Who are YOU though? — intrapersona

A conscious being.

Do you also claim to have free will and have proof for it too? — intrapersona

I don't know what this has to do with anything, but no.

Do you not get scared if someone holds a gun to your head? Maybe your not afraid of the concept of the death. — intrapersona

No, I already told you. I do not fear death. Not fearing death does not mean I do not value my life.

Anyway please keep this on subject. — intrapersona

You're telling yourself this, right..?

I rationally concluded............ the the only rational conclusion is — intrapersona

Whelp, you've already failed at being rational, here. Whoops.

that all animals have an IRRATIONAL fear of death. — intrapersona

I don't fear death.

Haha, seriously? I would think you would know better than to try and argue something like that. Just bring a flame thrower to it's lips... are you now going to argue that it will come closer and try to kiss the flame? right, keep going heister... keep going... haha — intrapersona

Haha, yes, haha. I'm arguing that. Fear is a concept of and from the mind. Nothing more.

I didn't say it was rational — intrapersona

Yes you did - "It seems after some many years of analysis of this question that all I can rationally say is that I live only because I am afraid to die, like any other animal on earth." If it's irrational to be afraid of dying, then how do you find it possible to rationally think otherwise?

In fact that would be considered pre-rational and a matter of scientific fact. — intrapersona

How do you know that the chipmunk fears death if it is not a thinking, rational being?

That's what you don't think. What you do think is..."It seems after some many years of analysis of this question that all I can rationally say is that I live only because I am afraid to die, like any other animal on earth." More simply put, your claim amounts to, "I live because I'm afraid," which in your eyes is a rational claim. Why?

The only thing you say explicitly is that you live because you're afraid to die. Why is that? If you can't answer, then this excuse is as "irrational" as any other you machine gun mention.

Your OP says nothing about much of anything, >:O

"I'm afraid." Gee, that's great, man. Okay, what now? Who cares?

I live for love.

These refugees have chosen Israel for a reason, presumably, and it wasn't because they felt they would be living in worse conditions compared to where they came from. — Thorongil

This is true. Although I'd argue simple geography plays a big part as well. With respect to African migrants, African countries don't much want them - say the Somalians - nor does Egypt, as a more Middle-eastern country. This leaves Israel, who is thought to be a democratic state, and at the very least one that has a functioning government.

It's hard to have high standards, because it can be difficult to live up to them. However, it is better to live in a society in which the expectation is that they will be lived up to and where the failure to do so produces shame and political opposition than one in which such standards are rejected, as one sees in the neighboring countries these migrants didn't choose to come to.

Just because it's hard to have high standards doesn't excuse a government from actively embracing low standards when it works politically to the government's advantage. The fact remains that migrants pick Israel first, sure, but then leave as fast as they can, if they can, because it becomes immediately apparent how poor Israel will in fact treat them. South Africa is also a good example of this - being a supposedly stalwart and strong democratic institution that, nonetheless, has zero patience for both migrants and refugees, preferring to throw them into concentration camps, just as the Israeli government does.

It's not culturally homogeneous, though. The state has attempted to impose a certain culture onto its citizens by force, the result of which is not culture at all, but the obliteration of it, since culture is something that develops naturally and freely by the interaction of humans. — Thorongil

Does the Israeli government not impose certain cultural mores that all must obey, regardless of whether one is still Jewish?

Well, if it's a mistake, then you need to show why it's a mistake, instead of merely declaring it to be as you have done here. — Thorongil

I'm not convinced that the more alike a group of people is that divisiveness ceases to be particularly important. Unless you're looking at a monastery, I can't see your original point as being very conclusive or encompassing as a position.

was making a comparative claim. Point me to another multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multicultural society that is as populous, safe, prosperous, and free as the US. — Thorongil

China would be one, actually, although only comparably, not exactly. Australia is more in line, especially given the fact that cities dominate its population centers. That all the minorities get along fairly well is impressive. Perhaps Spain could be included, but I'm less inclined to use them as a direct example.

To build up a society, one must first be confident that the beneficiaries of said building will actually appreciate and reciprocate it. That cannot be said of Palestinians, whose airwaves and political factions are filled with ethnic hatreds, religious bigotry, and injunctions to violence. — Thorongil

Are Palestinians mad, to the extent that they are now, simply "because"? There are very clear reasons that will tell anyone why there are conflicts between Palestinians and Israelis in the current era. And to your first point, most migrants want to help benefit and build up Israeli society through working and stimulating the economy. It is not these peoples' agendas to throw down Jewish culture. Groups like Hamas do, which is why Israel bombs them. But Israel also bomb innocents and bystanders simply because they're not Israeli, which is not the right thing to do.

To put it more simply, if the typical migrant or refugee wants only to disparage and destroy, then why are they moving from countries like Libya or Somalia where nothing but destruction is occurring? Like with the Palestinians on the borders of Israel, most just want to stay in their homes, as their families have done so for centuries. I'm still not seeing how telling these people to fuck off and move because there is similar culture "over there" solves the fundamentally basic problem of another government forcibly uprooting people when they're doing little wrong. This problem reminds me of the US and its dealings with Native Americans. One excuse given, by both the populace at large and the government, for forcing Indians to move from their homes to someplace else, is because "there are Indians over here, too!" This failed, as it fails in Israel nowadays, to take into proper account the more intricate cultural differences people have, even if they're "Indian" or "Arab" or even "Jewish", for not even all Jews are in agreement on a great many issues. But do I really have to clarify that..?

How'd you like A Brave New World? :)

It seems Wisdom lives a rather ordinary life, ay? O:)

Then the man wasn't intelligent enough to understand that others wouldn't agree on what he said - that there would be arguments about his meaning. — Harry Hindu

So lacking in intelligence that he knew he'd die for being disagreed with. Interesting how you see him dumb and not wise, here.

Turning the other cheek isn't equivalent to unzipping your pants for the "rapist". Maybe if you stopped comparing apples to oranges we could actually get somewhere with this conversation. — Harry Hindu

I agree they're not synonymous, but you haven't shown me why they aren't.

f the person didn't say, "I'm sorry." or "Excuse me." then I would think they did it on purpose, and then I'd have a right to react, and I'm sure you'd feel the same. — Harry Hindu

If you have the time to wait for an apology, you have the time to not act impulsively and aggressively.

Bannon is a school yard bully compared to what damage Myron Ebell could do to our country, and our planet.

He didn't seem to realize the concept of consequences for your actions. He was a hypocrite as he said things like what you said but also said to kill unruly kids. — Harry Hindu

???

Adults are like children in that they need consequences to change their behavior. If there are no consequences, then they don't change. Doing nothing in response is the same as condoning that behavior. — Harry Hindu

If you think "turning the other cheek" is equivilent to unzipping your pants and bending over for the rapist, then I can't really say that you're on the right track with understanding Jesus' words. As with Benkei, there's honestly far too much literal interpretation in this thread of a man that almost exclusively spoke in parables and metaphor, :-}

Speaking from experience, when someone mistreats me, and I return the favor, they don't do it again. — Harry Hindu

Back to intentions, here. Say someone bumped into you on the street, is your immediate reaction going to be, "FUCK, I just got mistreated! *shove*"? If yes, then perhaps you should look at the consequences of doing that, as well, because I doubt they'll be very positive in your regard.

The "golden rule" doesn't mean more than don't retaliate if the paragraph it ends is taken as context. — Benkei

So, there's only one meaning to be gleamed from the monologue? Just one?

In the wider context of Luke 6 it might also mean do "good" to others even if they're being dicks. — Benkei

Isn't this another meaning, though? :’(

It has nothing to do with "compassionate intentions" and those aren't required to understand the rule...At most it can be said that being compassionate is the type of thing to do unto others. — Benkei

I would argue that compassion rests only in the heart that strives to do good as a means of achieving a greater moral end. This sentiment is what I find most in the New Testament, as Jesus very much emphasizes a change of heart, an angling more toward an inward moral responsibility. It wasn't enough to him that good came about from amoral, or indeed even immoral, intentions. This is why love is perhaps best defined as the concerted and intentional willing of the good of another, which is an act of pure compassion.

I might add that the Golden Rule is not an egotist position. There has to be a kind of agreement between two who are interacting with each other. I don't find the Rule to be some blind guessing game, akin to throwing darts against someone's feelings. And if you weren't or aren't aware, Jesus spends the vast majority of his time precisely answering the question of "how best might we treat each other?" He replies with honesty, compassion, "doing good", etc. etc. In other words, Jesus at the very least highlights the norms strangers should treat fellow strangers - that they should be respectful, helpful, and caring, for Jesus aptly realized that nobody disdains being cared for or respected on a fundamental level.

The fact remains, it seems to me, that you're wanting to take a more literal, less interpretive understanding of Jesus's Golden Rule (which is fine, I don't necessarilly disagree with you), while I'm trying to focus more on why Jesus would think in such a way and how it functions in his philosophy.

Also, thanks for not being so hot under the collar today. As I just reflected on above, I myself strive to be respectful and patient with others who I know little of, which I think I've shown myself to have done here. It is of some irony that you were disgruntled from the onset, for if I treated you in such a way out of nowhere, I doubt you'd think nothing of it. Or do you usually begin conversations with your ass talking to others' faces? :P

What human rights abuses? — Thorongil

Take a gander at how Israel treats refugees and migrants, especially from African countries. It's a complete breakdown of Israel's supposedly "democratic" justice system.

It's the only safe, prosperous, democratic polity with an educated, scientifically literate citizenry in the entire Middle East. — Thorongil

Israel is the only one? Hit up google maps, perhaps a country or three will remind you how silly your claim reads.

Its military is a necessary bulwark against rogue states like Iran — Thorongil

Rogue states like Iran? What does that even mean? The only part of the Israeli military that concerns itself with Iran directly is information and investigation. If by Israel's "military bulwark" you mean "we have nukes, sit down" then sure, I guess. You must, of course, admit this intimidation is one reason why Iran has become so worrisome for those in the West (who have nuclear weapons), because Iran wants them too.

I could not disagree more and in fact find this view to be quite dangerous. — Thorongil

Oh noes! :o

The more ethnically, religiously, and culturally homogeneous a nation state is, the less crime, violence, etc there is in it. — Thorongil

One could argue an outlier like North Korea embodies a purely homogeneous ethnic, (non)religious, and cultural nation state, yet I wouldn't see very many people say that NK is working as intended.

Simply put, you cannot expect people from different ethnic and opposing religious and cultural backgrounds to get along, which is to recognize that human beings are flawed creatures predisposed to tribalism. — Thorongil

I think you make the mistake of thinking that the more homogeneous a community is, there lessens then the possibility for division within said community. I don't think that follows very well.

It can be overcome, yes, and I would count the US as possibly the only exception in this regard, but the US overcame it to the extent that it has through economic growth and a strong belief in its founding documents, which not all nations can boast of. — Thorongil

This seems a tad vague. I wouldn't see the US as overcoming its divisions particularly well, now or in the past. The country's predominately white European Christian heritage with a respect for traditional American colonial values didn't matter all that much in 1861. One could even stretch my point back to the American War for Independence, although I only just thought of this, so I won't venture any further.

Secondly, Western culture is superior to many other cultures, so if fewer nations adopt Western values, or the West itself decides to reject them, as is increasingly the case, then civilization, prosperity, the rule of law, and human rights will have taken significant blows. — Thorongil

If it's a Western value to tear down instead of build up, then perhaps this is why the West is so in love with Israel.

If that's what you think it's doing, then I submit that this is a good thing. Israeli culture is superior to Palestinian culture. Notice that this does not mean Israelis are superior to Palestinians.

As I perhaps too thinly alluded to just above, your comment here strikes me as being a bit obtuse. Even if I agreed with you that Palestinian culture is indeed inferior to Israeli culture ( I do), what then should the world's intentions be with regard to helping mature the deficiencies in Palestinian culture? Slowly shove them deeper into the desert, thus making them even madder, just as Israel is doing right now? Say such things as you just did in boastful demeanor to the faces of common Palestinians, or any Arab in general? I just don't see this sort of rhetoric as being particularly helpful or productive in bringing about "civilization, prosperity, the rule of law, and human rights" when both tone and the reality of current politics is one of snubbed noses and pointed guns.

I suppose to clarify my first assertion here in this thread - I'm as anti-Israel as I am anti-Palestine. In the Middle-east, I think it's in the US's best interests to be more neutral. This isn't to say less active, but that our dealings with countries in the Levant shouldn't be so cookie cutter, because at present, our approach is often inconsistent and hypocritical, thus failing the values we like to think we espouse.

Alright, you next! :)

Is it not the case that Israel has has been existentially opposed by several Arab/Islamic states since its founding? Of course they are defensive. — Bitter Crank

Well, with regard to Palestine, when the West made Israel a fully sovereign state, and not Palestine, can you be at all surprised when "Arabs" are even more distraught by this blatant unfairness? I mean, Israel has a figurative dick in its geography that's been slowing ramming itself into previously and currently inhabited Palestinian communities, so I'm at a loss why anyone would indeed be shocked that, on a practical level, people are taking offense to Israel's aggressiveness.

If there are human rights abuses in Israel, they certainly didn't just begin recently. The creation of Israel no doubt seemed like one big civil rights abuse by the resident Palestinians. — Bitter Crank

If? >:O

Good fences make for fewer terrorist attacks within Israel. — Bitter Crank

This must be Trump's logic.

Oh come now, most people are proud of their country. Israel won it's existence, — Bitter Crank

Israel won its existence? Dubious framing of terms right there.

it is militarily strong, it has a lively cultural and economic life, and so on. What's not to be proud of if one is an Israeli?

Other countries in the region can say the same, yet somehow Israel is held to be vastly different.

Israel isn't going to go away. The Palestinians are going to go away. — Bitter Crank

Neither should necessarily go away. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll just sit here and wait on Iraq's development. I want to see how a country like Iraq can cope with so many ethnic cultural minorities now that it has a burgeoning democratic government and a military that's logistically coherent and tactically smart. I have a feeling it will end poorly, but who knows. If the goal is to get a United States' like division and strife, then it's better that we support Palestine and Israel so that both can work together.

Their displacement isn't the same as, say, the displacement of the Kurds from their ethnic homelands. There are plenty of Arab states all around Israel for them to go to — Thorongil

You have to think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a more practical, day-to-day way sometimes. Quite basically, Israel's introduction into the region, then and now, has fragmented communities that were already there to begin with, simply because they're "Arab." And I don't think it's very prudent or compassionate to expect people to pack up and move simply because there are some Arabs "over there." Yet again, there's this talk of Western values and the protection of rights, but fuck you if you get in the West's way - that's when your rights can go stick themselves head first in the sand. You will move, because Israel is here to stay, I guess, and because Israel's culture is superior, therefore it can dictate people's lives - where they live and how they live. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be partial to this sentiment, because it's hypocritical and divisive, and doesn't, in my eyes, serve the West's intentions best. If "we" can't serve as an example of our own values, then we dun fucked up from the get-go. And although we're not severely fucking up, we're still failing on a great many things, such things I find us to be coy over and unwilling to call bullshit on, to reference Benkei from another thread. This frankness extends to Palestine and anyone else's actions, or lack thereof, as well. Nobody gets a free pass for being unwilling to move forward.



Yep. I don't suck Israel's cock, so this must mean I'm a brain washed PC nutjob.

It really is shocking how many people, no matter who they are, embrace the compartmentalized way of understanding people and their ideas. "Oop, this person says this one thing which these fuckheads over here also seem to say - ha, this means he's a fuckhead, too!" To quote Mongrel...how boring.

Anyhoo, there goes my evening free time spent :-d

Well, I'm not. So I guess we both can see what Thorongil Lute Lover has to say here, X-)

Awh, can I introduce myself too? O:)

Israel has always adopted an aggressive self-defense identity which, considering their place in the region, makes perfect sense. Yet at the same time, "self-defense" has become the catch-all appeal Israel now employs in order to justify human rights abuses and their undeniably belligerent border policing. There's really nothing to be particularly proud of in Israel besides its physical history and a portion of its population who, like me, find Israeli government policy to be largely imperialistic, regardless of to what degree it in practice asserts itself.

And for whatever reason, most of the world finds it prudent that Israel be a sovereign state based almost solely upon its ethnic cultural identity. However, nobody gives two cents toward the Kurds, Abkhazians, or lest we forget, the Romani who were unfortunate enough not to get a nice little country within a country, as Israel did. Truly, Israel only serves to highlight the fact that nation states should not be ethnic or culturally based, else the world community has no legs to stand on if they want to keep particular ethnic cultures from becoming sovereign states themselves.

Perhaps if Israel keeps up its slow cultural genocide of Palestinians that the world community will then respond like it did 70 years ago when Jews and Armenians were en masse murdered and thusly rewarded two different nation states out of nothing - that the world community will award Palestine with a fully autonomous sovereign state. Either that, or we stick with the model most seem to prefer where we cherry pick, liking small republics semi-autonomously cooperating underneath a more culturally diverse nation, like we see in Iraq, Georgia, Turkey, etc.

My point was you were talking bullshit — Benkei

That's all? Hmm.

but I'm sure you are aware of that and are just being facetious. — Benkei

No, sorry.

Since this is the second thread in a month where people are just vomiting their opinions on this particular sentence — Benkei

And what is it that you are doing here? I'll remind you that you are the beer drinker, so methinks it more likely that you're in fact the vomiting fellow in the room ;)

I suggested, in the first post of this thread, that people look at it in context. Which you subsequently ignored — Benkei

Context as in the Bible's context? Which I also used? :-|

and therefore your bullshit was called. — Benkei

Is calling "bullshit" really as easy as, "I call your bullshit"? Fine, I call your bullshit, Benkei, hahaha! I win. You lose.

....am I doing this right..?

Apparently that hurt your delicate sensibilities to qualify that as rage — Benkei

Nah, you're just a salty cunt. And I'm not sure why for.

you'd do well to just read the passage — Benkei

Thanks, man. I have and still do. The New Testament is often a very insightful bit of literature, I must admit O:)

and learn something (to the extent there's anything worthwhile to learn from religious texts, but different discussion). — Benkei

Oh, I see. So you're telling me that I need to learn from something that you can't learn from. Gee, this really makes a lot of sense. I thank you again, friend. I enjoy a good laugh in the late afternoon. Cheers.

Israel's domestic and foreign policies are absurd. And I'm opposed to Israel's attitude just as much as I am with the US, Russia, Germany, etc. I also tire of Israel getting special treatment in America, simply because it's a Jewish state and supposedly represents itself as some Democratic stalwart in the region - which they are not.

Ho there, why the beer rage, friend? Sit your tits down and chill out.

Jesus mentions the "golden rule" ending his point that we shouldn't retaliate against others. — Benkei

Mhmm.

If someone steals, don't steal back.

Yep.

If someone hits you turn the other cheek.

He said this, you're correct!

Then he goes on, after the golden rule, how we should do good and that a person who does good only to those who do good to him are less praiseworthy than those that do good because it's the right thing to do

Indeed, perhaps the most powerful sentiment Jesus ever spoke, similar to what he said a few chapters before, "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?"

So, uh...what's your point again?

Compassionate intentions undergird Jesus's Golden Rule, so if one doesn't acknowledge such a fact, then the Rule becomes a bit flimsy. With it, I can't see how anyone could disagree.

If he's anti-Israel, I'm all for him. But if he's anti-semitic in the conspiracy theory sort of way, then no.

Although I only skimmed that article linked by Baden, I can't say I see too much wrong with his sentiment of some women on the left.

:-*

Humeans — Marchesk

>:O

And most scientists disbelieve in human's aiding of climate change.

Am I doing this right..?

Yes, yes, my mistake. The Chinese simply came with their silk, gave it all away, then left again. (Y)

By virtue of those routes Chinese silk was in Egypt around 1000 BC. I guess you could call that global trade. — Mongrel

It's more than a guess, it's fact, :D

Leonardo DiCaprio likes this discussion.

Well, I laugh because yes, water will boil if you increase the temperature of the water. Water doesn't just stop boiling if you go from 100 to 101.

And so far as I can remember, whether water can boil depends solely on temperature. If you want water to boil, you have to reach the boiling point. You can, of course, "boil" water without affecting temperature, but that's not under normal conditions.

You mean can it boil at temperatures higher than 100? >:O

Guys, what're you even debating about now?

Globalization is here to stay. Lessening it won't get rid of it.

I'm not interested in debating — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O >:O >:O

I don't feel particularly oppressed — Marchesk

Hummmmmmmmm.

I can go wherever I want (money permitting) — Marchesk

Which means you can't go wherever you want...

buy whatever I want, — Marchesk

Money permitting...

say what I want — Marchesk

Holler 'fire!' in a crowded space and see then if you can indeed say whatever you please.

organize protests, — Marchesk

If they're peaceful.

start a business — Marchesk

I do love me some lemonade.

associate with whom I want — Marchesk

Terrorists wouldn't like you very much.

report my own news — Marchesk

Unless you slander.

run for office — Marchesk

But win? Hmm.

move where I want — Marchesk

A big fat nope to bodily movement. If I tried to "freely move" across some farmer's land around here I'd be shot, tits up dead.

Keep in mind that this is a rough draft. It's the first time I've written down my philosophical thoughts and it all just came about in a burst of inspiration. — Miguel

Mmm, sounds so orgasmic, bruh O:)

(Beware that this is not a theology but a philosophy. I use God for lack of a better word. Spinoza uses the word God as well as (maybe more fitting?) Nature, Shankara uses Brahman/Atman, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche use Will. I use the word God simply as a word for something that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. — Miguel

I wouldn't say that Shankara or Schopenhauer are but describing God with other words like Atman or Will. There is a reason why they use the words they do, and not God (especially for Schopenhauer who would have read English.) Similarity does not infer two or more things to be the same.

I think the world—the geological and the biological, the mountains, trees, animals (including humans), bacteria, oceans, volcanoes, even laws like the law of gravity, and molecules, atoms, protons and neutrons and electrons—they are all GOD. — Miguel

everyone and everything IS God. — Miguel

So, trees, volcanoes, and the tiny dirt particles under my fingernails are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? If all things are God, rather than being of or from God, then where lies one's ability to parse an object or idea's qualities? Were I to stretch your logic to its limits, then you must admit that you yourself are God (all knowing, all powerful, and all present), just as I am, or as Pepe the Frog is. And if you didn't already know, you are NOT all knowing and all powerful, sweetie!

My mom used to think God was INSIDE everything and everyone, but I take it a step further — Miguel

God, remove your penis, please!

I dare say your mother's panentheism makes more sense than your pantheism...

And in fact, can the universe not be seen as an organism, growing and developing until it’s grown old, then shrinking again and ‘dying’? — Miguel

Very much indeed!

and there may be an even larger system that we do not know of. Also that is God. All is God. All is one.

What could be thought of as being more than omnipotent, omniscient, etc.? Perhaps being itself? Hummmm...

Science can be incorporated easily, for science is God. Example: the theory of evolution is God, for evolution is one of God’s many ways to grow and expand and develop itself. — Miguel

Well, I suppose so...

Now that we have established all this; — Miguel

Wait, we? I seem to have fallen off somewhere and can't get back up, halp! :’(

We ARE everything around us and everything around us is us! — Miguel

And here I thought only strange SJW people could identify as attack helicopters, silly me.

because they are just as much a part of God

You said it! Being of God is distinctly different from being God!

The world bends to our deepest wants. — Miguel

I'd argue instead that we bend to the world's wants...such as the world wanting us to want, :o

Of course, that said, God has free will — Miguel

Really, of course? Why do you say this?

we have free will

Did you freely will your being born?

There's gotta be an existential comic that describes the angst in this thread, I know there is!

Right. If a red and blue-blooded Harvard man can't tell the difference between an '8' and a '6' on the female fuckability scale, then something is obviously wrong with him. Probably doesn't like women to start with. Fag alert. — Bitter Crank

The point is that rating someone on a fuckability scale is demeaning and only serves to further the sexualized states of mind many moderns have, which is detrimental to a more moral society. I'd like not to be judged by my looks, but by my character. I don't need to be a woman to think in such a way, either.

The 1's did this! >:o