Total posts: 827
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Cambridge definition of Authoritarian: demanding that people obey completely and refusing to allow them freedom to act as they wish:
I neither demand complete obedience nor refuse to allow people to have freedom. I am simply saying that the state of Israel should annex a piece of land, which means solely that the inhabitants of that piece of land receive full citizenship and can no longer be maltreated by the Israelian government. If they want to leave a paradise of a free democracy and once again enter a desert of authoritarian Arab states then it's their choice.
But the issue at hand is that
- Israel cannot let the west bank become another Gaza
- The inhabitants of the west bank are being oppressed by their current leaders as well as suffering from Israelian military occupation
The only way to solve this problem is for Israel to annex the west bank.
Even you do think that Israel is evil, what are you gonna do. Israel has nukes. If they want to annex the west bank you cannot prevent them. The Arabs on the other hand are both guilty and the root cause of this conflict (attacking Israel constantly and recklessly throughout history), while at the same time lacking the ability to do anything about it, leading to terrorism against civilians and oppression of their own population in order to continue their power.
Only Israel has the power to make their solution come true, and only Israel is evidently a free democracy in which the Arabs of the west bank can thrive politically as well as religiously. The fact that Arabs have been indoctrinated into thinking that living in Israel is bad only supports my conclusion. . Even if they get their own state Arabs will continue to think of themselves as victims and accuse Israel for their problems, I once again refer to Gaza as an example. Only in Israel can the Arabs be free from indoctrination and truly live good lives. The Arabs living in Israel already live in peace and prosperity -- why should we prevent the Arabs of the west bank from getting that life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Accepting people of different identity and opinion is the definition of respect, the very basis of modern civilisation. I severely doubt any people can be prosperous without respect. So with all due respect, I don't agree with you that merely Arabs not respecting Jews is enough reason to conclude that Israel should not annex the west bank. That lack of respect shown by the Arabs, if they think as you say, is dangerous and the root cause of terrorism and alike. If you lack respect for others then it won't do anything to grant your wishes, you will just demand more -- as evidenced by Hamas continuing to attack Israel even after getting sovereignty of the Gaza strip.
No, the solution is to force or teach people respect --- which might only happen in Israel as every Arab country has "removed" most Jews and Christians a long time ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
The question I am asking is whether or not a Palestinian state will magically be a free democracy rather than be an authoritarian regime. As far as I know, not a single Arab nation has shown itself worthy of being called "free democracy" -- and that is why I suggest Israel annex the west bank; it is simply a better deal for both sides. In the long run, the current conflict will seem insignificant, just like today's Arabs live happily and voluntarily in Israel whereas their parents would have preferred them to live in an Arabian (read: authoritarian) state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Don't take this personal, but your claims are BS.
"Palestinian" was first used to refer to Jews in Israel, evidenced by the Jerusalem post first being named the Palestinian post. Furthermore, Jewish immigrants were neither hostile or did they steal land -- how could they be, they did not have weapons or numbers. In fact, they bought the land and then cultivated it, literally being the least hostile one can possibly be. The conflict was never there until the British Mandate appointed an anti-jewish Muslim to be the religious leader of Jerusalem -- and even then it was still small clashes. Not before the Arab-started war in 1948 was there a serious conflict.
Jewish apartheid? You mean the occupation of the west bank, which came hundreds of years after the first Jewish immigrants arrived in Palestine. Even still, Arabs IN Israel have all the freedom and human rights everyone else gets. Your claims are absurd as well as untrue. Learn some history before making extreme claims about controversial issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I was not referring to Israel specifically, but rather to a concept known in the west as "free democracy". I would much rather have the Palestinian people, or any people for that matter, sent to a free democracy than to any other type of state. I am too lazy to study expert articles digging for answers, but if you know about a free Arab democracy, please inform me. I would surely be happy if such a mythical beast existed in real life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Once again, their direct permission isn't needed. There are no legitimate representatives to ask. Furthermore, their constant terrorism against civilians discredits their opinion from being put in high regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Do you claim that a minority (religious and political activists; self-appointed leaders who don't care about human rights) should rule Palestine?
Or
Do you agree that they should be able to rule themselves by living in a free democracy wherein their voices are heard and their votes counted?
Remember that Arabs in Israel live better lives than Arabs in other countries -- and the Arab minority in Israel has a solid voice with solid representation in the Israeli parliament.
THE ONLY REASON WHY ARABS IN THE WEST BANK AREN'T LIVING GOOD LIVES IS BECAUSE ISRAEL HAS NOT ANNEXED THE WEST BANK.
Simple as that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
You do not need a university-level professor to teach kids how to write. I do not need an expert to explain the fact that Israel is vulnerable to attacks from the west bank.
A nation of people have the right to choose who governs them.
Annexation by Israel ensures the Arabs in the west bank can vote on whoever they want -- remember that there are already Arab members of the Israelian government.
If the west bank becomes an independent country it will most likely become a dysfunctional democracy or something worse. Just look at the Gaza strip.
Also, did you even watch the video I provided. He literally denies that Palestinians are choosing their leaders; rather they are self-appointed.
Whatever the average Palestinian says is determined by religious fundamentalism and political propaganda by groups who breach the basic human rights of both Jews and Arabs. One cannot hear their real voices clearly, and thus backing one's claims on "Palestinian opinion" is a fallacy.
Do you support the regime of North Korea? The population does, and you would be a hypocrite if you do not accept the fact that a populations opinion is irrelevant unless it is free of outside control --- as is the case with North Korea and the west bank.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Homeland and homeland. More like religious and national ties with the land. Israel was a nation of Jews thousands of years ago, and it lasted for hundreds of years. With continued invasions, the Jewish presence diminished but was still there throughout history. Before and especially after the world wars Israel was the place Jews immigrated to, and they bought pieces of land became farmers. It was first after the second world war that the conflict and dispute about "legitimacy" started. I uphold that any functional democracy with an agreeing population and basic human rights is legitimate in the sense that removing it would be unjustifiable. Israel more than conforms to this standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
You said you had studied this topic for a long time. Did you study the history of this conflict as well?
A nation, its culture, and its people
Palestine, area of the eastern Mediterranean region, comprising parts of modern Israel and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip (along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea) and the West Bank (west of the Jordan River). [https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine].
Palestine was never a state. Palestine was a geographical term. If anything, the word Palestinian was used to describe Jews before the state of Israel was born. The Jerusalem Post was first called the "Palestine Post" [1]. This was the first Jewish newspaper and the company was made by a Jew before Israel was even a thing.
The modern usage of the word "Palestine" as referring to the Arab population was a conscious Arab strategy with the specific intention to fuel propaganda and sway public opinion in favour of the Arabs. If you have read about the six-day war then you know that the "Palestinian flag" didn't exist before Israel conquered the west bank after being attacked by Transjordanian, and neither did Palestinian resistance to the illegal occupation (Arabs in the west-bank didn't crave freedom from illegal Jordanian occupation). The flag of Palestine is literally the flag of Jordania except for the number of stars, which is different.
The claim that there was a culture and nation called Palestine is not true.
According to statistics:
- In 1914, there were 689.000 total inhabitants in Palestine, 13.6% of them Jewish.
- In 1947 there were 2 million people, 32% of them Jewish.
In just 3 decades the non-Jewish population of Palestine doubled. Arab immigration was also substantial, meaning the population was not stable. There was never a "Palestinian nation", there was just an Arab nation. The earliest conflict between Jews and Arabs was not due to Palestinian nationalism, it was due to Arab nationalism. They expected of the allies that after the Ottomans were defeated the entire Middle East would be sovereign Arab land. Once again, there was neither a Palestinian nation nor Palestinian people before the war of 1967.
do not waive the right to self-determination because dead people started a war in '67
Israel got their nation the same way every other Arab got it: through the division of territory, fair or unfair, by the Allied powers. The Arabs can't deny the legitimacy of Israel without also undermining their own legitimacy. The UN made a plan wherein the remaining parts of Palestine were to be divided into a Jewish and Arab state (TransJordania already was given to the Arabs, even though it was a part of Palestine). But the Arabs in Palestine intentionally refused to create their state in 1948. Instead, the Arab nations attacked Israel and started a war. Thus started the Jordanian occupation of the west bank and the endless conflict. The Arabs in 1967 forced Israel into a war, and Jordania attacked Israel -- thus the west bank fell into Israeli hands.
The problem of today that is the Israelian-Palestinian conflict, ultimately, is the fault of Arab mistakes throughout history. They simply did not accept the authority of the UN, nor did they respect the Jewish right to live in peace and prosperity. All they cared about was attacking Israel because of grand nationalistic dreams. Today, Arabs in the west bank and Gaza strip are being occupied by a foreign power and also being led by terrorists posing as freedom fighters. Blame that on Israel all you want, but Arabs have had THE major role in creating this problem. Even the actions of Israel, like the occupation itself, can be traced back to unfair and provocative military actions by Arab states.
Representatives of Palestine do not and never did consent to that
Who do you consider representative of Palestine? PLO, Hamas, Fatah? These are terrorist organizations, and the very "Palestinian Authorities" organization were created by multiple of these. Yassir Arafat, the very person who created and led PNA, was also the leader of the terrorist organization Fatah. These people and organizations have selfish, political and/or religious reasons for existing, and I would bet all my money any day that they aren't any better than Israel with regards to helping Palestinians.
Do you know the son of Hamas? This person was the son of one of Hamas's leaders, but his life led to him working for Israel security and later move to the west.
Here is what he has to say, on behalf of UN WATCH, about the PNA, the "Palestinian representatives": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2NaiX-hvVQ.
I highlight the quote: "You are the greatest enemy of the Palestinian people!". Now that puts things into perspective, doesn't it.
I am not denying the problems the occupation caused. But do not tell me that these representatives have any legitimacy other than the power they have accumulated specifically because they use terrorism and other means of prolonging and worsening conflict.
please substantiate your national security concerns
- The constant threat of war with Arabs is a major concern for Israel
- The west bank is the perfect springboard for invasions, missile attacks, pre-emptive airstrikes and terrorist attacks
- With control of the west bank, Arab armies can easily reach Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, effectively cutting the country of Israel in half
- The hills provide excellent protection for military installations. It's either an Arab advantage to attack Israel or Israelian advantage to protect itself.
- After the war in 1967, Jordan has never attacked Israel. The hills prevent any attack from the East.
Much more importantly though, with being safe from invaders Israel doesn't need to strike first to have a chance in war -- helping ensure peace and prevent another six-day war.
Human rights issues are always important
I agree that human rights are important. Tell that to the Arab nations. This video, while being funny, explains the situation: Andrew Klavan: the one-state solution
The major takeaway point is that Arabs living inside Israel live better, freer lives with more democracy and human rights than Arabs in any Arabian nation.
Why would you rather have yet another failed democracy in the west bank, when most "Palestinians" immigrated into Palestine the same ways Jews did.
Unless one agrees with those Arabs who are motivated by irrational religious or nationalistic extremism, then one should agree that Israel annexation is a valid possibility.
Personally, I think that the impossibility of ensuring that former terrorist organizations treat people fairly (look at Gaza), coupled with the security needs of Israel as well as its superior democracy, economy and human rights; I think all of these points together show that the best solution, while maybe the most controversial, would be that the west bank gets annexed by Israel. It will be more beneficial for the Arabs, it will remove the power of terrorist organizations and the state of Israel can be much safer. Israel already has a large Arab population, with Arab parties and Arab members of the government. Arabs in Israel are better off in almost every way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@rosends
@BrotherDThomas
@Theweakeredge
@Timid8967
SHAPE OF EARTH
Remember that the very physical Bible is but a stack of paper on which a visual representation of words and sentences has been printed. Denying the validity of visual evidence, a necessary result of rejecting the image I provided, would also mean that the physical and digital versions of the Bible aren't valid evidence to figure out what God says. Unless you are denying that we can trust our eyes you must agree that the image provided by me proves that Earth is not flat.
GOD DOESN'T LIE EVEN IF THE BIBLE IS INACCURATE
I will not dispute that the Bible infers a flat and immovable Earth. Everyone in ancient times thought of the Earth as flat, and how verses in the Bible are worded clearly reflect a flat-Earth belief, as explained by this article. But let me instead direct your attention to an official and accurate English definition that is very important. What is a lie?
Make note of the fact that INTENT is the differentiator between a lie and simply an untrue statement. An untrue statement is often used merely because expressing yourself more accurately would distract from the topic and make it harder to understand your message. For example, in the Bible God often refers to himself as the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jakob. In other places in the Bible God states that he is the God of everyone. Does that mean that God is contradicting himself and thus logically speaking lies at least once? NO! It merely shows us that God doesn't waste our time by listing every servant of God just to tell us who he is. The God of the Bible chooses to make statements that if interpreted a certain way seems to be lies, but the definition of a lie clearly shows us that intent is what makes something a lie.
LOGICAL CONCLUSION
P1: God can make 'untrue-and-imprecise-statements' without being a liar
P2: Biblical verses inferring a flat Earth are imprecise [because earth is proven round by visual evidence]
C: You can believe that the Bible is the word of God and still reject Flat Earth Theory
I hope this clarifies a few things.
Created:
Posted in:
What are the 2 best arguments for and against God? This is a question of subjective opinion, and I am curious to hear your thoughts whoever you are.
Created:
Posted in:
This is the ultimate rap battle on the topic: The March of history - Mises vs Marx. I encourage you to watch this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
The Israelian occupation of the west bank started in 1967 and has been in effect for more than half a century. Before 1967, the piece of land was occupied by the Transjordanian kingdom - also illegally I might add. Before that, the piece was a part of the British mandate "Palestine", which included Israel, Gaza, Jordan and the west bank. Before that, it was controlled by the Ottomans. It would be dubious to claim that the current occupation is more a legal problem than any of the previous ones. Additionally, the territory is important for Israel's security, an all-important thing for the Israelian state due to the 6+ wars and conflicts with the Arabs.
If we are talking about issues in terms of importance, aka priority and feasibility of solving, the occupation of the west bank isn't high on the list.
Even if you could instantly remove this occupation, who is to say that Arabs won't invade Israel in an attempt to eradicate the state as they did in 1948 and later in 1973?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yet, though I still want to listen and wait for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
"Israeli Zionists" is really not different from "Israelian patriot". Zionism: political support for the creation and development of a Jewish homeland in Israel. Unless the Israeli people you are talking about don't support their own nation then they are Zionists.
Furthermore, you are making a categorical error in calling a state's action terrorism.
Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.
A state neither needs nor uses terrorism, as its own authority is sufficient to achieve its political goals. Unless you are willing to call the American police "terrorists" because they use violence to achieve their goals, then you can't call the Israelian army terrorist organizations. Mass bombing by a state tries to achieve a military, not a political, goal.
Your claims fall flat when facts and correct definitions are brought to the table.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
turning a group's homeland into a series of military checkpoints
What about terrorist attacks and military retribution, missiles fired at population centres, the polarization of the UN with economic pressure of Arab oil and military actions by Israel towards states like Libya? These seem like major points more important than a mere occupation; which after all is not unique. On the grand scale of things, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only a small part of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I was shocked the time I discovered that fascism was classified as an extreme right-wing ideology. It's basically communism without social programs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What do you and Jesus think?
Created:
Posted in:
Does the Bible teach a flat Earth?
If it does, would images from space of a round Earth disprove the Bible?
Created:
Come on, guys! Let's not forget that everyone is already replaced by a robot clone and controlled by magical demons. Nobody has a biological brain anymore.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Wow! What a comeback!
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"cuz I say they have it lul" technology
Great wording.
Well, I actually agree with you. That's why the topic of my actual debate is an alien invasion of Earth's surface. In that respect, I think nukes kill space fleets.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Infinities don't exist within the bounds of realism, and thus aliens cannot scientifically speaking possess infinitely destructible lasers.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Brother, infinitely destructible lasers don't exist either.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In this popular film, the actor dodged bullets to create this powerful scene. Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry impressive I might add.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Hmmm... humans have been known to dodge bullets. Clips of this phenomenon have been recorded and used in popular movies for quite some time. Also, our lovely Donal D. Trump would be more than happy to create a wall to keep these dangerous immigrants out. There is no need to worry, we will get the aliens to pay.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
No need to worry. We can simply use mirrors to reflect their attacks. Infinitely destructible lasers sure destroy aliens that are merely indestructible x1.
Created:
-->
@Username
Physical: of or relating to natural science
Yes everything in our universe is physical. At least, if demons existed they would neither be physical nor aliens in the scientific sense.
Created:
-->
@Username
What human classification are you talking about? We live in a physical universe, that's a fact, not a social construct. Biology is the only viable way for life to exist in our physical universe. Claiming otherwise is to deny established science and would require evidence or a logical demonstration.
Created:
-->
@Username
I have not seen that movie. Yet I know that by "alien" I am referring to the scientifical idea of intelligent (biological) life on other planets.
Created:
-->
@Username
If we assume that the aliens are biological life forms, then yes they are indeed physical and bound by the laws of physics.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You would be surprised by the number of things that are "mathematically possible". Still it doesn't prove that one could feasibly build one, even with superior technology. And no, there is no reason for such an invasion. This topic is merely a "Hollywood concept", the twist is that we apply logic to it, without scrutinicing its premise.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
The thing is though, distance in space is vast --- really vast. Travelling at speeds upwards of C would essentially be to cut away all communication with your home. The aliens could not get access to the experience of other invasions. In fact, they would lag behind technologically. Unless their spaceships are literal planets, they won't be able to improve on their technology during their travels. Therefore, the distance between them and us, in lightyears, dictate the difficulty of invading us.
There are two possibilities:
- They send their spaceships randomly in all directions
- They wait for signs of life and then react
In the first case, they won't know anything about us and will have much worse technology than in the second case. In the second case, there would be a long time period between the time we send our first signals and the time they arrive. We would be far technologically superior to today at the time of their arrival. Given that our planet is closer to the battlefield, we have the defenders advantage with regards to creating defences, quicker resupply and quicker implementation of new technology. In the second case, it would be nearly impossible for the aliens to take us down at all, given that technology is limited by the laws of physics which make their superior technology less dominant due to the nature of diminishing returns.
Therefore, the only case worth asking at the current moment is the first one. What if an aliens spaceship or small fleet enters our close proximity by chance and discovers our radio signals. In that case, they would come with superior technology but in low numbers, and they would fight our earthly defences. This battle would be interesting, and I think our Earthly defences would do better than you think. Spaceships are terrible for travelling in the air, in the ocean or on land. Bringing vehicles would be ineffective since our Earthly conditions require specific types of transportation. The spaceships could not land without being shot down by tactical nukes, and they could not stay in orbit for long before we put weapons on our rockets to fend them off. All in all I think an invasion is impossible, to be honest. Movies of alien invasions relly on breaking physical laws, which would be the equivalent of magic. In the real world, unpenetrable armour and alike doesn't exist.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thousands of brilliant scientist, university professors and bright minds have studied our world without making this discovery.
How do you of all people have access to this information?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
P1: Demons = spiritiual
P2: Aliens = physical
C: Demons =/= Aliens
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What I meant is that the aliens will need a much higher technology discrepancy, merely because our tech is fine-tuned to our environment. In other words, I claim that without our fine-tuning of weaponry the aliens could defeat us with far less technological superiority.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
A general sample of our atmosphere would not be enough to outweigh our advantage. We can test our missiles and weapons, while the aliens can't.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I agree. I also think in space distance is even more important. Distance determines communication delay and thus their reaction time. Distance determines the drop in technological advantage from travelling multiple lightyears, and also the probability of getting off course due to unforeseen events.
One thing that is interesting though is that their weapons would mostly be useless on Earth. Combat aeroplanes and missiles all rely on aerodynamics, which we have perfected on Earth while the aliens could at best make general assumptions of our atmosphere. Also, the size of the planet is important. If we have tactical missiles able to shoot down descending spacecraft then they must rush down -- landing in the ocean where our navies could deal with them. The size of our planet makes it nearly impossible for any space fleet to contain enough army. Imagine fitting millions of troops into a city-sized spaceship, travel thousands of light years and descend slowly enough to survive while being under heavy fire. This would be unrealistic.
All in all, I think the chances of aliens successfully invading Earth is pretty low. Planetary bombardment not so much though.
Created:
Assumption: Intelligent aliens exist, and they match or outperform our intelligence. They also have a technological head start
Question: would the aliens be able to launch a successful invasion of Earth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
the perfect, immortal human brain
This is what you gave me to work with. No wonder my words made no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I fail to see how memory is important if your previous experiences don't determine your actions.
The perfect immortal human brain would have greater problems than memory shortage. For example, the universe will literally become a black-hole park in a few years, and then sometime later the entire universe will be nothing but radiation and virtual particles. At that point, the immortal human being will starve and thirst. Once there is no energy left in him, his body will literally approach absolute zero, at which point the only thing keeping him "alive" will be the inevitable flickering caused by the quantum uncertainty principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...hard upper limitAccording to whom? A pocket mouse?
According to quantum mechanics, no two particles can occupy the same quanta (read: space). Since there is a finite and not an infinite amount of space in your brain, there is in fact a finite potential for memory, since information can't be stored without particles to record it. However, this theoretical limit is not important in practice. Your brain basically sorts out the important information and forget the non-important information. Your brain would also collapse into a black whole if you started to approach the quantum density limit.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
@Sum1hugme
Not all atoms moving around create ice, requires specific movements. I feel doubt that 'any atoms moving around create consciousness.
I am not saying that all atoms moving around would create a brain.
I am saying that since all atoms moving around create SOMETHING, the brain is in no way special.
The question isn't why there is a brain that thinks (that's obvious). The question is why this thinking is EXPERIENCED as opposed to just happening.
Is any chemical reaction experienced by itself, or is there some super-specific rule that states that only a brain can experience being itself.
If thinking is experienced by the brain, then is "crystalising" experienced by ice? That would be the only logical conclusion if experience arises from physical structures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
In other words, you CHOSE to not push the red button because your life was a certain way and because you made certain decisions in the past.
What about this makes it not free? That your experiences as a person shape your will?
You are basically defining free will as non-determinism, but that definition of free will inherently makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have the ability to kill my family in their sleep. It ain't gonna happen though.
Unwillingness and absence of ability are two completely different things
Created: