bert1

Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
↪Merkwurdichliebe
I didn't really mean it that way. I meant unintentionally by pissing people off. Nevertheless Hamas is useful as an excuse to continue colonisation. Conflict is in the coloniser's interests.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
↪RogueAI
Israel is creating Hamas, not destroying it
An irony, perhaps, in the Leftist takes on Immigration and Palestine.
↪flannel jesus
I agree with you on that. I think if that were a serious possibility I might fight to oppose it. But that's not an anti-immigration stance. That's an anti theocracy stance, which might, at some theoretical point in the future, entail a limited anti-immigration policy, if immigration was remotely likely to result in a theocracy. I'm not sure we're in serious disagreement.
An irony, perhaps, in the Leftist takes on Immigration and Palestine.
Why shouldn't a nation want to keep it's national identity and protect it from large waves of immigrants hostile to that identity? — flannel jesus

Well it can if it wants, I just don't like it I suppose. I don't really like national identities, except as objects of mockery. But I take your point that there is a valid analogy to be made, but it's obscured by the extremity of current circumstances.
An irony, perhaps, in the Leftist takes on Immigration and Palestine.
Palestinians wanted to cut off Jews right to immigrate to the region before it was ever describable as "illegal colonization". They were willing to live side by side with the Jews who were already there, but they absolutely didn't want more Jews coming in. — flannel jesus

Oh is that right? Oh well, in that case the Palestinians are racist bastards as well then, just like the rest of us.
An irony, perhaps, in the Leftist takes on Immigration and Palestine.
The Swede is, arguably, racist, or at least immoral, or perhaps just ignorant (from a lefty perspective). Whereas a Palestinian who objects to illegal colonisation isn't. It may be that the Palesitian, in peace time, with no illegal colonisation, would be fine with Jewish immigrants, and welcome them, if they came lawfully, asked permission, and didn't terrorise the local neighbourhood. There's a huge difference. Are we talking at cross purposes? I hope I'm following you. I'm trying to do an assignment at the same time so I may have got in a muddle.

EDIT: So I guess I'm saying that the leftie wankers are actually being consistent in denouncing the Swede and being sympathetic to Palestinisans wanting the foreign Israeli invaders to fuck off back home.
An irony, perhaps, in the Leftist takes on Immigration and Palestine.
The British should have invited everyone to Blighty. Build Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land, as it were.
An irony, perhaps, in the Leftist takes on Immigration and Palestine.
The influx of Jews that populated Israel from the 20s to the 70s were in no small part refugees. — flannel jesus

Sure, but they didn't seek permission from palestinians did they? (I have no idea if they did or not). It sounds like the good ol' Brits handed out permission for them to settle in other people's land. Is that what happened? I'm not a historian. Neither the original refugees, their descendants, nor current colonisers seem overly embarrassed about it. Or perhaps those who were embarrassed moved out of Palestinian lands, leaving just those who felt entitled to stay. I love making up history. Fuck books.
An irony, perhaps, in the Leftist takes on Immigration and Palestine.
Interesting point. What about this difference: Israeli settlers are neither economic migrants nor refugees asking permission for asylum. They are colonists. Migrants and refugees seek permission (except those who don't i guess).
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
I've seen a few YouTube video on the guys with the black clothes and ringlets etc who say Israel shouldn't exist. They seem really nice and rational. It's the bloodthirsty lot that worries me.
Does the idea of incorrect questions make sense?
Not really to me, no. Questions can contain false hidden assumptions, be leading, be rhetorical, be impossible to answer coherently etc. But only answers can be incorrect. Questions are not claims about anything.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
I don't think the calculus would be that cynical that they actually think it's in their interest but anything that's an obstacle to a two-state solution is not necessarily a bad thing in Likud's book (until of course when it is, like now). — Benkei

Yes, that sounds plausible.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
What should the Allies have done then to relieve pressure on the Russians? — RogueAI

Something else
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
We need world structures so such disputes can be resolved by a court
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
As if raping someone on Saturday is excused on Sunday because he tells us he's done. — Hanover

I wasn't suggesting any excuse, just questioning the rationale of self defence.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
The way to kill an idea is to call it geocentrism or something.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
↪Hanover
But Israel was more or less safe the day after Hamas' attack wasn't it? Bombing Gaza won't get hostages back, presumably. Israel is now watching the fence. Threat over, no? More or less? Sure there would still be some rockets as always, but there is now anyway.

The problem with the dog analogy is that you can kill a dog and end the threat. You can't kill an idea while there are people left to believe it.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Is the continued existence of Hamas actually in Israel's interests, or at least the more colonialist strand in Israeli politics? Hamas violence can be a 'justification' or at least a distraction from settlement and annexation.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
↪Benkei
Yeah. 'Attack' seems a much more apt term.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
It strikes me as odd that countries invading others outside their borders is frequently, perhaps always, referred to as 'defence'. In chess, attacks are attacks and defence is defence.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
annihilation of Hamas — magritte

Do you not think Israel is guaranteeing the survival of Hamas in some form? I wonder if Hamas can only be permanently stopped by a police force within a functioning Palestinian state. Not that I think Hamas is the most pressing problem.
Poll: Evolution of consciousness by natural selection
Obviously there's lots of things the poll could have been but wasn't. The point is it's a perfectly good poll. For example, it didn't capture my position, which is that no causes are physical. But the framing of the question is interesting on its own terms and I picked the closest option.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
↪neomac
I was genuinely confused as to who you meant! Sorry, maybe it's obvious.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
"Double standard" anybody? — neomac

Who has the double standard?
Dualism and Interactionism
Most contemporary philosophers of mind employ a Cartesian conceptual space in which reality is (at least potentially) divided into res extensa and res cogitans. — Dfpolis

Really? How contemporary is contemporary? Most people are monists these days, no?
The universe is cube shaped
↪AlienFromEarth
Love the OP. This is what philosophy should be. Planck cubes? Are we living in Mincecraft?
What creates suffering if god created the world ?
↪simplyG
I think the idea is that suffering goes along, necessarily, with differentiation. And creating a world is nothing other than differentiation, so that one bit of space if different from another. Only when there are other things can something impinge on you from outside, like an earthquake or other person.
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
To me, too. I'm just stating the case for the other side, and asking how it works — Patterner

Oh I see, that makes sense. Sorry I haven't been following closely.
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Behavior is explained by the physical. — Patterner

Is it though? I do things because of the way I feel, it seems to me. So we have the problem of overdetermination. A topic for another thread I think. I still have to catch up on a paper @fdrake wants me to read though, so I'll do that first.
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
I;d say it has been explained. — FrancisRay

I broadly agree, with caveats. There's still a bunch of questions left over with my view. I'm interested though, what explanation do you favour?
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
Right now we don't know how a bachelor could be a married man, but that doesn't mean we won't discover it in the future.
"Why I don't believe in God" —Greta Christina
Is there anything you'd like to discuss about this? Or should this be in the lounge?
What constitutes evidence of consciousness?
↪Corvus
Sure, that's fair enough, and on topic for this thread.
What constitutes evidence of consciousness?
↪Corvus
OK, it seems like your view is a stipulative definition, rather than a theory of something we already agree the is the referent of the term 'consciousness'.
What constitutes evidence of consciousness?
sleeping — Corvus

What about when dreaming?
Why isn't there a special page for solipsists?
I have no memory of writing all this. Note to self - practise memory games.
God & Christianity Aren’t Special
@Mikie I think some softer liberal wishy-washy Christians would agree with you. They think all the God stuff is true, but recognise that the imagery and vocabulary they approach the matter with are culturally relative.
Nice little roundup of the state of consciousness studies
The scientific view is that ~~organisms~~ zombies display intelligence and behavioural autonomy because they use semiotic codes to construct a “selfish” or enactive modelling relation with their worlds. That is what can be seen plainly written into the structure of their nervous systems. It is not a mystery. — apokrisis
Nice little roundup of the state of consciousness studies
The substantiated position is that consciousness is not empirically observable and you insist that it be defined in an empirically measurable way to be taken into consideration in the first place — javra

This characterises a lot of debate on consciousness. Some people really want a functionalist definition, the trouble is that isn't what is meant. If we start with a non-functionalist definition then we have a problem built-in (whether it's 'hard' or not) - how to get structural and functional concepts (which are the currency of scientific discourse) to connect to a definition which does not specify any structure and function. It's much easier if we start with quantifiable and measurable concepts that are amenable to scientific enquiry.
Nice little roundup of the state of consciousness studies
He also wrote a history of the subject that I found useful - like, who's who in the zoo. — Wayfarer

Just reading that now. It's very interesting and easy to read and understand. Many thanks for the link. Might help me understand Apo better. I read a Pattee article as well which was easy to follow too.

Home » bert1

More Comments

Start FollowingSend a Message