|
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. |
On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:
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.
Do you think the Palestinians would leave if you offered them the choice?
|
On December 07 2017 03:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:
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. Do you think the Palestinians would leave if you offered them the choice?
Also there were all those people who fled Nazi Germany and were turned back. Or just died.
|
On December 07 2017 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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?
I think I am saying the people who fled ended up not dying. Palestinians are dying.
On December 07 2017 03:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:
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. Do you think the Palestinians would leave if you offered them the choice?
I think there are scenarios where Palestinians are more likely to leave than Israel is to stop bulldozing.
This conflict is not at a stand still. Israel is actively winning and the eventual conclusion is the elimination of Palestine. That's the important detail. This isn't standing still.
|
Humanity is ridiculous, why Palestinians and Israelis can't live in one state without blasting each others brains out, is beyond me.
Seriously we have more or less intelligent people, who kill each other for a god, their goat herding ancestors made up in the bronze age....
|
On December 07 2017 03:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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? I think I am saying the people who fled ended up not dying. Palestinians are dying. Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:
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. Do you think the Palestinians would leave if you offered them the choice? I think there are scenarios where Palestinians are more likely to leave than Israel is to stop bulldozing. This conflict is not at a stand still. Israel is actively winning and the eventual conclusion is the elimination of Palestine. That's the important detail. This isn't standing still.
I meant the "there's no hope for them to live peacefully together so they should just advocate their own ethnic cleansing" part. Who in circa Nazi Germany might have made that argument?
On December 07 2017 03:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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? I think I am saying the people who fled ended up not dying. Palestinians are dying. Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 07 2017 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:
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. Do you think the Palestinians would leave if you offered them the choice? I think there are scenarios where Palestinians are more likely to leave than Israel is to stop bulldozing. This conflict is not at a stand still. Israel is actively winning and the eventual conclusion is the elimination of Palestine. That's the important detail. This isn't standing still.
It's particularly weird when you make it sound like it's "just happening" like your tax dollars aren't paying for it.
|
On December 07 2017 03:31 thePunGun wrote:
Humanity is ridiculous, why Palestinians and Israelis can't live in one state without blasting each others brains out, is beyond me.
Seriously we have more or less intelligent people who kill each other for a god, their goat herding ancestors made up in the bronze age....
The reason they are killing each other might have started with religion, but has been fortified by decades of grievance. If you look at how Israel came to be, it was founded on conflict with people who didn’t want the Jews immigrating to their land. Of course, that land was under British rule at the time.
|
On December 07 2017 03:18 Ciaus_Dronu 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. Please tell us all where the flying f*** you intend to put the entire population of Palestine?
I would like to know this as well. 'Some muslim country' doesn't quite cut it, sorry. I would also like to know what you plan to do with those Palestinians saying no? Remember, this is all your solution because you found all other solutions unrealistic.
|
On December 07 2017 03:34 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:18 Ciaus_Dronu 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. Please tell us all where the flying f*** you intend to put the entire population of Palestine? I would like to know this as well. 'Some muslim country' doesn't quite cut it, sorry. I would also like to know what you plan to do with those Palestinians saying no? Remember, this is all your solution because you found all other solutions unrealistic.
How about alabama? They share many religious cultural similarities as is, I think they would get along great if they could just get past the whole different color and different name for their religion thing.
|
On December 07 2017 03:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:31 thePunGun wrote:
Humanity is ridiculous, why Palestinians and Israelis can't live in one state without blasting each others brains out, is beyond me.
Seriously we have more or less intelligent people who kill each other for a god, their goat herding ancestors made up in the bronze age.... The reason they are killing each other might have started with religion, but has been fortified by decades of grievance. If you look at how Israel came to be, it was founded on conflict with people who didn’t want the Jews immigrating to their land. Of course, that land was under British rule at the time.
But religious motives are still at the very heart of this conflict...
|
GH, this quote chain is obnoxiously long so I am addressing you this way to reset it:
1. The people who knew they couldn't stop Nazi Germany but still wanted their homies to be safe. "Yo, I didn't vote for this dude, but he sure is in power, so I reckon y'all best mozy on outta here" is who I feel I am channeling right now. Jews fighting from within Germany did not do super well.
2. Of course my tax dollars pay for it. All of ours do. Our wishes are not represented in this instance. That's how taxation works. You pay for everything, not just the stuff you agree with. If it were up to me, we would be bombing Israel this very moment.
|
On December 07 2017 03:34 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:18 Ciaus_Dronu 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. Please tell us all where the flying f*** you intend to put the entire population of Palestine? I would like to know this as well. 'Some muslim country' doesn't quite cut it, sorry. I would also like to know what you plan to do with those Palestinians saying no? Remember, this is all your solution because you found all other solutions unrealistic.
People said we could let them move to Alaska and no one would notice. I don’t think people realized that it we are talking 4.8 million(as of 2014) people, which is more than half the population of New York city. Alaska has less than a million people living in it.
|
On December 07 2017 03:39 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:34 Plansix wrote:On December 07 2017 03:31 thePunGun wrote:
Humanity is ridiculous, why Palestinians and Israelis can't live in one state without blasting each others brains out, is beyond me.
Seriously we have more or less intelligent people who kill each other for a god, their goat herding ancestors made up in the bronze age.... The reason they are killing each other might have started with religion, but has been fortified by decades of grievance. If you look at how Israel came to be, it was founded on conflict with people who didn’t want the Jews immigrating to their land. Of course, that land was under British rule at the time. But religious motives are still at the very heart of this conflict...
I would say it is the foundation, but not the driving motivation. It the background music to the conflict.
|
On December 07 2017 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, this quote chain is obnoxiously long so I am addressing you this way to reset it:
1. The people who knew they couldn't stop Nazi Germany but still wanted their homies to be safe. "Yo, I didn't vote for this dude, but he sure is in power, so I reckon y'all best mozy on outta here" is who I feel I am channeling right now. Jews fighting from within Germany did not do super well.
2. Of course my tax dollars pay for it. All of ours do. Our wishes are not represented in this instance. That's how taxation works. You pay for everything, not just the stuff you agree with. If it were up to me, we would be bombing Israel this very moment.
1. I'm thinking you're more channeling the propaganda that pushed the narrative that Jews were too different and bad/useless to coexist in Germany and that their only sensible choice was to ethnically cleanse themselves from Germany
2.Then advocate bombing Israel, because it's more likely than relocating the Palestinians and would actually stop the ethnic cleansing sponsored by the US.
|
United States42640 Posts
Two people both want to live on the same land. Both of them were born there. Both of them are angry.
|
|
|
Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, told a former business associate that economic sanctions against Russia would be “ripped up” as one of the Trump administration’s first acts, according to an account by a whistle-blower made public on Wednesday.
Mr. Flynn believed that ending the sanctions could allow a business project he had once participated in to move forward, according to the whistle-blower. The account is the strongest evidence to date that the Trump administration wanted to end the sanctions immediately, and suggests that Mr. Flynn had a possible economic incentive for the United States to forge a closer relationship with Russia.
Mr. Flynn had worked on a business venture to partner with Russia to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East until June 2016, but remained close with the people involved afterward. On Inauguration Day, according to the whistle-blower, Mr. Flynn texted the former business associate to say that the project was “good to go.”
www.nytimes.com
|
On December 07 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote:
Two people both want to live on the same land. Both of them were born there. Both of them are angry. Because both of them insist god himself promised them said land...and that's insane.
|
On December 07 2017 03:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 03:34 Longshank wrote:On December 07 2017 03:18 Ciaus_Dronu 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. 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? I would like to know this as well. 'Some muslim country' doesn't quite cut it, sorry. I would also like to know what you plan to do with those Palestinians saying no? Remember, this is all your solution because you found all other solutions unrealistic. People said we could let them move to Alaska and no one would notice. I don’t think people realized that it we are talking 4.8 million(as of 2014) people, which is more than half the population of New York city. Alaska has less than a million people living in it.
Just imagine the outcry if someone were to announce that 5 million brown people, literally from the middle east are to be relocated to the US.
Let's forget about Alaska and spread them out all over US and there's still no way that could happen. Both because they're perceived to be even worse than Mexicans (can I say that tongue-in-cheek?) as well as it being... well, roughly 5 million people.
Think about the reaction Germany had on refugees that we took in. Google says (link) we didn't even have 1million when everyone was going crazy
|
On December 07 2017 03:31 thePunGun wrote:
Humanity is ridiculous, why Palestinians and Israelis can't live in one state without blasting each others brains out, is beyond me.
Seriously we have more or less intelligent people, who kill each other for a god, their goat herding ancestors made up in the bronze age....
One of the alternatives to the 2-state solution during several negotiations was always a one-state solution. A state of Israel with both Jewish and Muslim population, which let's both religions live there on equal terms.
This solution was refused by Israel, as they insist on being a Jewish state. Giving equal rights to Muslims was outright refused.
But Israel also refuses the two.state solution and instead openly advocate a 1.5-state solution with a full state of Israel, and a Ghetto on their terms for the Muslims.
|
Supporting Israel seemed like such a good idea back when they were fighting off every nation around them. In recent years it has gotten less easy, if not impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
