International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   (Ed) General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306886)

caveman1917 8th July 2016 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11367933)
It seems like in "connecting the dots" you can describe anyone who supports Israel as extremist. Would you agree with that? If not, why not?

Interesting bit about that which you call a "fan video" is, other than your persistent failure in recognizing cowardice - hiding in tanks facing off little kids with rocks would be an example of it, that children throwing rocks at the occupation forces is considered by Israel an act of war punishable by summary execution and collective punishment of the whole town.

Yes, extremists would seem to fit the bill quite nicely.

Quote:

If that were true, you wouldn't keep telling me what my opinion is.
I'll rephrase. I don't care about your opinion on that which you claim to be my "extremism".

Quote:

Tell me, do you believe there is no overlap at all among "anti-Zionism" and anti-Semitism?
An interesting subset of that overlap is those people who respond to Israeli crimes with "*********** Jews" or something, but when you actually ask further you find that they have nothing against Jews per se but have just had that "israel = zionism = jew" pushed into their heads by, you know, people like you.

dudalb 8th July 2016 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11365372)
You say "whether it's Jew or Arab" as though you're being neutral, but you're not. You're giving an example that in your mind is something a "Zionist Jew" would do to intimidate Palestinian occupants of the West Bank into leaving.

What's your opinion of the person who murders a sleeping 13 year old girl to intimidate the Jewish occupants into leaving? The action is clearly "anti-Zionist", which is an opinion many share, but we don't smear those "anti-Zionists" with supporting murder the same way we smear "Zionists" with the crime of bulldozing olive groves.

This is my problem with the whole "anti-Zionist not anti-Semitic" shtick. It smears all of Zionism with the attitudes of the nasty extremist turds among them while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the nasty extremist turds among the anti-Zionists, many of whom are hard-core (as well as lesser degrees) anti-Semites in addition to being anti-Zionists.

I am a Zionist. I am unabashed about it. I do my best to give strong, well reasoned arguments in support of Zionism, and I think I do a pretty good job of it.

As a human being who happens to be a Zionist, I am appalled and disgusted when I hear reports of Jewish settler violence, vandalism and murder against Palestinians. That's not "Zionism", it's violence, vandalism and murder. Period.

I know of many other people who post on this forum who are also Zionists, but I can't think of one who doesn't feel the same way. You won't find one of them who approves of settler violence or "price-tagging" as it's often called, or who thinks there should be Israeli terrorists too just because there are Palestinian terrorists.

I think the term "anti-Zionist" obscures the issues. Not enough people understand what "Zionist" means for them to understand what "anti-Zionist" should mean.

I am a Zionist who despises Bibi and think he andhis party are a disaster for Israel.

Mycroft 16th July 2016 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11376460)
Interesting bit about that which you call a "fan video" is, other than your persistent failure in recognizing cowardice - hiding in tanks facing off little kids with rocks would be an example of it, that children throwing rocks at the occupation forces is considered by Israel an act of war punishable by summary execution and collective punishment of the whole town.

Yes, extremists would seem to fit the bill quite nicely.

Look, the place to hash out the Israel/Palestine conflict is in the Israel/Palestine thread, so please cease with the red herrings. If you want to bring it up, and I dare you to, do so in that thread.

The question is if you consider anyone who supports Israel to be extremist or just me personally. I ask because previously you "connected the dots" in a way that suggested you believed anyone who supported Israel would be labeled (by you) as an extremist.


Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11376460)
I'll rephrase. I don't care about your opinion on that which you claim to be my "extremism".

Great. Now that we've established that these feelings are mutual, we should be free to talk less about each other and more about the differences between our ideas. Do you agree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11376460)
An interesting subset of that overlap is those people who respond to Israeli crimes with "*********** Jews" or something, but when you actually ask further you find that they have nothing against Jews per se but have just had that "israel = zionism = jew" pushed into their heads by, you know, people like you.

So in your opinion, If I refer to someone who is both a Zionist and a Jew as a "Jew", I am conflating Zionists and Jews. Does it also makes me responsible for the anti-Semitism of those anti-Zionists?

Mycroft 16th July 2016 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 11376595)
I am a Zionist who despises Bibi and think he andhis party are a disaster for Israel.

Of course!

Because Zionism doesn't mean:

1) Support for Likud.

2) Support for Netenyahu.

3) Support for settler extremists.

4) Support for settlers at all.

5) Support for West Bank settlements period.

6) Being anti-Palestinian.

7) Not supporting Palestinian nationalism.

8) Being right-wing

9) Participating in/supporting conspiracies to steal all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

All it really means is that you support the continued existence of Israel.

caveman1917 17th July 2016 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11390057)
Look, the place to hash out the Israel/Palestine conflict is in the Israel/Palestine thread, so please cease with the red herrings. If you want to bring it up, and I dare you to, do so in that thread.

The question is if you consider anyone who supports Israel to be extremist or just me personally.

Yet the answer is a red herring...:rolleyes:

Quote:

I ask because previously you "connected the dots" in a way that suggested you believed anyone who supported Israel would be labeled (by you) as an extremist.
I am quite aware what my statement implied - or "suggested" if you will - and I've already answered you, unnecessarily, once. Even if you can't understand the first paragraph, surely you should have gotten the right answer even purely syntactically from the second paragraph:
Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11376460)
Yes, extremists would seem to fit the bill quite nicely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11390057)
Great. Now that we've established that these feelings are mutual, we should be free to talk less about each other and more about the differences between our ideas. Do you agree?

I'll say whatever I goddam please. You are always free to offer up an idea for discussion.

Quote:

So in your opinion, If I refer to someone who is both a Zionist and a Jew as a "Jew", I am conflating Zionists and Jews. Does it also makes me responsible for the anti-Semitism of those anti-Zionists?
When you create antisemitism because it suits your political agenda? Yes it does make you responsible.

caveman1917 17th July 2016 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11390109)
Of course!

Because Zionism doesn't mean:

1) Support for Likud.

2) Support for Netenyahu.

3) Support for settler extremists.

4) Support for settlers at all.

5) Support for West Bank settlements period.

6) Being anti-Palestinian.

7) Not supporting Palestinian nationalism.

8) Being right-wing

9) Participating in/supporting conspiracies to steal all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

All it really means is that you support the continued existence of Israel.

For Israel! For the Nation! For the Unicorn!

Also, support for Israel implies quite a few of your other points. Given that, obviously, Israel is in fact doing a lot of those.

Mycroft 17th July 2016 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11391022)
For Israel! For the Nation! For the Unicorn!

Unicorn or not, when people are willing to kill or die for it (or against it) it has a reality that can't be so casually dismissed. Also, there are hundreds of similar "unicorns" running about, how come this one is the only one that concerns you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11391022)
Also, support for Israel implies quite a few of your other points. Given that, obviously, Israel is in fact doing a lot of those.

So the Unicorn is real enough when you want to talk about it.

Does supporting a nation mean supporting everything its government does? Or is it possible to support a nation while participating in the democratic process to change the nation's actions to something more to your liking?

I bet in whatever nation you call home, it's politicians disagree somewhat on what its government should do, but still support the existence of that government. If you extrapolate that Israelis are pretty much the same as citizens of your nation, then it should be easier for you to understand.

NWO Sentryman 17th July 2016 11:37 AM

Here's the thing about Israel. It has managed over the past 70 years, despite being targeted in three genocidal wars and having Saddam/The Assads for neighbours, to use nerve gas and exterminate "troublesome" minorities, which is what everyone else in the region does.

And as an aside: How do the BDS/ISM/IAW lot make sure Neo-Nazis don't come in under the "anti-zionist" cloak to spew ZOG crap?

Mycroft 17th July 2016 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11391017)
Yet the answer is a red herring...:rolleyes:

Yes, red herring. You know, like when you start a different argument to get away from the one where you're being creamed.


Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11391017)
I am quite aware what my statement implied - or "suggested" if you will - and I've already answered you, unnecessarily, once. Even if you can't understand the first paragraph, surely you should have gotten the right answer even purely syntactically from the second paragraph:

In short, yes. In your opinion anyone who supports Israel at all is an extremist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11391017)
When you create antisemitism because it suits your political agenda? Yes it does make you responsible.

The person who is anti-Semitic is not responsible for his own anti-Semitism, and if he is also anti-Zionist then he's not really anti-Semitic. Gotcha.

Mycroft 17th July 2016 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11376460)
Interesting bit about that which you call a "fan video" is, other than your persistent failure in recognizing cowardice - hiding in tanks facing off little kids with rocks would be an example of it...

So the more likely backstory to that picture of a kid throwing a rock at a tank is:

1) The soldiers inside are terrified of the child with the rock, and moments after the photo was taken they obliterated the child because they can and they're evil.

2) A photographer told the child to act like he was throwing a rock at the tank while he took a very well composed photograph illustrating, at least emotionally, the disparity of power between the two sides. He felt it was okay to do this because he knew the child would be in no real danger, and the importance (to him) of getting this message out justified a little fudging of facts. The soldiers inside the tank, if there were soldiers inside that tank, may or may not have been aware of the child and photographer.

I personally am going to go with the second option here. Also, my opinion is that if anyone involved is a demonstrated coward, it would be the adult who put the child up to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11376460)
...that children throwing rocks at the occupation forces is considered by Israel an act of war punishable by summary execution and collective punishment of the whole town.

Other articles from that same website include:

Most Advanced A.I. Robot Admits It Wants to Destroy Humans After Glitch During TV Interview

Edward Snowden: Osama Bin Laden Is “Alive And Well In The Bahamas”

So...not exactly reliable.

Mycroft 17th July 2016 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman (Post 11391552)
And as an aside: How do the BDS/ISM/IAW lot make sure Neo-Nazis don't come in under the "anti-zionist" cloak to spew ZOG crap?

They don't.




Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Jules Galen 17th July 2016 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11390109)
Of course!

Because Zionism doesn't mean:

1) Support for Likud.

2) Support for Netenyahu.

3) Support for settler extremists.

4) Support for settlers at all.

5) Support for West Bank settlements period.

6) Being anti-Palestinian.

7) Not supporting Palestinian nationalism.

8) Being right-wing

9) Participating in/supporting conspiracies to steal all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

All it really means is that you support the continued existence of Israel.

Baloney.

Mycroft 17th July 2016 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jules Galen (Post 11392068)
Baloney.

You know Jules, you don't exactly demonstrate the depth of knowledge to where this would mean anything. Maybe you should either try to articulate your ideas better, or try to better understand the ideas of those who disagree with you.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

caveman1917 19th July 2016 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11391503)
Unicorn or not, when people are willing to kill or die for it (or against it) it has a reality that can't be so casually dismissed.

Therefor, by the same argument, god has a reality that can't be so casually dismissed. Skeptics they call themselves then.

Quote:

Also, there are hundreds of similar "unicorns" running about, how come this one is the only one that concerns you?
It isn't. But this has been pointed out to you multiple times, so why do you keep lying about this?

Quote:

So the Unicorn is real enough when you want to talk about it.
There are real people doing real things in its name.

Quote:

Does supporting a nation mean supporting everything its government does?
Yes.

Quote:

Or is it possible to support a nation while participating in the democratic process to change the nation's actions to something more to your liking?
No.

Quote:

I bet in whatever nation you call home
I don't consider any unicorn my "home unicorn" so the rest of your post doesn't merit response.

Ziggurat 19th July 2016 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11394535)
Therefor, by the same argument, god has a reality that can't be so casually dismissed.

We've been over this before. It is not god which is made real, but religion. Islam exists. Christianity exists. Buddhism exists. None of these things has material form, but they are still real, made real by actions. And nations are real for the same reason. Nations are not analogous to god, they are analogous to religion. Your continued ignorance of this has no excuse.

Quote:

Yes.
Now you contradict yourself. If you believe nations do not exist, then how can you believe it's even possible to support them?

caveman1917 19th July 2016 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11394658)
We've been over this before. It is not god which is made real, but religion.

I've never claimed that nationalism doesn't exist. Try again, but this time do try to put some intellectual substance in your remarks. Your continued failure to grasp the difference between belief in a god or nation (aka religion or nationalism) and the actual existence of a god or nation is getting old.

Quote:

Now you contradict yourself. If you believe nations do not exist, then how can you believe it's even possible to support them?
It's possible for people to justify their actions in name of "support of a nation".

Ziggurat 19th July 2016 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11394746)
I've never claimed that nationalism doesn't exist.

But it doesn't. There's no such thing as nationalism. It's a myth. The fact that you believe in nationalism doesn't make it real.

Quote:

It's possible for people to justify their actions in name of "support of a nation".
Not in any way relevant to anything.

caveman1917 19th July 2016 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11394806)
But it doesn't. There's no such thing as nationalism. It's a myth. The fact that you believe in nationalism doesn't make it real.

Nations are real but beliefs in nations aren't? That's just brilliant.

Ziggurat 19th July 2016 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11394897)
Nations are real but beliefs in nations aren't? That's just brilliant.

Don't you get it? You've convinced me you're right. Nations aren't real, and neither is nationalism. Neither are laws. Language isn't real either. Same with math. It's all just collective delusions. Nothing that isn't physically tangible is real. We must end the brainwashing that leads people into belief in anything abstract.

Mycroft 19th July 2016 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11394535)
Therefor, by the same argument, god has a reality that can't be so casually dismissed. Skeptics they call themselves then.

What people do because they believe in God is real. If someone wants to chop your head off because it's what he thinks his "unicorn" wants him to do, not believing in his unicorn will not save you.

By the same token, if someone feeds hungry people because they believe their unicorn would like it, those hungry people still get fed, even if they don't believe in this "unicorn". It's even possible that people who don't believe in the unicorn will join with people who do believe in the unicorn so they can feed a lot of people. They may even decide that the end result, people being fed who would otherwise go hungry, is more important than if you do or don't believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11394535)
It isn't. But this has been pointed out to you multiple times, so why do you keep lying about this?

Because it's not lying that I don't believe you would call someone a "fanatic" for supporting Belgium. Or Canada. Or any number of hundreds of similar "unicorns".

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11394535)
There are real people doing real things in its name.

Which is why dismissing it as a "unicorn" is pointless sophistry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11394535)
Yes.



No.

Well, there's your problem. You're wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11394535)
I don't consider any unicorn my "home unicorn" so the rest of your post doesn't merit response.

You don't have to consider it your "home unicorn" to recognize that people of good will can have differences of opinion on how it should be run, and that they can still support the whole even if they disagree with many of its details.

Also, if you want to kill the unicorns, you should start with that one. It's yours.

Mycroft 19th July 2016 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11394746)
It's possible for people to justify their actions in name of "support of a nation".

It's also possible for a nation to produce some amazing benefits for it's people.

Do you have healthcare? If you go to a doctor, is there some system of certification that makes sure he's qualified? If he gives you medicine, is there a system in place to make sure it's safe and does what it's supposed to?

How are the roads? Are there bridges across the waterways? Do roads get repaired when they need it? Are they safe and well regulated?

Do you and the millions of your fellows have clean water? Is it delivered to your home? Is wastewater taken away? When you poop, does it go somewhere other than back into your drinking water? Is your food safe from contamination? Is there a method of redress if it's not?

Is your employer allowed to abuse you? Force you to work in unsafe conditions? Are they allowed to cheat you out of your wages? Are you allowed time off for rest or when you're sick? Do you have leisure time to pursue sports or other entertainment?

What is the life expectancy in your country? Is it greater than 30?

It's myopic to see only the bad and not to recognize the good.

caveman1917 20th July 2016 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11395080)
Don't you get it? You've convinced me you're right. Nations aren't real, and neither is nationalism. Neither are laws. Language isn't real either. Same with math. It's all just collective delusions. Nothing that isn't physically tangible is real. We must end the brainwashing that leads people into belief in anything abstract.

fezhjhdsf fmhmdsf mmrreqùifds hpFDSPIH q fddspffqljhfd

Because I already know you won't understand such a simple retort, if you hold that language isn't real then you'd have no way to communicate this to someone else, now would you? Of course you friggin' hold that language is real, this woo peddling of "you must accept my pet belief because you also accept other beliefs, even though I have no argument for mine and there are good arguments for the other ones you hold" isn't going to do you any good.

People are real, utterances people make are real, and if language is real we can assign meaning to these utterances and, say, define religion as any utterance to the effect of "I believe in some sort of deity." Does this mean that we then must also accept the existence of the deity, if we accept the existence of people, utterances and language? Of course it doesn't, a 6 year old can see that. You don't do this logic thing much, do you?

caveman1917 20th July 2016 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11395886)
It's also possible for a nation to produce some amazing benefits for it's people.

The onus is actually on you to show that only a nation produces those "amazing benefits".

Quote:

Do you have healthcare? If you go to a doctor, is there some system of certification that makes sure he's qualified? If he gives you medicine, is there a system in place to make sure it's safe and does what it's supposed to?
Yes.

Quote:

How are the roads? Are there bridges across the waterways? Do roads get repaired when they need it? Are they safe and well regulated?
Same thing basically as above.

Quote:

Do you and the millions of your fellows have clean water? Is it delivered to your home? Is wastewater taken away? When you poop, does it go somewhere other than back into your drinking water? Is your food safe from contamination? Is there a method of redress if it's not?
Mostly yes. I mean, far be it from me to not to appreciate the daily achievements of the international working class - whether working in healthcare, road building, public utilities or anywhere else, but when exactly are we going to get to your nationalist stuff?

Quote:

Is your employer allowed to abuse you?
Yes, most definitely. If I refuse to let him steal the product of my daily labour he can call upon a quite abusive gang.

Quote:

Force you to work in unsafe conditions?
Yes, most definitely.

Quote:

Are they allowed to cheat you out of your wages?
Yes, most definitely, see two paragraphs above.

Quote:

Are you allowed time off for rest or when you're sick? Do you have leisure time to pursue sports or other entertainment?
Hardly.

So if I'm getting this right, you're ascribing good things done by specific people to people who don't actually do these things but merely steal the results from the former group of people? And somehow this is an argument in favour of nationalism?

Quote:

What is the life expectancy in your country? Is it greater than 30?
Yes.

Quote:

It's myopic to see only the bad and not to recognize the good.
Fascinating argument. Suppose there were good pizza parties in Nazi Germany. Then clearly we should be talking about these pizza parties at every opportunity someone says something bad about Nazi Germany. But then suppose that it were actually enslaved Jews who were forced to make the pizza and they were just really good at it, then we'd still have to talk about how good the pizza at the Nazi pizza parties was - because they stole the pizzas from the Jewish slaves - and we're supposed to specifically praise the Nazis so we let them, even on that - by itself quite problematic - point, steal all the credit.

But of course that argument would be as simply refuted as yours by pointing out that, even if you accept that Nazi Germany had good pizza parties, that doesn't mean that you need Nazi Germany in order to have good pizza parties.

NWO Sentryman 20th July 2016 08:17 AM

Caveman,

Would you rather be in Belgium or Somalia or Syria? Take your pick. Another thing I find about Anarchists, they typically live comfortably in the developed world and would not last long in real anarchies like Syria or Somalia.

caveman1917 20th July 2016 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman (Post 11396640)
Caveman,

Would you rather be in Belgium or Somalia or Syria? Take your pick. Another thing I find about Anarchists, they typically live comfortably in the developed world and would not last long in real anarchies like Syria or Somalia.

You don't find anything about anarchists, you don't have the slightest clue what it is.

NWO Sentryman 20th July 2016 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396643)
You don't find anything about anarchists, you don't have the slightest clue what it is.

If there's no state, what is there to stop a roving warlord coming in and enslaving a rural commune or putting everybody to the sword?

caveman1917 20th July 2016 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman (Post 11396645)
If there's no state, what is there to stop a roving warlord coming in and enslaving a rural commune or putting everybody to the sword?

Your fallacy is: contradiction

NWO Sentryman 20th July 2016 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396653)
Your fallacy is: contradiction

If you cannot tell the difference between, say, the government of Mexico and Joaquin Guzman, then there's a severe logical issue. Examples of what a collapse of a complex state looks like: Yugoslavia, USSR. In the case of the former you had outright genocide committed by petty warlord, while crime rings became the government in the latter.

caveman1917 20th July 2016 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman (Post 11396657)
If you cannot tell the difference between, say, the government of Mexico and Joaquin Guzman, then there's a severe logical issue.

Because there is a difference between protons and neutrons therefor they both can't be fermions. Why do I even bother?

Mycroft 20th July 2016 08:40 AM

Mod InfoDeleted at request of the poster for formatting errors. Same content appears correctly formatted by the poster in post #354.
Posted By:Loss Leader

Mycroft 20th July 2016 08:47 AM

I really messed up the editing of that because I'm on my cell, I'll repost later

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

NWO Sentryman 20th July 2016 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396662)
Because there is a difference between protons and neutrons therefor they both can't be fermions. Why do I even bother?

So tell me, if an Anarchy isn't Syria or Somalia, what is it then? What real examples can you point to of a complex society prospering without any state apparatus?

Mycroft 20th July 2016 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396653)
Your fallacy is: contradiction

It's not a contradiction. He's pointing out that once you've gotten rid of states there is nothing stopping anyone from creating new ones, and then using their collective power to stomp all over you.

It's actually inevitable. Once you've broken up the world and everyone forms their collectives and co-ops, it's only a matter of time before one of the less successful ones decides that using force to take someone else's stuff is preferable to starving. If they come up with a good enough rationalization that the stuff was really theirs all along, that gives all the other co-ops an excuse to stay out of it.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Mycroft 20th July 2016 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396620)
The onus is actually on you to show that only a nation produces those "amazing benefits".

No it's not because I didn't claim that. I'm pointing out that it's myopic to ignore them.

If you want to assert that we should get rid of Nations because people sometimes do bad things in their name, shouldn't you provide evidence that those same bad things wouldn't be done in the name of whatever you replace it with? You can call it a co-operative, a commune, or an association, but it's just another "unicorn" that will have the same problems and the same options for dealing with them as did the state you replaced it with.

In your "anarchists revolution" do you really think you're not going to kill the people who don't want to participate? That you're not going to strong-arm those that don't want to "voluntarily" join your trade unions?

Also, if you want to conduct such a social experiment, do it with your own nation. You've already said you don't feel any allegiance to it, so since Belgium (or whatever) isn't in conflict with anyone, you stand the best chance of making your transition without killing people by the tens of thousands.

caveman1917 20th July 2016 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11396746)
It's not a contradiction. He's pointing out that once you've gotten rid of states there is nothing stopping anyone from creating new ones

And there's nothing stopping the people who got rid of the old states to get rid of the new ones as well. It'll probably be much easier, given that any new state will be much more "vulnerable" - certainly in the beginning - than the states are now.

Quote:

It's actually inevitable. Once you've broken up the world and everyone forms their collectives and co-ops, it's only a matter of time before one of the less successful ones decides that using force to take someone else's stuff is preferable to starving. If they come up with a good enough rationalization that the stuff was really theirs all along, that gives all the other co-ops an excuse to stay out of it.
Me thinks you're using the terms "collective" and "cooperative" without actually understanding what they mean.

caveman1917 20th July 2016 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11396918)
If you want to assert that we should get rid of Nations because people sometimes do bad things in their name, shouldn't you provide evidence that those same bad things wouldn't be done in the name of whatever you replace it with?

If...

Quote:

Also, if you want to conduct such a social experiment, do it with your own nation.
I don't have a unicorn, as I've amply made clear. Just because you believe in unicorns doesn't mean you should assume others do so too.

Ziggurat 20th July 2016 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396576)
fezhjhdsf fmhmdsf mmrreqùifds hpFDSPIH q fddspffqljhfd

Exactly! We totally agree. qaivucgbnaceipc!

Quote:

Because I already know you won't understand such a simple retort, if you hold that language isn't real then you'd have no way to communicate this to someone else, now would you?
Communication is real. Language isn't.

Quote:

Of course you friggin' hold that language is real
No it's not. It's just a collective delusion. We all agree that these things called "words" exist, but they don't. It's all just pretend pink unicorns.

Quote:

People are real, utterances people make are real,
Well, duh.

Quote:

and if language is real
But it isn't.

Quote:

we can assign meaning to these utterances
And we can assign religious significance to events as well. Doesn't mean god exists.

Quote:

You don't do this logic thing much, do you?
I'm totally into your logic now. It's brilliant!

Mycroft 20th July 2016 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396620)
Yes.
Same thing basically as above.

Great. In your anarchist utopia, what happens if I just claim to be a doctor? What if I’m smart enough to pick up on the lingo, produce a fake diploma, but my incompetence gets someone killed? What if your pharmacist decides to dilute your medicine so he can make a lot more money?

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396620)
Mostly yes. I mean, far be it from me to not to appreciate the daily achievements of the international working class - whether working in healthcare, road building, public utilities or anywhere else, but when exactly are we going to get to your nationalist stuff?

What do you think nations do? We talk a lot about foreign policy and wars and stuff, but the vast majority of what a government does is to produce and enforce regulations that facilitate your everyday life. Yes, there are trade-offs involved, but if you want to replace what we have now, don’t you think there should be a plan for how to replace it?

Also, these are not achievements solely of the “working class”. They are achievements of organization and planning. Just building a road, for example, requires planning, engineering, financing, heavy equipment and specialized skills. It’s not just a matter of getting a couple dozen guys together, forming a collecting and saying, “Let’s do it!”

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396620)
Yes, most definitely. If I refuse to let him steal the product of my daily labour he can call upon a quite abusive gang.

You’re not allowed to quit? I’m very skeptical of your claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396620)
So if I'm getting this right, you're ascribing good things done by specific people to people who don't actually do these things but merely steal the results from the former group of people? And somehow this is an argument in favour of nationalism?

I’m saying that you benefit from hundreds of years of progress. Progress that is encoded in the laws of (most of) our nations and that you would toss away without saying what you’re going to replace it with, and without saying how and why whatever you replace it with won’t be just as much of a “unicorn” as what came before, or why it would somehow be immune from the same problems you decry are inherent in a government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396620)
Fascinating argument. Suppose there were good pizza parties in Nazi Germany. Then clearly we should be talking about these pizza parties at every opportunity someone says something bad about Nazi Germany. But then suppose that it were actually enslaved Jews who were forced to make the pizza and they were just really good at it, then we'd still have to talk about how good the pizza at the Nazi pizza parties was - because they stole the pizzas from the Jewish slaves - and we're supposed to specifically praise the Nazis so we let them, even on that - by itself quite problematic - point, steal all the credit.

But of course that argument would be as simply refuted as yours by pointing out that, even if you accept that Nazi Germany had good pizza parties, that doesn't mean that you need Nazi Germany in order to have good pizza parties.

Straw-man. Ignored.

Mycroft 20th July 2016 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11396662)
Because there is a difference between protons and neutrons therefor they both can't be fermions. Why do I even bother?

I really don't get this petulance. If you really believe your anarchist ideas are so great, why the reluctance to sell us on them? Why not talk about how your anarchist utopia deals with the roving warlord, and how that's not the same as how a nation would deal with it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11397156)
And there's nothing stopping the people who got rid of the old states to get rid of the new ones as well. It'll probably be much easier, given that any new state will be much more "vulnerable" - certainly in the beginning - than the states are now.

Okay, how? Are you going to round up a posse and go after the warlord? If so, how is that substantially different from using an army?

Suppose the citizens of the new state don't want you to get rid of it. What then? Do you use force? Where do you derive the right to do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11397156)
Me thinks you're using the terms "collective" and "cooperative" without actually understanding what they mean.

Alright, educate me then. How am I using them wrong? What do they actually mean? Why are you so reluctant to explain your ideas?

Mycroft 20th July 2016 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11397177)
If...

Again with the petulant reluctance to explain yourself. If that's not what you're stating, then what are you stating?

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11397177)
I don't have a unicorn, as I've amply made clear. Just because you believe in unicorns doesn't mean you should assume others do so too.

That's a lie. You live somewhere, you're a citizen of something. Just because you say it has no significance to you doesn't invalidate the question of Why not create your anarchist utopia there? Why are you obsessed with someone else's backyard while ignoring your own?

The purpose of an analogy is to make your point more clear, but you keep using this "unicorn" analogy to dodge questions. You don't need to believe in "the unicorn" to tell us why you won't try to build your anarchist society in Belgium.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
İ 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.