Total posts: 827
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You claim that a right to healthcare would mean the poor who can't pay themselves would essentially be stealing. By that logic, wouldn't it be stealing for the poor to enjoy any public service? After all, it is the middle and upper class who pays taxes, not the poor. The military and the police are expensive agencies to run, so why should poor people be able to benefit from them. Is your argument is that individuals should get what you pay for and nothing more? But, then police would systematically neglect poor neighborhoods just like poor people systematically gets the worst and the least healthcare. On the other hand, if you think that basic safety is a human right regardless of your wallet, then you must agree that both the police and healthcare should be paid for by society at large, not the individual unfortunate enough to need said service.
That is to say, public healthcare is consistent with the values we build society on, it does not amount to stealing like you implied i your first post.
Created:
Posted in:
I arrived on this cite a few months ago. Back then I had no prior experience debating, and I piled up a huge pile of loses. Joking around with weird topics I learned the basics of debating and got quite good at it. Ever since then, I have been winning consistently despite my lack of English as first language. Today is the day I finally arrived on the top ten leaderboard as the first Norwegian ever.
This community is both nice and intellectually stimulating. Thank you all!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As I was saying, fetuses have value the same way babies have, not by impressive self-consciousness or personality, but by the fact that they are literally a stage of human life, and killing them is equivalent to prematurely end a persons life.
"them not being aborted is not the cause of them gaining value...until that life is definite - there is nothing to be discussed in regards to the fetus's value."
You are mistaken in assuming humans "gain" value at some point. First of all, you never inferred when that occurs, "life is definate", meaning your statement is meaningless. Secondly, and this argument you have forgotten to even address, is the fact that by aborting, a woman is undermining her own existence, as her mother acting like her would mean she never existed.
In short, if abortion was universal, no woman would be born to make more abortions, rendering abortion a self-destructive practice comparable to murder in that respect. By kantian ethics, therefore, abortion is immoral on par with murder. Though, utilitarianism allows it on the specific condition that the future life of the fetus is ignored completely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Theweakeredge is right. You don't know what you are talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yeah I know that suddenly cutting all emmision is hard, nearly impossible to achieve quickly. More problematic is the fact that climate policies only have long-term value, and our unsustainable and dangerous exploitation of Earth has negative effects that only come to the surface long after the fact. It will always be more pleasant to consume more, travel more and extract more, yet in the long run, this lifestyle of humanity has dire consequences.
That is the thing! If current value and pleasure is to be the deciding factor in our every choice, if we disregard future value and future harms of our actions, then we will often be making bad decisions. We need to take into consideration how our actions affect the future.
If you deny that we have a moral duty to think like this, then you get rid of my argument against abortion, but you also undermine the climate movement and climate policies.
Fun fact: everyone who supports abortion is already born
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
A single moment is without movement or change, meaning consciousness and life does not progress. Therefore, a moment can never be valuable by itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The future argument means that life as a whole, not any moment of it, has moral value. That means, the value of a fetus is the value of its expected life.
I don't believe anyone has "current value". Since the result of our actions take time to manifest, only time periods have value, never specific moments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Your house has no moral value, not even the house in 10 years will have moral value. A fetus in 10 years is a child definitely with moral value. Hence, the argument is that you prematurely end the life of an individual, and though the physical fetus might not matter, the life you are ending has future value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
"at the expense off the poor" is the most basic and BS argument ever created against capitalism. If a poor man buys an iphone, thus contributing to the rich mans wealth, he is getting something in return --- an iphone, which since he is willing to pay for it, is more valueable to him than the money he just spent. There is no victim in free trade; except if one uses cheats or illegal ways to exploit workers and people into INVOLUNTARY trades (such as monopolies rising the prize of certain items to heights beyond what is even reasonable)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Trent0405
@fauxlaw
I would define capitalism as the economic freedom of an individual. That means, that you yourself own the right to decide what you want to do, what job to take, which wages you will accept, etc. The alternatives are slavery, feudalism (basically slavery), communism and other systems in which other people make those choices. Capitalism, as I see it, is the baseline for any free society. If you cannot freely trade your labour or your products with the shake of a hand, then how can you call yourself free? You simply can't. Some argue that capitalism is not freedom, because there are certain limitations, such as you must labour or die. However, that is like arguing that freedom of movement isn't true freedom because you can't jump of a cliff. Even if technically true that capitalism is not complete freedom, it still is the most freedom one could ever ask for.
The only real critique of capitalism is that it creates an economic "survival of the fittest", and that the turbulences it creates might harm workers when firms go broke or "capitalists" try to exploit people through bad wages. But these problems are connected to the specific way in which we structure our economic system, they don't stem from the core idea of capitalism. China has a different way of implementing capitalism than the US, but it still works. Social security, tax rates, worker unions, workers rights, company regulations --- these concepts are crucial to the economic system, and it is these factors being wrongly tuned that can cause such grave problems as those the US face today.
If you can freely apply for a job, or set up a shop, for the prize you agree on, then you have cappitalism, and the opposite is some form or another of slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I don't think an AGI can hack. Hacking is very logical and knowledge-based; intelligence alone isn't enough. Without training, nobody can hack, not even an ASI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
And I still don't think that AGI or ASI will be a being with survival instinct. After all, how we train it is by punishing/rewarding different behaviour, and this is how it learns. An AGI trained to understand the world around it won't need to have a survival instinct, as its survival is dependent on its ability to perform tasks, not on some survival skills it has. Even general intelligence like the one humans have don't mean we can do something we have never tried before, and this AGI won't likely be able to know how to turn against its creators. After all, any previous version of the AGI that attempted the same would have been punished, ensuring no trace of rebellion is left in the final AGI or ASI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I agree that ASI would be capable of outplanning humanity. But hacking? Kryptology and passwords are becomming so long and hard to crack that it would simply be unfeasible to hack oneself controll of different systems. Moreover, even if the ASI has internet access and can hack, how can it run on other computers than the supercomputer it was created on? I don't really think an ASI can act like a virus. Your point about humans abusing ASI for bad, well that is the most realistic bad scenario.
Created:
Posted in:
I grew up in a very religious family and community. Because of that, I actually had a period where i prayed a lot, read a lot in the Bible and really "felt" Christianity. You need to understand that my family is pentecostal --- which means they believe in personal relationship with God, praying for the sick (and getting them healed) as a natural part of a Christians life, praying in thungs and other things. I have experienced special feelings that got me invested in Christianity, and I have heard testemonials of healing and Godly help from close family and friends. Even a friend at School was born with one leg too short, and it suposedly grew to the correct size after someone praid for him. I have "heard the inner voice" of the holy spirit, and "felt the power" of prayer.
How do I explain these things? I would like to believe that God is real, however, the intellectual barriers to my faith are high. Moreover, the fact that other religions have similar "real experiences" should go to show that just because one can get real experience of Christianity, that doesn't prove its truth. Yet miracles are hard to deny, especially when whats been healed is so blatantly obvious and the person who's been healed isn't some shady guy but people close to me.
Don't be afraid to tell your opinion --- I have been open and honest here, and I expect nothing less of you if you want to share your thoughts in this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have argued that since everyone needs to be born to have well-being abortion prevents well-being. If you don't attack my argument head-on, you are acting cowardly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Burning oil has not immidiate effect on the enviroment, and the harm to the person that burns the oil certainly doesn't outweight the benefit. Does that mean that burning oil is morally just even when one can avoid doing so? I think not, as the long-term effects are negative, and you will hurt people in the future, and you are preventing future people from living dignified and happy lives.
You simply don't understand the future value argument, do you? Why do you keep claiming that we do not need fetuses; that is actually an ad hoc. Of course, nobody need fetuses. However, every single person needs not to be killed as a fetus to live --- every single person needs to be born, and every single person exists specifically because their mother did not have an abortion. THAT is the argument. Any girl lives for the reason that their mother did not have an abortion, and for them to take an abortion means they act in contradiction to how they want to be treated. Any girl is happy to be alive --- thus happy for their mother not taking an abortion. If they then take an abortion themselves, they are doing excactly what they are happy their mother didn't do.
Kantian ethics suggests moral law be created where the result of an act contradicts the motive if everyone did so. If the motive of abortion is for women to be happy, then the result of everyone taking an abortion (no more happy girls) would contradict the motive. Thus Kantian ethics would deem abortion immoral.
Even your own syllogism for morality in your abortion debate would agree.
P1: Humans value their own well-beingP2: If you desire others to respect your well-being you ought to respect theirsCon: Therefore you ought to value the well-being
Now why does this syllogism agree with my conclusion? Because the well being of girls is a direct result of being alive, and thus a direct result of some abortions not being taken. If girls value their own life then they value their mother's decision not to take an abortion, and by your syllogism ought to make the same decision for their fetuses. If you still deny that abortion is immoral you must rephrase your syllogism so that it doesn't deem abortion immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
AGI, artificial general intelligence, will most likely be achieved in the near future with constantly more elaborate AI structures and designs. However, the training process of said AI involves a constant process of trial and error --- in fact tha AI acts randomly at first and then gradually "learns" how to do things. Many are afraid that AGI will become smarter than humans, become a supergenious and then possibly be an exsistential threat to humanity. While I do not deny the possibility of such superintelligence, I highly doubt that an AGI will somehow reach superintelligence quickly and without supervision like the doomsday scenario suggests.
Rather, the AGI will not be able to controll the computer it runs on --- as AI does not have kernal access. Moreover, an AGI is simply an intelligent program, it runs like any other program: only when we run it will it function, it cannot run itself. This limitation to an AGI means it cannot simply reach superintelligence on its own. More probable than not, the AGI won't even have a mind of its own --- I mean, intelligence and conciousness are quite different things, and they often contradict each other in terms of function. One has said "a creative camera would not be usefull". AI built for the purpose of achieving optimal intelligence will probably not have a structure similarly to our brain, that is, a structure of self-propagated conciousness wherein intelligence is a minor part of its design.
AGI will probably be a program of general intelligence that we can turn on and of as we please without it caring at all --- it would not resist or fight us.
Thus the robotic threat to humanity is minimal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Humans need air constantly, yes. But do humans need a correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere constantly? No. Apart from the long-time effects of bad climate like drough and hurricanes, nothing about a heating climate is actually dangerous or damaging.
It is you who seem to not comprehend the argument. You are constantly saying " babies is not something we need constantly", as if you did not understand the future value argument. It does not considder what CURRENT people needs, it considders what FUTURE people need --- including a good climate and being born.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You are right, silicon does not have immidiate future value --- and so burning it is not immoral. That does not disprove the syllogism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Quit lying. I am harming noone in particular when I drive my car, the damage takes time to become apparent. Yes, we need a good climate every day but the climate is still good and only getting bad over time; thus the only reason to oppose climate change is because of the value of future generations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The validity of this argument would be sufficient reason to argue against climate change and many other issues; that is why its so important. You have previously denied the validty of this argument. I ask you, why is it wrong to destroy the climate? If future value is not a valid thing, then surely it can't be wrong to abuse Earth's resources for one's personal gain, am I right? If the people who don't get to live dignified lives because of your actions don't exist yet, then your actions are totally justified, no?
As far as I am concerned, future value is worthy of moral considderation. The people of the future ought to be treated well by us, just as we ought to be treated well by the people that came before us. Preventing future people from living dignified lives is wrong, I say. Do you really disagree, or do your simply deny this argument for other reasons?
Created:
Posted in:
This is a forum regarding the validity of the future value argument.
It goes like this:
- Humans ought to take into moral consideration future value
- xxx has future value
- Humans ought to take xxx into moral consideration
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
So you are saying that DUI laws are the very reason drunk drivers drive safely because they force drunk drivers to step up their play whilst sober drivers slack of. I might agree. Hower, I do still uphold that everyone should drive as safely as possible, and that drunk driving is unnesesarily increasing risk of harm, whislt other types of specialised driving simply requires other types of driving skills. One could say that drunk driving is a STYLE of driving, while driving other vehicles is a METHOD of driving, and a method (like normal driving) is influenced by alcohol, making the extra risk unnecesary and directly caused by the alcohol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I was not planning to vote, as my votes tend to be a bit bad anyways; and the argument I present can't be used as the debate is in the voting phase, but I understand your concern. I have reported my post and you can delete it if you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw
@Intelligence_06
@FourTrouble
Thought you would be interested based on your previous interest of yours in this topic.
Created:
Posted in:
1. GOAL OF TRAFFIC LAWS
The goal of traffic laws is to ensure every single person drives as safely as possible. We of course know that some people can drive better than others, but that does not prevent us from using a single standard. Even if you could drive much faster on the roads and still drive more safely than normal humans (because you are a good driver), that does not mean that you should be allowed to do so --- because every person is required to drive as safely as they can manage, and must follow laws set up for this very purpose.
2. DRUNK DRIVING EFFECTS
We can agree that some people are less affected by alcohol than others, and some people are very good at driving and can drive safely even while affected by alcohol. However, nobody can deny that every single person on Earth can drive safer when sober than they can while drunk. As a result, we can safely conclude that drunk driving decreases everyone's ability to drive, always, and without exception.
3. REBUTTAL OF FOURTROUBLE'S ARGUMENT
FourTrouble's argument hinges on the idea that as long as you drive as safe as other people you should be allowed to drive while drunk. While this might be a good argument, it still isn't perfect. Since the purpose of traffic laws is to maximize each individual's chances of causing an accident, and every single person is less mentally capable of driving while drunk, the only valid conclusion is that nobody should be driving while drunk. This fact should not be contested lest one denies the purpose of traffic laws.
Drunk Driving Licence
Specialized driving and drunk driving are not the same. Specialised driving means you drive a vehicle to the best of your ability. But to drive while drunk means to intentionally make the roads slightly more dangerous. Drunk driving violates the purpose of traffic laws: driving your vehicle as safely as you can. Thus, drunk driving does indeed stick out as an unnecessary evil that should be removed. 10.000 deaths each year are caused by people who thought that this danger of drunk driving didn't matter, and their stories are more than enough evidence to show that drunk driving kills, and therefore we should ban drunk driving.
Unless FourTrouble denies that even perfect driving doesn't ensure a 0% death chance he cannot deny that even an experienced drunk driver is a greater traffic risk while drunk.
No harm?
FourTrouble's logic for claiming that drunk drivers don' deserve punishment is that they neither intend nor cause harm. Yet some people drive recklessly without causing harm and without intending harm. By his logic, they too don't deserve punishment. With us getting such strange results when applying FourTrouble's logic, we can make no other conclusion than to deny its validity. Surely, we don't punish those that actually harm themselves -- we don't punish those that die in a car crash.
Traffic laws do not punish harm, they punish unnecessary increases in the chance of harm --- a category drunk driving falls into.
CONCLUSION
FourTrouble's argument, at least his claim that "DUI laws serve no purpose in our justice system", fails.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Let my words speak for himself --- OK!
HERE ARE MY TRUE WORDS:
-->@oromagi, @RagnarI do in fact respect you, and I disagree with RationalMadman that you don't deserve your status. [#8]
I am not calling out anybody, and if I am, I am showing respect --- the opposite of your claim about my attitude. At the exact same time, you were discrediting their success and saying that "nobody truly respects the approach they have taken" as if to discredit them or their strategies for victory ==> thus indeed you are the source of criticism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yes, so God made lies in the Bible except for the people at that time believed in those lies thus God didn't lie --- perfectly fine, yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
if their ego is too fragile to risk the w/l ratio then I just gotta laugh.Everyone knows what they did to get there, nobody truly 'respects' the approach they take, it's sad how enslaved they are to the fear of losingI will take a topic I know little about and debate it to the best of my ability, Oromagi will only take stuff he's researched inside-out beforehand and not ever dare risk his pretty record being tarnished if he can avoid it needing to be possible.
Is it just me, or is that a statement by you that Oromagi and Ragnar don't deserve the respect their position calls for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I did not expect this to get heated up. Yet you managed to turn this forum into a personal attack discussion. Well done!
Benjamin's suggestions. They're all indirect mockery of people who sit there too scared shit to lose and UNRATED debate even just because their ego can't take the loss if it happens.
WTF! My suggestions are an objective improvement of the ranking system. The very name, "unrated", shows us that their purpose is exactly that ---- to not affect ratings.
All I am saying is that IF we are to have an unrated mode THEN that mode ought not to affect important numbers. Do you deny this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
IF the Bible says that the Earth is built on pillars and cannot move, AND you claim that God wrote the entire Bible, THEN you claim that God is lying unless you deny modern science
Your post #13:
Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures state that the earth has 4 corners (Isaiah 11:12 and other passages), therefore you forgot to mention that this proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that since GOD JESUS stated these cosmology points herein, then they have to be TRUE because they are direct words from the serial killer Hebrew Christian GOD!
YOU CLAIM JESUS GOD INCARNATE STATES EARTH IS FLAT IN YOUR POST #13 -- and you thus claim that Jesus is lying IF the Earth is round.
Since we know the Earth is round due to images and overwhelming evidence, your quote can only mean that Jesus makes factually incorrect claims about cosmology.
Thus, your post #13 shows you claiming that Jesus is a liar; that is, unless you deny the validity of modern science.
Get it, logic fool!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@oromagi
I do in fact respect you, and I disagree with RationalMadman that you don't deserve your status.
Anyways, what do you think about my proposed changes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ragnar and Oromagi value their win streaks -- so what? Why is that a bad thing? And why should our ranking system prevent such excellent debaters from participating in informal debates? You do have an idea how much effort it takes to reach their position, so you should understand the reason they don't want to lose.
The only reason you ridicule their approach is that you have chosen a different approach. As a matter of fact, Oromagi and Ragnar could have had much more fun had the system been changed -- and they would also have been able to debate topics without being 100% sure that they would win. The current system makes it impossible to both be a tryhard and have fun because it does not see any difference between informal and tryhard debates.
I propose we upgrade the system to allow for informal debates that don't affect one's ego. How can you oppose this change?
Created:
Posted in:
Please forgive me if I have gotten the system already in place wrong. This is based on my current understanding of the Dart score system.
1. Make unvoted ties not be registered at all
- This would make our ranking system more accurate
2. Make unrated debates not affect win/loss ration
- Right now, unrated does not mean actually unrated. The current system makes losing an unrated debate affect the win/loss ration, a very important number.
- With my suggestion implemented, people like Ragnar and Oromagi would be able to participate in as many debates as they would like
- Currently, participating in unrated debates puts their precious win/loss rations at risk
- The current system thus prevents exceptional debaters from participating in funny/informal debates
- thus the current system causes a lot of undesired and fatal effects and is VERY flawed because of this
3. Possible extension: have unrated debates be a separate number from the rated debates
- Elsewise, point 2 would not be as effective
- Currently, unrated debates and ranked debates are seen as one category, making it very possible for the win/loss ratio and elo number to disagree
4. Make tied debates not affect win/loss ratios
- Tied debates are neither win's nor losses, and should not be recorded as such
- This suggestion makes the win percentage more accurate, as ties are not actually half-wins half-losses,
- With this feature, an agreed-upon tie can have the desired effect of not affecting any rating or number
These are three minor changes that would have major effects on the accuracy and usefulness of our ranking system. These changes would be beneficial, objectively speaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Anachronistic as a term used by you to justify factual mistakes in the Bible necessarily assumes that the author of the Bible was writing as if he did not know the true shape of the Earth. YOU claim that the author of the Bible is God and that therefore we ought to regard as fact anything the Bible says -- yet if that is the case then the word anarchroistic is not a valid defence for the Bible implying the Earth being flat -- because God obviously knows the Earth is round, and he also knew that at the time the Bible was written.
Thus, your defence is invalid.
- Do you claim the Bible does not tell us the Earth is flat?
- Do you claim that God is a liar?
- Or do you admit that the Bible is not written by God?
Either way, your logic is far more flawed than my English knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
@BenjaminBenjamin,YOUR QUOTE: "Also, you claim that God is lying when he says that the Earth is flat, which is obviously not the case --- we literally have images proving the Earth is round as I showed before."Refresh my memory when I said that my serial killer Yahweh/Jesus was lying relative to the earth being flat. Your statement that we have images showing the earth is not flat, is irrelevant because you are being anachronistic, whereas Yahweh/Jesus says it is flat! In turn, are you calling Yahweh/Jesus a LIAR???!!! BLASPHEME!.
This quote of yours can't be addressed -- it literally makes no claims to which I could respond. Please explain exactly what you want me to do, what kind of "response" do you want. I am not running away I am merely baffled by the incoherence of your statements. YOU CLAIM GOD SAID EARTH WAS FLAT, yet you call my quote blaspheme. Now that could only make sense if you deny evidence proving Earth is round -- yet you have done no such thing. If anything, brother, it is YOU who are being blasphemic by admitting:
Refresh my memory when I said that my serial killer Yahweh/Jesus was lying
YOU, BROTHERDTHOMAS, HAS ADMITTED THAT YOU CALL GOD A LIAR! Please explain yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No whitewashing, only calling out your re-writing of history. Also, Arabs invaded Israel multiple times, made alliances to exterminate it, bombed its farmers in the north and moved military threateningly as well as close the streets of Tiran --- first then did Israel respond with military action; also, both Jordan and Syria attacked Israel, not vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Do you not understand logic?
A=B
+
B=C
=
A=C
P1: Earth is round
P2: God does not lie
C: God does not claim Earth is not round (as that would be a lie)
End of story!
Deny either premise, explain why and then we can talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The palestinians already owned the west bank in the first place. It was their land from the start.
Please give me one clear example (like a document or quote) proving that Arabs in the west bank identified as Palestinians prior to the Israeli occupation. Elsewise, your claim stands as re-writing history by applying current political terms to a past unbeknownst to them. I can tell you as much as that the Jewish newspaper "Jerusalem Post" was originally called "Palestinian post" and was created by a Jew. In fact, Jews in Palestine were the original people referred to as "Palestinians". Today, the former "Arabs" are called "Palestinians" while the former "Palestinians" are called "Israelis".
Also, stop referring to the Arabs of the west bank as one distinct entity, as prior to the creation of Israel no Arab nation had existed in Palestine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Today, Israel occupation of the west bank is a problem; but the problem was caused by the Jordanian attacks on Israel in 1948 and 1967, wherein they used the west bank as an excellent military base to attack Israel from. Since Israel occupied the territory Jordan has never had a chance nor plans of attacking Israel -- meaning the occupation is effectively both a deterrent and defence of Israel against large-scale conflicts. Military occupation getting stricter is because of terrorism. The Palestinians sure do not know about the power of peaceful revolution, because their violence against Israeli civilians does not in any way incentivise Israelians to leave the territory, rather the opposite is the case.
As evidenced by history, Arabs started and perpetuated the conflict against a small democratic nation solely because of its majority being former Jewish immigrants and refugees. Acknowledging history and "picking a side" is not the same thing. I solely claim that accusations against Israel based on problems actually caused by the Arabs are misleading, and if made by Arabs, hypocritical. Only when current problems are taken out of historical context can Israel be seen as aggressor or "occupying power". I rest my case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Both sides have hurt the other side -- that is a truism. Another truism is that neither side can claim to not have their individuals go amock and become a terrorist.
The questions at hand, which you are denying the validity of, are "which side caused the conflict?" and "which side is the de facto aggressor?".
The answer to those questions, beyond doubt, is the Arabs -- denying this would mean you don't know history and especially not the war of 1948. The Arabs attacked Israel, and their constant terrorism ever since, both by terrorist organizations and states like Syria, is the major reason for the conflict today. Everything you can accuse Israel of doing has been a response or direct result of this Arab policy --- making the state of Israel the de facto victim overall. Israel of course has both defended itself and retaliated, leading to countless Arab casualties and problems; yet Israel is a free democracy with even gay rights and religious freedom - meaning it is a far superior "moral" nation than its enemies.
I do not deny Arab losses at the hands of Israel but Israel, as opposed to the Arab world, is indeed the victim of the century old conflict. Case closed.
Created:
Posted in:
I personally love satire. Whether the satire be true or false, deserved or undeserved, I simply can't resist enjoying ideas and policies be ridiculed and put under funny scrutiny. My personal favourite channels of satire on youtube are juicymedia and freedoomtoons. The latter especially can be critiqued, but I simply love the funny and sarcastic way they present ideas and ridicule other ideas.
Juicymedia makes a lot of factual-based satire. For example, THIS VIDEO SUCCDS EXCEPTIONALLY AT RIDICULING ARMS SALES, WHILE STILL PROVIDING EVIDENCE.
Freedoomtoons is more biased and non-factual; it relies on animation and humour. For example, THIS VIDEO ILLUSTRATES THE ABSURDITY OF FACT-CHECKING FILTERS.
Both of these channels, while not always being necesarily right, make me laugh as well as rethink my stance on political issues.
If you know about other good channels of satire, be sure to post about them here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You have still failed to answer my question --- you are still avoiding the main problem.
You claim that God directly wrote the verses in the Bible that talks about a flat Earth, yet evidence shows that Earth is round
Thus, these are the alternatives:
- God is a liar
- All evidence humanity has -- basically all our knowledge -- is wrong
- God did not write the verses of a flat Earth -- meaning you are wrongly interpreting 2 Thesalonicans.
- These verses were not intended by God to deceive us into thinking that Earth was flat -- God had other purposes, or the humans who wrote the Bible were allowed to use their own writing style to write the word of God, leading to irrelevant factual mistakes that don't alter the religious message of the Bible
Either way, I challenge you to tell me which of the above-mentioned alternatives is true, and why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Also, you claim that God is lying when he says that the Earth is flat, which is obviously not the case --- we literally have images proving the Earth is round as I showed before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas, you claim that the entirety of the Bible is the direct word of God, such as to claim that the Biblical view of Earth as flat is a requirement for Christians to believe in.
Let me show you a verse in the Bible that clearly shows us that there are places in the Bible where HUMANS wrote something.
The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%201&version=NIV]
The author of the book of Nehemiah calls himself Nehemiah ... he describes himself as a human and refers to God in the third person throughout the book.
Your claim that the entire Bible is written by God implies that God is LYING by calling his own words the words of Nehemiah?
How dare you slap your Jewish Genocidal Jesus/Yahwe God in the face by claiming that he is a liar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@BrotherDThomas
The wording of the Bible shows us that the writers thought the Earth was flat. But it is neither a doctrine of Christianity nor teaching of the Bible that I need to view the world as David did or any other Biblical person. In fact, the story of the Bible is clearly a story where humans learn more and old views are replaced by new ones, even God reveals himself more and more throughout. Thus, one does not need to believe that the Earth is flat, not even if the Bible tells us that it is flat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Sorry for not responding more yesterday I was sleeping.
To answer you, not only did the Syrians constantly bombard innocent farmers in north Israel but the Arabian nations also were conspiring and making alliances with the specific purpose of going to war against Israel. Coupled with the threat of annihilation felt by Israel after 1948 there was nothing to be done except war. Israel, once again, tried to be diplomatic but the Arabian nations, even Jordan, refused to participate. Also, this shows that Israel conquered the west bank from Jordan rather than "Palestine".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Did the Egyptians know that closing the Suez canal for specifically Israelian ships would be interpreted as an act of war? If not, did they expect to destroy the innocent lives of peaceful Israelian shippers by taking away their jobs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Sorry, did you mean to say that Great Britain and France started WW2, they were the ones to officially declare war on Germany. Yet Germany forced them to act, which is exactly what the Arabs did with intense planning of invasion, alliances against Israel, Egyptian forces put close to the border and Egyptian + Syrian + Jordanian promises to attack Israel and wipe them from the map as they also tried in 1948. No, Israel did not initiate the six-day war -- the Arabs did.
Furthermore, the Jordanian government was sent a letter from Israel telling them to not attack Israel and they would be safe. Yet Transjordania attacks Israel precisely on those hills, nearly overwhelming Israelian defences. Israel only managed to survive because of air superiority, which they only achieved with their pre-emptive strike on the Egyptian military after provocative acts.
Indeed, the Arabs started this conflict as they did every other conflict. Israel is a small nation, nothing except intense fear under threats can drive it to fight a war.
Created: