Israel

[jimboston]

Votanic and JP4 arguing over who posts better links!

Too much!

Votanic… JP4 is the king of “copy and paste”. Sorry bruh.

No, JimB fail to grasp the key points; you again "analyze" at a superficial level.

JP4 fails to grasp humor.

… not surprised.

[Votanic]

Votanic and JP4 arguing over who posts better links!

Too much!

Votanic… JP4 is the king of “copy and paste”. Sorry bruh.

No, JimB fail to grasp the key points; you again "analyze" at a superficial level.

JP4 fails to grasp humor.

… not surprised.

Start reading with comprehension, Jim.

1. I don't defrost cut-and-paste political word salads. Everything I post is baked fresh in the Celestial Dream-Kitchen of Eternal Truth.
2. J4P claims to have much better posts on other sites. He seems fit to only give us the dregs.
3. However I do agree, he truly can not, in any way, sense humor.
As far as I can tell he is the product of unholy union beteen ST:TNG 's Data (first season, freshly hatched) and The Spectrum's poster child of the decade.
...either that, or he's a cheap bot that doesn't even try to affect a human tone.

[jusplay4fun]

I have made my point; NOW the two claim HUMOR. RIGHT. More Lies.

When you cannot beat them with the facts, fall back on the "I was only joking" excuse. jimb has tried this before, so I should not be surprised.

End of that discussion.

Let's now get back to the main discussion of this thread, not me, but the topic of this thread: Israel (and their war against Hamas).

And they fail to refute the main points I quoted on the Hamas Charter.

The Hamas Covenant or Hamas Charter, formally known in English as the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, was originally issued on 18 August 1988 and outlines the founding identity, stand, and aims of Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement).[1] A new charter was issued by Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on 1 May 2017 in Doha.[2]

The original Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors". The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[3] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[4][5] It emphasizes the importance of jihad, stating in article 13,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter

MORE:

THE COVENANT OF THE HAMAS - MAIN POINTS

=======================================



The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement was issued on August

18, 1988. The Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as the HAMAS,

is an extremist fundamentalist Islamic organization operating in the

territories under Israeli control. Its Covenant is a comprehensive

manifesto comprised of 36 separate articles, all of which promote the

basic HAMAS goal of destroying the State of Israel through Jihad

(Islamic Holy War). The following are excerpts of the HAMAS

Covenant:



Goals of the HAMAS:

------------------

'The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian

movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is

Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of

Palestine.' (Article 6)



On the Destruction of Israel:

-----------------------------

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will

obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)

https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

btw: FAS = Federation of American Scientists

Striving For A Safer World Since 1945.
FAS envisions a world where cutting-edge science, technology, ideas and talent are deployed to solve the biggest challenges of our time. We embed science, technology, innovation, and experience into government and public discourse in order to build a healthy, safe, prosperous and equitable society.

[Votanic]

Votanic and JP4 arguing over who posts better links!

Too much!

Votanic… JP4 is the king of “copy and paste”. Sorry bruh.

No, JimB fail to grasp the key points; you again "analyze" at a superficial level.

1) Vot pastes lots of LINKS only and uses that to "argue" his point(s). That is not a way to argue and debate and bolster his point. He needs to actually give analysis of how information at that link supports his idea.

Hold on a minute, Jimbo & Jus w/o a 't'.
Who do you think is the one cuttng and pasting and linking crap everywhere. Not me!

Occasionally, I might post music or a funny video or what-not, but none of this endlessly rehashed pre-fab news & blog word product that you both seem addicted to.

You both treat Israel and Hamas as sports teams to root for or not. I guess religions and countries are kind of like that....
Everything your team does is glorified, forgiven, and overlooked, while the other side is just pure scum in your eyes. How boringly partisan of you...
I suppose you have some investments to protect. Whether they be economic, religious, or otherwise moralistic, I don't know.

I, on the other hand show about how violence, hostility, futility, and death are just an inevitable by-products of the human condition.
So, yeah, I guess I am 'next level', compared to where you operate,
...and there is nothing stupid about that.

[bigtoughralf]

French President Emmanuel Macron has today stated that the is 'no legitimacy' to the Israeli government's bombing of babies:

Israel must stop killing babies and women in Gaza, French President Emmanuel Macron has told the BBC.

In an exclusive interview at the Élysée Palace, he said there was "no justification" for the bombing, saying a ceasefire would benefit Israel.

"These babies, these ladies, these old people are bombed and killed. So there is no reason for that and no legitimacy. So we do urge Israel to stop."

Unfortunately, Macron forgot to mention that jimboston thinks the baby bombing is Hamas's fault. Maybe next time!

[Votanic]

French President Emmanuel Macron has today stated that the is 'no legitimacy' to the Israeli government's bombing of babies:

Israel must stop killing babies and women in Gaza, French President Emmanuel Macron has told the BBC.

In an exclusive interview at the Élysée Palace, he said there was "no justification" for the bombing, saying a ceasefire would benefit Israel.

"These babies, these ladies, these old people are bombed and killed. So there is no reason for that and no legitimacy. So we do urge Israel to stop."

Unfortunately, Macron forgot to mention that jimboston thinks the baby bombing is Hamas's fault. Maybe next time!

What's all this sexist, ageist crap?
That's one of the beautiful thing about explosives: They don't descriminate.

[jimboston]

French President Emmanuel Macron has today stated that the is 'no legitimacy' to the Israeli government's bombing of babies:

Israel must stop killing babies and women in Gaza, French President Emmanuel Macron has told the BBC.

In an exclusive interview at the Élysée Palace, he said there was "no justification" for the bombing, saying a ceasefire would benefit Israel.

"These babies, these ladies, these old people are bombed and killed. So there is no reason for that and no legitimacy. So we do urge Israel to stop."

Unfortunately, Macron forgot to mention that jimboston thinks the baby bombing is Hamas's fault. Maybe next time!

The French have NO STANDING here.

I will listen to a Frenchie’s opinion on wine, food, and possibly art.
Nothing more.

[jimboston]

I, on the other hand show about how violence, hostility, futility, and death are just an inevitable by-products of the human condition.
So, yeah, I guess I am 'next level', compared to where you operate,
...and there is nothing stupid about that.

I agree there is nothing stupid about how I operate.

Your idiotic comment about “all murder being self-defense” makes zero sense.

If you want to try to explain it I will listen… but I don’t think it’s possible.

[Votanic]

I, on the other hand show about how violence, hostility, futility, and death are just an inevitable by-products of the human condition.
So, yeah, I guess I am 'next level', compared to where you operate,
...and there is nothing stupid about that.

I agree there is nothing stupid about how I operate.

Your idiotic comment about “all murder being self-defense” makes zero sense.

If you want to try to explain it I will listen… but I don’t think it’s possible.

I dare you, as an exercise... try to fully imagine the P.O.V. of your enemy.
Suddenly. you will see how all your acts of self-defense might appear as murder (or other crimes).
...and all their murders may just be self-defense (or other forms of heroism).

I don't really think you're too dumb to get that (It's obvious, really), you're just too opinionated, manipulative, and covetous of victory to admit it...
...and so it goes on, and on, and on, and often it is quite violent and deadly. ...and some of that you love, and some of that you hate.
The same for almost everyone else, join the club.

[jimboston]

I, on the other hand show about how violence, hostility, futility, and death are just an inevitable by-products of the human condition.
So, yeah, I guess I am 'next level', compared to where you operate,
...and there is nothing stupid about that.

I agree there is nothing stupid about how I operate.

Your idiotic comment about “all murder being self-defense” makes zero sense.

If you want to try to explain it I will listen… but I don’t think it’s possible.

I dare you, as an exercise... try to fully imagine the P.O.V. of your enemy.
Suddenly. you will see how all your acts of self-defense might appear as murder (or other crimes).
...and all their murders may just be self-defense (or other forms of heroism).

I don't really think you're too dumb to get that (It's obvious, really), you're just too opinionated, manipulative, and covetous of victory to admit it...
...and so it goes on, and on, and on, and often it is quite violent and deadly. ...and some of that you love, and some of that you hate.
The same for almost everyone else, join the club.

I understand how someone who has been brainwashed by misinformation his whole life… say like a Hamas Fighter… could be convinced to believe that killing women in babies in their homes in an early morning unannounced attack might be “self-defense” because if they don’t do this now Israel will kill their babies tomorrow.

I concede they could believe this… even while I maintain it as a false belief.
===

You however said…

Here is a mind-bomb that will blow a few craniums open, if it manages to get by the blinders and firewalls...
Every murder that has ever been committed in the entire history of the human race has been an act of self-defense.

So explain this?

So every murder…
- all Jews in the Holocaust, the SS all thought they were acting in self-defense?

- let’s include all mass atrocities/ genocides; Armenians, Native Americans, the Russian Gulags, the Rape of Nanking, etc.

- every random mugging, robbery, house-invasion that escalates?
(Let’s exclude situations where the victim tries to defend himself/his property… you can argue that the act of the victim defending himself prompts the mugger/robber to react in a belief that his life is now in danger.)
So only mugging, robberies, house-invasions where the victim(s) are compliant… but then the perp gets nervous or excited or whatever and kills the victim. Is that not murder is that “an accident”?

- all spousal murders where the perp wants out of the marriage and wants it clean without divorce, maybe gets a nice insurance settlement. These are clearly self-defense right?

- what about all the mass shootings? These people are clearly “crazy” in some way, so that makes it automatically “self-defense” in your opinion?

- and of course we can’t exclude serial killers. Not the mass-shooting kind… but the Darhmer kind. He was acting in self defense because if he didn’t consume their flesh he’d die?


Like I said… I’ll concede that often, very often, people will convince themselves that the atrocities they commit are “righteous” in some way. I’ve heard the expression “No one is the villain of their own story”.

That said I disagree with your statement in two ways.

1) There are many many murders that are just murders.

2) Just because someone believes the murder they commit is “justified” and/or “self-defense” does not automatically make it true. No matter how much backflipping and brainwashing at the end of the day a murder is often just a murder.

Now… you can try to compare the attacks on October 7th to what Israel is doing now…. and you can try to claim they are all just “murder” of innocent civilians. You’d be wrong, but at least I recognize you can legitimately TRY to argue that point.

Trying to say that

Every murder that has ever been committed in the entire history of the human race has been an act of self-defense.

Is just Next-Level dumb.

[HitRed]

November 11, 23 Adoration

I the Lord speak but not everyone hears. Those who have ears often do not hear the word of the Lord. Those do not seek my word. They often seek their own meaning and way beyond my way and do not seek my will. There are many that do not hear and do not seek my will. The contrite heart will listen when I speak. Many are the ways of those who do not listen.

[Votanic]

I, on the other hand show about how violence, hostility, futility, and death are just an inevitable by-products of the human condition.
So, yeah, I guess I am 'next level', compared to where you operate,
...and there is nothing stupid about that.

I agree there is nothing stupid about how I operate.

Your idiotic comment about “all murder being self-defense” makes zero sense.

If you want to try to explain it I will listen… but I don’t think it’s possible.

I dare you, as an exercise... try to fully imagine the P.O.V. of your enemy.
Suddenly. you will see how all your acts of self-defense might appear as murder (or other crimes).
...and all their murders may just be self-defense (or other forms of heroism).

I don't really think you're too dumb to get that (It's obvious, really), you're just too opinionated, manipulative, and covetous of victory to admit it...
...and so it goes on, and on, and on, and often it is quite violent and deadly. ...and some of that you love, and some of that you hate.
The same for almost everyone else, join the club.

I understand how someone who has been brainwashed by misinformation his whole life… say like a Hamas Fighter… could be convinced to believe that killing women in babies in their homes in an early morning unannounced attack might be “self-defense” because if they don’t do this now Israel will kill their babies tomorrow.

I concede they could believe this… even while I maintain it as a false belief.
===

You however said…

Here is a mind-bomb that will blow a few craniums open, if it manages to get by the blinders and firewalls...
Every murder that has ever been committed in the entire history of the human race has been an act of self-defense.

So explain this?

So every murder…
- all Jews in the Holocaust, the SS all thought they were acting in self-defense?

- let’s include all mass atrocities/ genocides; Armenians, Native Americans, the Russian Gulags, the Rape of Nanking, etc.

- every random mugging, robbery, house-invasion that escalates?
(Let’s exclude situations where the victim tries to defend himself/his property… you can argue that the act of the victim defending himself prompts the mugger/robber to react in a belief that his life is now in danger.)
So only mugging, robberies, house-invasions where the victim(s) are compliant… but then the perp gets nervous or excited or whatever and kills the victim. Is that not murder is that “an accident”?

- all spousal murders where the perp wants out of the marriage and wants it clean without divorce, maybe gets a nice insurance settlement. These are clearly self-defense right?

- what about all the mass shootings? These people are clearly “crazy” in some way, so that makes it automatically “self-defense” in your opinion?

- and of course we can’t exclude serial killers. Not the mass-shooting kind… but the Darhmer kind. He was acting in self defense because if he didn’t consume their flesh he’d die?


Like I said… I’ll concede that often, very often, people will convince themselves that the atrocities they commit are “righteous” in some way. I’ve heard the expression “No one is the villain of their own story”.

That said I disagree with your statement in two ways.

1) There are many many murders that are just murders.

2) Just because someone believes the murder they commit is “justified” and/or “self-defense” does not automatically make it true. No matter how much backflipping and brainwashing at the end of the day a murder is often just a murder.

Now… you can try to compare the attacks on October 7th to what Israel is doing now…. and you can try to claim they are all just “murder” of innocent civilians. You’d be wrong, but at least I recognize you can legitimately TRY to argue that point.

Trying to say that

Every murder that has ever been committed in the entire history of the human race has been an act of self-defense.

Is just Next-Level dumb.

Yes, every example you've given can be interpreted as self-defense. We all try to defend ourselves, not only from immediate termination of life but also from all forms of slavery, poverty, torture, illness, and misery that would ruin our lives even if we still technically have a pulse.

Such defenses may involve deadly force, and any or all the reasons you suggest: including aquiring money and other property, escaping persons that cause pain or loathing (or gaining access to persons loved/desired), or engaging in any compulsively desired but forbidden act, sexual or otherwise, etc, etc.

You seem to have a Panglossian view of the world, in which hegemony equates to morality, and only an aberrent and relatively powerless minority are criminal, evil, wrong (at least if they dare resist). The current distribution of wealth and power is considered morally right by some just because it currently exists. The two old adages, 'Might makes Right' and 'Might does not make Right' are opposite sides of the same coin. The hard fact of 'might' tries to conquer, contain, or buy. the vaporous opinion of 'right', whether it succeeds or not is for each individual to decide.

The Law (national and international) certainly like to clothe itself in rightousness, but in a fundamentlaly unequal world it ultimately bows to power. The rich can afford civil law suits; the poor only get the right to be a defendent in a criminal trial. That is the predominant way that they experience the justice legal system. I can list inequalities until my fingers fall off. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but they do exist, and that power differential also decides which moral codes are enforced, regardless of personal belief. For the most part, belief is also decided by such power. 'Carrots and Sticks', 'Resistance is Futile', ...and all that jazz.

If you can't tell if I'm talking about countries or individuals that is because I am not making a distinction between the two. Though, of course individual are certainly weak, powerless entities in the overall scheme of things. Their wars are small things and their defeats are imprisonment or execution (not murder or torture, rather Society's version of self-defense), but make no mistake, all victors win their spoils because they have power, and the vanquished lose life and liberty because they are powerless, not because either is right or wrong.

Bob Dylan wrote 'The loser now is later to win'... maybe, maybe not. Everyone can keep fighting and find out... and every now and then, they can take a break and spout some bullshit justification concerning their own goodness and their opponent's evilness... And why not? it seems to be a useful weapon, 'mighter than the sword' and all that.

[jusplay4fun]

Votanic and JP4 arguing over who posts better links!

Too much!

Votanic… JP4 is the king of “copy and paste”. Sorry bruh.

No, JimB fail to grasp the key points; you again "analyze" at a superficial level.

1) Vot pastes lots of LINKS only and uses that to "argue" his point(s). That is not a way to argue and debate and bolster his point. He needs to actually give analysis of how information at that link supports his idea.

Hold on a minute, Jimbo & Jus w/o a 't'.
Who do you think is the one cuttng and pasting and linking crap everywhere. Not me!

Occasionally, I might post music or a funny video or what-not, but none of this endlessly rehashed pre-fab news & blog word product that you both seem addicted to.

You both treat Israel and Hamas as sports teams to root for or not. I guess religions and countries are kind of like that....
Everything your team does is glorified, forgiven, and overlooked, while the other side is just pure scum in your eyes. How boringly partisan of you...
I suppose you have some investments to protect. Whether they be economic, religious, or otherwise moralistic, I don't know.

I, on the other hand show about how violence, hostility, futility, and death are just an inevitable by-products of the human condition.
So, yeah, I guess I am 'next level', compared to where you operate,
...and there is nothing stupid about that.

vot proves he is an egotist who thinks he thinks better than the rest of us who post in this Forum. RIGHT..... and simply NOT TRUE. vot is not that intelligent and he cannot argue, refute, and certainly he has NO grasp on how to debate an issue. He resorts to cheap ad hominem attacks, poor humor, unclear "facts", and bad conclusions.

He posts for about 2 months and considers his post gifts from on High. Maybe he is HIGH on his own self-made "cologne." And he has convinced himself that his grasp of reality is so superior to anyone else here on CC and in this Forum. PITIFUL.

And again, he tells lies about me. I never claimed that I posted on other websites, and supposedly "better" things posted there, wherever "there" is. I never made such a claim. He misunderstood my point. I challenge him to show where I made such a claim.

He again proves he has no concept of how to use evidence, such as websites, to support his contention.

IF I post something, I do so to support my point and to bolster my arguments. I do not simply list websites; that does little to support anything, except that one can copy and paste. And to be clear, I am not a bot.

I read, discern, and find ideas that give credence to my opinion and I offer mostly facts.

I get humor, but if you posted any, it was THAT bad that most of us missed it.

My main contention is that the violence committed by Hamas is part of their pattern of attacking Jews, even women and children. Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields. They use schools and hospitals to house their military armaments, leaders, and fighters.

I see NO denial by anyone on these points. Well, perhaps, softralph did, but I usually ignore him because his views are so biased that most are not worth reading.

[jimboston]

Yes, every example you've given can be interpreted as self-defense. We all try to defend ourselves, not only from immediate termination of life but also from all forms of slavery, poverty, torture, illness, and misery that would ruin our lives even if we still technically have a pulse.

How can you interpret Dahmer’s acts as “self-defense”.

Fuckin’ you’re ridiculous.

You’re not even trying… you’re just making a word-salad and hope people get distracted from the original point.

Answer my questions and defend your statement or piss off!

You seem to have a Panglossian view of the world, in which hegemony equates to morality, and only an aberrent and relatively powerless minority are criminal, evil, wrong (at least if they dare resist).

If you are going to use a phrase like “Panglossian view” you might want to actually know what it means and use it correctly. You say that and then your definition doesn’t match the actual definition of the phrase.

Are you again trying to radically redefine the English Language… or just more word-salad?

The current distribution of wealth and power is considered morally right by some just because it currently exists. The two old adages, 'Might makes Right' and 'Might does not make Right' are opposite sides of the same coin. The hard fact of 'might' tries to conquer, contain, or buy. the vaporous opinion of 'right', whether it succeeds or not is for each individual to decide.

The Law (national and international) certainly like to clothe itself in rightousness, but in a fundamentlaly unequal world it ultimately bows to power. The rich can afford civil law suits; the poor only get the right to be a defendent in a criminal trial. That is the predominant way that they experience the justice legal system. I can list inequalities until my fingers fall off. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but they do exist, and that power differential also decides which moral codes are enforced, regardless of personal belief. For the most part, belief is also decided by such power. 'Carrots and Sticks', 'Resistance is Futile', ...and all that jazz.

So this ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE… and I agree with what you say to a point.

That said…it has NOTHING TO DO and IS IN NO WAY RELATED to your original idiotic point.

So again more word-salad that does not support your claim that “all murders are also acts of self-defense”.

If you can't tell if I'm talking about countries or individuals that is because I am not making a distinction between the two. Though, of course individual are certainly weak, powerless entities in the overall scheme of things. Their wars are small things and their defeats are imprisonment or execution (not murder or torture, rather Society's version of self-defense), but make no mistake, all victors win their spoils because they have power, and the vanquished lose life and liberty because they are powerless, not because either is right or wrong.

Bob Dylan wrote 'The loser now is later to win'... maybe, maybe not. Everyone can keep fighting and find out... and every now and then, they can take a break and spout some bullshit justification concerning their own goodness and their opponent's evilness... And why not? it seems to be a useful weapon, 'mighter than the sword' and all that.[/quote]

[Votanic]

Yes, every example you've given can be interpreted as self-defense. We all try to defend ourselves, not only from immediate termination of life but also from all forms of slavery, poverty, torture, illness, and misery that would ruin our lives even if we still technically have a pulse.

How can you interpret Dahmer’s acts as “self-defense”.

Fuckin’ you’re ridiculous.

You’re not even trying… you’re just making a word-salad and hope people get distracted from the original point.

Answer my questions and defend your statement or piss off!

You seem to have a Panglossian view of the world, in which hegemony equates to morality, and only an aberrent and relatively powerless minority are criminal, evil, wrong (at least if they dare resist).

If you are going to use a phrase like “Panglossian view” you might want to actually know what it means and use it correctly. You say that and then your definition doesn’t match the actual definition of the phrase.

Are you again trying to radically redefine the English Language… or just more word-salad?

The current distribution of wealth and power is considered morally right by some just because it currently exists. The two old adages, 'Might makes Right' and 'Might does not make Right' are opposite sides of the same coin. The hard fact of 'might' tries to conquer, contain, or buy. the vaporous opinion of 'right', whether it succeeds or not is for each individual to decide.

The Law (national and international) certainly like to clothe itself in rightousness, but in a fundamentlaly unequal world it ultimately bows to power. The rich can afford civil law suits; the poor only get the right to be a defendent in a criminal trial. That is the predominant way that they experience the justice legal system. I can list inequalities until my fingers fall off. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but they do exist, and that power differential also decides which moral codes are enforced, regardless of personal belief. For the most part, belief is also decided by such power. 'Carrots and Sticks', 'Resistance is Futile', ...and all that jazz.

So this ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE… and I agree with what you say to a point.

That said…it has NOTHING TO DO and IS IN NO WAY RELATED to your original idiotic point.

So again more word-salad that does not support your claim that “all murders are also acts of self-defense”.

If you can't tell if I'm talking about countries or individuals that is because I am not making a distinction between the two. Though, of course individual are certainly weak, powerless entities in the overall scheme of things. Their wars are small things and their defeats are imprisonment or execution (not murder or torture, rather Society's version of self-defense), but make no mistake, all victors win their spoils because they have power, and the vanquished lose life and liberty because they are powerless, not because either is right or wrong.

Bob Dylan wrote 'The loser now is later to win'... maybe, maybe not. Everyone can keep fighting and find out... and every now and then, they can take a break and spout some bullshit justification concerning their own goodness and their opponent's evilness... And why not? it seems to be a useful weapon, 'mighter than the sword' and all that.

You are obstinately refusing to connect the dots. If I need to write additional paragraphs just to have you make the smallest leaps of understanding, then this conversation must end.
For example Panglossian thinking is the belief that we are living in the best of all possible worlds. If you can't see how that relates to what I wrote, I give up.

Jeffrey Dahmer: From Dahmer's P.O.V. what he was doing was necessary to him at the time. Not your P.O.V., his. He was fighting to preserve his own reality. Yes, ultimately he was overpowered by the hegemonic reality. I trust that the concept of madness being subjective is not totally foreign to you. Did he later repent, I think so... But repentence often occurs in the context of punishment and shaming (include cancel culture here). Most confessions and repentence is coerced in some way, even if the courts don't define it as such. Yes, people can be overpowered to the point that their previous beliefs and identity are erased. I would say that is another way of being murdered, but the powers running society believe it is necessary. This is also why I scoff at the idea of innocent civilians. The privileged can always distance themselves from the dirty work while still benefitting from it the most.

Do some behaviors lead to greater accumulation of money, power, and human population. Yes indeed (though the exact particulars do change with context). Again this has nothing to do with morality or other types of values, but everything to do with winning. Everthing can be used as a weapon in some context, either by presence or absence.

Even most concepts of a god involve an all-powerful entity or force that can create, destroy and set its own agenda. If the Abrahamic god wasn't God, he would be most people's idea of a manipulative, judgemental, power-mad asshole. Hallelujah to that.

Did I jump around a bit here? Yes, I'm getting tired of typing. However, if you are open to understanding what I mean to say, I've given your a treasure trove of ideas to ponder.
If not, well maybe somebody else will find this insightful.

[saxitoxin]

This is why I support TRUMP. No American president has ever suggested Israel is anything but pure and innocent in its atrocities and wars. Here, Trump says both sides are equally to blame. I disagree with that - I blame Israel entirely - but this is at least closer to my position than anyone who has come before him.

https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/stat ... 9419057298

Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of Biden's own supporters have been picketing each of his appearances over the last week, chanting "Genocide Joe." Support for Israel trumps even a politician's desire for maximizing his electability. It's bizarre.

[jimboston]

You are obstinately refusing to connect the dots. If I need to write additional paragraphs just to have you make the smallest leaps of understanding, then this conversation must end.

This is how you cop out of actually defending your position? Weak.

For example Panglossian thinking is the belief that we are living in the best of all possible worlds. If you can't see how that relates to what I wrote, I give up.

So I’m not gonna pretend I knew what “Panglossian View” meant before… I’ll admit I had to look it up. That said, according to Google it means…

Panglossian, “extremely optimistic, especially in the face of unrelieved hardship or adversity,” comes from Dr. Pangloss (Panglosse in French), an old, incurably optimistic tutor in Voltaire's philosophical satire Candide.

So it’s this extremely optimistic view IN THE FACE OF UNRELIEVED HARDSHIP OR ADVERSITY.

This wouldn’t be relevant because I don’t face “unrelieved hardship or adversity”. That said, even excluding that part of the definition; you went on to claim that I had this view because I seem to believe…

hegemony equates to morality, and only an aberrent and relatively powerless minority are criminal, evil, wrong (at least if they dare resist).

I mean this is wrong in several ways…
1) I don’t believe the view you claim I have is properly defined as “Panglossian” based on the definitions I’ve read.
2) I never claimed “hegemony equates to morality”.
3) I don’t believe “hegemony equates to morality”.

The powerful can certainly be evil and the weak can certainly be just.

Now, although I believe the statement “hegemony equates to morality” is false; this does NOT mean the opposite is true! I also don’t believe that the weak are always morally correct either.

The powerful can be evil or just; the weak can be evil or just.

Power is NOT the determining factor.

Jeffrey Dahmer: From Dahmer's P.O.V. what he was doing was necessary to him at the time. Not your P.O.V., his. He was fighting to preserve his own reality. Yes, ultimately he was overpowered by the hegemonic reality. I trust that the concept of madness being subjective is not totally foreign to you. Did he later repent, I think so... But repentence often occurs in the context of punishment and shaming (include cancel culture here). Most confessions and repentence is coerced in some way, even if the courts don't define it as such. Yes, people can be overpowered to the point that their previous beliefs and identity are erased. I would say that is another way of being murdered, but the powers running society believe it is necessary. This is also why I scoff at the idea of innocent civilians. The privileged can always distance themselves from the dirty work while still benefitting from it the most.

This is just plain and simple nonsense.

Based on this calculus there can be no “evil”. We are all just blind actors fulfilling our destiny and at the whims of our perceived reality. Cockypop.

I understand “madness” is a disease of the mind and that it can affect or impact one’s view of reality.

Just because one’s view of reality is distorted; this does NOT actually change reality.

Reality is reality. Evil is evil.

Does this mean the world is “black and white”… NO. There are gray areas where reasonable people can debate the substance of what is “right or wrong”; what is “murder vs. self-defense”. That said… if we had a sliding scale where we go from white-to-black with gray blending in the middle; at some point the marker is clearly white; and at the other end clearly black.

Let me put in a way YOU can understand. I refuse to live in a reality that’s all gray; with no right or wrong, “my reality” has thus been defined and will forever remain so. (This is kinda a joke, because..P

Also, this whole “hegemonic reality” is bullshit. There is only reality. There is no hegemonic reality, no personal reality… there is just one reality.

Yes… it’s cool to think about perception. I also do believe the mind is powerful and can do things that science doesn’t fully comprehend yet. That said… it doesn’t mean one can live in a different “reality” just because one will’s it so.

Do some behaviors lead to greater accumulation of money, power, and human population. Yes indeed (though the exact particulars do change with context). Again this has nothing to do with morality or other types of values, but everything to do with winning. Everthing can be used as a weapon in some context, either by presence or absence.

This is more word salad and unrelated to you actually defending your point.

Even most concepts of a god involve an all-powerful entity or force that can create, destroy and set its own agenda. If the Abrahamic god wasn't God, he would be most people's idea of a manipulative, judgemental, power-mad asshole. Hallelujah to that.

Again… interesting but unrelated to the point. I don’t believe in the God of Abraham, though I was brought up Catholic.

Did I jump around a bit here? Yes, I'm getting tired of typing. However, if you are open to understanding what I mean to say, I've given your a treasure trove of ideas to ponder.
If not, well maybe somebody else will find this insightful.

You have some interesting thoughts… but ultimately I disagree with your concept of reality. I believe in one reality. I don’t believe that just because one can convince himself that what he is doing (has done) was “justified” it does NOT make the action justified. I believe self-defense is a clearly defined concept. I acknowledge there may be gray areas where reasonable people can disagree… but saying “all murders are self-defense” is still just idiotic IMHO and I though you have tossed out some ideas that are interesting I don’t believe they are relevant and I don’t believe they change anything.

If you have a magic wand and want to show me how your view of reality actually works… I’m game.

Otherwise I will continue to live in the one reality I perceive and will act and judge based on this.

Philosophy is interesting, and I will admit I’m not as well versed in this “subject” as I would like. I actually recently bought (and started) a book on basic philosophy. I could go get the name… it’s not “the dummies guide” to philosophy, but it’s similar. Just a primer. I think Philosophy can lead one to a better understanding of the world and can open one’s mind to different perspectives by reorienting one’s “view”. I have a problem with Philosophy when it ventures into this type of “there is no evil” or “reality is what you make it” type nonsense. At the end of the day there is a world, we live in this world, we live under the physical and chemical “laws” of this universe, and we deal with the other humans on this planet. These are things we must accept in order to move about in this world in an meaningful way.

[jimboston]

duplicate

[jimboston]

This is why I support TRUMP. No American president has ever suggested Israel is anything but pure and innocent in its atrocities and wars. Here, Trump says both sides are equally to blame. I disagree with that - I blame Israel entirely - but this is at least closer to my position than anyone who has come before him.

https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/stat ... 9419057298

Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of Biden's own supporters have been picketing each of his appearances over the last week, chanting "Genocide Joe." Support for Israel trumps even a politician's desire for maximizing his electability. It's bizarre.

The American public support Israel.

Going against that will hurt any presidential candidate.

Pro Hamas supporters in the USA, who pretend to be Pro Palestinian but in fact wish for the extermination of Israel (like yourself) are a LOUD minority. (… and when J say minority I don’t mean like 20%… I mean like single digits.) I expect there will be a backlash against Pro Hamas supporters. Their views and core values do NOT overlap much with the core values of most Americans.

[saxitoxin]

This is why I support TRUMP. No American president has ever suggested Israel is anything but pure and innocent in its atrocities and wars. Here, Trump says both sides are equally to blame. I disagree with that - I blame Israel entirely - but this is at least closer to my position than anyone who has come before him.

https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/stat ... 9419057298

Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of Biden's own supporters have been picketing each of his appearances over the last week, chanting "Genocide Joe." Support for Israel trumps even a politician's desire for maximizing his electability. It's bizarre.

The American public support Israel.

The American people supported slavery and pumpkin spice.

Change happens gradually. Support for Israel is at its lowest point in history.. And because Israel can't exist without U.S. military aid, Israel's days may be measured in decades you can count on one hand.

And still, inexplicably, people are calling for all of the world's remaining Jews to concentrate themselves there. It's crazy.

[Votanic]

Philosophy is interesting, and I will admit I’m not as well versed in this “subject” as I would like. I actually recently bought (and started) a book on basic philosophy. I could go get the name… it’s not “the dummies guide” to philosophy, but it’s similar. Just a primer. I think Philosophy can lead one to a better understanding of the world and can open one’s mind to different perspectives by reorienting one’s “view”. I have a problem with Philosophy when it ventures into this type of “there is no evil” or “reality is what you make it” type nonsense. At the end of the day there is a world, we live in this world, we live under the physical and chemical “laws” of this universe, and we deal with the other humans on this planet. These are things we must accept in order to move about in this world in an meaningful way.

Philosophy is interesting... especially in the broader sense in which we are all philosophers, regardless of books and degrees.

As far as academic philosophy goes, I've taken a few class and read some. My memory of those classes is bittersweet and a bit cynical.

Academic philosophy is usually divided into 4 to 6 sub-disciplines: Epistemology, Metaphysics, Logic, and Axiology, with Axiology being further divided into Ethics, Aesthetics, and Philosophy of Religion. It is Ethics that we have been largely debating and, no surprise, it is the standard introduction to ethics that I have issue with.

First, the issue of 'might not equaling right' will probably be introduced on Day 1 (or Chapter 1). It is usually brought up without debate. Indeed. you and I both agree that might and right are fundamentally different concepts. However, the fact that morality in practice is ultimately only enforced through power (sticks and carrots) is not a side issue to me. Rather, it is one the elephants in the drawing room that philosophers often ignore.

The other huge, ethical elephant I have issue with is the bias towards moral absolutism and against moral relativism. Again, this bias is usually so ingrained into introductory philosophy classes and texts that it stifles real debate. All I can say is try to look at that dichotomy from many diiifferent angles and with an open mind.

Overall, I think you will love mainstream philosophy Jim, it will largely reinforce your black and white worldview.

Of course, appeal to authority is also considered to be a logical fallacy in philosophy, ...but that is usually ignored in practice, since authority wishes it so.

[jimboston]

Overall, I think you will love mainstream philosophy Jim, it will largely reinforce your black and white worldview.

That would be impossible, since I don’t have a “black and white” worldview in any traditional sense as you suggest.

[Votanic]

Overall, I think you will love mainstream philosophy Jim, it will largely reinforce your black and white worldview.

That would be impossible, since I don’t have a “black and white” worldview in any traditional sense as you suggest.

Okay, granted, you do say 'NO' to a black-and-white worldview, but then in the very next sentence you say it is largely black-and-white with some gray in the middle.
I feel almost everyone must acknowledge some gray in the middle...
However, everything else you said does seem more fundamentally black-and-white.. including that preceding line about evil being evil.

Reality is reality. Evil is evil.

Does this mean the world is “black and white”… NO. There are gray areas where reasonable people can debate the substance of what is “right or wrong”; what is “murder vs. self-defense”. That said… if we had a sliding scale where we go from white-to-black with gray blending in the middle; at some point the marker is clearly white; and at the other end clearly black.

[jimboston]

I feel almost everyone must acknowledge some gray in the middle...
However, everything else you said does seem more fundamentally black-and-white.. including that preceding line about evil being evil.

Reality is reality. Evil is evil.

Does this mean the world is “black and white”… NO. There are gray areas where reasonable people can debate the substance of what is “right or wrong”; what is “murder vs. self-defense”. That said… if we had a sliding scale where we go from white-to-black with gray blending in the middle; at some point the marker is clearly white; and at the other end clearly black.

Whereas you are inky capable of seeing gray and have no core beliefs that differentiate “right” from “wrong”.

That’s a pretty sad world view.

[bigtoughralf]

I don’t have a “black and white” worldview in any traditional sense as you suggest.

Ah yes, that famous jimbean sense of nuance which concluded every time the Israeli government bombs a Gazan school it's Hamas' fault.