You use the word "corporation" as if it's a synonym for evil. It's entirely possible that you'll run off an unincorporated businessman who offered reasonable employment to people. He's no more obligated to provide employment opportunities to the citizens than the citizens are obligated to provide a lucrative business environment. It would seem that a far sighted legislator would look beyond the knee jerk reactions of some of his constituency and vote in a way that is overall best for his district. Demanding that he redistribute his wealth will only result in his demise, which would be to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Representatives are beholden to their constituency's interests as a whole, not exclusively to a tiny minority whose only distinguishing feature is how much wealth they control and money they have. — Thorongil

You can't just declare that politics is what you think it ought to be. A representative is beholden to whomever keeps him in office, and under no actual situation will that be that no one person has no more influence than another. It's just the case that politicians are going to listen to community leaders and other influential people than they are to average folks.

Regarding a politician listening to a major business owner, it's nonsense to say that owner doesn't significantly affect the community's interest as a whole. He can pull up stakes and leave, and while you think that's not fair that he have more say than you or I, that's super until he leaves and you realize how much more he contributed to the community than you or I.

You may not be aware of the case of the bakers in Belfast who were found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake with the statement 'Support gay marriage' on it. — mcdoodle

I wasn't aware, and I don't really know how UK law works. If the baker had refused to write "Deny gay marriage" would he have been guilty of discriminating against Christians?

In pursuing their own interests, corporations infringe on the well being and rights of others to a disproportionate degree. In your example, the law ought to have been passed democratically. If it was alleged to violate the constitution, it would then be sent to the court system. A corporation telling a governor what to do is not democracy, but plutocracy, no matter the outcome. — Thorongil

Since you insist upon drawing a literal distinction between corporations and people, where corporations (as opposed to people) should be prohibited from engaging in the democratic process, it seems rather obvious that corporations cannot participate in the democratic process because they are purely legal constructs. It is only the people who can speak and vote and urge the Governor to act one way or the other.

So, the corporation did not tell the Governor to do anything. It was the many people who would be adversely affected as well as the people who ran the corporations that did the speaking. How is that not democratic?

Isn't the defining distinction between mob rule, and democracy the protection of the minority from the majority? In a democracy, the majority can't just vote minorities into second class citizenship, that's what it means to be in a democracy in the first place. — Wosret

A criticism of democracy is that it will devolve into mob rule, yet Western democracies actually pass laws via the majority that protect minorities. This means that the concern is often overstated and does not represent what actually occurs.

Also, the way the laws have been created is to distinguish various classes that are often discriminated against (sex, race, age, etc) and then they are protected regardless of whether they are in the minority. That is, it is just as illegal to fire someone who is black because they are black as it is to do the same to someone who is white. The same applies to firing the young versus the old, Christians versus Muslims, or men versus women. We protect classifications of people, without regard to whether they are in the majority or minority. There are no protections afforded to Canadians however, so stay up in your frozen wasteland.

There are all sorts of angles here one can look at to determine whether it makes sense to require people to serve all comers. Should the same baker be required to bake a cake at the request of a Klansman with depictions of racial bigotry attached? Suppose they argued their racist views were related to their religious views? If a Jewish person married a Christian, should an Orthodox Jewish caterer be required to cater the wedding, even though he is opposed to interfaith marriages? If a baker were opposed to a fundamentalist Muslim's view regarding the role of women in society, could he refuse to serve Muslims if it were a matter of conscience? Suppose this particular Muslim had particularly offensive sexist views and wanted that depicted on his cake?

Does it really just come down to making bakers bake cakes that conform to societal standards and nothing else and there really isn't some deeper underlying principle?

The standard, whether it be as applied to corporations, individuals, sweet little old ladies, or whatever, is that entities tend toward protecting their own interests. If a corporation is for profit, it wants profits. If a gay advocacy group wants laws protecting gay rights, that's what it will fight for. The fact that a gay rights group doesn't spend time advocating for veteran's rights hardly means it's evil or opposed to veterans rights. By the same token, you needn't get angry at your local corporate grocer for being more concerned with selling tomatoes than in making sure gay rights are protected. Do they really need to apologize for prioritizing the sale of tomatoes just because there are other higher goods they can be accomplishing?

On the other hand, they wouldn't be entitled (as a public enterprise) to refuse to write "Happy Gay Pride" on a sheet cake -- a task which they are more than adequately capable of performing. Just because they don't like gay pride, or the Irish, or railroad buffs, or whatever cake decoration is needed, is no basis for the bakery to refuse service.

Right? — Bitter Crank

It's a complicated enough area that I'm not going to try to answer it definitively, and it's also a bit unsettled, and I don't do discrimination law. But, what the hell, I'll take a stab at it:

An employee can sue an employer for discrimination for certain specified reasons. I know this isn't exactly the cake baking question, but you can see the enumerated sorts of things you're not permitted to discriminate against: (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/)

You will note that they relate to age, gender, race, disability, and the other things you'd expect. You won't see "sexual orientation" on that list, although I think it is accepted that that falls under sex discrimination generally. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/16/sexual_orientation_discrimination_at_work_eeoc_says_it_s_illegal_under_federal.html

Such is federal law. The state of Colorado though has a law that prohibits "public accommodations" from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, so if you are a bakery that sells to the general public, you have to bake a cake and put two grooms on it if requested. http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ I suspect that Georgia was trying to make sure it never became Colorado, so it tried to pass its recent law, although it vetoed.

If a baker refused to bake a cake that said "I love Reading Railroad," he could not be sued for discriminating against railroad enthusiasts because they are not a recognized protected class. It's generally accepted railroad people are stupid anyway. I mean, really, get a car.

Requiring public businesses to cater to all comers is something that arose out of necessity in the old South, where African Americans literally could not find places to lodge, to eat, or to repair their vehicles if they broke down along the way. While I recognize that improper discrimination is a wrong regardless of who it is committed against on a theoretical level, I see the situation between not being able to find lodging very different than a gay couple who insists that a resistant baker bake them a cake. The gay couple could easily find someone more receptive and get their cake (and from someone who's not going to half bake it).

My point is that I think that all this legislation and litigation is to make a declaration of equality as opposed to really helping an injured party. Not that declarations aren't important, but it should be kept in perspective.

Yes, they do actually. The Palestinians are happy to recognize Israel - again, see the Oslo accords - but do not want to agree to recognize a status that could result in Arab Israelis being discriminated against. — Baden

This is just naivete. We're not a semantical distinction away from peace. You cite to an agreement reached over 20 years ago that has meant nothing in reducing violence. In 2000, it was made very clear that the Palestinians didn't want peace at the Camp David Summit.

You can see from the article that Netanyahu would ideally have the Palestinians accept a kind of state not even his own Justice Minister wanted to accept. — Baden

This conflates two issues: (1) the Palestinian objection to the reference of the land as Jewish and (2) secular Jews objection to having Jewish theology imposed on an otherwise secular nation.

Camp David fell apart largely due to the right of return issue, which was the Palestinians arguing that every descendant of every displaced Palestinian after Israeli independence be permitted to return to Israel (not just to Gaza and the West Bank). The numbers of such people are now in the millions. Israel could not accept that condition as it would essentially cede the land right back to the Palestinians and destroy the character of the state of Israel. The Palestinian objection to having Israel desginated "Jewish" is because their objective is to make it a Palestinian nation and they won't accept anything less. That is to say, this objection by the Palestinians is not semantical. It's a clear declaration that they don't want non-Palestinian control of the land because they beleive all the land is theirs.

It's as I've said all along: They don't want a two state solution. They want control over the whole country. It seems obvious to me.

Regarding the more liberal Jews not wanting the more orthodox Jews in control (whcih is issue #1 above), that's an internal political tiff.

Of course nations are wrong all the time. But if they can make their evil, unjust, illegal, wrongful, and just plain rude decisions stick, eventually it becomes their honored history. Like the US and the Native Americans... We seized their land, drove them off of it, killed them systematically or haphazardly, starved them, and finally gave the remaining remnant some scraps of land, and found new ways to treat them badly. We seized a huge hunk of northern Mexico. It became our southwest instead of their northwest. All actions we would condemn somebody else doing. — Bitter Crank

The conclusion here isn't as you assert, which seems to be that an evil nation becomes good once enough time elapses and everyone accepts their authority. You base this upon the fact that the US (for example) improperly seized Native American lands and now it's fully accepted and largely overlooked.

The problem with this analysis is that Iran, the former Iraq, North Korea and all sorts of other well established nations are still not considered good actors even with the time lapse. The real conclusion that can be drawn is that some nations are better than others and how they obtained their land is just one factor in determining where the nation falls on the good/bad scale. I suppose you could say that the US would have been better had it obtained its land through a more peaceful means, but that hardly makes it worse than North Korea, even though you might find North Korea's claims to their land is more justifiable.

And this makes my point in some regard to Israel. That is, even if the Palestinians have a superior right to the land (and I don't concede this, but just hypothesize it), that hardly means the world would be a better and more just place if the Palestinians occupied it. It is often the case that the better use of the land (which includes how its people are treated) is in the hands of others. By example, the North Korean territory would be better served by someone else. It just seems like philosophical nonsense to say that the Western world should cede a Western democracy (Israel) to an antagonistic middle east nation (Palestine) just for the sake of maintaining some poorly thought out principle about how land should be rationed out.

No, but the people of the Crimea did vote to join Russia. The vote might not be considered entirely free and fair but no-one's going to deny that the Crimean people in general are very pro-Russian, which makes this a very different situation to that in Palestine. — Baden

So it was a democratic militaristic takeover by Putin? Interesting analysis. I might have interpreted it as a Russian land grab to make certain that the Ukraine, a former Soviet bloc nation, didn't become an EU nation.

The general principle is one of proportionality. — Baden

Sure, and if Iran attacked the US, there'd be no more Iran. That's how proportionality works. I just don't know why Israel has to fight wars with one hand tied behind its back.

To make it easier for you: Imagine you shoot my wife. — Baden

Ahhhh! I hate this example. You know how much I love your wife, assuming you have one.

There's a difference between vigilante retaliation within an operational legal system and responding to outside threats threatening your existence.

I hate saying this, but it seems like might makes right--later if not sooner. — Bitter Crank

I don't agree with this. Stronger nations are wrong all the time.

What agitates people the most is being trapped. People in Gaza are certainly trapped — Bitter Crank

By Egypt as well.

I'm pretty sure you know that's not my position. If you don't, read over my posts, particularly the parts where I've repeatedly and unequivocally condemned all violence against civilians*. Anyway, if you're not going to be intellectually honest or take this seriously, I'm not going to continue with the conversation. Your call. — Baden

Oh, don't get all upset. Be unflappable like me. You said that there was some critical distinction about Israel declaring itself a sovereign state and it declaring itself a sovereign Jewish state, with the Palestinians being justified in rejecting the latter declaration. You then reject all violence on the part of Palestine. I assume you accept my argument that the violence that comes from Israel is reactive, meaning that with no violence from Palestine, there'd be no violence at all. So where does that leave us? You're mad at Israel for insisting that it designate itself as it wishes without having to consider input from Palestine? That sort of anger should be fairly minimal in comparison to the anger you should feel toward Palestine for its terrorism that I suppose arises entirely from being asked to call Israel a Jewish state.

All of this is a heaping help of nonsense though. It's not that anyone really believes that if Israel agreed that it would never again refer to itself as a Jewish state that we'd be any closer to a meaningful peace agreement. And, as my other post asked, if Israel gets a peace agreement and then hangs up a sign calling it a Jewish state, does Palestine get to go back to where it was pre-agreement (and I won't this time suggest that means it gets to go back to bombing folks on buses).

I think you're fence riding here, recognizing that Palestine's terroristic tactics are abhorrent, yet wanting to find a middle ground just to end the horrible meaningless deaths. I get the sentiment, and I think it explains why so many are trying to find a way to end the violence. I just don't think that can happen until the terrorism completely ends for which Israel should accept no responsibility for.

*To repeat again: There are no circumstances whatsoever, no matter what the Israeli army does in Palestine, no matter what the Israeli state declares itself to be, where it would be justified for Palestinians to bomb buses, fire rockets into Israeli neighbourhoods, or otherwise kill or maim innocent Israeli civilians. — Baden

I know this is your position, and I think it creates a problem for you. The problem it creates is that you can't offer such an unequivocal condemnation of Israel. If you just think Israel is seizing land it shouldn't seize, that's hardly the stuff of international interest. If the Palestinians weren't terrorizing the Israelis, this issue would not even make your radar, which means that their terror campaign is effective.

You said they had never shown themselves to be in favour of a two state solution. That is simply false, Hanover. Read the newspaper article I added above. — Baden

You can say they want there to be a two state solution, but when given that real opportunity, they balked. I mean there's saying it and meaning it. That this issue has been going on since Israel's independence makes me question whether they really want peace, especially in light of the concessions Israel was willing to allow in the past.

They have already accepted Israel's right to exist. You are now moving the goalposts and saying that because they don't accept Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", they don't accept their right to exist at all. — Baden

It's your position that if Israel and Palestine come to terms with a two state solution that the Palestinians should retain control over what Israel calls itself? That is, if Israel declares itself a Jewish state, the Palestinians then have a right to bomb buses?

Bear in mind the source here is Israel's oldest and one if its most respected newspapers. — Baden

Aside from the fact that this is a very weak appeal to authority (some editor at a newspaper agrees with your position, so it must be correct), it's also not accurate to say that Haaretz is widely accepted as an unbiased newspaper. It's pretty well known that it is a very left leaning newspaper. It'd be like me citing to a FoxNews commentator and asserting he was well respected and generally accepted. See,
http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2014/5/25/does-haaretzs-public-stance-on-occupation-reveal-anything-new-about-the-paper#.VvVsQu8UWUk=

Yes, I am. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords — Baden

Are you kidding me? Palestine never negotiated in good faith to bring about a 2 state solution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit.

However, Israel does show blatant disregard for civilian lives in many of its attacks. — Baden

Do you not see a difference between self-defense and an aggressive act? If the expected result of terrorism is collateral damage of your own citizens, then I'd blame the terrorists for that collateral damage.

You are not only demonizing the Palestinians, you seem to be actively attempting to dehumanize them. — Baden

No I'm not dehumanizing them. The toll on their lives is horrible under any interpretation of the term. I realize they have dreams, ambitions, loves and everything else that I do. And so what are the Israelis to do other than sympathizing with them? Are they also to allow themselves to come under attack and not do anything about it?

And yes, I know the difference between Fatah and Hamas.

As far as I'm concerned, the first step to that would be a complete cessation of violence (and ugly rhetoric); the second, talks; the third, an agreement; and the final a process of reconciliation. It's worked elsewhere in the world but there has to be the will to do it. Otherwise, everyone loses. Both sides need to step up to the plate here by at least attempting to understand and deal constructively with the other. And so do their cheerleaders. — Baden

And so we're in absolute agreement here. The complete cessation of violence needs to stop. Are you suggesting that Israel would be dropping bombs if there were nothing to react to, as if they'd just get up one morning and decide today is a good day to drop bombs? Yes, there needs to be good faith talks. Those have been attempted but have failed, but, sure, keep at it, but I'm not terribly hopeful. The idea that Palestinians are really going to accept Israel's legitimate right to exist is never going to happen. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-Abbas-thinks-Jewish-state-is-a-delusional-myth-345549

If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing. — Baden

I've not argued that might makes right. It's quite the opposite. My argument would be that we should protect Israel because they are right to possess the land.

I have no problem at all declaring governments, cultures, or people as bad. That is to say, the reason I support only friendly nations having nuclear bombs, having international influence, possessing important pieces of land, having critical natural resources, etc. is because I want evil nations to be weak and good nations to be strong. I don't know why it's so hard to look at someone else's existence and simply declare it not worth protecting. It's for the same reason that you don't particularly want to preserve the rights of those who want to oppress homosexuals and African Americans in the US. It's because their beliefs are stupid, destructive, and in opposition to what you hold to be right and just. You couldn't care any less about the history and deeply held beliefs of those racists. Why don't you argue for their right to self-determination?

What I'm saying is that I believe that Israel does have the right to the land, and to the extent we need to decide who to support where there's a dispute over the land, it'd be foolish to consider both claims as equal without regard to the character of those we're supporting.

The Palestinians do not all want to kill Israelis and take all their land. — Baden

Are you suggesting that the Palestinian government really is in favor of a two state solution? If they are, they've certainly not ever shown that, especially after the Israelis have in the past been willing to meet 90% of their demands.

The Palestinians cannot physically remove the Israelis, and any direct war against them would be suicidal. Their war against Israel is political, which includes in large part demonizing them.

Apart from that, a people being unreasonable (not that I necessarily accept the Palestinians in general are) does not abrogate their right to self-determination. Also, demonizing an entire ethnic community in the way you are doing here is exactly what those of us who are against anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia should be trying to avoid in this debate. There are several million Palestinians living in the region. They are not all crazed terrorists. — Baden

Of course they're not all crazed terrorists, but their government is not in favor of Israel remaining where it is. I've also not made a generalized statement against Muslims or Arabs. I've only pointed out that the Palestinian sentiment is for the removal of Israel from its land and it does that through gaining international political support for its position and it also uses terrorism as a tactic. That's just what's happening.

We can talk about the unfairness of Israel in building new settlements and argue the subtleties of who has the right to possess lands, but I really don't think anyone (including me) would be wiling to accept an Israel that sent its citizens into Gaza with bombs strapped to themselves on public buses. The conduct of the respective parties is not comparable.

And, no, being unreasonable doesn't mean you lose the right to self-determination, but being a terrorist does. I'm pretty sure Ireland (for example) doesn't permit its murderers the right to self-determination.

It has everything to do with whether or not Israel as a state constitutes a violent occupation of sovereign land. — discoii

And so you've ignored the entire debate and just asserted that the Palestinians have the right to the land. I assert otherwise. So there you have it. Good debate.

Shouldn't the US return Manhattan to its original inhabitants?

If God wanted us to be vegan, he'd have given us bouncy feet and floppy ears and we'd lay colorful eggs.

Just thought I'd rant about my disillusionment with the "health" industry, and also mention how I hate evil capitalism, and corporatism. — Wosret

The problem with healthcare in a capitalist structure is that there are those who can't afford it. I don't know why you've invested so heavily in doctors to teach you to eat right. I go to the doctor once a year for a physical and only more if I'm really sick.

At any rate, I'm not sure the treatment you'd receive in the US would vary greatly from what you'd get in European nations with socialized healthcare other than in how you'd be expected to pay for it. I'd think that all Western nations would rely upon the same studies and literature for their conclusions and treatments. I know some in the US go to Europe for treatments not yet approved in the US, but I don't think that's an issue that affects your position, and it actually shows how highly regulated the drug industry in the US is.

Many of the supplements and the miracle cures are not peddled by real doctors, but are unregulated supplements that fall outside of regulation. If your point is that we should more heavily regulate the non-scientific alternative health industry, I'd agree.

I don't recall such reactions even from the left against Bush. — Question

Then you have a very short memory.

Obama has been a great US president. There is no doubt about that in my mind. The favorability of congress amongst the American public as of recently speaks for itself. — Question

My recollection is that in the second mid-term elections the Democrats suffered historic losses to the Republicans in the House, Senate, Governorships, and state legislatures. http://ktla.com/2014/11/05/election-results-republicans-seize-senate-gaining-full-control-of-congress/

But, I have to ask, as you sound Hegelian in these posts. Do you really think that Trump and Sanders are a reaction to Obama or rather the inherent conservatism, as you've pointed out, built into the U.S.' political system? — Question

I think everything is a reaction to something else. If that's Hegelian, fine, but I think it just speaks more to cause and effect. The conservatism I mentioned references the low level of power any one person or branch has in the US system and the very difficult path to pass a law that exists. Obamacare passed only because the Democrats had a brief moment of total control of both houses and the presidency, and it passed without a single Republican vote. It takes that sort of line up to get anything controversial done, and even then, because of the very close margins, it had to be created in a way that satisfied almost every Democrat. As I recall, the single payer option was defeated because Senator Leiberman didn't want it and the Democrats didn't have any votes to spare.

The good news is that you don't see major swings when the other guy is in charge. It's for that reason that I really don't think that Trump will matter. He will either start compromising or he'll become powerless. It's not like he can just impose his will everywhere without any checks or balances, especially since many in his own party reject him.

That cat is like twice your size.

The land was in fact already theirs prior to 1967 and they acquired more as a result of the war. Clarify your point.

First we had G.W. and that resulted in Obama and now we're getting Trump. I just see the pendulum that used to swing slightly left then slightly right swinging a bit more wildly.

I also think that the US political system is incredibly conservative by design, with so many checks and balances, that in times of turbulence, you end up with preservation of the status quo. As long as the Dems and the Republicans remain so far apart, nothing happens.

The problem is that the ideology of communism is ill defined and that the fall of the USSR was never considered by Marxists to represent the fall of communism. Socialism is also ill defined, but whether socialism will also fall remains a question, if for no other reason than it's expensive to maintain.

I see the emergence of Bernie and Donald not to be a sign of the remarkable human spirit, but as evidence of the law of entropy in action. Why you can only see the left side of the ledger and not the right seems like selective analysis.

The SCOTUS is key because we can't count on the bowels of congress moving in an orderly fashion in the next few terms, as long as the far right maintains enough strength in office. — Bitter Crank

Unless Congress excretes some sort of law, SCOTUS will have nothing to rule on.

It was twenty-five years ago that America defeated communism and any ideas of socialism with it. Yet, here we are today with a serious Democratic candidate arguing, successfully, for socialism in America. Isn't that rather amazing? I find this relieving as opposed to the rather constant pessimism hereabouts about the human spirit/condition/nature. — Question

The USSR was defeated. If by that you mean communism, then I guess it was. The idea of socialism was not defeated, as it existed and continues to exist throughout Europe. Whether socialism is an early form of communism is debatable, but certainly not something that has ever empirically occurred.

The truth is that all countries' economies exist on a spectrum, with some having little government control and few social security protections and some having more. The US is to the right of Sweden which is to the left of the UK. That the US has moved to the left isn't amazing, nor is it a triumph for Marxists.

How did I contradict myself? I said that the Israelis won some land in a war, that they weren't required to return it, but they gratuitously did return some of it. Does that somehow make them required to return all of it?

What European or other developed nation questions the right of Israel to exist? — Baden

The proposed two state solution is problematic because the Palestinians reject that idea and wish to push the Israelis into the sea (or some such rhetoric). Those who advocate the two state solution do so with the understanding that Palestine does not want a two state solution, but wish to destroy it. So, when you say "what European nation questions Israel's right to exist," my response is any that believes ceding authority or land to a hostile nation and who wishes to destroy it.

No-one is arguing Tel Aviv is not legitimately Israel's but there is reason to think that Jerusalem should be shared with the Palestinians as both peoples have in recent times controlled it or parts of it and both lay claim to it. And there is certainly reason to think that the West Bank which is part of the Palestinian territories should be considered legitimately Palestinian land. You do not automatically get a moral right to own land simply because you are presently in charge of it. Historical context has to be taken into consideration. And the context suggests the dividing up of the land in the region rather than giving it all to one or the other party is the only fair solution. — Baden

Please. There is no universal standard to determine who gets to control land. It makes no more sense to say that an aboriginal tribe gets to keep its land because great great grandpa was the first to build a hut there than it does to say that another nation gets to control it because it was taken forcibly in war. Why the Irish get to be in Ireland is no more justified than allowing the Americans to occupy Indian lands or why Russia gets to be in the Crimea. What is unique about Israel is that it alone is forced to justify its occupation of various parts of the country, including those won in a defensive war, notwithstanding the fact that some of those militarily won lands have already been gratuitously returned.

And so it comes down to why Israeli occupation of lands is of such international consequence and why they in particular have to engage in offering a moral basis for their occupation. Whether Britain gets to hold on to Belfast hardly seems a matter for my consideration.

Do you really think though that if Israel had been set up in Europe and was living peacefully with its neighbours like Sweden, Holland or Ireland are, it would be subject to threats of economic boycott? — Baden

Not to quibble with wording, but "set up" suggests an artificial creation. We don't hypothesize about what might have been had Ireland been set up in Madagascar and could therefore have avoided the troubles it had with Britain. Israel is in fact trying to live in peace and only doing what is necessary to protect itself from constant terroristic attacks. If Mexico demanded the return of their native Texas and lobbed missiles over the border, no one would question a ferocious response from the US, and no one would offer great sympathies if Mexico became part of the US.

It has soldiers and roadblocks there that can prevent Palestinians travelling from one place to another even in the case of emergency. And it has a built a security wall within the territories that separates Palestinians families and villages from each other. — Baden

You build a great case for Palestinian sympathy by pointing out the disruption in their lives at the hands of a tyrannical oppressor as long as you ignore the reason why such measures are required. Would you live in Israel if they didn't have such measures, or might you feel some comfort that someone was trying to be sure that you actually were alive to wake up the morning?

While we both accept absolutely that Israelis have a right to self-determination and legitimate claims to some of the land in the region, do you accept that Palestinians also have also have a right to self-determination and a legitimate claim to some of the land there? And, if so, how do you think that claim should be realized? — Baden

Of course, in a ideal world, we'd just go down the deed office at the courthouse, pull out the plats, and mark which land each got, file it in, stamp it, shake hands, and call one another "neighbor." Unfortunately, this isn't just a dispute over borders and plats. It's that the Palestinians want to kill their neighbors and take all the land. Sure, reasonable people can reasonably resolve their dispute. Our disagreement is that I think the Israelis are reasonable and the Palestinians aren't.

In any case, critics of Israeli policy include Jews and non-Jews, Israelis and non-Israelis alike so obviously antisemitism is not necessarily a part of such critiques. But the accusation of antisemitism is such a serious one that of course it's likely to put off debate. — Baden

The reason that some associate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism is because there does appear to be an over-analysis of Israeli policy (like should they develop certain areas of their country and how they should defend themselves from enemies) in comparison to how other countries are analyzed. It is only Israel that actually has to justify its own existence and state its legitimate claim to its own land, a requirement that all other nations are relieved of. Israel appears to be specially targeted, and because it is Jewish run, it leads some to conclude it is the Jewishness of the nation that provides the basis for being targeted. Considering Jews have long been subject to unfair criticism (many of which you pointed out), it doesn't seem such a stretch to believe that the current criticisms of Israel are just part of this same historical criticism.

So, yes, Israel, like all nations, has policies that aren't internally consistent, are entirely self-interested, that might be hypocritical, and that might even be unjustified to the objective observer. These policies however aren't of such magnitude that Israel ought to always remain under the microscope anymore than should the policies of the various European nations that offer these criticisms.

Israel is not the Jewish world. The Jewish world as a whole is mostly very secular and forward looking (unlike a lot of the Muslim world obviously). — Baden

Sure, and Israel is also largely secular and forward looking. I don't know why you draw a distinction between secular/religious, forward looking/backward looking, and Israeli Jews/American Jews. You're just a labeler, trying to divide my people so that you can conquer us.

The Muslim world is just misunderstood, but the Jewish world is evil. Such is the narrative.

I have no opinion on the matter--except that I like Carter for his support of GM crops--but I'm curious: what was so bad about him as a president? — jamalrob

Long fuel lines at gas stations, weak foreign policy resulting in Iran hostages, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, Russian wheat debacle, and I'm sure there's more, but just can't remember. America was weak, which made room for Reagan, much like Obama has made room for Trump (a joke, only sort of).

His more recent positions on Israel have been atrocious, although I'm sure you disagree with my assessment.

It wasn't until late in her 2nd trimester that she did, and then you have to actually schedule the abortion -- which can take a long time. It's not like you can just go in and get it done. — Moliere

Is this the consequence of public healthcare? In the US, you can just go get it done. There are additional restrictions with later term abortions, but there aren't time delays - just pay the lady at the window and get in line.

And if Hilbert's hotel were half full, it'd still have an infinite number of guests, which means when it was fully full, it'd have double the infinite number of guests it had when it was half full.

Did we really need a hotel thought experiment to inform us of one of the infinite number of paradoxes associated with infinity?

In other words: all our beliefs would be happenstance without determinism. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Substitute the term "belief" with X and I agree with what you're saying in a very global way. Everything would be happenstance without determinism, including all your judgments and beliefs.

Determinism leads to happenstance as well.

This means that neither determinism nor indeterminism offers a meaningful way for free will to exist. The idea of free will is incoherent under both the determinist (whether a compatibilist or hard determinist) and the libertarian (indeterminate) account of free will. Either your decisions are based upon the pre-existing causes or they are based upon random events that are uncaused.

Free will is therefore a mystical sort of uncaused cause that expresses the decision of the decision maker without reference to how the decision was reached. It assumes that a variety of factors can be considered by the agent, but which should prevail and result in the ultimate decision are never determined and fully uncaused.

By the same token, if one were to accept this position, one is led to admitting a sort of solipsism, where nothing can really be known other than that you exist in some sort of confused state. And so I simply hold to the general idea that the acceptance of the existence of free will is a necessary precondition for interacting with the world and understanding reality at any level. It must be accepted superficially because any attempt to clarify it will lead to incoherence.

That's what I've been saying all along.

I would hold a fetus as more special than a gall bladder. — Moliere

I just don't think the power of law should be involved in the decision to have an abortion prior to birth. — Moliere

If a fetus is special, then why can't there be special laws for it?

The Supreme Court never enunciated any fetal rights in Roe v Wade or in any abortion case that followed. All analysis dealt with the state's right to regulate versus the woman's right to choose, with the state's rights increasing progressively in each successive trimester. That is, no court has ever declared a fetus is endowed with Constitutional rights.

That is not to say that no law has ever protected the sanctity of the fetus. In particular, there are extensive federal regulations dealing with fetal research and handling fetal tissue. Such rules specifically declare that the fetus has special worth, which one certainly does not see when gall bladders and the like are discussed. That is to say, your position is not at all consistent with law (or common ethical views).

I couldn't understand your post.