|
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 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 06:35 farvacola wrote:
And there it is again, "clearly mutually exclusive" as though this spiel isn't straight Likud party sycophancy.
Lol. Are you actually going to make an argument or are you just going to continue to embarrass yourself with idiotic and baseless sniping? We can't make an argument against what you're saying. If your premises are true, you are correct. Of course your premises are aberrant, but you will never engage on your premises because the reason why they are premises in the first place is because you have carefully worded your arguments so that they are premises and not points to be engaged. Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully. It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them.
Please explain what a reasonable time frame is?
|
On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 06:35 farvacola wrote:
And there it is again, "clearly mutually exclusive" as though this spiel isn't straight Likud party sycophancy.
Lol. Are you actually going to make an argument or are you just going to continue to embarrass yourself with idiotic and baseless sniping? We can't make an argument against what you're saying. If your premises are true, you are correct. Of course your premises are aberrant, but you will never engage on your premises because the reason why they are premises in the first place is because you have carefully worded your arguments so that they are premises and not points to be engaged. Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully. It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is?
I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need?
|
On December 19 2017 08:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 19 2017 08:25 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its pretty much the same as xDaunt's premise, and I wouldn't call it baseless.
It isn't pretty much the same as xDaunt's premise, no. xDaunt said "never". You take into account the current circumstances, which include far right governments on both side. Under your premise we should attempt to change the current circumstances so that we obtain a situation where we can obtain peace. Under his, peace is unattainable, so instead we should go all out with the war on the side that is closer to xDaunt (sorry, I meant, "to America", "to us"). Hmmm... Close but not quite. Under my premise we should operate under the assumption that there will never be peace. This is because simply hoping for a peace which currently seems unattainable has literally no positive effects. In fact, it is the same as doing nothing while Israel slowly tortures Palestine to death. Tentatively starting contingency planning for all out disaster for Palestinians is the sensible thing to do. Notice I am coming from a totally different place to xDaunt, but operating under the same assumption because that is a better way to operate - not because of some ultimate allegiance to the truth of the premise, but because of the good that may come of it. The thing to note here is that your goal isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to mine.
No it isn't. The only difference really is that you don't give a shit about Palestinians.
To me, the focus should be 100% on reducing harm to the people who our respective countries have left exposed and exploited. You want the focus elsewhere, so its a matter of priority rather mutual exclusivity.
My end goal isn't the relocation of the Palestinian people, its the ability of the Palestinians to live a life free from oppression. I believe that they deserve this. Again this isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with your Israeli domination of the area, but if we look at things realistically its an almost impossible thing to navigate without something disastrous happening.
If there was some reasonable solution to this I think it would have been done by now.
|
On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 06:35 farvacola wrote:
And there it is again, "clearly mutually exclusive" as though this spiel isn't straight Likud party sycophancy.
Lol. Are you actually going to make an argument or are you just going to continue to embarrass yourself with idiotic and baseless sniping? We can't make an argument against what you're saying. If your premises are true, you are correct. Of course your premises are aberrant, but you will never engage on your premises because the reason why they are premises in the first place is because you have carefully worded your arguments so that they are premises and not points to be engaged. Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully. It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need?
Its your standard of proof, so you got that one.
|
On December 19 2017 08:05 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 07:19 zlefin wrote:On December 19 2017 07:02 RenSC2 wrote:On December 19 2017 06:44 zlefin wrote:On December 19 2017 06:39 RenSC2 wrote:On December 19 2017 06:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 19 2017 06:23 RenSC2 wrote:
The world powers appeased the Nazis in the 1930s because they didn’t want war. They ended up in a war with the Nazis anyways after the Nazis gained more strength and were harder to defeat. We should not make the same mistakes with terrorists and worry about how they will react. We should simply prepare for the response.
We’ll be attacked if we capitulate and we’ll be attacked if we don’t. The terrorists won’t be happy until we are all cleansed from the face of the earth. So we might as well draw some clear lines in the sand and defend those lines even if it means war. Don’t let them gain enough power to threaten our existence and force us into a war with an uncertain outcome.
As a Trump hater, I still agree with the decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It’s a start.
The lack of infrastructure spending is 99% on Trump and the Republicans though. I’m not going to be upset with the Democrats for their 1% responsibility on this one. Are you suggesting that Palestinians are terrorists? Everywhere I try to discuss this i see Palestinians portrayed as a braying mob of anti American terrorists who want nothing more than to wage war against the West at all times. Actually, as you'd know if you had met any, Palestinians are generally a fairly liberal bunch of people who just want to be able to let their kids go outside without them getting arrested and tortured for a few months. Not all, no. Most people from every culture simply want to build a better life for their children. That includes the Palestinians. However, there is a violent sect within the Palestinian people, including their current leadership of Hamas, that will never accept peace. They will twist the minds of the young to continue the war. They will continue to fire rockets and set off bombs. No matter what Israel does, the terrorists will incite war until all the Israelis are dead. Even if all the terrorists were removed from Palestine, outside agitators will continue the war and develop new recruits. It’s the harsh reality of the Middle East. “Experts” do what they can to slow the growth of terrorism, but they do nothing to push it back because pushing it back means taking the fight to them. It means the deaths of innocent people who get caught up in it. In the short term, it even means more recruits to the terrorist cause. However, if you ever want peace in the Middle East, it only becomes a reality as a reaction to a terrible war. on which well-researched sources are you basing your claims/conclusions? I’ll fully admit that these are my opinions based on my observations of the situation and parallels that I can draw from similar cases in human history. Where are your well-researched sources? Are they from a think-tank doing the exact same thing that I am? Can they point to a similar intractable case in human history that was solved peacefully and turned out not to be intractable? Have their efforts as policy advisors actually made the Middle East more peaceful? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t fully support Israel either. I think they have made significant blunders that have inflamed tensions unnecessarily. However, I do respect the right of Israel to exist and I respect the right of a country to declare its own capital. I don’t care about the response of terrorists when respecting those rights, with the exception of preparing for them. do you want to read them in full? if so I could probably dig them up. iirc it was a mix of an extensive report by RAND corp, plus the US army counterinsurgency manual. if you respect the right of a country to declare its own capital, what about the country of palestine, which also considers jerusalem to be its capital (and where quite a lot of them live)? I’ll skip the heavy reading. I would suggest that the RAND Corp and US army have had a long time of trying to implement their policies with no success in the Middle East. Is there an example in history that they cite where their policy suggestions worked to bring peace? I would accept Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and put the US embassy to Palestine in Jerusalem if that’s where the Palestinian people wanted it. I would probably use the same building/complex as the embassy to Israel.
the analysis is not about their policy prescriptions; but about a thorough look at how such conflicts have ended in the past, and what has worked what hasn't, in different types of such conflicts.
I wouldn't say their particular techniques have had no success, more like limited success (and there are several different places of mideast conflict); and of course the army manual is on counterinsurgency, there also needs to be the political will to do it right, which is usually lacking. knowin the right techniques doesn't help if the politicians don' tback them up appropriately, as trump most certainly does not.
|
On December 19 2017 08:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 19 2017 08:25 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its pretty much the same as xDaunt's premise, and I wouldn't call it baseless.
It isn't pretty much the same as xDaunt's premise, no. xDaunt said "never". You take into account the current circumstances, which include far right governments on both side. Under your premise we should attempt to change the current circumstances so that we obtain a situation where we can obtain peace. Under his, peace is unattainable, so instead we should go all out with the war on the side that is closer to xDaunt (sorry, I meant, "to America", "to us"). Hmmm... Close but not quite. Under my premise we should operate under the assumption that there will never be peace. This is because simply hoping for a peace which currently seems unattainable has literally no positive effects. In fact, it is the same as doing nothing while Israel slowly tortures Palestine to death. Tentatively starting contingency planning for all out disaster for Palestinians is the sensible thing to do. Notice I am coming from a totally different place to xDaunt, but operating under the same assumption because that is a better way to operate - not because of some ultimate allegiance to the truth of the premise, but because of the good that may come of it. I disagree that operating under that assumption is the best thing to do under the premise you have offered. There are many things that can be done to influence Israel beyond "hoping" that they change. To get to the point where contingency planning for Palestinians can happen, you'd first need a little more leeway on taking pro-palestinian stances when it comes to western politicians, and that fact alone would be influential. For people like me who have no direct power, there is still the international public opinion. When it was much more pro-Israel some time ago, it was much more difficult to envision any type of peace.
The problem as far as I see it is that international public opinion has done absolutely nothing in favour of Palestinians ever. The odd condemnation of Israel here or there slows them down like a butterfly on a train track.
Shit when the UN found them guilty of human rights violations they just laughed.
The only public opinion that could conceivably have a decent effect is in America and from what I've seen (this may be a caricature) that vast majority of Americans are completely and utterly brainwashed beyond repair when it comes to this subject.
That is something that takes decades, or generations, to fix.
|
On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Are you actually going to make an argument or are you just going to continue to embarrass yourself with idiotic and baseless sniping? We can't make an argument against what you're saying. If your premises are true, you are correct. Of course your premises are aberrant, but you will never engage on your premises because the reason why they are premises in the first place is because you have carefully worded your arguments so that they are premises and not points to be engaged. Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully. It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one.
I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. But have it your way. Let's say 20 years. And if you don't think that peace can be had within that period, then state by when you think it could occur and why.
|
On December 19 2017 08:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:47 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 08:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 19 2017 08:25 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its pretty much the same as xDaunt's premise, and I wouldn't call it baseless.
It isn't pretty much the same as xDaunt's premise, no. xDaunt said "never". You take into account the current circumstances, which include far right governments on both side. Under your premise we should attempt to change the current circumstances so that we obtain a situation where we can obtain peace. Under his, peace is unattainable, so instead we should go all out with the war on the side that is closer to xDaunt (sorry, I meant, "to America", "to us"). Hmmm... Close but not quite. Under my premise we should operate under the assumption that there will never be peace. This is because simply hoping for a peace which currently seems unattainable has literally no positive effects. In fact, it is the same as doing nothing while Israel slowly tortures Palestine to death. Tentatively starting contingency planning for all out disaster for Palestinians is the sensible thing to do. Notice I am coming from a totally different place to xDaunt, but operating under the same assumption because that is a better way to operate - not because of some ultimate allegiance to the truth of the premise, but because of the good that may come of it. I disagree that operating under that assumption is the best thing to do under the premise you have offered. There are many things that can be done to influence Israel beyond "hoping" that they change. To get to the point where contingency planning for Palestinians can happen, you'd first need a little more leeway on taking pro-palestinian stances when it comes to western politicians, and that fact alone would be influential. For people like me who have no direct power, there is still the international public opinion. When it was much more pro-Israel some time ago, it was much more difficult to envision any type of peace. The problem as far as I see it is that international public opinion has done absolutely nothing in favour of Palestinians ever. The odd condemnation of Israel here or there slows them down like a butterfly on a train track. The only public opinion that could conceivably have a decent effect is in America and from what I've seen (this may be a caricature) that vast majority of Americans are completely and utterly brainwashed beyond repair when it comes to this subject. That is something that takes decades, or generations, to fix.
I will certainly agree that a lot of the problems in this world would be fixed by changing american public opinion on certain key topics (it's mostly why I'm here btw). That being said, some of that work is already in progress. Not so much on Palestine but it can follow.
|
On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
We can't make an argument against what you're saying. If your premises are true, you are correct. Of course your premises are aberrant, but you will never engage on your premises because the reason why they are premises in the first place is because you have carefully worded your arguments so that they are premises and not points to be engaged. Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully. It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. But have it your way. Let's say 20 years. And if you don't think that peace can be had within that period, then state by when you think it could occur and why.
Why would I ever define it when I get so much more information from you doing it?
Assuming Netanyahu is taken down by the corruption charges, his party would need to be out of power. I don’t believe peace is viable with them in charge.
But assuming that would happen, the settlement would need to stop. The 600 thousand that live there would keep their land, but Israel would need to think of some way to make up for the disputed land. Palestine would need to be convinced to disarm and let inspectors into remove the weapons. And then maybe we might be able to get to peace talks and further de-escalation. I assume all of that would take about a decade or more. There will never be a two state solution at this point. But maybe there can be something that isn’t the current status quo. Because when those 5 million people finally are ejected for Israel, they will go someplace in the world and be very angry.
Do I think it is going to happen? No, Netanyahu’s party is more than just him and they will continue down this path. Is it possible without Netanyahu’s party in power, of course. And Palestine may not go for it. But anything is better than the current plan.
|
On December 19 2017 09:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully. It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. But have it your way. Let's say 20 years. And if you don't think that peace can be had within that period, then state by when you think it could occur and why. Why would I ever define it when I get so much more information from you doing it? Assuming Netanyahu is taken down by the corruption charges, his party would need to be out of power. I don’t believe peace is viable with them in charge. But assuming that would happen, the settlement would need to stop. The 600 thousand that live there would keep their land, but Israel would need to think of some way to make up for the disputed land. Palestine would need to be convinced to disarm and let inspectors into remove the weapons. And then maybe we might be able to get to peace talks and further de-escalation. I assume all of that would take about a decade or more. There will never be a two state solution at this point. But maybe there can be something that isn’t the current status quo. Because when those 5 million people finally are ejected for Israel, they will go someplace in the world and be very angry. Do I think it is going to happen? No, Netanyahu’s party is more than just him and they will continue down this path. Is it possible without Netanyahu’s party in power, of course. And Palestine may not go for it. But anything is better than the current plan.
You're focusing pretty heavily on the Israeli side of the equation. Why do you think that the Palestinians will ever accept the existence of Israel?
|
|
|
On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
We can't make an argument against what you're saying. If your premises are true, you are correct. Of course your premises are aberrant, but you will never engage on your premises because the reason why they are premises in the first place is because you have carefully worded your arguments so that they are premises and not points to be engaged. Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully. It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it.
Are you forgetting you're talking to leftists? Consistency is contradictory to their worldview, which is one derived nearly entirely from emotion. They rarely, if ever, make constructive arguments because there is none to be consistently made from a purely emotionally derived worldview. Consequently, well-defined terms have no argumentative utility and serve only as vulnerabilities from which others can leverage to expose their inconsistency/hypocrisy.
See "racist", "nationalism", and the rest of the long list.
|
Violent provocations like when a child runs away from a soldier. I guess for that they deserve a bullet in the back.
The problem with this line of argument, Danglars, is that it is an escalating argument.
If there's a violent provocation in one case, then the soldiers must have a reason for shooting kids, right? I mean they must have been provoked.
Its a vacuous case to make, because each circumstance is completely different, and as sure as Palestinians are guilty of some brutal murder, so are Israel.
|
On December 19 2017 09:16 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully. It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. Are you forgetting you're talking to leftists? Consistency is contradictory to their worldview, which is one derived nearly entirely from emotion. They rarely, if ever, make constructive arguments because there is none to be made from a purely emotionally derived worldview. Consequently, well-defined terms have no argumentative utility and serve only as vulnerabilities from which others can leverage to expose their inconsistency/hypocrisy. See "racist", "nationalism", and the rest of the long list.
that's a hilarious dumb argument; considering how well proven it is that xdaunt dodges questions, avoids definitions, and redefines terms, and otherwise argues in bad faith. unless you meant to mock xdaunt for doin gthe things you describe as being "leftist" in which case kudos on a clever mocking.
|
On December 19 2017 09:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 09:08 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. But have it your way. Let's say 20 years. And if you don't think that peace can be had within that period, then state by when you think it could occur and why. Why would I ever define it when I get so much more information from you doing it? Assuming Netanyahu is taken down by the corruption charges, his party would need to be out of power. I don’t believe peace is viable with them in charge. But assuming that would happen, the settlement would need to stop. The 600 thousand that live there would keep their land, but Israel would need to think of some way to make up for the disputed land. Palestine would need to be convinced to disarm and let inspectors into remove the weapons. And then maybe we might be able to get to peace talks and further de-escalation. I assume all of that would take about a decade or more. There will never be a two state solution at this point. But maybe there can be something that isn’t the current status quo. Because when those 5 million people finally are ejected for Israel, they will go someplace in the world and be very angry. Do I think it is going to happen? No, Netanyahu’s party is more than just him and they will continue down this path. Is it possible without Netanyahu’s party in power, of course. And Palestine may not go for it. But anything is better than the current plan. You're focusing pretty heavily on the Israeli side of the equation. Why do you think that the Palestinians will ever accept the existence of Israel?
Because I know about the 7 day war? Israel isn't going anyplace unless a nuke is involved. There is no removing Israel. There is a part of Palestinian population that doesn't want to fight any more.
|
On December 19 2017 09:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 09:16 mozoku wrote:On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. Are you forgetting you're talking to leftists? Consistency is contradictory to their worldview, which is one derived nearly entirely from emotion. They rarely, if ever, make constructive arguments because there is none to be made from a purely emotionally derived worldview. Consequently, well-defined terms have no argumentative utility and serve only as vulnerabilities from which others can leverage to expose their inconsistency/hypocrisy. See "racist", "nationalism", and the rest of the long list. that's a hilarious dumb argument; considering how well proven it is that xdaunt dodges questions, avoids definitions, and redefines terms, and otherwise argues in bad faith. unless you meant to mock xdaunt for doin gthe things you describe as being "leftist" in which case kudos on a clever mocking.
Considering that your posting here is an ongoing exercise in intellectual nihilism, I don't think that you're particularly well-qualified to comment on my posting. This is particularly the case given that the record is so very clear about how wrong you are. Just take a look at the several pages where I have made very direct arguments, and my opponents have tersely said that I'm "wrong" without providing any justification for their statements despite my repeated invitations for them to do so. Hell, I've even called out three different posters. Only Plansix has given me a decent response.
|
On December 19 2017 09:16 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully. It's a baseless claim. This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. Are you forgetting you're talking to leftists? Consistency is contradictory to their worldview, which is one derived nearly entirely from emotion. They rarely, if ever, make constructive arguments because there is none to be made from a purely emotionally derived worldview. Consequently, well-defined terms have no argumentative utility and serve only as vulnerabilities from which others can leverage to expose their inconsistency/hypocrisy. See "racist", "nationalism", and the rest of the long list.
Sorry kid, I paid attention in civics, history and all those dirty humanities classes, so I know when to ask the other side to define the scope of their argument.
|
On December 19 2017 09:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 09:10 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 09:08 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. But have it your way. Let's say 20 years. And if you don't think that peace can be had within that period, then state by when you think it could occur and why. Why would I ever define it when I get so much more information from you doing it? Assuming Netanyahu is taken down by the corruption charges, his party would need to be out of power. I don’t believe peace is viable with them in charge. But assuming that would happen, the settlement would need to stop. The 600 thousand that live there would keep their land, but Israel would need to think of some way to make up for the disputed land. Palestine would need to be convinced to disarm and let inspectors into remove the weapons. And then maybe we might be able to get to peace talks and further de-escalation. I assume all of that would take about a decade or more. There will never be a two state solution at this point. But maybe there can be something that isn’t the current status quo. Because when those 5 million people finally are ejected for Israel, they will go someplace in the world and be very angry. Do I think it is going to happen? No, Netanyahu’s party is more than just him and they will continue down this path. Is it possible without Netanyahu’s party in power, of course. And Palestine may not go for it. But anything is better than the current plan. You're focusing pretty heavily on the Israeli side of the equation. Why do you think that the Palestinians will ever accept the existence of Israel? Because I know about the 7 day war? Israel isn't going anyplace unless a nuke is involved. There is no removing Israel. There is a part of Palestinian population that doesn't want to fight any more.
Sure, there may be a minority of Palestinians that want peaceful coexistence, but I've seen nothing to indicate that a majority do or ever well. Arafat's rejection of the deal brokered by Clinton is proof enough of that.
|
On December 19 2017 09:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 09:18 zlefin wrote:On December 19 2017 09:16 mozoku wrote:On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke. This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. Are you forgetting you're talking to leftists? Consistency is contradictory to their worldview, which is one derived nearly entirely from emotion. They rarely, if ever, make constructive arguments because there is none to be made from a purely emotionally derived worldview. Consequently, well-defined terms have no argumentative utility and serve only as vulnerabilities from which others can leverage to expose their inconsistency/hypocrisy. See "racist", "nationalism", and the rest of the long list. that's a hilarious dumb argument; considering how well proven it is that xdaunt dodges questions, avoids definitions, and redefines terms, and otherwise argues in bad faith. unless you meant to mock xdaunt for doin gthe things you describe as being "leftist" in which case kudos on a clever mocking. Considering that your posting here is an ongoing exercise in intellectual nihilism, I don't think that you're particularly well-qualified to comment on my posting. This is particularly the case given that the record so very clear about how wrong you are. Just take a look at the several pages where I have made very direct arguments, and my opponents have tersely said that I'm "wrong" without providing any justification for their statements despite my repeated invitations for them to do so. Hell, I've even called out three different posters. Only Plansix has given me a decent response.
yes, I know, you like to troll as you are here and now.
as I gave very direct counterarguments to you in the last several pages which you ignored entirely, despite them being very clear and very sound, to which you will probably respond by either ignoring them again, or picking the weakest one, findin gsome flaw in it, and claiming that therefore none of them matter.
when you argue in bad fiath as you have been proven to do time and again, and was done so here yet again, expect to be called out on it, as you are.
that you claim i'm unqualified means nothing, as it's been proven your argue in bad faith, there's no reason to put muhc credence in your assessments.
|
On December 19 2017 09:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 09:22 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 09:10 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 09:08 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:52 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future. So you're saying that we should act on the basis of baseless speculation instead of known facts? C'mon now. If you have good reasons for why you think that peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is reasonably possible within a reasonable timeframe, now's the time to state them. Please explain what a reasonable time frame is? I dunno, I'm pretty flexible on that one. How long do you need? Its your standard of proof, so you got that one. I'm giving you the opportunity to define it! You should be jumping all over it. But have it your way. Let's say 20 years. And if you don't think that peace can be had within that period, then state by when you think it could occur and why. Why would I ever define it when I get so much more information from you doing it? Assuming Netanyahu is taken down by the corruption charges, his party would need to be out of power. I don’t believe peace is viable with them in charge. But assuming that would happen, the settlement would need to stop. The 600 thousand that live there would keep their land, but Israel would need to think of some way to make up for the disputed land. Palestine would need to be convinced to disarm and let inspectors into remove the weapons. And then maybe we might be able to get to peace talks and further de-escalation. I assume all of that would take about a decade or more. There will never be a two state solution at this point. But maybe there can be something that isn’t the current status quo. Because when those 5 million people finally are ejected for Israel, they will go someplace in the world and be very angry. Do I think it is going to happen? No, Netanyahu’s party is more than just him and they will continue down this path. Is it possible without Netanyahu’s party in power, of course. And Palestine may not go for it. But anything is better than the current plan. You're focusing pretty heavily on the Israeli side of the equation. Why do you think that the Palestinians will ever accept the existence of Israel? Because I know about the 7 day war? Israel isn't going anyplace unless a nuke is involved. There is no removing Israel. There is a part of Palestinian population that doesn't want to fight any more. Sure, there may be a minority of Palestinians that want peaceful coexistence, but I've seen nothing to indicate that a majority do or ever well. Arafat's rejection of the deal brokered by Clinton is proof enough of that.
That was 20 years ago. People change and the belief that Middle East would help them expell Isreal is pretty dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
