In other news Trump just threw some Palestinians under a bus.

The first amendment protects every citizen, even government officials. The only reason a civil servant can be fired or disciplined is if his speech violates his job duties, as it is with any job. — NOS4A2

Right. So he cannot just threaten anyone.

Something that rises to the level of treason or bribery. "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" — NOS4A2

That's conveniently vague and also wrong. Nothing about that sentence suggests anything about the severity of high crimes and misdemeanors. The penal code contains murder and other crimes and misdemeanours. Are they all as severe as murder?

I gave you a list of British precedents on which the discussion of the founding fathers were based. That discussion is relatively well documented as well.

In the US we have the first amendment, which gives us quite a bit of room to speak freely. As a matter of law, unless the threat is a "true threat", that is unless he said it with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death, there is no problem. So yes, he can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. He just cannot threaten someone for money or personal gain (extortion). — NOS4A2

The first amendment protection is only afforded to citizens acting in a private capacity. When acting as President that protection doesn't apply and he can be punished for it if the Senate were so inclined. Just as civil servants can be fired or disciplined for speech.

No, I meant the House, so we disagree. It's obvious what Trump has done, and none of it rises to high crimes and misdemeanors. In fact I think he was doing his job. — NOS4A2

What's "high crime or misdemeanor" according to you?

The president can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. That’s in his power. — NOS4A2

The Supreme Court has judged that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be interpreted in accordance with what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it. — United States vs. Burr

That term was borrowed from the English that has used it since 1386. It describes offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates,threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, etc.

So, no, he can't pressure and threaten whoever he wants.

I saw you saying “ If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.”

Executive privilege pertains to confidential communications. I thought I’d give you a brief rundown because it does not seem you know what you’re talking about here. — NOS4A2

Thanks, there was indeed a mixup there. The translation to Dutch would suggest it's about the scope of powers vested in an office and not narrowly defined as it is under US law.

EDIT: so to rephrase what I think is the main issue here is whether Trump's executive powers extend so far that he could withhold payment or not. If not, it's prima facie an abuse of power and it becomes a question of fact whether he indeed said what is claimed by several witnesses.

No, the argument that Trump pressured Zelenski is central to the House manager’s case.Curious, but are you aware of the details of the case at all? — NOS4A2

It's a level of intent that's preferable to arguing that strict liability or negligence should apply in this case. So it makes sense to try to prove it but it isn't necessary to the case at hand.

If someone says you robbed a bank but the banks says they were neither robbed and you didn’t rob them, how could that be irrelevant? — NOS4A2

It's not the he-said-she-said as you imagine it is. The first problem with your analogy is that robbing a bank requires a different level of intent than abuse of power (if I were to liken the latter to malfeasance in office). The second is that someone caught Trump in the act of abusing his power; so it would be a better analogy if you'd written: Someone sees you rob a bank and presses the alarm and you stop robbing it because you hear the alarm. The bank says no money is missing.

Are you suggesting an unsuccessful bank robbery shouldn't be punished?

I’ll give you a quick rundown because I see some confusion there. — NOS4A2

This should be fun.

There are two “articles of impeachment”, or in other words, Trump is being accused of committing two “high-crimes and misdemeanours” according to the House. The two articles are “Abuse of Power” and “obstruction of Congress”, neither of which are crimes. — NOS4A2

You think "high-crimes and misdemeanours" refers to the things found in a penal code? :rofl:

Carry on...

Trump allegedly abused his power by pressuring Zelensky to investigate Biden for the purposes of helping him in the 2020 election (this isn’t the exact language they use). Trump’s defense is that there was no pressure, that there was no investigation, that his inquiring into the Bidens had to do with corruption and not for the purpose of political dirt for the 2020 election. — NOS4A2

Irrelevant for the reasons I already explained earlier today. Whether a threat works or not or whether the victim felt threatened or not, doesn't mean you can conclude Trump didn't threaten to withhold payment which threat he could only issue based on the power as president, e.g. an abuse of the power vested in his office since threatening people isn't acceptable. Even if it was for the right reasons, he would still be guilty of an abuse of power but possibly excused if it served a higher purpose.

Trump allegedly obstructed congress by denying congressional subpoenas for testimony. Trump’s defense for this is “executive privilege”, that he has the right as president to deny subpoenas for reasons of national security and the separation of powers. These issues are usually settled in the courts. The White House denied subpoenas because the Office of Legal counsel told them to. The office of legal counsel is a group of lawyers at the department of justice (which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States, and so on). — NOS4A2

Yes, and?

I don't accept that excuse for one minute. People spend on average nearly an hour a day just on Facebook. The idea that they haven't time to check out other suppliers than Amazon is just not feasible. — Isaac

It's not about what you find acceptable or not it's how people are motivated or not. They are motivated to clickbait in their timeline and that's a reality that doesn't care about your moral judgment.

Of course I'd also rather see a much more politically active, economically savvy and critical citizenry. But that's putting the bar too high. I wouldn't be surprised a large segment of the population isn't even aware of the wage-productivity gap and, for many, if they are aware they have been spoonfed market evangelicism that they don't question it.

I buy my Internet services from a cooperative, for example. They don't have an increasing gap between wages and productivity because they're worker-owned. It's not hard to switch supplier. It takes about half an hour to set up (half the average Facebook time) and it costs about £2 more a month (less money than the average spend on junk food, for example). What, on your list of concerns of the average person, is preventing them from switching? — Isaac

Good for you.

The same can be said for Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Google... These are not the traditional issues where capitalists own the means of production and can effectively monopolise supply of essential goods. These are luxury items or services where the company does not have any ownership over the means of production. — Isaac

We're neither cavemen nor did capitalists historically monopolise essential goods (at least, not most of the time). The companies' financial statements you mention beg to differ about the ownership of the means of production. Apart from Facebook, none of them have a intangibles-to-total asset ratio above 10%. Facebook's 15%. Alphabet has about 2% total intangible assets, .5% is patents. Amazon's is 7%. etc.

Plenty of ownership of production then.

Then why is it irrelevant if the argument is central to their entire case? — NOS4A2

What argument? The argument that the Ukrainians didn't feel pressured or that Trump didn't intend to pressure them ? If that is indeed central to their case it simply illustrates their lack of confidence in winning the argument they should win. If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.

You presumed guilt here:"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!". Your use of the word “criminal” presumes both a crime has been committed and that Trump has committed it. Both are untrue. — NOS4A2

No, I was illustrating a point by making an argument ab adsurdum. If Trump's denials were relevant to ascertain his guilt, as you argue, the same should hold true for criminals. It clearly isn't so his denials are irrelevant and so is your argument.

I'm mostly busy working my day job, spending time with my wife and kids, doing chores, drinks with friends and some time spend on my hobbies. In other words people are usually too busy with (their own personal) problems that are at hand and directly affected by their actions rather than abstract problems that are not noticeably influenced by personal choices. As I said earlier, "aggregate demand" is diffuse whereas every corporation ultimately shares the same goal: make more profit. The productivity-pay-gap has increased largely because policy choices were made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth and power. See for instance this: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2018/06/23/the-gap-between-wages-and-productivity/

If wages are persistently lagging behind productivity, workers do not receive their fair share of the produced wealth. This is not only deeply unjust but also economically detrimental, as growth remains behind its potential. Labour income remains the main source of income for households and private consumption makes up the largest part of aggregate demand.

So this is much more a political issue than about personal agency.

We've had a wealth tax in the Netherlands for over a decade now. It used to tax a fictive return on the balance of your assets and liabilities, set at 4%, which was then taxed at 25%. During the crisis that was judged to be too high a return for average people. Now the return is estimated each year and that is then taxed.

I'm actually a big fan of a more or less 100% inheritance tax due to the consequences of inheritance inequality. But I won't go into that now.

I think the real issue isn't revenge or vindictiveness but the realization the exorbitant wages some managers make is out of proportion (talk about the entitlement generation). And that had to do with the short term profit pursuit of stock holders and the absence of liability for directors and shareholders alike for shitty policies. But also not what I'll go into now.

The idea that if you invest capital you have the right to profits ad infinitum is, in my view, misplaced. Capital markets' fundamental function is to bring together borrowers and lenders. Corporations originally didn't have a perpetual character nor a profit motive - investors did of course have such a motive. But their return was a consequence of the corporation fulfilling it's stated goal. Like building a bridge leading to improved trade for the tradesman.

The whole day trading (or high speed trading nowadays) has little to do with the fundamental function of capital markets and is just wealth extraction at the expense of the real economy.

In other words, looking at wealth tax misses the point. The problem is a fundamental imbalance in the system where "aggregate demand" is diffuse individuals who rarely pursue anything with singular purpose but the capitalist production is focused, monied and the corporation lives forever. The deck is stacked against regular people who don't have a substantive portfolio of financial instruments or real estate. The only way to solve that is a fundamental retake on the corporation but as if that's going to happen at an international scale. Not likely.

Nevertheless, I've been thinking about an alternative but it's not something I want to share in public. :wink:

For what it's worth, the legal discussion should be about the extent of executive privilege. If it extends far enough he was in his rights to do what he did, if not, then it's abuse of power and I suspect, but I'm not a US lawyer, that a negligence or even strict liability standard would apply in such a case. I suspect that because appointed civil servants are supposed to know the extent of the powers conferred to them (as is the case in the Netherlands). In that case Trump's intent is totally moot.

EDIT: @Hanover, maybe you can shed some more light on this - even though, in the end, legal/criminal standards don't apply to an impeachment proceeding. But let's pretend that those standards will inform Senate members.

I'm not presuming guilt either. I'm only telling you the arguments you raise about the mindset of the Ukrainians and Trump's comments about the same are irrelevant. Nowhere have I said that he therefore must be guilty. You're jumping to conclusions and are attributing statements to me that I haven't made.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm only telling you your arguments don't work.

So why do you believe Trump pressured Zelensky? — NOS4A2

Also, that's the wrong question as I just explained.

Now you're just repeating yourself. Cute but not an argument. Trump's comments on the matter are even less relevant and he certainly cannot testify as to the mindset of others.

"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!"

You don't know law or understand fallacies.

If I threaten to punch you in the face if you don't do x. And you call my bluff by doing x and I don't punch you, I still did threaten you. What you do or say about the matter is irrelevant.

Irrelevant. A defrauder isn't excused merely because his attempt at fraud fails.

He doesn't yet realise that sometimes people know or should know. Even his favoured cop out on the absence of mens rea for Trump has this problem. It's not necessary that you tell lies for a specific result or even that you must be aware you're being dishonest. A defrauder is not excused merely because he thought that what he did was legal.

Another test at times is what a reasonable person is expected to know. Stupidity is not a defence either.

As such what Trump thought and said isn't always relevant to the law.

I'm enjoying your posts and great to see you have the energy to keep pointing out the bullshit NOS4A2 keeps peddling. I got tired of it a zillion posts earlier.

Fine. Let's play the game "pretending Hanover made sense".

I was pointing out that you've made a distinction that makes no moral difference. You are hanging on an arbitrary legal definition of "citizen" that you think matters, but it doesn't, especially because the nation itself gets to define that term. — Hanover

Not arbitrary but Israel's own definition.

To clarify, if Scotland permits those with Scottish blood to return to Scotland to become citizens, then when my Scottish counterpart and I arrive on those rolling green hills, he gets to vote, own land, and freely work, while I get to only visit and sightsee. I will be treated as a second class person because I am not designated a "citizen," (as I'm 100% Jew and 0% Celt) which is simply a word used to distinguish the haves from the have nots in this apartheid system. — Hanover

Irrelevant as to how people get their citizenship status as I'm talking about people who already have that status within Israel and their disparate treatment.

If you are satisfied that citizenship status is a morally legitimate basis to deprive someone of rights, then you have no right to object to Israel denying citizenship to non-Jews, pre Civil War America denying full citizenship status to African Americans, and really any sort of discrimination that might occur as long as some legislative body has decreed who is and who is not a citizen. — Hanover

I've not argued that anywhere.

I'm just trying to keep this logically clear because you've taken a very harsh view of Israeli discrimination, claiming that any sort of allowance of Jewish priority is per se racist and morally unjustified. If the standard is that ethnic heritage can never be used to justify providing an advantage, then we need to revisit the Irish rule of return, American affirmative action, all gender based set asides, and we likely need to run the Native Americans off their reservations. — Hanover

Once again, Israel gets to decide who can become a citizen and how. It should not discriminate between its own citizens based on their ethnicity or religion.

So yeah, you didn't understand me at all. But not surprising considering our history discussing Israel.

Yes, there is hostility from the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, but are their actions the same as the state of Israel? I don't think so. — ssu

Correct. It's also not an example of institutionalised racism.

Again. If you think I'm talking about who gets to be an Israeli citizens or not, you're still missing the point.

Perhaps you should state your argument more clearly. We know that you think that the state of Israel is oppressive to minorities. I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you on that. But what does it take for two groups of people that identify themselves as different people to live in one country? — ssu

Plenty of people have been disagreeing with it by downplaying it. But it's this and the fact that such racism is a necessary consequence of pursuing a Zionist agenda, as Likud has been doing since 1996. So the argument is, Israel is a racist country, it's racist because it discriminates between Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Israelis. It has put in law and has Supreme Court rulings enforcing law, institutionalising it and defending it on the basis of Zionist thinking (e.g., it must be a Jewish State, as opposed to a State safe for Jews). It is therefore not anti-semitic to claim that, what I'll call - political -, Zionism is racist.

It's not far fetched to assume they'd reclaim whatever English land ownership there might be and to limit non-Scottish immigration. Whether they'd allow a right of return for those with Scotch ancestory, likely, if they follow the Irish lead. If a historical claim is made that Scotch emigration was the result of English oppression, it would follow that they may allow a right of return to repair that past injustice. — Hanover

Totally missing the point. Discriminating between different types of Scottish citizens was the issue I raised. That has nothing to do with immigration.

And isn't that the whole issue anyway? Remedying past wrongs and protecting historically oppressed peoples? All of your arguments hold as much validity whether you're arguing against special treatment for blacks in America or Jews in the world. Isn't affirmative action just another form of apartheid under your argument, assuming you wish to disregard historical context and just declare absolute equality for all is required regardless of the prior suffering of the people? — Hanover

If you think that's my argument, please read again because it clearly isn't.

For #2, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there is no enforcement mechanism. — EricH

That really depends on the country in question whether human rights are enforceable. Most countries have UDHR human rights either as part of their constitution, laws or international treaties. Those usually have options for enforcement in the national legal order or recognised supra-national courts.

He was commenting on you both.

It's not that the things you're bringing up aren't interesting in themselves but they have little to do with the subject at hand. Yes, in some cases fairness and oppression (especially if you're not very collectivist minded) can be muddled. However, in the case of Israel the treatment by the State of non-Jewish citizens is quite well documented and obviously racist. See for instance: https://www.english.acri.org.il/publications

That claim is of course a religious one. People can believe what they want but they shouldn't expect it to be an argument for people who don't share their religion or are an atheist.

The legal claim is the Balfour declaration and subsequent UN declarations and the fact the country has been internationally recognised by other States.

I disagree. How oppressed are the Scots now? Many of them want an Independent country. — ssu

Yes, I'm well aware which is why I said probably. And do you expect the Scots to then discriminate between the English and Scottish Scots living in Scotland based on their ethnicity? Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally?

Perhaps we ought to give Netherland back to Spain. I gather that they can behave better this time around and won't oppress you. You don't need Mark Rutte, Pedro Sanchez in Madrid will do just fine. — ssu

You're saying that to the wrong person! I really couldn't care less whether it would be Spain or a centralised EU government as long as it results in a fair society.

The focus is security, not zionism. It's security issues that are in the forefront when the dealing of the Palestinians in Israel. It is security issues that have made Gaza into what it is today. — ssu

Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and I've been talking about citizens all this time. They are different things. The institutionalised racism is informed by ultra nationalism and zionism, not the security issue.

Yet just look around the World and one should notice that those people that don't have an own state are typically repressed and looked down upon. If it's difficult to understand for affluent Westerners just why would something like an own homeland be a positive thing, then just ask the Kurds how they feel about not having an own country. And how Kurds are treated in the World stage. — ssu

What? Like the Sami? Not having an own state isn't the cause of repression: living in a state with institutionalised racism causes it or if it cannot uphold the rule of law.

The Kurds are an oppressed people. If they wouldn't be oppressed they'd probably wouldn't have a wish to have an independent country.

And it's not that Jews don't have a right to a safe country, it's that they discriminate their own citizenry. It's also not about the average Israeli being critical or sceptical of their political class, it's the actual policies that create second class citizens. That is all caused by the implementation of the State of Israel having to be a Jewish state. That sounds pretty zionist to me.

I would say that the state of Israel has basically adapted to a perpetual low intensity conflict. — ssu

This is an entirely different issue and is more about international law than Israeli internal laws and policies.

That doesn't make a lot of sense considering zionism existed well before the Nazis.

i dont have time to fully respond now but i'll respond later. no, my point wasn't "oh the arabs treat jews like this therefore it's ok." the point i'm trying to get at is that part of the drive behind zionism was to establish a safe space for jews where they wouldn't be at the mercy of other powers. if we're going to make any progress in this convo you need to start thinking of zionism as an idea as opposed to how israel's right wing acts. one is a political party, the other is an idea with deep roots and is often identified with theodore hertzl. — BitconnectCarlos

Fair enough. But I think that merely explains why Israel is the way it is, it doesn't excuse institutionalised racism. The State of Israel doesn't need to be a Jewish state, with special treatment for Jewish people, to be safe for Jews. In which Western EU country are Jews currently unsafe?

I maintain that Zionism is implicitly racist as its factual implementation requires you to treat one group of people different than others; no matter how historically understandable it is, it is still racist. If I were beaten by my father as a child, how does that excuse me to beat my son or another? We might understand where my aggression comes from, but it doesn't excuse my aggression in any way.

how likud acts is a different discussion than the discussion on the essential idea of zionism which is older than likud. is the idea of a jewish state in palestine an inherently racist one - or at least any more "racist" than the idea of a muslim state? if you just want to say that all states that seek to maintain a certain religious character are racist then i actually think in some way we've made progress because we've clarified your position. — BitconnectCarlos

This really depends on the facts on the ground. A country where the majority are Muslims could be considered a Muslim country. If Muslims in no way are treated differently by the State than non-Muslims, on the basis of their religious persuasion then it's not a country that suffers form institutionalised discrimination. To the extent religion coincides with ethnicity, as it does in Israel, it would make sense to speak about racism or not.

That said, I find it hard to conceive of a country actively promoting a specific religious or ethnic character without resorting to discriminatory policies. So with the caveat that we need to look at the actual facts to be certain, I suspect they would always be racist if religion coincides with ethnicity.

I also think how Likud acts is part of the discussion because they are a political party causing real world effects based on their view of zionism. It doesn't matter what "zionism really is", which has different theological interpretation in any case, it matters what is done in its name. Considering how long Likud has been in power, 22 years of the 24 since 1996, their version of zionism is what has been largely implemented in Israel in recent history. Which is not to say other parties did not have a hand in bringing about the existing laws in Israel. It's just that Likud's particular brand of zionism is obviously racist as opposed to the "racist by (unintended?) consequence" resulting from the understandable wish to have a safe space for Jews.

and for the record israel is not surrounded by autocracies, case in point lebanon. it's a troubled parliamentary republic and not fair to call an autocracy. — BitconnectCarlos

True.

I was referring to the treatment of Jews in neighbouring countries. It's in any case all a red herring/tu quoque. It's not about what others do and have done but what's happening in Israel. Just because others are racist pricks, doesn't excuse us to do the same.

Just curious, do you think Jews were treated as equals in pre-1948 Palestine? Were they safe? Are Israel's neighbors Jewish populations treated as equals? — BitconnectCarlos

Again. Appealing to what autocratic regimes do to make Israel look good is not the argument you want to be making here.

Demographically - at least in terms of immigration - it should go without saying that if Israel wishes to remain a Jewish state it needs to reflect that with immigration. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not talking about immigration now am I? Every country discriminates between citizens and non-citizens.

Judaism isn't a race though and there's no such thing as a "Jewish nationality" which you referenced earlier. You keep calling it racist for some reason when anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of race. — BitconnectCarlos

There's most definitely a difference. Jewish nationality is recognised based on descent (blood) and gives right to Israeli citizenship and other government funded programs for Jews only. For non-Jews Israeli citizenship is only reserved based on the fact they are born in Israel. The distinction based on religion is institutionalised. As far as immigration goes, that's not an issue. It's an issue that once you're both Israeli citizens, the Jewish citizen gets preferential treatment.

As to the racism part, I think I've repeated myself enough about how Herut and Likud conceive of the notion. Race is, in any case, not a biological concept but a social one. Apartheid wouldn't have been racist if we'd adhered to the biological concept of race, yet we all agree it was racist. It's only the perpetuated collective guilt trip the West is still on that we have such problems with saying the same about the institutionalised discrimination in Israel; that it is, in fact, racist.

I'm well aware that the religious and philosophical treatise of the concept of a chosen people is rather different and less negative (apart from the obvious ethnocentrism) than its political counterpart, which is why it was in quotation marks. The ultra-nationalist usage of the concept by Herut and nowadays an influential part of Likud (including Netanyahu) is definitely a racist concept of it, which informs its fantasy claims of all the land from the sea to the banks of the river Jordan and justifies passing laws discriminating against non-Jewish Israeli citizens, because Jews are "special" in their view.

The only relevant background in this case is that I graduated in international and European law, with a special interest in terrorism and as a consequence also modern history of the Middle East.

Israel has widespread anti-discrimination legislation. Of course there are problems, but so does every other country. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not "problems". You are downplaying the institutionalised racism and discrimination perpetrated by the Jewish state which relegates non-Jewish citizens to second class citizens.

If Jewish identity is the raison d'être of Israel, this must lead to discrimination. Once you place one group of people above others, it is inescapable. And that is the implicit logic of zionism. Israel is the only country in the world that divides its citizenry by having a difference between the Jewish nationality (which every Jew in the world has) and Israeli citizenship. Many government funded programs are only accessible to Israeli citizens with the Jewish nationality.

The 1989 quote was important because that concerned commentary on the case where a Jewish man who converted to Christianity lost the benefits of government funded programs. The Supreme Court upheld it and thus enshrined discrimination based on religious persuasion as legally acceptable. That's basically illegal in every meaningful democracy in the world, as they have something or other equivalent to the second article of the universal declaration of human rights.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. — article 2

But you're right that Israel is a Jewish state, just as many Islamic countries base their own governments on Islamic texts.... but of course you're all over those and accuse Pakistan, Malaysia, UAE, Egypt, etc. of racism all the time and demand the destruction of their states too. — BitconnectCarlos

We're talking about Israel so this is really besides the point. Nevertheless, Israel likes to pretend it's a Western style democracy. Don't you think it's pathetic you need to compare Israel to autocratic regimes to make it look good? Necessary for sure, because Israel is neither a real democracy nor a Western country.

If you're going to pull the "zionism is racism" card then I'm going to pull the "anti-semitic" card and believe me I still hold the "nazi" card and I'm waiting for my chance. I guess you hold the nazi card too. We could just call each other nazis totally incapable of reasoning and be done with it. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn't pull that card on you, asshole.

All Zionism is about is establishing a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Which is a racist enterprise. It wouldn't be if it would be a state of Israel that would be safe for Jews with equal rights for all Israeli citizens. Instead we have the discriminatory bullshit that is the Israeli state pretending to be a western style democracy. Not to mention the fascist right wing of the Likud party that anyone with a modicum of historic interest would be aware of. Just read what Arendt and Einstein had to say about Begin and Herut.

The distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis is enshrined in Israeli Law, confirmed by the Supreme Court on December 25, 1989, of which a judge said eleven days later in Ha'aretz: “The essence of a Jewish state is to give preeminence to Jews as Jews. Anyone who asks … for equality to all its citizens … must be rejected as one who negates the existence of the Israeli state as the state of the Jewish people.”

It's not just about the settlements, it's about the inherent racism that "God's chosen" exhibit and the laws they have passed to ensure it and the courts who uphold it.

I really shouldn't respond to this since you display no understanding on what Zionism actually is. It has nothing to do with race. Jews aren't a race. If you don't believe the Jews deserve self-determination or a "safe space" given history then you're either ignorant, uncaring, or anti-semitic. — BitconnectCarlos

Fuck you for pulling the anti-semitic card when it's quite clear I take issue with the discrimination in Israel of non-Jewish Israeli citizens as a result of Jews and their Supreme Court upholding discriminatory laws, which is as much informed by culture as a conceptual race that they think entitles them to the annexation of the West Bank as part of the Promised Land. It's within the language of "the descendants of Abraham" and the "Jewish people" as opposed to, let's say, people of the Jewish faith.

If you don't see the racist undertones and indeed the racism and fascism of Begin and his Herut party and it's influence on Likud to this day then you're probably biased.

Make no mistake about it; Zionism is inseparable from the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. If Zionism falls Israel falls.

Iran doesn't recognize Israel and funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these groups carry out intentional attacks on civilians and the Hamas isn't remotely shy about wanting Israel wiped from the map. How about the risk of Iran proliferating the nuclear weapons to one of these groups?

At the end of the day, I want to stay optimistic. I have no qualms towards the people of Iran, only the leadership. Neither of us have the inside scoop about their actual intentions, but based on rhetoric and ideology there is cause for concern. Do not underestimate the force of religious ideology. Mutually assured destruction might be insane by western standards, but radical Islam has a strong record of self-sacrifice for the greater cause. — BitconnectCarlos

Neither is Zionist Israel, like its main ruling party Likud, shy about annexing the West Bank but nobody seems to worry about the existential threat to Palestinians. The difference is that Israel is continuing with settlements and annexation yet no Arab country has attacked Israel for over how many years?

If there is something that ought to fall, it is the Zionist agenda and the concept of Israel as a Jewish state that makes second rate citizens of non-Jewish Israelis. It's a racist country and Zionism is what informs that racism.

Could you describe the paradox you were experiencing? I'd rather not jump to conclusions.

My own experience of paradox was that QM suggests the possibility of an indeterminate reality (e.g. God rolling dice) and my intuition that reality is in fact determinate (e.g. causal). That also relates to my firm belief that free will requires causality, in the sense that I would want something "because" and not as happenstance that randomly comes into existence and is then rationalised post facto.

For me it was the realisation that QM says nothing about whether reality is ontologically determinate or not, merely that our epistomological account of reality is indeterminate in certain cases. Both a determinate as well as an indeterminate reality can lead to an indeterminate epistomological account (complexity, observer effect on measurement and so on). An indeterminate reality could never lead to a determinate epistomological account other than through sheer luck.

Whether reality is considered ontologically determinate or indeterminate seems to be intuition which colours what QM interpretation is favoured. There are after all still determinate interpretations of QM effects possible, such as Bohmian mechanics.

Try to come up with a quality you can both demonstrate to exist and that doesn't affect our observations in any way. — Qmeri

I already did! Weight is irrelevant when I'm not holding it. So it doesn't need to render that quality at that time. Just like a computer that doesn't render anything beyond a horizon in an fps. It's the same concept.

It doesn't actually assume hardcore causality since the uncertainty of a probability based world requires even more processing power. — Qmeri

If there's no such thing that doesn't affect anything else then you're proposing hardcore causality. It comes with it by definition.

The probability based quantum world of ours is actually a very good argument against us living in a simulation since a probability based world where almost infinite number of possible quantum states affect the next possible quantum states and their probability distribution is almost infinitely complex to calculate. Classical mechanics require almost infinitely less processing power. — Qmeri

Classical mechanics is good enough most of the time so a simulation would use that and relativity to describe the macro world most of the time. QM is but one of the examples I gave, that while more complex, it doesn't require us to introduce every instance that went before as input as long as outcomes stay within the probability. So when there's epistemic probability we can forego a lot of history.

But you seem to missing the point. The point is, a simulation does not require to simulate every instance fully and certainly not the entire natural history. A processor doesn't need to simulate itself, it's simulated by whatever is outside and it only needs to do that when we're directly observing the processor. The outcome of the processor would be caused by the simulator not the processor. Only a direct observation would have to simulate the world as if the simulated processor caused the simulated outcomes.

If I close my eyes the simulation can stop rendering colour, light and dimensions etc. The point is that not all instances in the world need to be simulated and certainly not every quality at all times.

EDIT: another example, the movement of planets can be described accurately without knowing how they were formed, what they consist of, how many meteors struck it and whether it supports life or not. I can simulate the movement of planets, without having simulated the planet's history.