was necessary, but you think it's obsolete now. Except that the Jews don't think so, and your solution would end up filling Israel and pretty much ruin the solution they had set up for themselves, leaving them scrambling for another haven. Indeed. However, I think it's time they managed to move on to second and third priorities. The situation re: Judaism and worldwide acceptance thereof seems pretty much sorted. I think Jewish people would beg to differ. History is filled with many examples of countries being persuaded to abandon a double standard. I'll call it "achievable." Nice ideal, totally lacking in hard physical fact. The Romani still have trouble finding a country that will accept them. They didn't fare much better than the Jews during the Holocaust, so maybe Israel can grant them "right of return" as well? Any proof that they claim roots in a territory or want to set down roots in a territory? Frankly, the same could be said about the Holocaust itself. Come on, the best justification you can think of for the policy is the fact that it exists? You can't seriously believe that. Strawman. No one is recommending wiping out a demographic, or otherwise committing a crime against humanity. Otherwise, it's working as a haven for Jews, just as intended. That counts as a working, implemented solution. There's going to be no massive worldwide persecution of Jews in the "foreseeable" future either. Another Holocaust and Israel becoming unlivable are both possibilities and neither is clearly more likely than the other. This sounds like yet another strawman. It doesn't have to be a "massive, worldwide persecution", it could be the persecution of a group in a single country. Allowing unlimited refugee emigration to Israel will fill it up rather quickly, as well. Both possibilities sound kind of plausible, except the second one is caused by a misguided change in policy. My point is that it's not an optimal solution. Having a lifeboat on an ocean liner is better than not having one, but it is neither preferable to nor precludes the possibility of having enough lifeboats for all of the passengers. So your goal should be the latter, get enough lifeboats for all the passengers, not overload the first lifeboat and sink it. This goes back to my previous remarks about passively accepting a bad policy as the inevitable product of human nature vs. actually working to change it. You're trying to use your apathy as justification for itself— other countries don't currently accept me, so there's no reason to persuade them to. Except what your trying to do is to change a policy before you've made the change to human nature which would otherwise increase the chances of your policy change's success. And your proposing to do it first to a small, limited resource country, which is a poor starting point. Although given how concerned you seem to be about another holocaust, did it not occur to you that campaigning for other countries to be more accepting wouldn't just provide a backup haven to flee to but also eliminate the chance of that country participating in the antisemitism you think any country is about to erupt into? I would think that preemptively combatting antisemitism before another holocaust is even a remote possibility would be right up your alley. What makes you think people aren't trying to defuse anti-semitism also? It must have occurred to you that people are already doing that too, right? I proposed an effort to change other countries' immigration policies. You said that not doing so would be easier than doing so. I pointed out that yes, apathy is always easier than action. No, the point is that you recommended the Jews alter their haven in a way which would reduce its viability in the long term, on the premise that if other countries can be convinced to do it, the haven will be unnecessary. My point is that the current haven is already viable for the long term, so it shouldn't be altered until you get your solution implemented elsewhere. I'm glad you weren't around in the 1940s, since you'd probably be telling everyone that creating a Jewish State is an unachievable goal and that America's semi-open immigration policy was better than nothing since there won't be anything else in the foreseeable future. And they seem to have gotten farther with their solution than yours. Since there either wasn't a solution or the current solution clearly failed, that seems unlikely. Once again, you use your apathy to justify itself. "It hasn't been built yet, so there's no reason to try building it." See above. |
|
|
| (1182799) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 22:47:10 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 13:52:53 2014. That's your assertion, but you have yet to provide evidence of it.That one I admit, I cannot pull up general immigration records from that period. It still stands that only a fraction of the Jews who needed to emigrate were able to do so, and I really don't think the Japanese were trying to emigrate in the hundreds of thousands. See, that's your problem right there. You continue to insist that Israel must, at all costs, be willing to accept any Jew (and only Jews) for any reason and remain majority-Jewish at all times. Like I mentioned before, it wouldn't be much of a self-professed Jewish haven and one and only homeland if it turned away Jews without a good reason. Just off the top of my head? All irrelevant and a dodge. The "it" in question is the immigration policy. |
|
|
| (1182894) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 11:40:36 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 13:41:26 2014. Right.Much of the Israeli left, while supporting a two state solution, sees Hamas as a terrorist organization that cannot be negotiated with and will not agree to the creation of a Palestinian state or other policies (such as those you propose in this thread) that put Israel's security or status as a JEWISH, DEMOCRATIC STATE in Jeopardy. For example, while they may believe that it should be easier to claim refugee status in Israel, ultimately, Israel has to remain a Jewish state. |
|
|
| (1182895) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 11:43:31 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 10:16:48 2014. It most certainly does. Your crusade against organized religion isn't going to get you points here. |
|
|
| (1182896) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 11:45:11 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 11:54:26 2014. Pray tell, what country gives refugees the rights and privileges of citizens upon arrival, no questions asked? |
|
|
| (1182897) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 11:45:52 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:35:28 2014. Chaim Ben Pesach is a terrorist, so he doesn't count. |
|
|
| (1182901) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 11:57:54 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 10:13:13 2014. If you truly believed Israel doesn't bear the onus for everything that has happened in the Middle East (and your assertion that the events of 1967 and 1947 have no bearing on the situation today doesn't do much to help your arguments), you would write as I often do that "Israel and the Arabs both have a role to play in where we are today and both need to do their parts to achieve peace" or something to that effect. You state over and over that Israel is best equipped to fix the problems, but neglect to mention that Hamas is a terror organization whose charter calls for Israel's destruction and that the 1947 armistice line is not defensible. As Mitch says, if Hamas lays down its weapons, there would be no war, but if Israel lays down its weapons, there would be no Israel. Your criticisms are not mild, despite what you may think. You've proposed idea after idea that would result in Israel's identity being changed significantly or its complete destruction.Also, cut out the strawman bullshit, it is a nice way to hide behind your logical gaps, but just exposes them. Tell us what you believe and stop playing the word games. |
|
|
| (1182903) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 12:08:01 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 10:37:56 2014. Admittedly, it is possible to convert (or deconvert) within the space of two years so, while I think the special-consideration-for-Jews thing isn't so great I can see why they'd ask for a more recent letter.It is virtually impossible to not be considered Jewish under religious law if you already were considered Jewish. Case in point. The only way it could be considered "rude" and "insulting" is if you consider it inherently rude an insulting that I don't subscribe to your religion or that I practice its rituals "incorrectly" or that I mention doing so. You still fail to understand the problem with that thread, which is why you have so many problems with people here and with the police. I don't think we can explain it to you any more clearly than we have, and don't be surprised when everyone is "against" you the next time you piss off the adherents of another religion or have another run-in with the police. I have, on several occasions, been invited to a Seder that was not kosher and which included readings from a homemade Haggadah that deviated significantly from the standard text. Was that "rude" and "insulting?" Even "antisemitic?" The "requirements" of what the text of the Haggadah should contain are fairly easy to fulfill, much of it is custom that has been virtually universally accepted by Jews worldwide at this point anyway. Even traditional families don't necessarily read every single word of Magid due to time constraints and their religious obligations are still fulfilled. I do. Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly clear that you don't want "respect," you want a free pass on criticism. No one gets that and no one should expect it. You don't understand the difference between respect and a free pass on criticism. You would respect me and every other Jewish poster on this board who keeps Passover if you don't make your asinine, childish post about what you might want to eat during the holiday, and then tell the rest of us who prefer to keep kosher for Passover we're backwards and mindlessly following what we've instructed to do via "fairy tale" and holding back all of humanity. Conversely, no religious person here AFAIK has told you that your religious beliefs or lack thereof hold back humanity or should be abandoned outright. I'd ask you if you can see the difference, but I highly doubt you can. |
|
|
| (1182904) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 12:11:55 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 10:39:27 2014. Yes, ideas evolve. And the fact you "criticise bad ideas without regard for what their proponents think of them" is part of your problem here, you need to find ways to constructively criticize other people's ideas in a RESPECTFUL manner. This post says more about you than anything else you've posted yet and I hope other people notice it, read it, and remember it the next time you start a controversy here. |
|
|
| (1182905) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 12:18:15 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 10:53:34 2014. You and people who think like you do create double standards where Israel can never do right in your eyes. Stop telling me I'm making assumptions about your beliefs and stop hiding behind your mythical straw men and tell me what you truly believe. No more games or wordplay. The fact that you can't answer a single question with a straight answer and when pressured to give one, you give ones that are so anti-religion, to me, indicates the accusations being made against you WRT Israel are not unjustified. |
|
|
| (1182906) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Mon May 12 12:20:38 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 12:18:15 2014. Again, why do you both respect that anti-semite nilet more than me? |
|
|
| (1182907) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 12:21:49 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 19:31:08 2014. Really? The IDF does more than any army I know of to avoid civilian casualties: |
|
|
| (1182908) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 12:23:40 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sat May 10 11:08:59 2014. I'm not trolling, but you are still being an asshole and watching you attempt to walk back one of the most idiotic statements you've made in this thread is quite amusing. |
|
|
| (1182910) | |
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon May 12 12:25:43 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 05:23:55 2014. Well done yet again |
|
|
|
Page 16 of 22 |
||