They obviously are AS other considerations. What I’m questioning and solicit people in this thread to give a more serious thought about is whether the considerations you seem to cherish so much (as many privileged white Westerners) are the main driving motivations of main involved parties’s decision makers with their supporters like Netanyahu with its Israeli supporters, Hamas with its Palestinian supporters
What if the self is the linguistic heritage? This question is as confused as any other, but then, we are trying to communicate and only have words, our linguistic heritage, to do so. And that is where my "question" lives - only a mind can make any sense of these words at all. I would agree that maybe I don't know the language to properly ask myself "what are you?" (already this sentence is absurd) but I do not agree that because I don't know the language, I can't even conceive my question. Whether I can express it or not, something is being straight-jacketed; therefore, there is something beyond the words. I disagree that meaning is simply use. Use ties meaning to the words, but it does not tie the words back to anything else, and I don't agree that meaning is merely use.
Another point I thought of regarding anti-semitism: Could you think of another country whose hostage posters would be torn down if its citizens were kidnapped by another group? I struggle to think of one. Israel is regarded as the nexus of worldly evil for so much of the world, especially on college campuses and among the youth. It's disturbing.
Moreover, why are so many of the pro-Palestinian protests violent and destructive while in the pro-Israel ones I've never heard of any vandalism and everyone's sitting around singing "HaTikvah." The difference in "culture" between the two groups is stunning. The Palestinian crowd disturbs cancer wards with their bullhorns. It's self-righteous psychopathy. Extremely dangerous.
The only real question left is how we’re going to solve this existential problem. The solutions are already being employed and they’re worth looking at and engaging with, whether individually or, better, within a community or organization.
Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” to obfuscate the above considerations is kind of a noble mystification, to be kind.
I would demand iron clad treaties with both Israel and the US on a right of return for all civilians before I'd do so.
Like, Russia should be totally isolated. China should be totally isolated. With the only key to the door being that they stop oil. If not, they can hunger until the people storm the leader's castles.
It's too late for some consequences, but giving up would be far more catastrophic. There's no point in just stop mitigation. But we have to speed up the change and do it fast.
Or just change course now. If that's our future and people would start to realize this to be a very likely outcome, then they will pick up guns and remove anyone who do not actively work to fix it. It's easy to ignore it now, but when enough people get the short end of the stick, they will soon organize and do something. We might see billions of them. Billions who have nothing else they can do but storm the castles of immorality.
Are you saying that the existence of sceptics shows that there are people who are not feeling the impacts of climatic change?
I'm all for education, but we don't have time to educate people in order for them to support solutions to a damn comet on collision course with earth. In such a situation you simply ignore the ignorant and take the necessary action that is needed right now.
Yikes. Biden stole classified documents and gets off.
he could be far better than Biden or he could do something absolutely crazy and start a world war.
Somehow, I am not totally reassured.
That would be Trump.
Rather, the position climate change should be about at this time in history should be about the strategies and mitigation solutions and how to practically implement them into society in a smart way. Everything else is just pointless and every denier should just be ignored just as much as they ignore the severity of the subject.
I find no virtue in protecting the planet for the planet's sake. I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality.
I’m not going to pretend I have a clue - but at face value, colonialism.
As far as I’m concerned, the primary worry for us is not Palestinians or Jews getting their nation-states (neither are perceived as necessary to people other than them themselves) because we can’t write their history for them, it’s about keeping us as far as possible from WW3. And the dilemma for the US as global hegemonic power remains: how is it possible to deter rivals without escalating or risking an overstretch?
I think I just need to leave you in your box.
I don’t find this image particularly enlightening.
But this problem may also depend on some implicit assumptions that mislead our understanding of the problem itself.
