This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Oscar_Kipling
1
« on: March 13, 2025, 07:39:34 PM »
Maybe he and Oscar and Siamese twins from different mothers..
ha...that isn't an entirely unfair jape.
2
« on: March 12, 2025, 05:08:19 PM »
Socially speaking, how do you know the other guy’s a reliable witness? This is an abstract rather than an immediate question. Anyone can order an FBI background check online, so “socially”, as a casual use of a word, you can always find out if the other person is good to testify. Social also means something else in Greek, but you already speak all the Greek, and my keyboard is in English anyway. Social is a word that has more nuances than people think it sounds like these years, it’s been over used by the extreme left.
Saying that something is social, strictly speaking, is stating that it pertains to Socrates, which in the casual non Greek speaking world or outside of the bar association means that it’s got something to do with the king of Greece. The “King of Greece” is termed “Zeus” in the Peloponnese.
If you’re interested in what this has to do with you, Plato, Zeus’ Prime Minister, wrote a book called “The Republic”, which has been translated into English for a long time. I always have to point this out, since San Diego is in the Republic of California. That’s probably just me being sensitive, since I live next to the Mexican border without being overtly Savoyard.
oh, alright, that cleared it up. thank you.
3
« on: March 12, 2025, 02:44:10 PM »
I did spot the computerized note that this was an old post, but since it’s here, I still want to join in. So you cite people you know as evidence of God? I remember when I was a kid in about seventh grade, people started growing up to clever level and asking deep questions, to which the sabbath school teacher always answered, wait until you are mature and have life experience! It always interests me to compare believer’s arguments for and atheists arguments against the existence of God. Believers often cite salvation experiences from their real world lives, and sometimes second chances granted by others, church bodies, or even the state in business, love, and the law. Having gone through hell and come out of it like the footprints poem is a normal belief answer. Atheists by contrast seem to have stayed in seventh grade, and always post clever Trevor questions about how Cain found a wife, or who married who after the flood to repopulate the earth. Not many people cite inspiration as a reason for belief, if you say “I read the Bible as literature and it exhibits grammatical soundness in conjunction with rhetorical validity.” People cut you off as an isolationist and an ivory tower intellectual. If you say you believe because of direct divine inspiration, your a hopey dreamy Obama voter, and you wet your bed. It used to be that people graduated from “my parents said it was true” to “the book makes enough sense” to “I finished college and I can do all the two column proofs in ethical logic as well as formulate the astronomical timeline from the written records”. But belief on the testimony of reliable citizen testimony sounds socially aware too.
What do you mean by 'socially aware' , I thought that I was following you up to that point. Would you mind explaining it to me in a different way?
4
« on: November 19, 2024, 09:03:02 AM »
I mean, why even consider such an obnoxious, morally and ethically-challenged loose cannon
lol
5
« on: November 13, 2024, 02:37:11 PM »
When was the last time you learned something that surprised you?
Might sound trivial, but I just learned that those two distinctive bulges on the sides of a viper's head are mostly venom glands and if you remove them they can grow back. I always assumed that was jaw muscle stuff.
6
« on: October 09, 2024, 04:51:03 PM »
Again with this telling the victims of genocide what to do and how to behave. There's an old saying, when you're in a hole, stop digging. It's not your place to say. It's not my place to say.
Actually you're the one who introduced the idea that passive resistance against the Nazis is a waste of time. I'm just trying to clarify that we both agree that Jews who passively resisted the Nazis during world war 2 wasted their time, just like you said. When I say it is it somehow different than when you say it? Or are we both telling those dead Jewish people that the choices they made were just a waste of time?
7
« on: October 07, 2024, 03:06:05 PM »
So either you're lying or you have multiple personalities. Which personality am I talking to now? The one that thinks resistance is a waste of time? Or the one that thinks there is value it "petite rebellions"? And why does that personality think it's ok to lecture victims of murder and genocide on what they should or shouldn't be doing?
Multiple personality disorder? I didn't know you were a psychiatrist from 1973 Fenris, lol. Anyway I commend your very lateral thinking, but the answer is much simpler and much more common: Yes, I did initially say that , but you convinced me that nonviolent resistance is a waste of time. I'd also like to point out that I didn't just promote nonviolent resistance because my very next sentence read "...and if you have the opportunity to build a first of its kind bomb, do that too, or join a military, or intelligence organization or help find homes for displaced Jews. Plenty of Jews did those things and more during WW2.". However, it turns out that not only did the nonviolent Jewish resistances 'fail', but the violent/armed ones failed as well, and so were likewise also a waste of time. So, no, I don't have multiple personalities, I just see now that instead of admiring WW2 Jews for subtly sabotaging German operations through small acts of nonviolent rebellion (like the V2 rocket production) and suggesting that I promote such acts, I should have rightfully viewed not only those nonviolent acts as a waste of time, but I should have also viewed the failed armed rebellions as a waste of time. Any form of rebellion that does not directly result in liberation or fails to defeat/destroy the enemy is a waste of time. Do you see any flaws in this line of reasoning or are we in complete agreement now?
8
« on: October 07, 2024, 01:10:32 AM »
And yet again, you're judging the victims of the Nazis and telling us what they should or shouldn't have done, or what their motives should or shouldn't be.
I really wish this forum had a "block" feature.
I said they wasted their time and so did you. Is there another way to view these failed instances of Jewish resistance as anything other than a waste of time? Are you capable of articulating why they were not a waste of time, or will you use your indignation and outrage as an excuse to cast aspersions at me without ever actually addressing the point?
9
« on: October 02, 2024, 03:45:12 PM »
If they had it in them to do it, then yeah. Yes, harry the Nazis at every turn and in every way---put too much sugar in their coffee, clog the toilets, drop tools, spill stuff, give them the wrong names, write the wrong numbers on paperwork, act like you didn't understand their instructions the first time, and yes even slow walk your way to the gas chambers, fall a few times if you can. There is value in petite rebellions, especially if that is all you have the opportunity to do...
This reminds me of an alternate history story I read once. The author might have been Harry Turtledove, I don't remember. In this alternate history, the Nazis defeated the allies and invaded India. Naturally they come in contact with Ghandi, who attempts passive resistance against them. Of course it fails spectacularly when the Nazis gun down the protestors and Ghandi ends up running for his life.
Passive resistance might work against an opponent with morals. It's a waste of time against mass murderers, and I think you have a lot of nerve to suggest that people who died by the millions in the gas chambers didn't "do enough" to satisfy your requirements on how victims should behave.
Again, I can't understand if you're trying to be offensive or just so clueless that you don't understand how what you're saying is offensive.
edit to add: On this day in 1941, 33,771 Jews were brutally murdered by the Nazis at Babi Yar, a ravine in Kyiv.
I see you've decided to ignore most of what i've said in order to talk about that time you read a short story...Well that and accuse me of saying "that people who died by the millions in the gas chambers didn't "do enough" to satisfy [my] requirements on how victims should behave." Which I obviously didn't, but I don't like my chances of getting you to admit that. Still your hijinks are engaging in their own way. Fascinating, like trying to figure out how many Lilly pads there are in a pond by throwing pebbles in and watching the behavior of the ripples. Besides, I love tangents, so leaning into this will be pretty natural for me. So, I just finished reading Harry Turtledove's "The Last Article", which appears to be the story you were referring to. Being who I am, obviously I have thoughts, but since I do not suspect they will mean much to you I'll try not to talk too much about the story. The fictionalized Ghandi does seem to make a fatal mistake by not taking into account who the Nazis were and attempted to employ the same wholly unmodified strategy on the Nazis that he did with the English. Amusingly the ending of the story reveals that he absolutely knew who the Nazi's were, he knew why his strategy was doomed to fail, because it had failed previously, and he had already recognized that deploying the same strategy he had for the entire story could not work, but did it anyway, yet he is broken by this revelation of things that he already knew and believed, presumably because Turtledove wanted him to. Then at some point you read that story and thought "Say, that makes a lot of sense!"...I assure you, it doesn't. Anyway. According to Wikipedia, pretty much every violent slave revolt in history ended in failure. Of course as Winston Churchill said when asked about the accuracy of Wikipedia "Wiki's aren't complete or objective, but tend to privilege the version of events of those who edit the articles.", truly a man ahead of his time. If we ignore Churchill and take it for granted that wikipedia is correct and accurate on this point, then we can conclude that if you are enslaved you're probably going to stay that way whether your résistance is violent or not. In the case of India, the independence movement that finally 'worked', the one marked by nonviolent resistance, took pretty much the entire first half of the 20th century to 'work'. I don't think it is a particularly hot take to say that it had at least as much to do with the waning power of the British empire that was greatly damaged and diminished by the fight with the Nazis as it did with the British looking inside themselves and finally realizing that they were actually moral blokes after all. And that itself was really just a tiny fraction of the several hundred year history of the Indian people trying (often violently trying) and failing to extract themselves from European subjugation. If one were to sample random instances of resistance over those centuries, they would most likely find failures, that is to say those instances did not conclude with the Europeans tucking tail and heading back home into the loving arms of their gross savory puddings. The implication being that if you didn't win, then your resistance was a waste of time, no matter what form it took. Or to put it in other words that you may actually understand, If a mass murderer is determined enough and competent enough at mass murdering then whatever action or inaction you employ in opposition will likely lead to you being murdered. So if we set aside any sniggles about employing the appropriate resistance strategy and tactics to the appropriate oppression scenarios, then what we are really talking about isn't whether the resistance was violent or nonviolent or whether the oppressors were moral or not, we are talking about outcomes, right? An impervious chain of reasoning, We can safely conclude that if resistance does not end with toppling the oppressor then it is worth nothing to anyone. Every armed Jewish resistance in the ghettoes and extermination camps were suppressed and the Jewish resistors and often unrelated Jews were killed. Additionally many Jews that non-violently resisted the Nazis were killed just like the ones who didn't. They lost, they died, therefore their resistance was a waste of time. They may as well have just mindlessly sucked on a tailpipe themselves for all their effort was worth. Unless of course there are some alternative purposes for instances of resistance (both violent and nonviolent) whereby their success is measured in something outside of absolute annihilation of their foes. I can't seem to think of any, can you?
10
« on: September 20, 2024, 03:29:45 PM »
So you think we should separate the consequences of the Hamas attack from the consequences of the Israeli response to the Hamas attack.
No. I am not going to do that. I'm so very tired of the world at large ignoring what the terrorists do and just want to talk about the Israeli response.
That is neither what I said nor what I meant. I don't know why you insisted that we were having a discussion, we clearly aren't. You don't want to talk about the topic, you want to complain about the fact that I want to talk about it or that I'm not talking about it like you think I should. Because you and you alone get to decide what words mean.
Well, either what you mean is different from the things you stated, or you are demonstrably wrong because you do not understand what the words 'nobody' and 'no one' mean. Since you seem to have a grasp of the English language, I chose the former...perhaps I was too generous in that, but I doubt it. Hamas has to be destroyed first. That's step one.
Okay, I don't think we disagree here, per se. I believe that it matters how the destruction of Hamas is approached, and I think it matters what that 'destruction' entails- IOW I think there is stuff to think about and talk about. I think we discussed earlier, my assertion that killing every member of Hamas in Israel likely will not eliminate the organization itself, it will not eliminate the ideology and depending on how it is done it could plant the seeds for their resurgence. You seem to believe that it is wrong to consider what we want post-war to look like, much less make current decisions with that in mind. I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge that nothing "afterwards" could happen with Hamas still in power. I have always acknowledged that Hamas needs to be removed from power and their ideology needs to be eradicated and the conditions that made that ideology attractive in the first place needs to be changed in order for there to be lasting peace. You seem to want me to say that the process must be stepwise in the sense that there should be no considerations about what we want to happen next when choosing how we enact the preceding step. I'm not going to do that because I don't believe that, I believe your sense of how discrete and isolated these 'steps' must be is overly simplistic. Because words, they mean things. In that case, Perhaps you can help me with a definition because it turns out that I don't know what the term 'universal generalization' means. Yes. After, you know, Hamas is destroyed in Gaza. Okay, we agree that that is what you've been saying. Those "higher expectations" always seem to come at the price of being able to wage war effectively. You ever consider that you might think that this is what I'm 'always' saying because anything that isn't just parroting your own opinions back at you leads to the same set of conclusions? Anyway, yes, sometimes that is the price. Israel is currently making decisions that do not directly maximize killing every Hamas possible because as you pointed out they are being very moral. While it is safe to accuse me of wanting to do even more things that could lower that ceiling, I think that feeding back considerations of what comes after the war into decisions during the war can be an effective way of avoiding future wars...which IMO is way better than doing those future wars effectively and can be more useful in the long term even when it is less than ideal in the short term. In what way is Hamas not an actual government? Please do tell. Yeah, this is a case of me not saying what I meant. I actually meant that they are technically a government, but I think of them as more of a terrorist organization even though those things are not mutually exclusive. The 10/7 attacks displayed a willingness to engage in abject terrorism despite the predictable repercussions it would have on the people they were ostensibly supposed to represent and defend. I think they are better terrorists' than governors. No, you clearly don't. Because you have not expressed a single responsibility for the Palestinian people. So you have, actually, zero expectations of the Palestinian people. So what? I don't have to mention something that I wasn't talking about lest the topic that I was talking about be invalidated. I don't have talk about Palestinian responsibilities in order to talk about Israeli responsibilities any more than I have to bring up my nieces chores in order to talk to about my nephews chores. You don't like that I'm not having the discussion that you would prefer to be having, so you accuse me of not talking about the thing that I wasn't talking about. If what you care about is being right on this point then congrats, you've successfully pointed out that I'm not talking about a thing I wasn't talking about. More generally, it appears you're upset because the world isn't talking about the things that you want to talk about as frequently and in the manner that you want them to, and even when they do they are not drawing the conclusions that you think they should. I know this feeling, I have this feeling every day pretty much. I'm not critical of you for having it, but you are letting it guide this conversation. That is your prerogative, but its not very conducive to actually talking about anything but your grievances. I'm not here to feed your own takes back to you, there are plenty of other people here that can do that for you. You expect Israel to turn the other cheek, and not take actions against people who are trying to murder them.
quote me where I said that and I won't call you a liar. When was the last time the Palestinians behaved like they were willing to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors?
I see we've found another thing that you don't actually want to discuss. I'm saying that Israel is already fighting a moral war with moral methods. But that's not enough for most countries, including the US, who would rather Israel not defend themselves at all.
So if Israel is already doing what it wants to do and making the choices that it wants to make then what is the problem? When you said they were being held back from 'having at it', did you mean that criticizing their choices and actions constitutes holding them back? I have news that really shouldn't be news to you, when you follow your own ambitions, and make your own choices, other folks will criticize you for it...that is how freedom works. You do not get to march to the beat of your own drum and also expect that everyone else will feel as you do about it. Its sort of like how I'm not cowed by how apoplectic you get about the fact that I think my own thoughts about this war instead of the ones you approve of. Almost all Jews were slated for extinction. What should they have done, walk slower into the gas chambers? If they had it in them to do it, then yeah. Yes, harry the Nazis at every turn and in every way---put too much sugar in their coffee, clog the toilets, drop tools, spill stuff, give them the wrong names, write the wrong numbers on paperwork, act like you didn't understand their instructions the first time, and yes even slow walk your way to the gas chambers, fall a few times if you can. There is value in petite rebellions, especially if that is all you have the opportunity to do...and if you have the opportunity to build a first of its kind bomb, do that too, or join a military, or intelligence organization or help find homes for displaced Jews. Plenty of Jews did those things and more during WW2. Unfortunately nobody is trying to affect regime change in Iran. And the whole project should not fall on Israel's shoulders.
You are the only person that is acting like I ever said that it should.
11
« on: September 18, 2024, 06:09:13 PM »
We're discussing it. I'm talking about how Jews are defending themselves from a genocidal enemy, and you want to talk about the consequences of Jews defending themselves from a genocidal enemy.
You want to talk about the consequences of Israel's actions.
Why doesn't anyone ever want to talk about the consequences for attacking Israel? As if Israel is just supposed to suck it up and tolerate the murder of her citizens because it would make people like you happy? How about no?
Yes, I want to talk about consequences, at least that is a significant part of what I want to talk about. We are in fact not discussing the topic. You have repeatedly demonstrated that instead of discussing the topic, you prefer to instead point out that we should be discussing a different much better topic. My assertion is that one fights a war to win. What happens after will happen after. Nobody said "let's not bomb Tokyo or Berlin because of what will happen after the war". They bombed enemy capitals knowing full well that civilians would die, because the enemy state had to be smashed. But somehow Israel alone, of every state ever in the history of the world, is supposed to worry more about the enemy than itself. How about no?
Well okay first off my assertion was: "Of course people worried about German and Japanese civilians and made at least some decisions based on post war civilian considerations." Which was in response to your assertion: "Nobody was worried about German or Japanese civilians during the second world war, because there was a war to be won" and is fundamentally different than: "let's not bomb Tokyo or Berlin because of what will happen after the war" But as I said, I accept that we are doing completely different things here. I do not believe that the literal meaning of your words directly map onto the point you are trying to get across. I could talk about how many things 'win' can mean in this context, but I also believe that the particulars of how a 'win' is defined is not going to matter to you because you are not interested in discussing your ideas in detail or how those details can be construed. That's true, and Gaza has to be deradicalized in the same way that Germany post 1945 was deradicalized. That means occupation and a revamped education system and a forced acceptance of at least some western values.
This is actually the sort of thing I wanted to discuss, thanks for actually stating that something outside of simply 'wiping out Hamas in Gaza needs to happen'. I appreciate that you even put a little detail into what exactly that 'something' is. I wish our conversations went more like this. I would say that you care more the Palestinians than the Israelis. Which is sick, but you're entitled to your opinions.
Yes, I know you would say that, you have said that, like a bunch.. They react to it the way any other country reacts to the murder of it's citizens by an enemy state. You seem to want to impress upon me that historical practice affirms the virtuousness of this reaction, okay. The reaction that you had appeared to adamantly assert as the only one that matters is 'Hamas is destroyed in Gaza'. I've been saying that I think there are some additional considerations that are worth discussing. Why do you think a different set of rules should apply to the Jewish state than anyone else?
There's a name for that, you know.
At some point, I did say that I have higher expectations of Israel than I do of Hamas, and I stand by that. Hamas is a terrorist organization pantomiming as a government, Israel is an actual government. However, I have the same expectations of the Palestinian people as I do of the Israeli people. What is that called? You seem to think that Jews should be more Christian than Christians. No I don't. Do you have me confused with someone else? I don't think Christianity should be the basis for any government policy, much less Israeli policy. Were Palestinians ready for a state on 10/6, mere hours before they carried out the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust? Okay, so did he support it in September? if not, when was the last time that he did, and what happened? What's interesting is that you place all the responsibility for improving the situation on Israel. Not Hamas, or the Arabs generally, or the Iranians. Just Israel. Why?
Yeah, I didn't say that, moreover this is a classic example declining to discuss the topic in order to point out that the topic of discussion is wrong and should in fact be a different better topic. Or maybe, just maybe, Israel is trying to fight a moral war with moral means. Or is that too far fetched? Are you saying that it would be immoral for Israel to go against the US' desires and 'have at it'? If so why? if not then I do not understand your point and I ask that you phrase it differently because your post is unclear to me. So the untrained and unarmed Jews, including women, children, and the elderly, being transported by a vast industrial machine to their own demise, should have removed Hitler from power.
I mean if they had opportunities then yeah, for instance I half remember that there was some amount of sabotage that the enslaved Jews engaged in when they were forced to work in German war manufacturing. They did not have much if any opportunity, but I consider this to be an example of making the most out of a very dire set of circumstances. Of course if a Jew in this situation didn't sabotage the bolts in a V2 rocket or whatever because they were afraid of repercussions, I certainly wouldn't go on to claim any casualties of that particular rocket's attack were their fault. I'm not a 1940's Jewish physicist, but some of my most favorite Physicists were 1940's Jewish physicist, in part because without 1940's Jewish physicists the Manhattan project never succeeds. I do not speak for 1940's Jewish physicists that directly or indirectly contributed to the Manhattan project, but to say that some of them were partially motivated by the fact that they were Jewish people whose intellectual aptitudes positioned them to take advantage of an opportunity to remove Hitler from power does not seem at all off base to me. To say that at least some of them at the time felt that the opportunity granted them by their intellectual aptitudes made their contributions a responsibility would also not be a particularly fantastical take. With that out of the way, pretending that I said that Hitler or Iran was the lone responsibility of the Jews is churlish at best. I do not think that the Jewish people of the world were solely responsible for removing Hitler any more than the Chinese were solely responsible for removing the byzantine set of committees and generals that ran the Japanese war effort. Perhaps I can put it in a way that you can connect with: We just saw thousands of Hezbollah pagers blow up, we can crudely approximate what it must have taken to pull that off. The idea that the folks that pulled that off would choose to sit out an opportunity to drastically affect their circumstances, that is a coup in Iran, is almost inconceivable to me. I believe Israel would demand to be a part of it. The idea that the US and the EU would prohibit Israel from participation in such an operation on the basis that Israel does not and should not bear any responsibility is only slightly less inconceivable. However all of that is beside the point, Israel is responsible because the existential threat that Iran poses and the consequences that a regime change could have on Israel, makes Israel responsible for their own security. And again, just to be clear, I do not subscribe to the assertion that it would be easy or even a good idea, I think it is fraught and dangerous and could very well leave everyone in an even more precarious position in the long run. Are you only immoral or also foolish?
At times I can be neither, either or both.
12
« on: September 17, 2024, 03:30:05 PM »
It IS the highest priority.
Imagine if after 9/11 someone said that wiping out Al Qaeda wasn't the highest priority.
Imagine if after 12/7 someone said that toppling totalitarian Japan wasn't the highest priority.
okay. I don't care. That's the world's problem, not Israel's problem.
Jews were murdered for being Jews. We're not going back to where that was normal. Don't attack Israel and nothing bad will happen to you. Simple equation.
You've made I clear that you do not care, and have no interest in actually discussing my question, I will no longer pursue this line of questioning. No, they didn't.
On March 10, 1945, the US Air Force dropped 1700 tons of fire bombs on Tokyo. The attack killed 100,000 Japanese people and injured another million, almost all civilians.
So, your assertion is that because on March 10, 1945, the US Air Force dropped 1700 tons of fire bombs on Tokyo, we can conclude that the US never made any decisions based on post war civilian considerations at any point throughout the entire war? In my mind a single example where the US made any decisions based on post war civilian considerations at any point throughout the entire war would immediately invalidate that assertion. I think I'm once again immersing myself in a pointless argument where details don't matter. The reason they came to power is because their platform of genocidal intentions are popular with Palestinians.
After world war 2 nobody asked "why did the Nazis come to power?" Instead the allies went about deNazifying Germany. Gaza needs to be "De-Hamased" or all this was for nothing.
I think you are using blanket statements to illustrate your point, but that any counterexamples won't matter because you believe that your statements are fundamentally true if not precisely true. for example, 'Nobody asked' I take it means that 'Any inquiry into the Nazi's rise to power was not of the type or degree that the job of deNazifying Germany was impeded'. If this is all you meant, then I don't want to get caught up in the details of what you said vs what you meant. If I haven't mischaracterized your meaning, then I can agree that learning the reasons for Hamas' rise to power should not take priority over preventing them from visiting further violence on Israel. I do not think that these are wholly separate endeavors though, effectively De-Hamasing Palestine means understanding how it became Hamased in the first place. If as you said 'The reason they came to power is because their platform of genocidal intentions are popular with Palestinians.' Then killing every Hamas member will still leave you with popular notions of genocide in Palestine. Asking why genocidal intentions are popular with Palestinians is IMO a good question to ask if you want to eliminate the conditions for a future Hamas or Hamas like organization. It seems to me that you express concern for Palestinian civilians and not Israeli civilians.
Why is that?
I have to ask, in your opinion what would it look like for me to be expressing concern for Israeli civilians? If you believe that If I cared about Israeli citizens, then my opinions would be more aligned with your, then I think you have your answer. I think that most of what you say ranges from simplistic to inaccurate to myopic. I believe that in the long run your sort of thinking doesn't lead to safer Israeli citizens, it leads to a cycle of violence that could very well culminate in the destruction of Israel. I feel that it is safe to say that you do not agree, and you have no capacity or desire to see anything from my perspective, so I would say that this is why I seem uncaring to you. IOW I do not care in a way that makes sense to you, so it seems that I don't care at all. So you think Israel should tolerate the murder of her citizens, because if they act against entities that murder Israeli citizens, even more Israeli citizens will be murdered?
Really?
Case in point. I have not now nor have I ever asserted that Israeli's should tolerate being murdered. I'm talking about how they react to that, You seem to think that If the reaction isn't the narrow one that you deem to be the only suitable one then it is tantamount to tolerating being murdered. There really isn't any room for discussion with you. After 10/7 no one should support a Palestinian state.
They have to prove that they're ready. And they're not. Really, really not.
Did he support it on 10/6 ? Maybe it is easy. We won't know until we try.
Sure, this is true. I'm more interested in why you believe it would be easy....but at this point I have not real expectation that you have some detailed analysis that has lead you to this conclusion....so unless you plan to surprise me , then I don't need to continue this line of questioning. And yet the US government has been wrong, completely wrong, on every single detail of this war. So butt out already.
Nah, The US can tell Israel what it wants, and Israel as you pointed out is not obligated to listen. The only thing stopping Israel from 'having at it' is the fear of consequences. The Mullahs in Iran have an unhealthy obsession with Jews and the state of Israel. That does not make it "Israel's responsibility" to remove them. Was it the Jews responsibility to remove Hitler from power?
As much as it was anyone's responsibility. Hitler was literally working to eliminate the Jews from existence, If it is not one's own responsibility to work to maintain their own survival then I don't know that we can meaningfully talk about responsibility. "Lived through 9/11? I was there. As a first responder. Well, thank you for your service. However I was talking more about the general era, watching our reactions as America and the repercussions of those actions. I know there wasn't another 9/11 scale attack over the last 20 years. So, mission accomplished?
Yeah, who can argue with results. I'd argue that it cost us, and we are still making payments.
13
« on: September 17, 2024, 04:43:31 AM »
Just wipe out their military in Gaza. Nothing else matters.
Well, It has been well understood by me that this is you believe this is the highest priority, but what I've been trying to get at is if you can see any consequences or fallout from setting this as the highest priority where nothing else matters. I get it if you are saying that you don't care about any possible consequences or precipitants, but I'm asking if you can envision any reasonably predictable repercussions. The Palestinians made their choice and threw in their lot with Hamas. Nobody was worried about German or Japanese civilians during the second world war, because there was a war to be won. Why is this any different? I don't believe that the argument that "since they didn't do it in the 1940's, so we shouldn't either" is especially compelling. Regardless, Of course people worried about German and Japanese civilians and made at least some decisions based on post war civilian considerations. Pretending that the world had some single monolithic opinion about civilian casualties back then is not only incorrect, but even if it was correct they also thought radium and lead were great paint additives, so maybe their positions were not entirely unassailable. Anyway this is all beside the point, I was mostly talking about the post war concerns between Israel and Palestine. Even If Israel manages to destroy and drive Hamas out of Gaza the reasons why they came to power will still exist and may even be exacerbated, and that is a problem. if Hamas as an organization is wiped out completely, and nothing changes in the relationship between Israel and Palestine then a new Hamas can find fertile soil to grow and we'll be doing this all over again in 15 or 20 years. Where is all the care and concern for Israeli civilians? It seems to me, and this is just my opinion that "care and concern for Israeli civilians" in your mind must come in the form of "Just wipe out their military in Gaza. Nothing else matters.". My concern that there is a legitimate risk that this will escalate and or repeat and kill more Israeli civilians is concern. I think that it is possible that both Israeli's and Palestinians and folks around them both stand to lose many more civilians over many generations. Their grievances are addressable. All they have to do is come to the table with reasonable demands, like a state next to Israel, when they are asking for a state in the place of Israel. All they have to do is be willing to live together in peace, instead of using the land they're given to launch further wars.
Israel doesn't have any obligation to give territory to people who want to murder them.
oh, does Netanyahu support a Palestinian state these days? The people of Iran want to be free of the Islamic fundamentalists that run the country. They are pro-democracy and pro-west and even I believe, pro-Israel. They would be happy to have help from the west to remove the lunatics that run the country. But we'll never know, because the west is too busy propping them up.
sounds easy when you say it like that. Do you believe that it is as simple and primed for success as your post indicates, if so Why? Israel has no obligation whatsoever to subsume their national security to what you perceive as "American Interests". What's more, I think you're totally wrong. A strong Israel is better for American interests in the region, and a weak Israel is worse. you did not understand the thrust of my statement. My point was that Israel's actions are likely to affect the US therefore it makes sense for the US to care how Israel acts. You are right, Israel is an adult and is free to disregard anything the US says. In a very real sense the idea that they are being held back is actually just Israel holding themselves back because they do not want to face the consequences if disregarding the US. Pretending that our countries interests are not tied to each other is kind of pointless just like pretending that wars against terrorists organizations are as simple as 'wipe em out over there' and you're done. I don't think that the US wants Israel weak, but I do not think they are exactly aligned on what that means. This is laughable. Israel has *responsibility* to affect regime change in another country? Who else has this responsibility ? Who gave Israel this responsibility? What responsibilities do people in other countries have? I'm saying that overthrowing the Iranian government is as much Israel's responsibility as it is the US or EU's. Personally I think the proposition of an engineered coup is extremely fraught and carries with it the great risk of going terribly wrong and leaving the area worse off in the long run. At least Iran's current tyrannical government is kind of stable and sort of predictable. I don't trust any of those governments to do it, but much less to do it alone. At least together it has a higher chance of success. It makes no sense to me that anyone would engage in such a project and Israel would just sit it out when it would directly impact the country....but again I don't think its a great idea regardless. Yeah you've clarified your positions. They're bizarre.
I think its bizarre to have lived through 9/11 and America's ventures in the middle east over the last 20 years and not have any sense of consequences of actions. I mean idk how old you are , but like didn't you live through like the 80's, were you alive for the Islamic revolution? I don't know how your take on everything is so simplistic.
14
« on: September 11, 2024, 06:52:19 PM »
15
« on: September 11, 2024, 12:30:31 AM »
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. I've seen government waste firsthand, I've seen evidence of government waste just about everywhere I've seen government, but you seem to be asking me to seek out evidence of government waste?
I was asking you specifically about what failures of checks and balances you are aware of or referring to regarding Aid in Gaza during the current conflict. I mean, I get the impression that you have no examples and you distrust the government to make sufficient efforts to mitigate fraud, theft and waste and you feel no need to verify any specific claims about what is currently happening because you believe that fundamentally the government is broken so any and all efforts made by it are doomed to fail?
I have no specifics about Gaza, I thought I'd made that clear. I do have experience of government waste (the specifics of the wasted equipment was just one such example - there are many more), and I see the trend in government to be that anything they do costs more and delivers less, so I have no reason to assume that things are better now than they were before. Maybe some specific forms of waste are reduced but I think we can be confident that other forms of waste will have appeared.
No, not an inside view. I'm asking if you have made any efforts to specifically discover what issues were faced in delivering aid to African nations in the 80's and what the causes of those failures were? Then have you made any efforts to discover how aid is done in 2024 and what issues they face today, and how they fail? Then have you made any attempt to compare and contrast that information to determine if in fact a failure of checks and balances is an accurate description of the failures and if there has been no meaningful change in the last 40 years. For me this would be the bare minimum that I would need to have any confidence in an assertion like yours (not saying I wouldn't argue without it, but that is just me bickering for sport)
The issues faced in the 80s are sufficiently long ago now I haven't felt any need to explore in any further detail. I don't know I'd even call it a failure of checks and balances because that would imply the existence of a desire for checks and balances. A part of government waste, in my experience at least, stems from a sense that the government must do something about a situation even when all it achieves is enablement.
I think that is a good point, there are many forms of aid and unfortunately many forms of fraud and profligacy. This specifically is not a point of conflict for us, I more or less wanted to know if the entire basis of your assertion was...well all the stuff you put forth, or if you had some current examples of failures and if you could connect them with all the stuff about the 80's in a manner that supported your assertion outside of what you've asserted about nothing having changed. It boils down to the question of whether or not you did any investigation at all, and if so what?
If I had a shred of faith that government now was even remotely better than government then I'd be more inclined to consider it. Generic observations lead me to conclude that government is usually the least efficient way to accomplish anything (even when government does actually accomplish anything useful).
Observations aside, when a nominal government (such as Hamas) has conflicting requirements, namely the problem that they want lots of guns and bombs to harass the pesky Joos across the border and the irritation that the Gazan people have this silly idea that they might like to, you know, eat some stuff and not die of starvation, they have to figure a balance. There is only so much money so they use some to buy guns and some to buy food. If a friendly government comes along and gives them some food for free, it frees up money to buy more guns.
Yes in some ways it is, sometimes. The DMV now, vs the DMV when I was a teenager first getting my license is like night and day....or at least night and dawn. There are probably way's that you could measure it that would give you any answer you want, are we talking waste per dollar, waste as a fraction of GDP, waste adjusted for inflation...and so on. Though you won't catch me arguing that the government is overall more efficient than it was in 198X, because like, yeah probably not. I think the issue here is that I'm asking you about something specific, and your example is general. I thought that you were making a specific claim, but i'm beginning to believe that you don't actually care about any specific claim, you just kind of think the government stinks (I don't blame you, but it isn't what I'm doing).....
Measuring waste is an inherently difficult thing to do because the people responsible for it are unlikely to cooperate with measuring it. There's also the question of how much waste is acceptable because the simple reality is that a degree of wastage is inevitable. I'll wager that most people would admit they don't necessarily eat every single piece of food they buy, or spend every single dollar efficiently, or always achieve the best possible interest rate on their savings/loans/whatever. But where we might be forgiven for overlooking a bank account paying 4.85% interest while our money is parked earning a mere 4.75%, we might be inclined to ask questions if our savings were left to languish in an account earning 0.02%.
buuuuuut, This response took so long because I did a lot of research to talk about welfare, but ultimately I decided that writing 20 pages about why I believe that you are at times blatantly wrong, and at times mischaracterizing the state of affairs might not be something that you were actually interested in engaging with. Can you honestly say you want to invest time in having the actual conversation/debate?...or do you already know that the state of welfare...or the welfare state is precisely how and what you think it is? Its fine if you want to keep it to the stuff you saw in the 80's, what you read in passing , and who you saw do some petty fraud at the grocery store...but i'm not interested in that, your personal expirience is unassailable, at least by me it is. There is no evidence that I could access that will change what you remember happening, all I can do is talk about what is proven, what is studied, what statistical information has been collected. I grew up on welfare for years, I could talk about the overwhelming number of honest welfare recipients that I knew, but honestly what does that do, You know there are honest people, and I know there are frauds.... I'd like to talk about the the giant of welfare, not either of our personal impressions of it.
Welfare is just an example of an area of government waste rather than the primary focus. I had some experience of the welfare state several years ago before I got myself into employment and it was an utter farce. My experience is that people who were trying to find work were endlessly bothered while the people fiddling the system were largely ignored. As you say there are people who are honest and genuinely trying to improve themselves, there are people who are defrauding the system, there are people who are held down by the system, and there are people who find the system provides an adequate lifestyle compared to what they might earn by working. But this isn't so much about the welfare state.
... and it makes sense to be very deliberate in targeting aid to make sure we're not providing comfort to our own enemies in a war zone, no? In a war zone if you feed and arm your enemy during the war it just makes it more likely the war will drag on longer, resulting in more civilian suffering.
to me this is a specific claim, this whole discussion could be boiled down to this:
Tango: Aid in Palestine today is not deliberately targeted in such a way as to prevent providing aid to Hamas.
Me: Why do you say that?
Tango: Because that's what happened in the 80's
Me: Are you sure?
Tango: Yes, I personally saw the government throw away a perfectly good Erlenmeyer flasks and a whole vacuum distillation apparatus.
Me: But how do you know that nothing has changed with humanitarian aid.
Tango: Because the government is involved.
Again, I'm being absurd, but I really don't believe that we are trying to get at the same thing.
If you feel made fun of by this, its not my intention, but a genuine distillation of my impression of your position, so I'm not going to insult you are myself with an apology either. Instead of taking it personally if that is how you are feeling, please elucidate the nuance of your position that I'm missing.
I think I covered this above with the section about budget line items for guns and food. Yes, that's a hideous oversimplification but if you want guns and you want food, someone giving you food means you have more money for guns. So even if we're not throwing fistfuls of C-notes out of helicopters over Gaza, it makes sense to check that food is going to civilians that need food and not to terrorists who managed to feed themselves with foreign aid and can now afford a shiny new RPG, no?
I think we understood each other here. I was just attempting to get you to think about your failures and successes and your own growth, and why it would not be fair to you to claim that mistakes you made in humanitarian endeavors are reflective of your current ability.
Overall, My only point of contention is in the idea that the humanitarian aid in Palestine is a hopeless and failed mission. Your only rationale for that seems to be that 'they' have failed before, so you see no reason why it would be any different without pointing to any specific failures.
The mistakes I made in the 1990s aren't necessarily indicative of where I am now, as long as I learned from the mistakes. The crucial thing is learning from mistakes. Does government learn from mistakes? If I refuse to learn from the mistakes I made 30 years ago and continue to make them today then the mistakes I made in the 1990s are indicative of where I am now.
Nah Tango, you've been clear, I just sometimes--haha, who am I kidding?-- I just always read between the lines when I should just read the lines. That is on me not you because I've had enough of these conversations to know that there is no more to this. Thanks for you time brother.
|
Better known as
by Sojourner
Today at 11:09:34 PM
|
The ECF and theosis
by watchinginawe
Today at 10:04:56 PM
|
The Jews will be kept safe in the Great Tribulation
by Billy Evmur
Today at 05:51:25 PM
|
Watcha doing?
by Fenris
Yesterday at 11:12:46 AM
|
Is free will a failed concept?
by Fenris
March 29, 2025, 10:53:14 PM
|
Gog's endtime construction?
by Fenris
March 29, 2025, 08:59:05 PM
|
How to reconcile?
by shepherdsword
March 29, 2025, 01:11:46 PM
|
I was a Moderator here once before
by shepherdsword
March 29, 2025, 01:08:03 PM
|
Prayer for my wife
by ProDeo
March 29, 2025, 04:09:58 AM
|
NEW, davy from USA
by IMINXTC
March 27, 2025, 10:24:51 PM
|
The seven seals and how they relate to Matthew 24
by shepherdsword
March 25, 2025, 01:11:33 PM
|
Ash Wednesday / Lent
by Fenris
March 23, 2025, 11:06:23 AM
|
Blessed Are The Barren...
by Athanasius
March 20, 2025, 04:25:09 AM
|
US Presidental Election
by RabbiKnife
March 18, 2025, 08:02:52 PM
|
Plot holes
by Fenris
March 18, 2025, 04:51:14 PM
|
Zechariah 12
by Fenris
March 18, 2025, 11:52:35 AM
|
How Do I Know God Exists?
by davy
March 18, 2025, 12:05:31 AM
|
A big shout out to all of the old (and new) gang
by Kingfisher
March 17, 2025, 08:33:21 AM
|
Looking at Col. 2:16
by watchinginawe
March 16, 2025, 06:40:06 PM
|
Contents of Invitation Email I sent out yesterday to 19 former BF members
by Sojourner
March 16, 2025, 06:00:57 PM
|
|
|
Show Posts
