|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42628 Posts
On December 07 2017 02:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm confused because neither Mohdoo nor I ever said anything about relocating all the Palestinians, commuting ethnic cleansing or saying they don't get a state or self-determination. They should, but it just isn't going to be the one they are today asking for and they need to accept that. It fucking sucks, 100%. It might be smaller, there might be some sort of Israeli or multinational security presence, there might need to be disarmament, etc. but there is a solution there. If they get that it is at least a step towards a functioning, self-governing Palestinian state. Afterwards there can incrementally improve as trust is built and Israelis and Palestinians (hopefully) realize that recognizing Palestine won't result in full blown civil war.
Mohdoo did actually. He argued that Israel had the power to do whatever it wanted and that nobody was going to be a check on it and therefore the settlements would eventually consume Palestine. With this in mind the Palestinians should accept the inevitability of their ethnic cleansing and relocate.
What you're arguing for it what the rest of us are arguing for, a negotiated solution.
|
On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
"Ethnic cleansing" in this case means a drastically increased quality of life. The only thing they lose is the symbolism of some shitty land because their dumbass book says it belongs to them. It would be a huge improvement to Palestinian livelihood to live in a hospitable home.
I feel like on one hand, people make a huge fuss over the quality of life of Palestinians. Destroyed hospitals, schools, kids getting shot. But try to bring them somewhere away from all that violence, persecution and torment and you're hitler.
You guys aren't focusing enough on why Palestinians want to stay there. They could have a better life somewhere else but don't want to "because it's mine". The people with the book that says it's theirs are the Israelis. The ethnicity that lives there are the Palestinians. But it's made far more complicated now because this all happened four generations ago so now both sides were born there. What you're advocating for is essentially the Madagascar Plan, rationalizing it as better than the concentration camps. You're not wrong that it would have been better, but that doesn't mean we should accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan You're saying we shouldn't accept the idea of improving the lives of Palestinians? Both of their books say they should be there. They are both retarded. Israel holds every card and has no chance of ever losing. You are too focused on "what is fair" to the point where you aren't realizing your idea has a 0% chance of ever happening. Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate "sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture" into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective.
Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true.
|
On December 07 2017 02:57 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:48 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2017 02:32 hunts wrote:On December 07 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:
It’s a pretty easy case of taking the high ground when the opponents have (mostly) vacated it.
Also, “Democrats need to fight back dirty,” by supporting a sexual harasser against a molestor of young teenagers is bringing whole new depths to that term. It’s like the Moore logic crew took over some Democrats too. But what is the benefit? Not a single con will refuse to vote for Moore simply because he is a pedophile. Not a single con will change sides just because they see one side doesn't tolerate sexual assault or pedophilia. Will democrats stop voting if they see their side trying to be as dirty as the cons? I guess the issue really is that a lot of democrat voters get whiny and refuse to vote when thr parry isn't perfect, meanwhile the cons always vote for their "person" even when they are a pedophile or rapist. Uhh tar the entirety of Republican candidates in 2018 by showing the mismatch? The elections are less than a year away. And what will that do? 1/3 of people voting for moore said they were MORE LIKELY to vote for him AFTER the accusations (with proof) that he is a pedophile. You think a little thing like pointing out that their party condones rape and pedophilia while the other party doesn't will stop the "derp stick it to the libruhls" types? Really the only benefit I can see here is what nebuchad said, in that the voting bases are different, and likely democrats will get discouraged and not vote if the democrat party doesn't take the high road. Meanwhile the cons seem to cheer for their party to be as lowly vile and despicable as humanly possible.
I can’t believe you’re honestly implying Alabama’s response to Moore is just going to be repeated in races across the country. You’re too cynical for words.
|
"Palestinians should advocate for their own ethnic cleansing"
I can't even
|
United States42628 Posts
On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
"Ethnic cleansing" in this case means a drastically increased quality of life. The only thing they lose is the symbolism of some shitty land because their dumbass book says it belongs to them. It would be a huge improvement to Palestinian livelihood to live in a hospitable home.
I feel like on one hand, people make a huge fuss over the quality of life of Palestinians. Destroyed hospitals, schools, kids getting shot. But try to bring them somewhere away from all that violence, persecution and torment and you're hitler.
You guys aren't focusing enough on why Palestinians want to stay there. They could have a better life somewhere else but don't want to "because it's mine". The people with the book that says it's theirs are the Israelis. The ethnicity that lives there are the Palestinians. But it's made far more complicated now because this all happened four generations ago so now both sides were born there. What you're advocating for is essentially the Madagascar Plan, rationalizing it as better than the concentration camps. You're not wrong that it would have been better, but that doesn't mean we should accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan You're saying we shouldn't accept the idea of improving the lives of Palestinians? Both of their books say they should be there. They are both retarded. Israel holds every card and has no chance of ever losing. You are too focused on "what is fair" to the point where you aren't realizing your idea has a 0% chance of ever happening. Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate "sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture" into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true.
All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture.
Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively.
|
On December 07 2017 02:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm confused because neither Mohdoo nor I ever said anything about relocating all the Palestinians, commuting ethnic cleansing or saying they don't get a state or self-determination. They should, but it just isn't going to be the one they are today asking for and they need to accept that. It fucking sucks, 100%. It might be smaller, there might be some sort of Israeli or multinational security presence, there might need to be disarmament, etc. but there is a solution there. If they get that it is at least a step towards a functioning, self-governing Palestinian state. Afterwards there can incrementally improve as trust is built and Israelis and Palestinians (hopefully) realize that recognizing Palestine won't result in full blown civil war.
okay, so where do you put that new state for them?
Pull a China and start building new islands somewhere?
|
On December 07 2017 03:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:57 hunts wrote:On December 07 2017 02:48 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2017 02:32 hunts wrote:On December 07 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:
It’s a pretty easy case of taking the high ground when the opponents have (mostly) vacated it.
Also, “Democrats need to fight back dirty,” by supporting a sexual harasser against a molestor of young teenagers is bringing whole new depths to that term. It’s like the Moore logic crew took over some Democrats too. But what is the benefit? Not a single con will refuse to vote for Moore simply because he is a pedophile. Not a single con will change sides just because they see one side doesn't tolerate sexual assault or pedophilia. Will democrats stop voting if they see their side trying to be as dirty as the cons? I guess the issue really is that a lot of democrat voters get whiny and refuse to vote when thr parry isn't perfect, meanwhile the cons always vote for their "person" even when they are a pedophile or rapist. Uhh tar the entirety of Republican candidates in 2018 by showing the mismatch? The elections are less than a year away. And what will that do? 1/3 of people voting for moore said they were MORE LIKELY to vote for him AFTER the accusations (with proof) that he is a pedophile. You think a little thing like pointing out that their party condones rape and pedophilia while the other party doesn't will stop the "derp stick it to the libruhls" types? Really the only benefit I can see here is what nebuchad said, in that the voting bases are different, and likely democrats will get discouraged and not vote if the democrat party doesn't take the high road. Meanwhile the cons seem to cheer for their party to be as lowly vile and despicable as humanly possible. I can’t believe you’re honestly implying Alabama’s response to Moore is just going to be repeated in races across the country. You’re too cynical for words.
How many women accused trump of sexual assault? Including at least 1 minor? Remind me again who you supported between trump and Hillary? Remind me again who is our current snowflake in chief? Which party was gianforte in again? The one who physically assaulted a journalist? I'm cynical because I can literally see in voter turnout that the cons support the vile and despicable actions of their party and party members.
Besides, shouldn't you be on the side of "nope us cons will win 2018 and continue to stop trump and pence from being impeached and jailed!"?
|
On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
"Ethnic cleansing" in this case means a drastically increased quality of life. The only thing they lose is the symbolism of some shitty land because their dumbass book says it belongs to them. It would be a huge improvement to Palestinian livelihood to live in a hospitable home.
I feel like on one hand, people make a huge fuss over the quality of life of Palestinians. Destroyed hospitals, schools, kids getting shot. But try to bring them somewhere away from all that violence, persecution and torment and you're hitler.
You guys aren't focusing enough on why Palestinians want to stay there. They could have a better life somewhere else but don't want to "because it's mine". The people with the book that says it's theirs are the Israelis. The ethnicity that lives there are the Palestinians. But it's made far more complicated now because this all happened four generations ago so now both sides were born there. What you're advocating for is essentially the Madagascar Plan, rationalizing it as better than the concentration camps. You're not wrong that it would have been better, but that doesn't mean we should accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan You're saying we shouldn't accept the idea of improving the lives of Palestinians? Both of their books say they should be there. They are both retarded. Israel holds every card and has no chance of ever losing. You are too focused on "what is fair" to the point where you aren't realizing your idea has a 0% chance of ever happening. Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate "sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture" into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively.
A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian.
BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan.
On December 07 2017 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
"Palestinians should advocate for their own ethnic cleansing"
I can't even
"I have no argument that isn't an appeal to emotion, so I'll try to find a way to be condescending and hope that makes it seem like I have made an argument."
Ah yes, another post by GH.
|
On December 07 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:[quote] The people with the book that says it's theirs are the Israelis. The ethnicity that lives there are the Palestinians. But it's made far more complicated now because this all happened four generations ago so now both sides were born there. What you're advocating for is essentially the Madagascar Plan, rationalizing it as better than the concentration camps. You're not wrong that it would have been better, but that doesn't mean we should accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan You're saying we shouldn't accept the idea of improving the lives of Palestinians? Both of their books say they should be there. They are both retarded. Israel holds every card and has no chance of ever losing. You are too focused on "what is fair" to the point where you aren't realizing your idea has a 0% chance of ever happening. Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate "sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture" into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively. A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian. BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan.
What plan? You want to relocate millions of people to Alaska? How is that even a plan?
|
On December 07 2017 03:09 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
You're saying we shouldn't accept the idea of improving the lives of Palestinians? Both of their books say they should be there. They are both retarded. Israel holds every card and has no chance of ever losing. You are too focused on "what is fair" to the point where you aren't realizing your idea has a 0% chance of ever happening. Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate "sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture" into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively. A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian. BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan. What plan? You want to relocate millions of people to Alaska? How is that even a plan?
How is it a plan to have your schools bulldozed every so often? Alaska isn't a good option. An actual Muslim country would be a much better idea. My idea ends at "get them the fuck out of where they are currently being treated as concentration camp prisoners"
Edit: And where they will *continue* to be treated like concentration camp prisoners for the next 50+ years. We are talking generations of children getting blown up. Hearing people say these kids need to die for the sake of justice is fucking stupid.
|
On December 07 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:[quote] The people with the book that says it's theirs are the Israelis. The ethnicity that lives there are the Palestinians. But it's made far more complicated now because this all happened four generations ago so now both sides were born there. What you're advocating for is essentially the Madagascar Plan, rationalizing it as better than the concentration camps. You're not wrong that it would have been better, but that doesn't mean we should accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan You're saying we shouldn't accept the idea of improving the lives of Palestinians? Both of their books say they should be there. They are both retarded. Israel holds every card and has no chance of ever losing. You are too focused on "what is fair" to the point where you aren't realizing your idea has a 0% chance of ever happening. Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate "sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture" into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively. A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian. BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan. Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
"Palestinians should advocate for their own ethnic cleansing"
I can't even "I have no argument that isn't an appeal to emotion, so I'll try to find a way to be condescending and hope that makes it seem like I have made an argument." Ah yes, another post by GH.
First, what do you mean "otherwise useless group of people"?
Second you are suggesting that the obvious course of action is for Palestinians to advocate for their own ethnic cleansing from their homes without recognizing the absurdity.
Meanwhile you point to the unlikely nature of US voters no longer supporting ethnic cleansing, but don't think that's a problem with your "just bring them to the US" plan?
Like I said, I can't even.
Just holy crap at the support ethnic cleansing gets here. Just a matter of time before xDaunt convinces Mohdoo that black people in the US face a similar situation and ethnic cleansing would make a great solution for that problem too.
|
On December 07 2017 03:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
You're saying we shouldn't accept the idea of improving the lives of Palestinians? Both of their books say they should be there. They are both retarded. Israel holds every card and has no chance of ever losing. You are too focused on "what is fair" to the point where you aren't realizing your idea has a 0% chance of ever happening. Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate "sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture" into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively. A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian. BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan. On December 07 2017 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
"Palestinians should advocate for their own ethnic cleansing"
I can't even "I have no argument that isn't an appeal to emotion, so I'll try to find a way to be condescending and hope that makes it seem like I have made an argument." Ah yes, another post by GH. First, what do you mean "otherwise useless group of people"? Second you are suggesting that the obvious course of action is for Palestinians to advocate for their own ethnic cleansing from their homes without recognizing the absurdity.
If I was taking a purely utilitarian perspective, Palestinians would be considered approximately useless from a world betterment perspective. Poorly educated, unhealthy, low chance of integration. Almost purely negative. That is my point. I am not doing that. These are humans worth saving.
In this instance, ethnic cleansing improves their lives. That is my point. Their situation is so fucked that this is the actual best case scenario for them. You yourself don't think the US will stop funding for at least 20 years. That's 20 year of kids getting shot and schools getting bulldozed.
You have *still* not actually made an argument why the lives of Palestinian children are better in Palestine rather than being relocated somewhere that doesn't destroy their schools.
|
On December 07 2017 02:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm confused because neither Mohdoo nor I ever said anything about relocating all the Palestinians, commuting ethnic cleansing or saying they don't get a state or self-determination. They should, but it just isn't going to be the one they are today asking for and they need to accept that. It fucking sucks, 100%. It might be smaller, there might be some sort of Israeli or multinational security presence, there might need to be disarmament, etc. but there is a solution there. If they get that it is at least a step towards a functioning, self-governing Palestinian state. Afterwards there can incrementally improve as trust is built and Israelis and Palestinians (hopefully) realize that recognizing Palestine won't result in full blown civil war.
you weren't paying attention. you'd need to read it all again.
mohdoo quite literally DID endorse relocating the palestinians. he quite clearly did support ethnic cleansing.
I know you didn't, but mohdoo did. (and our argument got kinda sidetracked, mostly thoug hpeople kept shifting to general israeli issues rather than focusing on the part that made it relevant ot us politics thread rather than israel thread).
|
I think there is this fundamental misunderstanding about how hard it is to relocate a group as large as the Palestinians. It’s like, impossible. They are not going to leave the small sections of land they have left peacefully and any argument that they will is naïve. You will have to kill them all.
This conflict has been generations in the making and will not be resolved by Trump or any other US president. There are too many nations and parties invested in both sides of the fight. In the 1970 and 1980s both groups were able to co-exist in relative peace. But decades of killings have fueled this fight. Personally, at this point I don’t care who wins this one. My entire life I have heard of peace talks failing because one side does something amazingly stupid to kill the peace talks over and over. Israel’s biggest problem right now is that they are winning.
On December 07 2017 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate
"sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture"
into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively. A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian. BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan. On December 07 2017 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
"Palestinians should advocate for their own ethnic cleansing"
I can't even "I have no argument that isn't an appeal to emotion, so I'll try to find a way to be condescending and hope that makes it seem like I have made an argument." Ah yes, another post by GH. First, what do you mean "otherwise useless group of people"? Second you are suggesting that the obvious course of action is for Palestinians to advocate for their own ethnic cleansing from their homes without recognizing the absurdity. If I was taking a purely utilitarian perspective, Palestinians would be considered approximately useless from a world betterment perspective. Poorly educated, unhealthy, low chance of integration. Almost purely negative. That is my point. I am not doing that. These are humans worth saving. In this instance, ethnic cleansing improves their lives. That is my point. Their situation is so fucked that this is the actual best case scenario for them. You yourself don't think the US will stop funding for at least 20 years. That's 20 year of kids getting shot and schools getting bulldozed. You have *still* not actually made an argument why the lives of Palestinian children are better in Palestine rather than being relocated somewhere that doesn't destroy their schools.
They will die fighting you. They have lived under oppression and aggression for almost three generations. We are nothing to them. If the US shows up tomorrow saying "we are moving you to Alaska" they will engage in a violent resistance you have no stomach for.
And then we will treat them like shit for like an entire generation because this is the US.
Finally, you are talking about several million people.
|
On December 07 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:[quote] The people with the book that says it's theirs are the Israelis. The ethnicity that lives there are the Palestinians. But it's made far more complicated now because this all happened four generations ago so now both sides were born there. What you're advocating for is essentially the Madagascar Plan, rationalizing it as better than the concentration camps. You're not wrong that it would have been better, but that doesn't mean we should accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan You're saying we shouldn't accept the idea of improving the lives of Palestinians? Both of their books say they should be there. They are both retarded. Israel holds every card and has no chance of ever losing. You are too focused on "what is fair" to the point where you aren't realizing your idea has a 0% chance of ever happening. Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate "sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture" into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively. A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian. BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan. Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
"Palestinians should advocate for their own ethnic cleansing"
I can't even "I have no argument that isn't an appeal to emotion, so I'll try to find a way to be condescending and hope that makes it seem like I have made an argument." Ah yes, another post by GH.
Please tell us all where the flying f*** you intend to put the entire population of Palestine?
During a time in which the world is facing a refugee crisis and people are already building quite strong nationalistic reactions to such.
Please pray tell how literally giving up home, land, all belongings that can't be carried on one's back, all guarantees of common culture, language and community, everything - is a gamble that seems more worth taking than fighting for the chance to preserve even some land. I think it's naive to think all Palestinians are fighting to get the whole of Israel off. Fighting just to keep a home and social environment for one's children makes sense even if the odds are not all that good.
And they'd be better odds if people cared enough to make a statement and actually attempted to sway political support a bit. Even just to "we'll be more stingy if you keep actively invading and stealing land".
|
On December 07 2017 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:09 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:36 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Maybe I'm just not ready to incorporate
"sure, I mean like technically it's ethnic cleansing because, like, all of the people from that ethnicity would have to be like moved or something, to clean the land for the new guys, but you gotta look at the big picture"
into my ethical framework That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true. In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively. A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian. BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan. What plan? You want to relocate millions of people to Alaska? How is that even a plan? How is it a plan to have your schools bulldozed every so often? Alaska isn't a good option. An actual Muslim country would be a much better idea. My idea ends at "get them the fuck out of where they are currently being treated as concentration camp prisoners"
I'm not saying doing nothing is a good plan. I would say that forced relocation on the basis of religion, race or culture is a terrible idea at all times.
|
On December 07 2017 03:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 02:57 hunts wrote:On December 07 2017 02:48 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2017 02:32 hunts wrote:On December 07 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:
It’s a pretty easy case of taking the high ground when the opponents have (mostly) vacated it.
Also, “Democrats need to fight back dirty,” by supporting a sexual harasser against a molestor of young teenagers is bringing whole new depths to that term. It’s like the Moore logic crew took over some Democrats too. But what is the benefit? Not a single con will refuse to vote for Moore simply because he is a pedophile. Not a single con will change sides just because they see one side doesn't tolerate sexual assault or pedophilia. Will democrats stop voting if they see their side trying to be as dirty as the cons? I guess the issue really is that a lot of democrat voters get whiny and refuse to vote when thr parry isn't perfect, meanwhile the cons always vote for their "person" even when they are a pedophile or rapist. Uhh tar the entirety of Republican candidates in 2018 by showing the mismatch? The elections are less than a year away. And what will that do? 1/3 of people voting for moore said they were MORE LIKELY to vote for him AFTER the accusations (with proof) that he is a pedophile. You think a little thing like pointing out that their party condones rape and pedophilia while the other party doesn't will stop the "derp stick it to the libruhls" types? Really the only benefit I can see here is what nebuchad said, in that the voting bases are different, and likely democrats will get discouraged and not vote if the democrat party doesn't take the high road. Meanwhile the cons seem to cheer for their party to be as lowly vile and despicable as humanly possible. I can’t believe you’re honestly implying Alabama’s response to Moore is just going to be repeated in races across the country. You’re too cynical for words.
then you're dense. the existence of trump (as well as a whole lot of other cases, plus the entirety of research in political science) quite clearly proves that similar things would occur elsewhere throughout the country if similar situations arose.
|
On December 07 2017 03:16 Plansix wrote:
I think there is this fundamental misunderstanding about how hard it is to relocate a group as large as the Palestinians. It’s like, impossible. They are not going to leave the small sections of land they have left peacefully and any argument that they will is naïve. You will have to kill them all.
This conflict has been generations in the making and will not be resolved by Trump or any other US president. There are too many nations and parties invested in both sides of the fight. In the 1970 and 1980s both groups were able to co-exist in relative peace. But decades of killings have fueled this fight. Personally, at this point I don’t care who wins this one. My entire life I have heard of peace talks failing because one side does something amazingly stupid to kill the peace talks over and over. Israel’s biggest problem right now is that they are winning.
And how hard is it to build a society when your schools, hospitals, infrastructure and housing are destroyed?
It is difficult to argue Israel's government even sees Palestinians as humans. Arguments against relocation are missing just how bad the lives of Palestinian children are right now. Their lives are getting worse, not better. Settlements, by and large, have continued. A little break here, a little break there. But the current course of events eventually eliminates Palestine. And all along the way, Palestinians are having a bad time.
On December 07 2017 03:18 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 03:09 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
That's your bad. You're being too fuzzy wuzzy about ethics and pretending there is some divine governing body that makes whatever is most ethical an eventual reality. It's not real. Thousands of children are sexually assaulted every day, ethics be damned. I don't know what existing precedent you are relying on to say this miracle will ever come true.
In reality, staunch obsession with "ethics" actually increases total suffering in this case because people don't have the sense to pivot when it is clearly necessary. I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively. A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian. BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan. What plan? You want to relocate millions of people to Alaska? How is that even a plan? How is it a plan to have your schools bulldozed every so often? Alaska isn't a good option. An actual Muslim country would be a much better idea. My idea ends at "get them the fuck out of where they are currently being treated as concentration camp prisoners" I'm not saying doing nothing is a good plan. I would say that forced relocation on the basis of religion, race or culture is a terrible idea at all times.
Remember when people fled Nazi Germany? That turned out to be a really good idea. A lot of people are really glad their grandparents fled Nazi Germany. I think you would be well served by reading up on just how poorly Palestinians are treated. Their situation only gets worse with time.
|
On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:16 Plansix wrote:
I think there is this fundamental misunderstanding about how hard it is to relocate a group as large as the Palestinians. It’s like, impossible. They are not going to leave the small sections of land they have left peacefully and any argument that they will is naïve. You will have to kill them all.
This conflict has been generations in the making and will not be resolved by Trump or any other US president. There are too many nations and parties invested in both sides of the fight. In the 1970 and 1980s both groups were able to co-exist in relative peace. But decades of killings have fueled this fight. Personally, at this point I don’t care who wins this one. My entire life I have heard of peace talks failing because one side does something amazingly stupid to kill the peace talks over and over. Israel’s biggest problem right now is that they are winning.
And how hard is it to build a society when your schools, hospitals, infrastructure and housing are destroyed? It is difficult to argue Israel's government even sees Palestinians as humans. Arguments against relocation are missing just how bad the lives of Palestinian children are right now. Their lives are getting worse, not better. Settlements, by and large, have continued. A little break here, a little break there. But the current course of events eventually eliminates Palestine. And all along the way, Palestinians are having a bad time. Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:18 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2017 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 03:09 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2017 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 03:02 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:58 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I never knew you were a strict utilitarian who believed that the most practical solution apparent must be followed, regardless of the fuzzy wuzzy ideas of ethics. Presumably we'll put the disabled people back in camps soon. Then we can start on the sterilization programs for the poor, the deviant, and the mentally unfit. Soon we'll have society looking just the way we want it.
I just wonder why nobody realized that they were above the constraints of ethics that rule lesser men and recognized that the will to power is the only true morality before. You're onto something here. You know this isn't remotely utilitarian. I staunchly support almost all forms of social assistance programs because humanity is empowered by empowering the weak. You keep ignoring the fact that my scenario improves the lives of Palestinians. It makes the comparison of killing the disabled a tad silly. I am advocating for telling Palestinians "No, your book is retarded. We are protecting your children and moving you to Alaska". My perspective decreases the amount of suffering of Palestinians by a large margin. I think you're confused. The moral framework based around minimizing the net amount of suffering is utilitarianism. That's why I said you were one. "Humanity is empowered by empowering the weak" is a utilitarian justification for welfare. Decreasing the amount of suffering of the people displaced is a utilitarian justification for relocation. You're arguing all of this from a utilitarian perspective. Some of my arguments are utilitarian, but they are from a Palestinian perspective, not all of humanity. For the purely selfish interest of Palestinian children, the Palestinian government should advocate for relocation. That much is 100% true. All of your arguments are utilitarian. You're saying that right and wrong as they relate to specific actions aren't important, what matters is whether suffering is reduced in the big picture. Honestly it feels like you just didn't know what utilitarianism is when I said you were using it so you denied it by accident. You're using it exclusively. A purely utilitarian perspective would likely not even bother relocating Palestinians because of the long battle to prevent them from being radicalized, integrating them and a million other things. I interpret purely utilitarian to not focus on only a small group of otherwise totally useless people. That's why I was saying my perspective wasn't totally utilitarian. BUT, my perspective is purely utilitarian from a Palestinian perspective. As a people, they would benefit tremendously from my plan. What plan? You want to relocate millions of people to Alaska? How is that even a plan? How is it a plan to have your schools bulldozed every so often? Alaska isn't a good option. An actual Muslim country would be a much better idea. My idea ends at "get them the fuck out of where they are currently being treated as concentration camp prisoners" I'm not saying doing nothing is a good plan. I would say that forced relocation on the basis of religion, race or culture is a terrible idea at all times. Remember when people fled Nazi Germany? That turned out to be a really good idea. A lot of people are really glad their grandparents fled Nazi Germany. I think you would be well served by reading up on just how poorly Palestinians are treated. Their situation only gets worse with time.
Who do you think was saying what you are saying in that Nazi Germany example?
What ever happened to those guys, did the US just fund their ethnic cleansing like we do Israel?
|
On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:16 Plansix wrote:
I think there is this fundamental misunderstanding about how hard it is to relocate a group as large as the Palestinians. It’s like, impossible. They are not going to leave the small sections of land they have left peacefully and any argument that they will is naïve. You will have to kill them all.
This conflict has been generations in the making and will not be resolved by Trump or any other US president. There are too many nations and parties invested in both sides of the fight. In the 1970 and 1980s both groups were able to co-exist in relative peace. But decades of killings have fueled this fight. Personally, at this point I don’t care who wins this one. My entire life I have heard of peace talks failing because one side does something amazingly stupid to kill the peace talks over and over. Israel’s biggest problem right now is that they are winning.
And how hard is it to build a society when your schools, hospitals, infrastructure and housing are destroyed? It is difficult to argue Israel's government even sees Palestinians as humans. Arguments against relocation are missing just how bad the lives of Palestinian children are right now. Their lives are getting worse, not better. Settlements, by and large, have continued. A little break here, a little break there. But the current course of events eventually eliminates Palestine. And all along the way, Palestinians are having a bad time.
Because its like millions of people and a bunch of them will try to MURDER you before they let themselves be moved. They have almost nothing and you are advocating taking the one thing they have left. You fundamentally don't understand this conflict. Its like NK. There is no easy solution. I would argue there is no solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
