Israel is creating Hamas, not destroying it — bert1

That is a possible certainty. I'm willing to entertain the idea that Hamas is directly funded and operated by a secret branch of the Israeli government for obvious reasons. But I'm also a big fan of the apocalypse that places Israel at the center of it all. It is all very entertaining :grin:

“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“who wishes to fight must first count the cost”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War — FreeEmotion

Unfortunately, nations always have adversaries, and war is the state of nature for all nations whether they want it or not.

The cost of war also includes the cost of refusing it. History shows unequivocally that it is always better to conquer than to be conquered.

I'm ignorant, but where does Sun Tzu speak about the possibility of any universally sustainable peace amongst nations?

sure, just abandon your argument. I don't blame you though...you make no sense, and your position is mired in contradiction.

You're acting like an idiot pretending this is about lgbtq rights or antisemitism while people are starving due to war crimes by Israel — Benkei

Sure, and your acting like a Nazi pretending like antisemitism and the oppression of women and LGBTQ's is justified in cases where alleged war crimes are being perpertrated.

As if we cannot be against discrimination and oppression at the same time! Or against Israeli occupation and against anti-semitism at the same time! Wow! It's mind-boggling! :scream: — Benkei

You still haven't shown how we can reconcile the fundamental and inalienable rights that belong to all individuals with the sovereignty of a state that openly oppresses and tyrannizes women and LGBTQ's. It really is mind boggling. :cool:

Maybe, just maybe, if the West stops interfering in all these countries enough stability will arise for them to actually make social progress? Just an idea. — Benkei

It's peculiar that the west, the very culture that invented "social progress", the only culture in history that has achieved any relevant sustaining success in matters of "social progress", is supposed to be the very thing preventing "social progress" in certain nonwestern cultures that despise and hate everything about western culture (including the idea of "social progress").

It is even more peculiar to think that if the so-called Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory was ended, the Palestinians would miraculously become concerned with the rights of women or LGBTQ's without some form of culturally oppressive intervention from the west.

So the left has a dilemma, it can either support the oppressed Palestinians against the tyrannical Israeli colonizers while dispensing of any concern for the evils of antisemitism or the rights of women and LGBTQ's within Palestinian territory. Or, the left can support a western culture that actively defends the human rights of classically oppressed groups within its very own territory while disregarding its occupation of a place that has a clear record of oppressing its own people (particularly women and LGBTQ's).

From what we've seen thus far, it appears that the left couldn't give two shits about the fate of women and LGBTQ's. I still hear no cry from the left over justice for the plight of women and LGBTQ's suffering under fundamentalist islamic regimes like Hamas.

the fact that living conditions in some of these countries is horrible for some people due to discrimination isn't exactly a justification to treat all of them like shit, now is it? — Benkei

Countries have no obligation towards any other (at least with which they have no treaty). Countries are only responsible for their own citizens. And how they treat their own people is generally indicative of that society's relative degree of humanity. Based on the way Israel treats its own people versus the way Hamas does, I would much rather be colonized by Israel than Hamas.

So there's no hypocrisy; it's entirely consistent. What's not consistent is not according human rights to people because they don't respect human rights. Not if we consider human rights something fundamental and inalienable. — Benkei

Not sure I can agree with that logic. Why would someone want to be accorded human rights if they despise the very idea of human rights? For those of us concerned for respecting the rights of the individual, it is our duty, out of concern for the respectability of the individual, to deprive human rights to those who do not want them, and to not unjustly impose our ethics upon them.

It makes the situation especially difficult for Western leftists, who see everything through a prism of oppressed/oppressor logic. — Pneumenon

It all reveals the moral hypocrisy of leftists. They spend all their time complaining about the evils of a hetero-normative patriarchy in the west, but seem to care little about it running rampant in Islamic states. While they spend all their efforts defending anti-Semitic violence, their concern for the rights of women and LGBTQ's is conspicuously absent.

we should not rely on secondary texts or comprehensive stories of the history of philosophy. — Fooloso4

And what is not THAT, always regurgitated? I love it.

It isn't real 'til it's happening in the US.
— unenlightened

It is real when the greatest philosophers of all time provide links


https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/video/RuqVGk5I

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314607120 — Merkwurdichliebe

Always be sure to include a graph or two that highlight the reality of it all.

It isn't real 'til it's happening in the US. — unenlightened

It is real when the greatest philosophers of all time provide links


https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/video/RuqVGk5I

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314607120

real question: is there any ethic palestinian with Israeli citizenship with a prominent opininion on the matter? I think such person might hold weight.

The systematic effort to remove the Jews from the middle east has been largely successful. — Hanover

From the propaganda I've read, Palestinians make up a significant portion of Israeli citizenship. If all true, then there is no possible dispute about where the problem lies.

I am so proud of everyone here showing their support for the preservation of "all other books/sources". Bravo :cheer:

I was not explaining why anyone was wrong. — Ø implies everything

You are wrong.

"Explaining why anyone was wrong" is a requirement for every post you make on tpf. And the more political and divisive your reason for your interlocutor's failure to understand their own stupidity, the more points.

Who would you prefer babysit your toddler? Israel or Hamas? More to the point, who would you trust as a nuclear power, Israel or Iran?
— RogueAI

You're on the verge of sounding racist, dude. I'm sure that's not what you intended. — frank

How is it racist? It is a fact that Israel is more progressive and less oppressive than Iran and Hamas. Just look at how they treat gays. These hamas sympathizers are suspect - not only do they seem to be antisemetic, they also come off as homophobic.

I don't know what the ideal solution is. — Baden

I think it would be something like:

it's Israel's responsibility to act in ways that doesn't jeopardize millions of innocent lives — Tzeentch

Unfortunately, this is an impossibility...complete fantasy. The genie is out of the bottle and nothing can stop what has been unleashed.

Middle East is such a fascinating place with such a vast history of endless warfare. That's why "peace in the middle east" is such a hysterical phrase. Bearing that in mind, im not concerned at all with placing blame on the Israelis or Palestinians, they are simply acting in their eternal nature. Unless a person is actually an Israeli or Palestinian, all this blaming and taking sides is exemplary of the worst human compulsion toward narcissistic self-importance.

Nonetheless, I am very interested to see how this nightmare escalates.

the cruelty must be the point — 180 Proof

It is not about cruelty. It's about conquest - demonstrating their superiority by imposing their dominance. They cannot exterminate the inferior demograchic, otherwise they would not have anything inferior to contrast their superiority against. Whites in America didn't invent it, but they do it best, and Whites in Israel are following this blueprint to the T.

nevertheless, there is no apologizing for the actions of hamas. Let's not discount the possibility of antisemetic semites.

it's genius. Eliminate racism by discriminating on the basis of race. And if you don't participate in racial discrimination in order to end racism, you are the racist.

A higher standard of living for whom? — Benkei

For all those who get easy and affordable access to food and energy.

At least from 1945 until 1970 health data of Soviet Union citizens improved more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe. — Benkei

Why did its rapid improvement stop after 1970? It can be atttibuted to the fact that czarist Russia was lagging behind the medical advancements taking place in early 20th century capitalist societies. So when the soviets began to catch up by adopting medical technology that was developed under capitalism, it was accompanied by a spike in general health.

In any case, the "tyranny of the State" is one of those catchphrases that I always find interesting. What is it? Is it their monopoly on violence? No problem in a democratic society. The tyranny of the majority? No problem when we have human rights and particulary due process. — Benkei

It certainly involves the monopoly on violence, but this is not the cause of state tyranny, only one of the means by which it can be carried out. Tyranny of the majority is not state tyranny, unless we are pointing to a specific tyrannical ochlocracy.

Tyranny of the state is not a difficult concept. It is when a government abuses its power (which is awfully close to sounding tautological, and probably why you call it a catchphrase.) There are different ways it can do this, different reasons for doing it, and different means by which it can commit an abuse of power. In the case of communist state tyrrany, it is quite distinct from other forms of state tyrrany.

But there are political obligations related to liberalism that self-styled, winner-takes-all, laissez-faire capitalist individuals ignore. — Benkei

I agree. Liberalism requires self moderation. And liberal societies need reasonable regulations. It is all about the balance, and even more, keeping the balance.

This is an argument for fairness but raises the question of what qualitative nature the benefits must have that they require a duty for the individual to perform their part (as the moral intuition is no such obligation exists when the benefits are trivial). Enter natural duty theories. — Benkei

So, of these approaches, in my view the "fairness" argument can gain the most traction via natural duty theories such that the political obligation is not based on a moral transaction between people and wider society , but because it either a) promotes an impartial moral good, (utility or justice); or 2) is a moral duty owed by all persons to all others (universal rights). — Benkei

The key is here: "as the moral intuition is, no such obligation exists when the benefits are trivial". There is an inherent religiosity and competitiveness in capitalist republics that mitigates strongly against triviality for anyone willing to put a stake in the game.

Communism, on the other hand, struggles mightily with its own triviality. It expects everyone to do their duty and comply. However, the benefit is not so immediate, it is a rather vague and tenuous promise of a perfect world. Because it is a pipedream that lacks all substance and personal appeal, it has a hard time selling itself to anyone with the determination to make a good life for themselves (despite invoking things like utility, justice or universal rights). It appeals more to those with an inclination towards general malcontentedness.

it would be better if it was the last supper with trump edited in as Judas

I'd distinguish between ideology, nation, state, and party. Communism is an ideology, nations are historical claims on territory, states control nations, and parties compete to control states. I'd also point out that nations work differently from monarchies and dynasties: the nationalist cause is self-determination within the framework of a nation. If you don't even have a nation then it's an understandable demand because it's the basic framework of power in the modern world. One could be said to be without a politics if you don't even have a nation — Moliere

Solid breakdown. Important to distinguish these things. The nation is definitely the base unit for state and ideology. Nation is one's people. A person naturally assumes the ethics (and by extension the politics) of his people, otherwise they wouldn't be his people. This is the strength of patriotism. Unfortunate that nations are easily manipulated.

In classical marxism, ideology, state and nation become merged at the final staged of history. The problem is that in marxism, ideology is the base unit for state which forms the nation. It has it all fundamentally "flipped on its head" as it were.

I'd say the common there is in the structure of a nation. To build a nation requires violence, or at least that's been the most common and effective method so far. And to keep a nation in control also requires violence -- there's something to be said for the theory that the modern state has a claim to a monopoly on violence. It's what keeps the state in order. — Moliere

That's a certainty. I think it was Weber who called it the "legitimate use of force". I think the main difference is the efficiency by which communist regimes have systematically exterminated its own citizens. Compared to other examples in history of internal purges (even considering the advantages of technology), Communism holds all the records by far.

have you ever noticed that a lot of atheists are anti-communist?

seems also logical for me that communism remains an utopia, even if i still vote for leftist parties on elections — dimosthenis9

I think some of the principles of the left are invaluable to humanity as a whole, and even more to the individual in particular. (Add: ironically, Jesus was a leftist)

Do you see a relevant link between the current "leftist" political parties and communism?

As for the myriad of people who say socialism leads to mass murderer, that's a logical fallacy. Mass harm is Always done in the name of the some common good. Until a government actually exhibits caring for everyone, socialism hasn't been tried. — Kaiser Basileus

Socialism doesn't lead to mass murder. In an overwhelming number of cases, every time communism has been implemented on a large scale, it resulted in mass murder of its own citizens.

Mass harm is, indeed, always done in the name of the good. And the greater the promise of the good, the greater the harm. No one promises a greater good than the communist.

Government is constitutionally incapable of caring for everyone. In theory, government is constituted to care for its constituency, or at best, its citizenry at large. That is what makes it difficult for the communist government: not everyone belongs to its constituency, and they make things unequal and must be murdered so that everyone will belong to the constituency, equally.

The empirical record on the whole phenomena is all over the place, just as it is with capitalist liberal democracy. — Moliere

We could say the same about classical monarchy, autocratic dictatorships, imperial dynasties, &c.

This is getting into the epistemological territory of identification. Is it communist because there is such a thing in-itself that is communist, or is it a mere descriptor that we apply to a phenomena because it fits sufficient relativistic criteria.

And i don't know if ever the majority of people will reach to that spiritual level as to achieve it and be ready for applying a real communist or socialist system. — dimosthenis9

That is another point of communist confusion. Because it is materialistic at heart, the loftiest entity that a communist can recognize is the State. And given that tyranny is the default position of the State, it is very reasonable to be suspicious of any state that wants to centralize power in order to bring about some hypothetical utopia. Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism.

:up:

Yet, I do not know if we should consider them as Marxists, because their main role and leader is Maoism. We can conclude that while Western or Eastern European Communism has failed dramatically, Chinese Maoism remains. — javi2541997

Marxism was always meant to be put into action. Maoism is the Chinese version, like Leninism was the Russian version. Neo-Marxism is the western european and american version. When Marxism is put into practice, it adapts to the character of the respective culture, but the core principles of each version derive directly from classical marxism.

Sure, because capitalists don't care if you are starving, — BC

Actually, capitalism prefers that people are well nourished because a full belly is much more productive and better for the bottom line.

Apparently the communists didn't care about starvation when millions died in the great chinese famine

Activist scholarship is dog shit, in my opinion. Woke corporate racism, that Diversity, Equity, Inclusion mantra, flows straight from that rotten core. The Skokal and grievance studies affairs basically prove that they peddle in nonsense. — NOS4A2

Don't insult dogshit! I would take dogshit over activist scholarship every time.

Critical race theory is simply an academic discipline that applies critical thought to the phenomenon of race in society. — Baden

It is important to understand how critical thought (like crt) differs from traditional critical thinking.

Critical Theory (or critical thought) is a very specialized theoretical framework that scrutinizes and criticizes the social structures and power dynamics underlying all human activity, all with the intention of fomenting radical social transformation.

In contrast, Critical Thinking is a broad cognitive skill that we use to objectively and rationally evaluate things with the intention of arriving at right judgment.

Critical thinking can be traced back to the time of Thales, while "critical thought" has been around for about a century.

CRT is merely an outgrowth of critical theory. Max Horkheimer invented critical theory, and Derrick Bell was the first to filter the issue of race through that framework. His work had a major impact in the field of critical legal studies, from which crt originates.

I think the engineered outrage is the connection to "wokeness" as that's easier to attack. — Baden

All critical theorists understand that the ultimate goal is to see theory put into practice, because that is the only way to ensure radical social transformation. Woke is merely a pejorative term for the activist wing of critical theory.

Critical race theory. :lol:

The latest engineered outrage from the right, trickled down to internet trolls. — Mikie

Weird that it could have been engineered by the "right".

I was under the impression that it originated in the field of critical legal studies, present in all the major universities.

But, maybe that is just another conspiracy cooked up by the "right".

And it could be far less if people would be prepared to consume less. — Benkei

That is a complex issue. Consuming less implies a lower standard of living for many people, and a lower standard of living would be a hard sell to most everyone at anytime in history. However, less consumption does not necessarily correlate with a lower standard of living. There are ways that industries could be profitable without relying on endless compulsory consumption (in fact it has been done very successfully in the past, but abandoned for the more profitable model).

One of the problems with the more profitable model of endless compulsory consumption is obsolescence.
Nothing is made to last anymore, thus endless production and waste.

Imagine if the car industry had evolved to produce cars that could be easily maintained with universal modular replaceable parts (like a pc), so that you could buy one car that could last you forever. Think about how the engine module could easily be replaced with a more efficient one. The auto industry could have still made a killing on producing modules without unecessary infinite waste by-product.

Imagine if every asshole didn't need a new iphone every 2 seconds because they added a new pubic hair behind the camera. Apple is one of the most profitable industries ever because of the mythical upgrade - just another tragedy of brainless compulsory consumption.

People do indeed consume too much, but I cannot blame them because they have no other choice than a soon-to-be obsolete product. It is the forces of industry and commerce that hold all the blame - due to their greed and lack of vision.

It has also been used as catch-all phrase for woke racism, which may or may not have anything to do with CRT proper. — NOS4A2

The woke position on the concept of race is undeniably based on crt proper. It may not appear so on the surface (which may be a strategy to assume plausible deniability). However there is a direct line tying woke activism to the specific theories, which are solely responsible for its grotesquely peculiar and hyper-conspicuos qualities.

Woke is a cult, and like any other cult, its initiates (the footsoldiers) are generally kept in the dark and have little knowledge of the theory that underlies their woke activism.

The worst thing the opposition can do is to seek its silence. The surest way to lead pliant minds to wonder if there is something important in CRT would be for governments to ban it. It’s enough to just point at the racism, which can be opposed from any angle. — NOS4A2

I agree. crt and woke racism is founded on pure contradiction. It will eat itself when sufficiently understood. The more it is exposed for what it is and where it comes from, the better. It is no different than what became of Empiricism in its inevitable defeat, except that it is easier to see how stupid it is and much easier to squash.

CRT is an archetypal slave morality. Anybody that knows about its roots with derrick bell, who was heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School, can cleary see what complete hypocritical bullshit it is. However, insofar as some immoral shitbag might use it to manipulate the good will of unwitting nitwits, I can see its appeal.

Of the two major political parties, they want to accelerate it. Which is why they’re the most dangerous organization in history. Unless of course there’s some organization I missed that explicitly states they want to push for more usage of nuclear weapons. — Mikie

"In history" you say, that is quite an absurd exaggeration. The ccp is accelerating it as well. And unchallenged, since they have no opposition from anyone. At least the Republicans have the dems constantly bitching about the world coming to an end and giving pushback.

Fine — it’s not happening. Or it’s not a crisis…or can’t be solved…or whatever the latest claim is. — Mikie

But look at the data, its science!

There are many reasons to deny. And many more.

It’s not relevant here— at all. Red herring. — Mikie

I suppose that would include the historically accumulated data that is used to predict the future trajectory of climate change. It's all a red herring.

Apparently it’s not clear to you that I’m talking about the today’s world— not the 1870s. — Mikie

World history is always relevant to today's world, in one way or another. And 1870 isn't far off, the 13-15th amendments are active at this very time. communism also has its own historical relevance in today's world.

Nazism was still localized. Climate change isn’t. Republicans want to accelerate it.

Again— those who can’t ackowledge the truth of this rather obvious point are those who don’t believe climate change is much of a problem to begin with. — Mikie

Are republicans the only ones accelerating it? You don't have to be republican to disagree. Im not a republican. It is not an obvious truth, and there are many reasons it could be denied that it is the end of the world,
which is why it needs to be presented with care if it is, in fact, the end of the world.

The fact that It is always presented with such alarmist compulsion, gives rise to very reasonable doubt in my mind. There is no need for compulsory action nor alarmist affectation, any reasonable scientific argument will prevail in due time. This is the great x-factor.

For you, the argument is undeniable, you assent to the evidence because it appears convincing, and consent to the authority of those who collect and disseminate the evidence because you consider them reliable for good reason... no harm there. I do the same, only in reverse: I object to the evidence because it appears unconvincing, and dissent from the authority of those who collect and disseminate the evidence because I consider them unreliable for good reason... no harm meant. Unfortunately, all my judgment is suspended until sufficient doubts are rectified, nevertheless, both our positions are both quite understandable.

For me, the data is convincing in itself. It is the media communicating the meaning of the data to us, and the particular compulsory message they are delivering that I have issue with. I have a hard time trusting anything that gets filtered through any of the major media news outlets in such fashion. I know their game too well, it has been the same for decades. Distrust, that's what happens with liars. Let's hope this is more of the same: lying. If not, woe is us.

Republicans, for all their faults, were instrumental in the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. I don't know about you, but I think that was pretty nice on their part, and it definitely counterbalances any negativity one might perceive from their policy on climate change.

On the other hand, Communism has been the vehicle from.which the worst tyrants in history have wreaked their unwanton death and destruction. The only other forces that come close to the evil of communism are Nazism, and Japanese Militarism. However, these fall short due to their obvious limited appeal (in contrast to communism which lends itself to universal appeal). Republicans are a far cry from being anything like these, and actually have much greater similarity with democrats.