|
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 09:25 Plansix 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. 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.
It's a shame that the dirty humanities classes (your words, which I disagree with) didn't teach you to understand your own implied argument then.
More explicitly: you're the one implicitly saying peace is a likely enough possibility within a reasonable timeframe that there's some utility in maintaining the status quo. That's your argument. The fact that xDaunt put it into a sentence and asked you to clarify relevant terms doesn't mean it isn't your argument. It's still your burden to define the terms if you actually have a constructive argument.
xDaunt was gamesman enough to not belabor the point though.
|
This is not about "sustaining the status quo" versus letting things happen. It is about actively doing things. And if you are actually doing things, you should first figure out if those things are actually beneficial things.
Jumpstarting more conflict in israel and palestine does not sound like a beneficial thing to do. The situation is shitty and there does not seem to be a simple solution to it, but that does not mean that fucking stuff up even more just to be doing something is a good idea.
We are not talking about some weird hypothetical either. We are talking about the very concrete act of Trump recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. Something that as far as i know pretty much everyone who understands the situation at hand does not think will have any positive results, but which will incite further conflict.
This step does not help in solving the conflict at all. So i don't quite understand why people who think that it is a stupid step now have to provide a way to resolve the conflict to be able to state that that specific step is stupid.
Even if a situation is bad and there is no clear solution, there are still ways to make it are worse than the status quo. Each step should be judged by whether it actually makes stuff better, or enables stuff to get better lateron. A step that makes stuff worse now, and has no potential to make anything better in the future is still a bad step, even if doing nothing does not resolve the situation either.
|
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 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.
Because "Obama is taking our guns away", "Obama is a Muslim Kenyan", "There's a war on Christmas", "Climate change is fake", and "The LGBT community doesn't deserve equal rights" are totally based on facts and aren't emotionally driven at all, right? The Democratic party is not the party of fearmongering and hatemongering.
Not all liberal arguments are amazing, but if you're looking at the logical/ rational/ science/ statistics side of things, one is probably favoring progressivism over conservatism (and, to your point about emotions, you're *definitely* siding with liberals if you're favoring social progress and the evolution of morality, rather than wishing to keep certain groups suppressed and not advocating civil rights).
|
On December 19 2017 09:42 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 09:25 Plansix 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. 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. It's a shame that the dirty humanities classes (your words, which I disagree with) didn't teach you to understand your own implied argument then. More explicitly: you're the one implicitly saying peace is a likely enough possibility within a reasonable timeframe that there's some utility in maintaining the status quo. That's your argument. The fact that xDaunt put it into a sentence and asked you to clarify relevant terms doesn't mean it isn't your argument. It's still your burden to define the terms if you actually have a constructive argument. xDaunt was gamesman enough to not belabor the point though.
I'm the one who asked him what he meant by reasonable time frame, you dope. He tried to pass the buck to me and I wouldn't let him. Work on your reading skills.
|
This picture is completely innocent. Look at the left making things up about racism. This picture is completely innocent.
![[image loading]](https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/r8C7o5MIs3yrOr64I36pGg--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3E9NzU7dz02NDA7c209MQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/aol_com_127/3c98872987e3af8b0bdbb250e404b534)
|
I have so many questions.
|
Is that supposed to be Obama on that oversized eucharist? Maybe conservatives secretly think he's the Messiah after all...
|
On December 19 2017 10:28 Plansix wrote:
I have so many questions.
You'll only regret it if you ask them.
|
On December 19 2017 09:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 09:25 xDaunt wrote: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:
[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. 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.
You made a counterargument? That's news to me and everyone else. Let's take a look at your posts, shall we?
On December 19 2017 06:13 zlefin wrote:
you've still yet to remotely justify your proposal actually changing the situation on the ground in any way that actually benefits america.
Hrm, nothing here other than the typical zlefin schtick of saying that a poster hasn't carried their burden. Basically, this is your way of saying "you're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you why" while hiding behind some faux guise of intellectualism.
On December 19 2017 06:41 zlefin wrote:
there's also yet to be provided any reason what we gain from supporting israel "100%" (not that supportin gyour friends doing evil things is something you should do anyways) and supporting israel 99%. israel needs us more than we need them; we'll get what we want from them whether we support them 99 or 100%; why not go 99% and use that other 1% to gain a bit of support/muddyin the waters from the other side?
Same as above, though I should also note your misconstruction of the argument.
On December 19 2017 06:49 zlefin wrote:
if your onl concern is what is good for the US then it doesn't matter that someone's an ally; you still do what's in your own interest. you have an alliance because your interests intersect.
you've also still failed to establish how we get anything more out of the alliance than we would have anyways.
Again, more of the same. What I find amusing about this post, however, is that you are unwittingly proving my point about why we should support allies and expressing disagreement where there should be none.
On December 19 2017 07:02 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 06:52 Simberto wrote:On December 19 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 06:37 Slydie wrote:On December 19 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2017 06:28 farvacola 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 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. AIPAC has been doing its best to dehumanize the Palestinians for decades; with folks like the Daunt and Ren eating out of their dirty hands, one can take their efforts as successful. It's not about dehumanizing Palestinians. That's quite besides the point. The real question is in what universe will the Palestinians EVER be pro-American? The obvious answer is that they will never be, so we should unequivocally support Israel. Israel is supported by the big christian population in the US mainly for religeous reasons, and therefore Israel can get away with everything. In other western countries, the Palestinians have more support, as they are the oppressed underdogs in the conflict. Also, be careful about overestimating Trump's symbolic recognicion of Jerusalem. There is no international support for his action, and actually does not matter much I don't really care about whether Trump has domestic support for the action or why. My only concern is what is good for the US. Israel is an ally and should be treated as such. The Palestinians will never be allies. For that reason alone, the US should dispense with this fiction of trying to be "fair" on the Israel/Palestine issue. Nor do I care what other Western countries think. They aren't going to throw the US overboard on account of Palestine for the same reasons that the Saudis and other Arab powers won't. The bottom line is that no one really cares about the Palestinians. Might makes right is such a wonderful ethical framework. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. And it is so incredibly shortsighted. Do you really think that you are so isolated from anyone else in the world that pissing everyone off will never have negative consequences? Like I have infamously argued before, ethics and morality aren't the ends of rational foreign policy. The self-interest of the nation is. except it has been proven quite thoroughly that the action is not in the self-interest of the nation; which leaves only the conclusion that you're basing it on hatred.
And more of the same, but this time with an added dose of unfounded strawmanning and making a claim without providing any supporting explanation whatsoever.
As usual with your posting, you have no argument. What everyone in this thread finds so hilarious about your posting is the utter lack of self-awareness with which you post. It truly is pathological.
|
On December 19 2017 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
As usual with your posting, you have no argument. What everyone in this thread finds so hilarious about your posting is the utter lack of self-awareness with which you post. It truly is pathological.
Speak for yourself, xDaunt.
|
On December 19 2017 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Is that supposed to be Obama on that oversized eucharist? Maybe conservatives secretly think he's the Messiah after all...
It looks like one of those horrible oversized cookies.
|
xdaunt, why bother quoting so many times just to spout the same tired, false nonsense?
just to make your post seem more correct because it's longer? I suppose that is a strategy.
you truly are pathological indeed; projecting your failings onto others, with so many other things as well.
|
On December 19 2017 10:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Is that supposed to be Obama on that oversized eucharist? Maybe conservatives secretly think he's the Messiah after all... It looks like one of those horrible oversized cookies.
cookie cakes are great.
|
On December 19 2017 10:47 zlefin wrote:
xdaunt, why bother quoting so many times just to spout the same tired, false nonsense?
just to make your post seem more correct because it's longer? I suppose that is a strategy.
you truly are pathological indeed; projecting your failings onto others, with so many other things as well.
I quoted all of your posts because I wanted to be completely thorough in showing that you made no argument. Unlike you, I make arguments. Unlike many of the liberal posters, I'm also willing to support my arguments. I guess it's correct enough to call it a "strategy."
And I obviously agree with you regarding the bolded and underlined sentence above. It was quite a bother to quote all of your "tired, false nonsense." But hey, I had a "strategy" to adhere to.
|
ah, so you wanted to pretend to be thorough so as to lie and ignore the argument against you, and hope that people don't notice your BS because of volume and repetition. ok, so it is the expected strategy.
bravo on continuing your pattern of bad faith argumentation.
|
On December 19 2017 10:55 xDaunt wrote:Unlike you, I make arguments. Unlike many of the liberal posters, I'm also willing to support my arguments.
Alright then. I have some questions.
How does the Israel/Palestine conflict affect the United States' material interests in your view?
What would change if, for instance, the United States strongly indicated moral disapproval of inhumane acts performed by Israel and Palestine alike, while continuing material support of Israel?
To what degree do you think the United States' actions with respect to Israel are the result of the influence of Jewish and Christian entities within the US, as opposed to the material interests of the US?
|
On December 19 2017 10:55 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 10:37 Plansix wrote:On December 19 2017 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Is that supposed to be Obama on that oversized eucharist? Maybe conservatives secretly think he's the Messiah after all... It looks like one of those horrible oversized cookies. cookie cakes are great.
They have betrayed me to many times with looking tasty and being flavored like broken dreams.
|
I feel like this repeating cycle of "No, you're the one arguing poorly/in bad faith/with no evidence or reason!" is going nowhere and is a futile discussion overall.
|
On December 19 2017 11:12 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 10:55 xDaunt wrote:Unlike you, I make arguments. Unlike many of the liberal posters, I'm also willing to support my arguments. Alright then. I have some questions. How does the Israel/Palestine conflict affect the United States' material interests in your view? What would change if, for instance, the United States strongly indicated moral disapproval of inhumane acts performed by Israel and Palestine alike, while continuing material support of Israel? To what degree do you think the United States' actions with respect to Israel are the result of the influence of Jewish and Christian entities within the US, as opposed to the material interests of the US?
Why exactly should I ever bother responding to you if you're going to post nonsense like this:
On December 19 2017 10:35 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
As usual with your posting, you have no argument. What everyone in this thread finds so hilarious about your posting is the utter lack of self-awareness with which you post. It truly is pathological. Speak for yourself, xDaunt.
If what's implied in that post is truly what you think, then you really aren't worth my time. So what's it going to be?
|
On December 19 2017 11:17 PhoenixVoid wrote:
I feel like this repeating cycle of "No, you're the one arguing poorly/in bad faith/with no evidence or reason!" is going nowhere and is a futile discussion overall.
It is about as fruitful as predicting the viability of peace between to groups and the time line required to reach it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
