Whatever, you'll be banned then. No skin off my nose. — Baden

If such a Nazi as your goodself could do that thing, I should be well content to leave.

Comparing Zionists to Nazis is an anti-semitic trope and isn't going to fly here anyway. Take it somewhere else.


Baden

21 hours ago
Reply — Baden

I'll say the truth wherever I am, and if it hurts your Nazi feelings, hard luck!

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

The Zionists didn't have the power then, and hadn't yet come to the calamitous decision that racist colonialism was the only way to survive.

The Palestinian refugee problem was created 72 years ago. When you consider the wealth of the oil kingdoms and their need for manpower you realise that the problem that it could have been settled long time ago (and to a large extent it did) Unfortunately, keeping number of the descendants of those refugees at the borders of Israel who claim 'the right to return' became a political aimed at the destruction of the state of Israel. Incidentally, there was also a Jewish refugee problem created by Jew fleeing Arab countries to Israel. — Jacob-B

There wouldn't have been any Jewish flight from Muslim counties but for the various Zionist atrocities, surely? I see no reason that colonists should steal other people's countries and get away with it, never mind how long their occupation lasts.

You may be right, but then again, look at the Palestinian refugees. Which Muslim country embraced the Muslim Palestinian refugees to enter their countries? — god must be atheist

Exactly. People like to help, but not at too much cost.

Jews were the Nazis' victims, Zionists their imitators.

14

What the fuck does 'He' mean? - Je'sus — Qwex

Qwex - Don't you think you are perhaps getting caught up in a very American reaction to nonsensical 'religion'?

Things like alleged racism are always difficult to discuss, because different social groups are so very different - it hadn't occurred to me that 'Meghan' was anything but an American, un-hyphenated. Countries differ, and differ in the way they perceive what goes on elsewhere. America was hugely influenced by the need to justify slavery, whereas the UK used it to justify imperialism, which most people couldn't care less about - their 'hatred', nasty though it was, was mainly of outsiders, especially noticeable ones - skin different, different clothes etcetera, and as with reactions to the Irish, it changes over time. Outside football grounds, to my notion, there is little real anti-West-Indian feeling now, and a lot of imitation, whereas the mugs deeply detest 'Pakis' because they don't all learn English, have a different religion and behave so differently. I must admit, violently anti-racist as I have always been, having had to fight my reactions when I saw a Pakistani man walking along the pavement with his wife behind him like a dog - my urge to kick the bugger's arse was almost overwhelming. I come from a culture, however, where crowds would come out and night and make wife-beaters ride the Ceffyl pren (wooden horse) while they jeered ands threw things. I think Meghan, apart from the odd, Irish spelling of her name, started off with great popular goodwill, but antagonised the journalists, as most decent people do. I don't think these people are any of my business, but if they want to be 'celebs' I suppose they ask for opinions!

There is a certain system in place that defines how writers should and shouldn’t write a book, which elements it should and shouldn’t include, and so forth. This can easily serve to suppress experimental works, especially works that do not conform to some of the usual conventions. Unfortunately, it would appear I don’t fit the mold expected of writers in our current world. I’m curious about the true limits of experimentation in philosophy, art, and literature. It seems there’s a vein of culture that abhors experimentation, and I’m interested to hear some of your thoughts as to the limits of experimentation in our world. — Randy333

It seems to me that the problem is that there is a vast majority of writing that is simply commercial, containing a certain amount of mild porn in a predictable 'romance' or whatever and minority taste for a 'fashionable' artiness than cuts out anything that doesn't fit the fashion. In these circumstances, I think, people who are serious lose interest in 'the public' and concentrate on self-expression, which is a pity. I've written one novel, which was complete crap, a few short stories, which are better, and a lot of poems. With poetry I like the concentration on marrying (I hope) radical content with pretty strict form, which is what kept the stuff memorable when the majority were illiterate. I've published a lot in magazines and published one not-so-much 'thin' as emaciated volume of sonnets, and never made a penny or got any serious recognition. Do we think it matters?

The "Resurrection" should be little more than an antecedent to following his philosophy. — Frank Apisa

What I mean is that lots of people think the ideas Jesus came up with were good stuff, but unachievable - very much the way people talk about socialism today. But imagine what it would have been like if the British Government, for reasons we'd have to make up, had executed Marx, and three days later he'd been addressing the Trades Union Conference or something. Whatever happened, it just removed the fear-factor from a lot of his followers and shook up violent opponents like Saul/Paul so that they survived and were recruited. I'm no supernaturalist, but in terms of its time, what Jesus was coming out with was remarkable, and required a vast deal of fixing from the powers-that-be before they could use it. To overcome such a deliberately degrading method of killing like crucifixion just made it more remarkable.

I'm an agnostic (sorta)...but the matters presently called "the teachings of Christ" are pretty advanced for that age. Hell...they are pretty advanced for the present day. (Wish today's Christians felt about the "teachings of Christ" the way Christ did.) — Frank Apisa

The execution was clearly important, but for all Christians, I think, it's the Resurrection that matters, as it did back then. The Occupation had done its worst, and he got up and walked! Something must have happened, and I'm at a loss to explain what, but it would give people incredible confidence in all the 'Oh, yes, that would be nice' stuff. Revolutionary is the word, and most current Christians are reactionary in the extreme!

The way I read it, he wasn’t making a joke but was genuinely trying to avoid the folly of choosing sides between the occupiers (Rome) and the priests’ set trap for him. — Noah Te Stroete

Couldn't it be both?

Jesus literally said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” He was talking about paying taxes. — Noah Te Stroete

With money with a graven image on it, occupation money the Pharisees shouldn't have been carrying. He's making a joke, I think. What did Jesus think didn't belong to God?

Reading the Sermon on the Mounts, Acts and so on, I tend to see Jesus and the early Church as early socialists, and this dreadful capitalist society as there simply to be overthrown. It doesn't seem a deeply hopeful cause just now, but better than sitting around being miserable, I think. La lutta continua!

Anecdote: my Father was a great believer in these 'after-death experience' stories with their shining tunnels and meeting people again. He 'died' for some time in an ambulance and they revived him in the hospital. He was glad to re-join us, but depressed by the experience. There was Nothing there. No sort of argument, but emotionally strong with me!

I suppose the American elections will dominate human history for a fair time. One-state world control is not inspiring, is it?

When it comes to Christians, it's because of the Bible. — ssu

It used to be. Nowadays it's because of 'Israel' and the various unpleasant Zionist activities and actions. The zionists desperately try to associate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, desperately assisted by the British tory press as part of its smear campaign against Mr Corbyn. Some mugs really fall for it, I suppose, though most are just pretending.

I think the nearest he'll get to a middle position (to judge by his comments on the murder of General Suleimani) as if he limits himself in public to kissing his Great Maters feet, at least in public! — iolo

'Master's', of course. I suppose he did have a Mother, despite my prejudices!

Well, regarding the honeymoon period, he has already been overtaken by events. I expect he will support Trump in secret while, while pretending to stand up to him in the British media. Facing both ways as before the election. I expect he will not appear on the media much, basically hiding from any kind of exposure or accountability. — Punshhh

I think the nearest he'll get to a middle position (to judge by his comments on the murder of General Suleimani) as if he limits himself in public to kissing his Great Maters feet, at least in public!

Reading a book about how to face death. In the world of Trump and Johnson it seems the only subject worth exploring.

If Climate Change Is A Lie, Is It Still Worth The Risk?

It's the same with Gravity. If it's a lie, is safe to flap our ears and take off?

True. Many years ago my Labour Party Branch was passing resolutions about setting up a free press if we ever want socialism here.

Capitalism is a system of pretend-competition, in which the rich and educated 'compete' with those who are neither. Until relatively lately a number of the mugs were kept in line by paying those with pinky-greyish skins more, which they could live with. The shift towards a notional equality between groups of mugs alarms them hugely, and they are only up to killing people. It's very much like the way Chinese peasants used once to overthrow dynasties without having a notion of changing the system, and it keeps us all hurtling happily along towards the world-burning! Happy days!

I agree that governance is going to be key, as things starts to get worse and government becomes less stable, many countries could fall into chaos as constitutions fail, resulting in no coordinated infrastructure change and civil unreast leading to mass starvation etc. — Punshhh

The difficulty seems to be that governments are dominated by capitalists, and capitalism demands short-term profits NOW, at what ever cost. Since the older generation has been taught very firmly that we won't be allowed to change capitalism, most people with experience don't give themselves the mental pain of looking it the implications of the truth.

I think the main problem, as so often, is the lack in the US of any sense that other countries contain people with their own opinion and their own heroes, not to speak of their own conflicts, which sensible American politicians would exploit. For a country to dominate the world with power and unutterable ignorance and insensitivity combined is not going to make for an easy road to Empire, I think.

A pretty high proportion of people are half-wits, let's face it.

I've been saying that. I was trying to see the sense of what some other write.

Who cares?

If prayer makes you feel better and it's rational to try to feel better is it rational not to pray? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Agreed - but if people suppose it means asking for goodies from a non-existent sky-daddy, goodies you won't get, I suppose it makes sense not to, since you'd end up feeling worse?

Using words outside the meaning of dictionaries is a dangerous precedent. What if I tell you, "The cable car is in good shape, it will never fall down" when you put your children in it, and if it does fall down, PROVIDED WE USE A CONVENTION OF BEING ABLE TO USE WORDS OUTSIDE THEIR DICTIONARY MEANING AND STILL CALL IT PROPER COMMUNICATION (which you, iolo, advocate here), then I can claim that I meant "the cable car is in bad shape, and it will fall down" and you have no discourse, since you entered into a convention that states that the language convention is invalidated. — god must be atheist

In my limited experience (I get bored easily) a great deal of 'philosophy' seems to be devoted to arguing about the meaning of words. I call these dictionary games.

Again: for a lecturer of English or in English this very sad. In my opinion a teacher should stand out by using words in their proper meaning. By being PROUD of using a word outside its meaning, is not really what a teacher I want my kids to learn from ought to do. Very sadly, more and more teachers are in the habit of doing precisely that -- teaching wrong things. — god must be atheist

I was using the word correctly.

What I see here is that you created in your mind an equivalence of communicating with god with the word "prayer". I put to you that "prayer" is a form of communication with god in which the praying person asks god some favour. Forms of communication with god that do not involve requests are not prayers, and I put to you that using that word thus wrongly bastardizes the word, meaning that the word used is used for a meaning it does not have. — god must be atheist

I just used 'prayer' in the way it is used by people who go in for the activity. I'd though you'd been quoting one of the sillier dictionaries.

Not in the tradition I was brought up in, not at all.

↪iolo The sense of the word “pray” meaning to ask or beg is older than the narrower religious sense. Why do you think it is that the religious activity came to be called that, if it weren’t usually a case of doing what the word ordinarily meant: begging? — Pfhorrest

I'm not into these dictionary games. Grown ups who go in for prayer don't mean begging but getting into some sort of communication with what they call 'God' and clarifying their relationship with whatever else they might suppose worth connecting with for these intermittent bits of consciousness we call us'. Letters to Father Christmas should properly go up the chimney1 :)

You seem to be desperately hung up on gods and dictionaries. I'm not. Very few of those who have gone in for prayer have been asking for anything for themselves, surely? Look in your dictionary for thee word 'may': we are all free to use it. — iolo
You assume too much, my friend. I did not consult a dictionary; I know the English language.

What you are saying is that you go away from the commonly accepted meaning of the words when you speak or write English. To you "pray" does not mean pray; it means something totally different.

How on Earth do you suppose to communicate with your own species if you decide to use the words outside their meaning?

You've boggled your mind. You think speaking in tongues is the proper way to address issues on a philosophy website. At least that's what you are advocating when you say you go away from the dictionary meanings of words when you use them. — god must be atheist

'Pray' means what religious people do. Usually they go in for thanks and perhaps the needs of others. You are trying to impose a meaning that belongs to nursery-school children, surely, listing demands like fat little capitalists? Philosophical discussion seems mainly to be an attempt to write dictionaries, and as an old 'English' lecturer I prefer to use language as it comes naturally out of instructed usage.

So just tell god simply that you love him, or something? If you don't ask for anything, it is not a prayer.
"to pray" is to beg, to ask for, to beseech. Examples: "I pray you lay down your weapons before I smite thee." "I pray for no rain today on my wedding day, the seventeenth in numerical sequence." — god must be atheist

You seem to be desperately hung up on gods and dictionaries. I'm not. Very few of those who have gone in for prayer have been asking for anything for themselves, surely? Look in your dictionary for thee word 'may': we are all free to use it.

It seems to me that prayer is habit you acquire far too early for it to have anything to do with rationality. I've known a number of semi-public figures (headmasters and such) who were extremely good at sort of 'to whom it may concern' prayers. (You know - 'We ask that....' using the vocative without attaching it too actively). I think there is much to be said for such an activity if you don't ask for anything.

We can't solve global warming because our masters are totally sold on the profit motive, surely?

388

↪iolo I don't get it. Why would robots make anything better? What happens to the humans? If life is not good for humans what is the point? — Athena

Robots might survive. Capitalism will burn all the humans. Why should there be a point?

453

↪iolo
I'm just saying, why do you automatically start talking about "species that work together"? That's the highest possible level of analysis even if it conveniently ignores the value of competition. Collaboration itself in real-world examples is mostly motivated by self-interest, it's only really in high-level philosophy where we pretend like we're all part of a big family. Your biggest enemies aren't other species, you know that.

Also, we aren't solving the world's problems here. If you are talking about how to do it, the question has to be asked about why? How can something totally lacking in pragmatism also be completely divorced from morality and image? — Judaka

That is not me, I'm afraid.