I suggest you look around yourself more. Preferably not through the prism of any biases, but rather to see how things really are regardless of what beliefs you already hold. — Agustino

That's probably the funniest thing I've read in a long time. :-!

Did I say it was? No. So don't strawman. — Agustino

Abusers vs. abusers. Nobody is not guilty.

Your words, not mine. Stop lying and twisting and turning and blaming me for your own inability to come up with a coherent argument.

Man, even your logic doesn't work. Even if it were true (and it isn't) that women purposefully dress to subjugate the desires of men, they still haven't acted shamefully - that doesn't necessarily follow and is only your narrow moral framework that adds that value judgment (as so many conservatives). They're allowed to dress that way and in no way is that shameful or in any shape or form a type of abuse or sharing responsibility for a resulting rape.

You really don't get it do you?

How is the bolded part not evidence of this for example? — Agustino

Because it's negated by the sentence following it (again) and claiming they acted "shamefully" before, or questioning their credibility, or claiming they are "abusers" and that nobody is "not guilty" (blaming the victim, real classy!) and to assume they are out to fuck rich and powerful men. So yeah, you don't have any idea what it means to have respect.

Babysteps. I'm obviously not going to entertain all your delusions if you even get basic facts wrong and I cannot be bothered to correct every mistake you make. I stick to the important parts; respect for women is a good start.

Well that's a loaded question isn't it? I doubt that the way you frame it is the way it actually happened. — Agustino

No, it isn't a loaded question and in light of the various similar stories and the type of horror almost every woman has to go through and then having mysogynists like you suggest they are lying is exactly what creates rape culture. Congratulations, you're clearly part of that problem.

Of course the feminazis only have a problem with Trump - not also with the women - who have also behaved shamefully. — Agustino

Uhmmm... How exactly is, for instance, sitting in an air plane and having the bad luck of having Trump next to you, shameful behaviour?

Also, this type of abuse derives from an overblown sense of entitlement and a degradation of women as property and subservient to men. The claim by you that these women wanted this only demonstrates your lack of empathy.

We're still considered progressive abroad? Why thank you!

The Dutch field of grass looks different when you're standing in it.

I'd think female suffrage and gender equality and all that are progressive ideas. No idea how Trump is going to take that to the extreme since he's clearly regressive... to somewhere between the stone age and bronze age.

But no Philip Roth... ok...? :-x

I've noticed you're in denial. That's fine. I mistakingly expected you to have a point with that clip and wasted time watching it. Please don't make me watch inane videoclips again, especially not of a turd like Ben Carson. (Homosexuality must be a choice "b]ecause a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight— and when they come out, they’re gay.")

It's interesting to me, by the way, that as far as my memory serves, this is the first time a candidate is doing well in the US with a depressing message "the USA is doing terrible (Mexicans), it's going down the drain (terrorists) and I'll save you (with my super-wheelin'an'dealin' skills)". I'm used to "USA is the greatest country in the world and if you vote for me we'll tackle this and that problem".

It's very weird hearing such pessimism becoming mainstream in the USA. Sounds to me USA citizens to a large extent no longer believe in themselves or their fellow countrymen.

don't demand the impossible in a bipartisan world. ;)

First of all, as a Dutch person, I will have to say the obsession with the infallibility of the US constitution strikes me as incongruous with modern times; it was written by white, privileged slave owners concerned with protecting their property from the poor. That, apparently, was successful but it doesn't make a very good democratic basis, if you'd agree that all citizens should partake in the democratic process.

Second, Trump is a moron and a real danger to the USA. The idea that has been floated by Agustino to shake up the system by selecting Trump.

Let me try to put that in an analogy. You have a house and you're looking to reconstruct it because it has wood rot and peeling paint. You get to choose a pet and the one option is an old mean cat and the other is a faeces flinging chimpanzee with the temperament of a horny dog.

The cat will occasionally drag in a dead rat and rake you if you don't look out but most days not much of a nuisance and life goes on.

The chimp though flings his shit around everyday, screams incessantly, (sexually) assaults visitors and the few words he knows are "pussygrabber" and "Mexican rapist". Pretty soon your friends stop visiting.

Neither will fix your house but you'll have a shit load more work cut out for you after the chimp is gone.

Point being, no one person is going to fix your system, you'll have to do it yourselves and you're going to need help. From liberals and republicans and independents alike. Alienating most of them by singlemindedly trying to push your own agenda won't work and makes you an egoistic bastard to boot (not a social conservative value). Being willing to make things worse, for which a Republican president and its party will be blamed, will not instill trust with non-Republicans. Meaning you're setting yourself up to have no negotiation power in deciding how the system could change whatsoever after Trump would leave.

Don't vote or vote anything but Trump.

Socialists dismiss the consequences of their "solutions". They think that their intentions are all that matter without realizing the consequences of their good intentions. If Socialists had their way, they'd limit the choices and resources of everyone as there isn't enough to go around to every individual. If every citizen on this planet received an equal amount of resources, they'd only get about $16,000 a year, which just brings those making more than that down, while not lifting the poor at all. This will also limit choices. When your resources are limited, so are your choices. In the effort to make everyone equal, you end up limiting everyone's freedoms. — Harry Hindu

First of all, this has no bearing on what I said as I wasn't discussing income redistribution but taxation in order to create opportunies for choice by the government. That doesn't take away inequality but does maximise freedom in a different way than the absence of interference does. If I don't have any choices the fact that the government won't interfere is meaningless. So you neatly demonstrate that like other libertarians you're simply ignoring the meta-ethical discussion on what freedom (or liberty) really is.

Second of all, the numbers are silly because 16,000 USD is obviously barely enough in the US but more than sufficient in Bangladesh. It's also silly because it's not about just dividing GDP by capita either. If we'd do that just for the US, we'd be left with 55,221 USD per capita, but leaving nothing to reinvest and therefore also unsustainable.

EDIT: Actually, 16,000 USD is more than enough also in the US because it includes people not part of the work force. Poverty line for a family of four is about 25,000 USD. So in reality that family has 2.5 times more than the poverty line in the US. So if we'd reinvest 50% of GDP, they'd still be above the poverty line by 28%.

If we take my example, a family of four would have 8.8 times the poverty line and as a family would make 220,884 USD. If we'd reinvest 50% of GDP, they'd have 4.4 times the poverty line with 110,442 USD. Not bad.

So even a total redistribution wouldn't really be an issue, financially speaking. Just saying.

What isn't appealing about maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice? — Harry Hindu

Because libertarianism dismisses the meta-ethical discussion on what freedom means and only deals with negative liberty: e.g. the absence of interference to make choices. However, there is no real freedom if there are no real choices, so a government creating (or even maximising) available choices also increases freedom for its citizens at the expense of taxable income. So sometimes a little limitation on negative liberty can in fact create a lot of positive liberty, namely: choices.

For country census purposes first, I think.

A nice performative example of the underlying problem...?

We're all so lonely if we're this diverse about the important things.

It wasn't harsh. I'm just not used to Hanover getting personal; it's usually the other way around, which is why I noticed. ;)

60% want the total elimination of Israel. http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-palestinians-backing-2-states-become-minority/ . I seriously doubt the other 40% hold much kinder views. It's likely that there are good number of pragmatists in that mix who just want peace even if it means allowing what they perceive as invaders to remain. — Hanover

A poll by an institute critised for its links with AIPAC. Really? Although it treats with different questions, I think this is very informative (and more trustworthy):

Joint Israeli and Palestinian Poll

No, unlike in France, Israel is under constant terroristic threat. The threat is real and amount of policing required in Israel to control that threat does not compare to what you see in France. I understand that many irrationally react to perceived threats. I don't think that's occurring in Israel. The daily threat there is likely greater than the average citizen realizes. — Hanover

Israel can't expect safety when it's occupying land and perpetuating injustice. It's under threat because it's oppressing a lot of people to then complain those people resort to violence is disingenuous. It's also a bad reason not to negotiate a lasting peace, which Israel hasn't seriously pursued since Rabin was murdered.

Moreover, what about the right to live in safety for Palestinians? Statistically speaking they are under more "constant threat" from Israel than the other way around.

Only because the US has adopted policies protective of Israel that you disagree with. You can only be dismissive of Israel's concerns about its destruction by conceding that you and like minded folks have no influence on American policy toward Israel. That is, Israel is safe because you're not in charge, right? — Hanover

Not certain why this post is getting personal to be honest. I've done my best to stay as civil as possible considering my strong opinions on the matter and knowing we don't see eye to eye on this. If I said something to offend you, I don't want to do that. In my view, there simply isn't an existential threat because of the assymetric power relation between Israel and its neighbouring countries and the Palestinians. It's perplexing really, how insecure you seem to be about the safety of Jews in Israel in light of the military and political power Israel wields.

I'm curious as to what practical effect the JNF leases have on the non-Jewish public. Are non-Jews actually having difficulty finding suitable housing because of the JNF rules, or is this only a matter of principle. In the US, I can't purchase or even live on Native American lands. — Hanover

For me it's a matter of principle and it's a good question as to the practical effect. I'm not sure.

Speaking of principle, I should mention that the sale of land by a Palestinian to a Jew is punishable by death. Worse than Israel.

Maybe both parties should simply institute private property and be done with it?

I didn't read the article this way. I read that only 7% is private and that it could be sold to anyone. The rest is in the hands of the government or JNF, which only leases the land. Maybe you're saying that one day the government will start selling land off and that only Jews will be able to purchase it. That seems inconsistent with the article that said that once land is sold to private interests, it can be sold to anyone. It also seems like that if only 7% has been actually sold throughout the history of Israel's existence, there are no plans for this land sell off. It seems to me that Israel is well aware of the importance of keeping the land secured from the fleeting interests of private investors and so it has regulated 93% of the land by keeping it off the market. — Hanover

The 7% was privately owned before 1948, nothing additionaly was sold since then as far as I know (or at least nothing significant to change that percentage). And yes, you're right that if it would be sold to private Jewish Israelis they are then free to do with it as they please and sell to non-Jewish Israelis. I have a problem with discriminatory laws that require a government or one of its agencies to make a distinction based on religion (since they adhere to the definition of Jew in the Law of Return).

As with everything that has to do with Israeli policy, security concerns are paramount. I get that you believe that racist issues drive Israeli policies, but it's just as easy to see that security issues offer as much explanation as anything else. Israelis are in an incredibly hostile environment, surrounded by people who want their elimination. — Hanover

I don't know how we can move closer on this particular issue. I don't believe the environment is "incredibly hostile" and that, for instance, Palestinians want Jewish "elimination". They see a rather direct claim to living in what today is Israel because their families were displaced in 1948, they consider themselves occupied and want this to stop, they want to reunite with their families without having to give up the right to live in Israel, which, despite the discrimination, is still their home.

I do agree some Palestinians (and some people in neighbouring countries) wish the worst to Israel but they are hardly the majority but they are dictating the agenda for everybody of good will. In return Israeli right wing politicians are quite... immoral.

I also believe many Jewish Israelis believe the danger is real or at least immediate much like many Europeans now unreasonably fear Syrian refugees and French fear unarmed women in burqinis. It's a lot of misplaced fear that can't be broken by imposing martial law on occupied territories and discriminating against non-Jewish Israelis.

You mentioned that democracy and Zionism might be incompatible, when in truth it might be that democracy (at least to the extent everyone receives equal rights) and survival are incompatible. In a democracy, you have to begin with the idea that everyone is supportive of the state at some basic level. It would be suicide to allow subversive elements access to power. I'm less concerned about the race of someone than I am in their beliefs. As long as there remains an anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world, it's hard to abdicate power to Arab interests. I understand that just because one is Arab does not mean they want to eliminate Israel, but it'd be foolish to suggest the correlation doesn't exist. — Hanover

Yes, I stated that because I honestly don't believe you can institutionalise favouring one religious group (again, taking the definition from the Law of Return as repeated by the high Court several times) over others and make a claim to be a democracy. I don't believe there is an existential threat for (Israeli) Jews and if we take apartheid South-Africa and the resolution when that system collapsed as an example, the fear seems misplaced. I think it's sold like an existential threat for political convenience and PR and it plays well because Europe by and large still feels guilty about the Holocaust but it doesn't seem grounded in reality.

There's the possibility of peace talks (traditional politicking) but I think a show of force is still needed before any such event. — OglopTo

Maybe we can think of other ways. How about this; cordoning off the entire area that no weapons can enter Syria any more (it's after all not that big)? Or obligate weapon's manufacturers to put non-removable gps chips (charged by the excess heat of firing them) so that we can start tracking the black market and disband it.

What I get is that with the current state of affairs in Syria, intervening is better that doing nothing. — OglopTo

It's a false dichotomy to suggest there's only military intervention or nothing.

So, 88% of the land is open to every citizen, Jewish or not. The other 12% is owned by the JNF and it apparently is imposing its rules on the leasing of the land. It is a matter of personal opinion I suppose (and how you want to spin this) as to whether this is non-Jewish discrimination or a Jewish set aside to assure Jews, a historically oppressed people, a place to live. — Hanover

I would be perfectly fine with this, if it weren't for the fact that the JNF is seriously intertwined with the Israeli government and has first right to any sale of land sold by said government and other legal protections that go beyond it just being a foundation. If the government wouldn't give the JNF special treatment this wouldn't be an issue to me. At most I could then say that the JNF would be discriminatory in its allocation but I would consider the purpose for it - taken in relation to the total land it owns - reasonable.

I've not looked up all of the claims you've made except this one, mostly because I'm at work and can't spend the time. This one in particular isn't exactly correct. 93% of all of the land in Israel is not privately owned, but is subject to long term leases. The 7% of privately held land can be sold to any citizen, Jewish or not. 69% of the land is owned by the State and 12% is owned by the Development Authority. All of this land can be leased long term to any citizen, Jewish or not. The Jewish National Fund owns the final 12%, and only this land is restricted to be leased long term to Jewish citizens. — Hanover

That 93% can be sold to Jewish Israelis but not to non-Jewish Israelis. I did say buy not rent or lease. So the statement was indeed inaccurate but I wouldn't say incorrect. I suppose I shall copy-paste the list of discriminatory laws that was collected here as well. Again.

Here's the first law relevant to this by the way: DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY) LAW

So there's the Development Authority which sold/transferred so that the JNF now owns approximately 13.1% of land in Israel. The Development Authority (later replaced by the Israel Land Administration agency) received land through that law that included land of former non-Jewish inhabitants of the area, that were displaced in 1948. (Or as Ben Gurion already noted in 1948: “There is not a single Jewish village in this country that has not been built on the site of an Arab village.”)

The JNF charter states it can only sell, lease or mortage land to Jewish Isrealis (or just Jews, I'm not sure). So that goes a bit further.

In 2005 there was a ruling that this was discriminatory with regard to leasing. And now, if a non-Jewish Israeli wins a lease from a JNF tender, it must be compensated by the government with an equal size of land. However, the sale of land of 93% of Israel still isn't possible except to Jewish Israelis (and in practice everything is a long lease).

When you asked why it would seem odd that a person is concerned about the health and welfare of people elsewhere, when that person is not contributing to his own defense... honestly my first response was: "How could you not know the answer to that?" — Mongrel

Ah.. Now I get it. Seems NATO doesn't think we spend enough. So in all fairness, we are contributing! I think that's neither here nor there though since I'm against military humanitarian intervention. We've (the world) had exactly one since the concept was introduced and plenty more where they claimed it was but it wasn't by any reasonable standard.

Well, this makes the point of why the question of who is a Jew so significant, or maybe more generally, what makes the concept of Jewishness so significant. It's one thing to say that you must be Jewish to be significant in Israeli society and quite another to say that the culture must remain distinctly Jewish. The former is exclusionary, while the latter only dictates the cultural norms. If the French wish to set forth how the French ought to preserve their culture, no one will claim they are undemocratic, although it's clear their Muslim population (for example) might have its objection. — Hanover

I agree up to the sentence "the former is exclusionary..." provided these cultural norms aren't institutionalised through law. It's one thing to say "our political party represents Jewish interests" and another if the State enforces narrow interests at the expense of others. I'm not clear how it's in the Israeli Jewish community's interest to prohibit non-Jewish Israelis from buying land in order to protect "Jewish" culture (after the civil war if 1948 this includes land of displaced Palestinians). Or to give certain Jewish Israelis the right to refuse non-Jewish Israelis to live next door. Or to refuse the right of family life for non-Jewish Israelis, meaning they cannot reunite with their families in Israel (of course the right wing is happy for them to leave). It's quite obviously not about culture but about power.

After that you're a bit unclear. Are you saying that the French are right to ban the burkini?

I think H.L.A. Hart basically had the right idea about what makes good law and the ban isn't good law.

Shmik, you're from the old forum and I've set out those laws time and again. If you don't care to remember them or at least the thrust of it then why on earth would I bother spelling it out again? This has been discussed ad nauseum. Zionism and democracy are simply incompatible and the Israeli high court has done nothing to stop the rightward tilt of Israeli politics.

To be fair (because I take your statement as a bit of a dig at Israel), the law of return is for non-citizens, not a right reserved only for some citizens as you're implying. — shmik

That would be true if a lot of other laws didn't tie into this one and its definition of Jew and then continue to reserve rights for Jewish Israelis only. A lot of institutionalised discrimination is the result.

I find it all the more remarkable considering Hanover just argued there isn't consensus on "who's a Jew" between the various interpretations of Judaism. Well, maybe not so remarkable as it was made up by politicians. That's just asking for trouble.

Since we can't even determine when a chair is a chair, how do you expect we'll be able to determine when a Jew is a Jew? — Hanover

Persuasive definitions of course, one of which was codified into law in Israel. Just pointing out that apparently a lot of Jewish Israelis in 1970 thought religious Judaism was more important than simple descent, because regardless of descent, if you convert to another religion you're no longer a Jew according to that law.

A necessary but not sufficient condition, maybe? — Baden

Who Is a Jew?

There are also disputes concerning who exactly is included in the Law of Return, since the 1950 law did not define who is a Jew for the purposes of immigration.

The first major challenge to the law came in 1962 with the Brother Daniel case. Brother Daniel, born Oswald Rufeisen, was a Polish Jew who converted to Catholicism during the Holocaust. He later became a Carmelite monk, and in this position saved many Jews during the Holocaust. When Brother Daniel applied to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that he was ineligible because the Law of Return does not include Jews who practice another religion.

Then in 1969, the Israeli Supreme Court in the Shalit case ruled that a child born in Israel to a Jewish Israeli father and non-Jewish mother could be registered as Jewish in Israel’s Population Registry. Since this ruling runs counter to the traditional Jewish legal definition of a Jew–someone born to a Jewish mother–tremendous controversy ensued, which led to the 1970 amendment of the Law of Return.

This amendment expanded the right of return to include the child or grandchild of a Jew, and the spouse of a child or grandchild of a Jew. For the purposes of this law, “Jew” was defined as someone who has a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism, and is not a member of another religion. — Myjewishlearning.com

Yes I wouldn't define them based on religion. — shmik

Yet the high court in Israel did. A Jew who converted to Christianity lost rights only reserved for Jewish citizens of Israel.

In which matters or which context do you not have enough emotions and according to who's standard of measure?

Funny thing in that sentence you wrote is that you "feel" you don't have enough "emotions". — Mayor of Simpleton

That was actually on purpose. X-)

Let's just say I have a very rich emotional life behind my piano and it stops when I stop playing.

Generalized label - Rawlsian
Form of government - direct democracy, more decentralised in its political decision making but centralised in the performance of public tasks and implementation of policy
Form of economy - the robots are coming, communism then since having a job won't even be an issue of skill anymore and we can't compete with robots anyway, circular economy
Abortion - legal up to 24 weeks, after that same rules as for euthanisia
Gay marriage - ok with me
Death penalty - no
Euthanasia - legal if suffering is (will be) inescapable and continuous as agreed by the two doctors independently from each other, should be more attention to psychological suffering though as this is not sufficient yet
Campaign finance - limited in amount, only natural persons, only citizens of that country and public
Surveillance - less
Health care - yes and publically financed
Immigration - open for all refugees, limited for economic refugees
Education - publically financed, better recognition between different countries of each others degrees
Environmental policy - circular economy, don't take more resources and produce waste than nature can replenish and process
Gun policy - US problem, just get rid of guns from a Dutch perspective
Drug policy - legalise and tax
Foreign policy - screw real politik and do the right thing, even if it's inopportune or expensive

So, now we know that different things evoke different emotions. Kind of obvious. However, I bet that in almost every discussion most of us either assume what the other is feeling or assume that they obviously feel the same we do or at the very least should feel the same.

Mongrel assumes she/he knows me well enough not to want to waste time on trying to understand me. Or, read charitably, knows himself well enough to know it won't amount to anything.

I assumed MoS wasn't as Stoic as he says he is. In general, I assumed people more or less felt the same. M-theory probably came closest to the sentiments I felt.

There's a gulf of misunderstanding between people and in my experience, it only rarely is crossed through discussion. My daughter of 16 months is an excellent listener, much more so than any of us. Considering her limited ability to understand, relatively speaking she understands more than any of us.

Then to get to the subject many people wanted to talk about when they read my OP. It seems to me the underlying problem is that we talk too much and don't listen and ask follow up questions anywhere near enough.

I view "heart break" as letting emotions take over and that usual leads to many mistakes in spite of "good intentions". I suppose that's why a appeal to emotions is considered a fallacy. — Mayor of Simpleton

Why do emotions lead to mistakes? Did you marry your wife purely on rational grounds? Love your cats rationally?

If anything, I actually feel I don't have enough emotions. How's that for opposites? ;)

Hmmm... Interesting. I find heart break quite a powerful motivator to do something so in that sense I don't feel "bogged down". It's also informative on a personal level what's at the core of my (moral) instincts.

Out of curiosity - and you don't have to answer if this is too personal - do you imagine you'd have heart break if your wife left you or one of your cats died? Or not in those cases either?

Just venting my frustration.

Feel free to add your own. — Benkei

That doesn't really make sense or you have simply left out what it is you really want from us. — Mayor of Simpleton

I wanted you to share.

Reading the posts, what does it say that people are more intent on arguing their worldview and what's wrong with the media, instead of thinking about ways to help? — Benkei

That was another observation after I asked people to share. What do you think it says?

Maybe it says "I'm not responsible because I can't do anything about it." Or "It's kind off the media's fault because they aren't showing us the really important things, or in a biased way". Or "I care but everybody else doesn't".

I've already established I am responsible; not as much as Assad but still. So if I'm going to own up to my responsibility, what does that mean in practice? The only thing so far I have been able to do is donate to the Red Cross. I'm still trying to figure out if there's more I can do that is in any way meaningful.

I think the best strategy would be this: let's not try to understand one another. It's a waste of time. — Mongrel

If that's how you feel. Personally, I don't think it's a waste of time to understand other points of view. The better I understand others, the more adept I become at taking their interests into account. That might not mean as much on a forum as it does in real life though.

The Red Cross. That is humanitarian intervention. The ones who make such intervention necessary on the other hand... — Sapientia

You really should try finishing your sentences instead of leaving me to fill in the blanks. I've got an active imagination and have gone through 10 different types of punishment in the past minute or so.

As far as I know, I'm a virtue ethicist. I try to be kind but also fair and responsible. Fairness is not always kind to everyone. Sometimes I need to take away a toy from a child to give to another, because they should share (or even agreed to share). Or I take away candy because they had enough, being the responsible parent I am. Ahem.

I think I've come to prefer virtue ethicism because it doesn't railroad you into only one possible heuristic approach which ultimately leads to unethical results when we demand complete consistency. We're inconsistent and fallible persons and the difficulty of "virtue ethics to prescribe action" is precisely the point; it makes you think it through when you're confronted with an ethical dillema instead of abandoning thought and emotion by following a "rule".

I would like to distinguish racism as a belief system held by a few and not implemented in social institutions beyond marginal groups, from prejudice, an unconscious attitude that alters behaviour based on race or gender as the case may be. — unenlightened

(Y)

I remember a thread on the Dutch Zwarte Pieten when you opened my eyes to that prejudice in me and around me. Thank you for that.