Fox Fire
-
Posts
3092 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Fox Fire
-
-
Nope. They are aligned with the snakemen. Who own and run Wikipedia so don't trust it.
Well the Illuminati was a real thing at one point. But so were the Romans.
-
2
-
-
Challenge accepted, under the condition I will argue elements of a pantheistic and morally nihilistic approach according to my beliefs in Taoism. I also can say whatever I want because you're hardly fit to moderate a debate that your part of.
-
-
womans place is nuclear family where there is man and woman. woman does work for the man and keeps his bed warm and man does anything important and controls family
bible says
its funny how liberals have corrupted word of god. woman place is at home
The bible is bullshit, though. Some of the oldest Gods known to man were based on a feminine figure. Such as the worship of cows, a symbol of fertility.
Yin and Yang are an indivisible whole, equal in purpose and presence. You came out of a vagina. Remember that next time you want to degrade women with archaic fairy tales.
-
So what about Freemasons, who are theists? Are they Illuminati?
-
By law most european countries are christian and so are many american countries
-
wrong
First off, the Church of Satan is just a bullshit money making scheme. It isn't even theistic.
Second:
Karana Mudra. A hand gesture used by Buddha which is synonymous with expulsion of demons, illness or negative thoughts. Traditionally, this gesture in all of it's oldest forms throughout the world, is a symbol against evil. It never became associated with Satan until the late sixties, or even later.
The Illuminati doesn't exist, and if they do, they sure as !@#$ aren't following Anton LaVeys bullshit scam. A Freemason like view of God would be much more likely, if any at all.
-
just ban sex outside of marriage and be done with it
I say we ban marriage instead.
It's clear that as usual that privatisation around the globe has failed, the sex industry is quite frankly a mess, worse an unsafe mess. A hateful coalition of the left and right wings has long been against this and their efforts have protected and cultivated the business of the pimps who they seem to not want driven out of business (must be some Pimp Lobby I don't know about, they likely has some images of a lot of politicians too).
As such surely you'd agree with me that nationalising the lot would do a lot of good. Imagine the extra money it'd bring in and all the new jobs, not all in the sex work itself either as you need guards, cleaners, and such too.
Yay? Nay? Your thoughts?
I'm not big on the idea of legalized prostitution. But regulating it at a federal level is probably the best way.
-
There is no Illuminati, Captain.
-
2
-
-
Ryas' income is lower than that of nations you've never heard of, so it's certainly not us.
(You realise it's also 2001, right? Giant spaceships? What...?)
The only one known to possess technology such as this is Caledonia, however it is highly unlikely they are responsible.
The !@#$ you think Foxburo got here? Orbis is but one of our outposts, underlings.
-
Ummmm, you were talking about Israel and Palestine. You have taken a pretty clear "side" there despite the ambiguous moral considerations.
No, I'm arguing against Israel right now because that is what you challenged me on. I can make just as strong of an argument against either of Palestines governments. The opportunity to do so has not presented itself here. So apparently I'm an anti-semite, because everyone who questions Israel is by default, a Jew hating Sharia lover....
I can could also tell you about how Christianity is bullshit but that doesn't mean I'm promoting Islam. I could tell you why BLM is stupid but that doesn't mean I'm racist. I could tell you why feminism is stupid but that doesn't mean I'm sexist.
According to you it does though. So I think we're done here.
(FYI: My stance on the Israeli-Palestine conflict is and always has been: The only solution is a single, secular state. Though I've already said that. Please continue to ignore it).
-
To whom are you referring the Jewish farmers being driven off their land and fighting back or the Arab farmers? I would agree that defending your land is justified so...neither side and both are justified.
I called you something? Could you show me where I did such a thing?
Anyway, you are in fact looking at it from a very black and white perspective and sorry to point that out. You could scroll back through a few pages and point out where you consider any grey area. You will not have much luck iirc.
You are correct . You made a flawed comparison and I pointed out why it was flawed. You agreed with me but refused to back off your initial assertion. Which is silly really.
And again, I will leave the contemplation about why a State chooses not to do something within its capabilities to you.
I've made it clear this whole argument that I'm not taking sides. In case you haven't noticed, I'm attacking Israel in this thread because that's what you were challenging.
Would you feel better if I also wrote about how an Islamic State is disgusting?
-
Which problems specifically?
The root of all of the problems in the middle east is bigotry towards other religions including their own and that has being present since its inception.
They biggest issue now in the middle east is that their religion hasn't reformed, if that happened so much would change.
Every problem. You know all this terrorism we've been dealing with? Do you know what it's based on? Do you know the ideology that they believe in? Do you know why that ideology exists?
I suggest you look into it. Start with reading about Salafism/Wahhabism. The problem is not that Islam isn't converting to more modern ethics, but exactly the opposite. The problem is that the more the west tries to convert Islam, the more people fight it, viewing modern Islam as corrupt and desiring a return to ultra conservative, traditional practice. The more we meddle in the middle east, the more people are inspired to follow this Salafist ideology. The ideology itself is basically designed to reject western "innovations". It's sole purpose and reason for existence is to reject the west or changes to Islam. It's western interventions that created this ideology and in fact, it's the existence of Israel that made it become popular. Before Israel, it was a very unpopular idea. After Israel, it's very popular.
The invasion of Iraq caused an explosion of support for Al-Qaeda all over the middle east. That's why ISIS exists.
-
The unfortunate truth is Muslims in those regions aren't your friend and don't share your moral values, giving even a little space they would bring about the destruction to Israel.
Yes, no doubt. But all of the middle easts problems are the doing of foreigners.
Your fascination with Balfour is interesting but not explicative. It has nothing to do with the morality of the choice the Arabs made to attack the Jews. Like at all. So maybe rethink that line of argument. Would I attack my neighbor if the UN carved out a State for them next to me? Maybe. Would I be morally justified in doing so? Maybe but maybe not.
You next discuss the "west" supporting them. I wrote a whole bunch about that if you would like to read it. But anyway, the morality of the initial situation is far from as clear as you would like it to be.
You are correct that the path to a two state solution is basically impossible to see. The "fault" for that lies with both Israelis and Palestinians as well as geography, foreign powers, religion, etc etc. Are the Israelis solely at fault as you seem to claim? No, clearly not. Nor are they blameless. I again apologize that we live in a complex world that does not conform to your balck/white outlook.
I don't really care at this point to convince you that we have already resolved the argument about Israel =/= Nazi Germany. We have resolved it. You were shown to be wrong, and again...that's OK. Deal with it and move on.
It is interesting in your latest foray that you find Israel incapable of conducting genocide. Israel is immensely powerful regionally and could easily actually kill millions of people. They do not because they chose not to. Maybe they chose not to "because they cannot hide it". Proving motivation behind not taking action is a futile argument and I will leave that to you.
Maybe? IDK, man. Driving people off their own land is pretty morally wrong to most people. The reaction to defend said land is a defensive response, no?
I'm not looking at this in black and white. It's kinda stupid how one cannot criticize Israel without being accused of anti-semitism or a terrorists apologist. I'll again say to you all that I'm not in favor of a Muslim state in Palestine. It would be just as terrible as Israel.
I wasn't shown to be wrong about my comparison. You simply brought up genocide. That was the whole argument. Nobody was proven right or wrong.
Israel could start a genocide, but I highly !@#$ing doubt they would get very far.
You have, over and over again, alluded to the issue that Jews are the root of the problem in Israel. Over and over again. It's not the Jew card when you're actually being an anti-semite. I do not think that anti-zionism is anti-semitism in any form. I've tried to distiguish the difference between the two repeatedly. And if you've done so much fcking research I don't understand how you could not know anything about the Gaza-Israeli relationship.
The Palestinian Authority. Led by Abbas. Partakes in infrastructure projects there regularly. Israel's relationship with the Palestinian authority is a hell of a lot better than most people give them. The Government of the West bank is the Palestinian Authority yet they do not partake in any other form of aid other than packages of food and water. Why is that? Because Gaza is !@#$ controlled by Hamas. Abbas has admitted it, Hamas knows it. They may not be "the official government of the West Bank" but they sure as hell are the only ones controlling Gaza. How can you have done research and still not know that the West Bank is not Gaza at all nor does it have all that much control over it.
The Israeli army is sloppy and does a number of problematic and humanitarian conflicts in Gaza, I don't support it and I'm aware of the number of unjustified killings and disproportionate uses of force. But you're comparing it to an Internment camp. The infant mortality rate in Gaza is 105th ranked in the world (that's very good). The Gaza strip's death rate is the 5th lowest in the entire world! Their population below the poverty line is higher than Greece and about another quarter of the world. Which seems very comparable to internment camps. Totally. Yup.
Is Gaza a fun place to live? No. Is it a internment camp? Not by any means at all.
EDIT: Quoted twice
No, the problem in Israel is the west. That's the root of the problem.
When the actual !@#$ did I say that the west and Gaza were governed by the same people? Stop throwing words in my mouth.
Gaza is sealed off and any time violence breaks out, Palestinian civilians are indiscriminately bombed. The casualty comparison is entirely one sided.
There is no freedom of movement. Nobody is allowed in or out for any reason with very few exceptions. The comparison of Gaza to a prison camp is not my idea. Numerous people, mostly westerners, including a French president, have made this comparison. So what happens when bombs start falling? Israel drops stupid little leaflets telling people to flee. Flee where? There is no refugee status for people in Gaza.
Afghanistan is not a fun place to live. Gaza is an internment camp.
As for the west bank, there is a wall, most of which is in legally Palestinian territory. Israeli annexations over the years are internationally illegal. However, this is not stopping them from taking more and more land. Israeli settlers continue to settle in more areas of the west bank and there is no sign that it's going to stop. In 2014 400 hectares of land was taken by Israel for the purpose of housing Israeli settlers. Israel basically demolishes and builds any infrastructure they want in the west bank. The west banks government tries to get along with Israel because they have no other choice. The Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed but, yeah, their relationship with Israel is just A+ because of some minor cooperation. Just ignore the far larger disagreements. That's nothing.
-
1
-
-
Yup. At the end of the day a state that commits genocide is simply not equivalent with one that does not. Pretty simple really and would not have required you to try to argue a failed point for 6 pages. Sorry that you felt you had to defend an indefensible position.
Now then:
Ahhh, you want to go back to the beginning or first conflict. Cool.
Pre-948, as we already established, the people (Jewish people in this case) purchased the land from the land owners and had moved their and were farming the land. Most of that land was not tilled at the time although some of it was and displaced the people living there.
Then the United Nations technically declared the State of Israel:
In 1948 the UN declared the State of Israel comprising at the time (as has been pointed out to you) a strong Jewish population living on Jewish owned land. Population distribution at the time is an interesting topic which lead to some very irregular borders. Anyway, the attempt to create two States based on who actually owned and lived on the land (UN resolution 181) led to an almost immediate decent into violence with both sides participating in "mass killing" as you would call it on both sides. There is no clear moral ground here particularly regarding jus ad bellum (both violated jus en bello). I would submit that considering each element of jus ad bellum leads to a confused understanding of who held the moral ground to engage in this war. Morally both sides violated multiple parts of the jus ad bellum aspect to varying degrees. At best it was "two wrong not making a right". So indeed you have some footing to decry the initial conflict although the counter argument that the Arabs were also morally suspect is equally valid.
Really then the moral considerations of the initial phase are basically a wash. Israel had a moral justification as did the Arab population. There are also clear violations on both sides of the conflict. I know you would like to believe or frame this as black and white. However, it is almost the definition of a "grey" moral argument.
Which all goes back to Balfour and doesn't do anything to delegitimize my claim that Palestinians were defending themselves. Most people would do the same thing. I would. You probably would.
Regardless, the west still supports Israel as some kind of democracy, disregarding the fact that they are blatantly killing their own people that disagree with the existence of their Jewish state, because let's face it, Palestinians are Israelis and vice versa. As long as the "institution" refuses to recognize Palestine as an actual state with the same sovereign rights as Israel, then Palestinians are just Israelis with no rights. Further more, whether we like it or not, Hamas runs Gaza. And it's Israels existence that makes that so. Palestinians, rightfully so, want someone to represent them, but specifically stick up for their rights. They don't seem to mind loosing people for that fight, as any people is such a desperate situation would. Israels treatment of Palestine will never lead to a real 2 state solution. It will absolutely never work. Ever.
Now once again, I'm not advocating a Muslim state in Palestine. Perhaps maybe numerous decades ago, but today's situation makes that virtually impossible. But it's nice to see you actually do acknowledge the legitimacy of both sides here. At least in a moral sense.
Anyway, I still say Israel is a Jewish Nazi Germany. No, they don't commit genocide, but they realistically can't. Many of the extremists on both sides would happily commit genocide if possible and I think we can both agree on that. And regardless of the fact that most people on either side may not be extremist asshats, neither were most Germans, or even Nazis. Yet, it's those few psychos that made the holocaust happen. Everyone else was just caught between a rock and a hard place. The reason neither side commits genocide is simple inability. Israel is powerful, but not even they could withstand the PR retaliation of a blatant holocaust. You also just can't hide things these days like the Nazis did. ISIS for example knows this well and chooses to embrace it, rather than hide it. The price they pay is war with virtually the whole world. I think your sole focus on the holocaust, an incident from decades ago without modern tech, clouds your judgement when considering all other factors, but alas, I really don't think we're going to convince each other either way here.
-
1
-
-
Erm. The typical pattern of conflict is thus:
conflict ends
Various groups reconstitute their combat capability (primarily rockets and SRBMs along with infantry forces)
tension builds and generally people start lobbing fire against Israeli population centers
Israel responds (either with air-power or a ground attack)
Some success - generally a drop in capacity to fire rockets
conflict ends
repeat
State X being able to conduct offensive operations does not mean that State Y did not attack State X (leading to Y "defending their own land".) So yeah, In what ways do you find that Israel is not justified in conducting war against Palestine when it is attacked?
Or are you going back to the first conflict? Or what?
(We resolved the other thing. You were wrong. Its OK to be wrong but you should maybe heed your own advice.)
Declaring the state of Israel against the will of the people living there for far more consecutive generations, disregarding their opinions (as well as every one of their neighbors)......
Sounds more like people defending their homes than Israel being attacked. Once again, if Israel were actually a true democracy, they probably wouldn't have to be killing their own people who have disagreed with the states existence from day one (for over 60 years).
Fact is, the declaration of Israel was a declaration of war on the more consecutive population. What happens next? War! Who would have imagined that could possibly happen in such a democratic and fair, totally secular state that certainly doesn't alienate it's minorities?
We never resolved the other thing. You yourself said:
You are comparing them on how they behave. Even if we accept all of your opinions above as facts then you are still actually comparing them based on behavior. And that comparison, as you admit, is invalid. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. I am not sure why you persist in holding to your argument when your own words repudiate it.
I would love to discuss your opinions as you have laid them out in this post. But frankly when you start off with godwin, have that shown to be false, then refuse to back off your position there is no reason to debate.
Yeah, let's do that. Let's compare them on behavior. In which case, my argument is more right than ever:
Gaza is a giant !@#$ internment camp that is indiscriminately bombed every year or two. IDF soldiers do not seem to differentiate between civilian, child or combatant. Their unspoken policy is quite clearly "Palestinians must die". One claim I find to be a joke is that "Israel is the only democracy in the middle east". That's not true, there are several. Westerners don't consider them democracies because of their corruption. Meanwhile, Israel is a state that is literally waging war on it's own people solely because they refuse to even acknowledge their opinions. They prefer to kill them rather than compromise like a real democracy. Yeah, that sounds pretty !@#$ democratic to me. Not even Putin is that blatant about killing political opponents. Good ol PR democracy.
The inhumanity displayed by the state of Israel is rivaled by few. Combined with the nationalist superiority complex, I stand by my statement. Simply saying "you're wrong" or "Israel didn't commit a genocide" does not invalidate my statement/comparison form my point of view. I'm not comparing the two based on how many people they've killed, rather, everything else.
I want you to make me a sandwich but I suppose that;s not happening.
Gaza is an internment camp. It's specifically isolated from the entire world by Israel. Not allowed to have it's own economy by Israel. Any infrastructure they build is blown away in a year. It's people are indiscriminately massacred frequently. The people have nowhere to flee. Nowhere to feel safe. All they can do is rebuild every year or two and keep fighting every day for the sake of their existence. It's one giant, very densely populated internment camp. Israel likes to claim that if they stopped fighting, it would be genocide. The same can equally be said for Palestinians. Difference is, it's not Israeli civilians taking the brunt of this disagreement. It's Palestinian civilians.
Israel is consistently occupying more and more Palestinian land. Gaza is growing because they reproduce faster than the Israeli Jews. It's certainly not because of Israel bombing the shit out of UN schools, the tunnels they depend on for any kind of foreign trade and their one, primary power source for virtually the entire city. That isn't helping at all. Unless you're some delusional Fox News watcher who buys into the idea that Israel, land of democracy that slaughters political opposition, is the symbol of freedom in the middle east. Are you out of your mind?
I've researched this more than you have, I can quite definitely tell. The government of the west bank is not Hamas, although Hamas enjoys quite a bit of support from people in the west bank. Ever wonder why?
War is a keen interest of mine and I make a very, very solid attempt to understand both sides of any conflict. I don't even speak about a conflict unless I've studied it to an extent which I feel I understand both sides. If you prefer, I can own you in a debate about why ISIS exists, what exactly their ideology is, what makes it different from others and why it's Americas fault they exist.
I suggest you do some research, buddy. I know my shit. My anti-zionism is not anti-semitism. That's what's called the "Jew Card". Accusing someone of being an anti semite just because they questions the state of Israel. If that makes me anti-semitic in your eyes, then we have nothing to talk about. I'm not having this debate with such a closed mind.
lol @ moral flexibility. Morals are perceptual. I try to perceive both sides.
Endlosung, the final solution, wasn't deliberated until 1942. The point I'm trying to make is that it was an act of desperation, not an original idea inherent to the Nazi ideology. That's why they called it the final solution. Equally, I don't think mass murder was an original idea of the Zionist ideology. They are both the result of a self defeating yet persistent idea that can only end in mass killing.
But with that being said, and going off what you said, ethnic cleansing and indiscriminate murder of their own Arab minority is a defining point for the state of Israel is it not?
Yes, and I didn't use the word genocide did I?
I define both states by their ideology. Zionism carries the same basic concept of Nazism. Nationalist, cultural superiority justified by something that doesn't even exist.
I can say the same about ISIS. I don't define ISIS by their atrocities. I define them by their ideology. In fact, if enough Muslims want a "caliphate", I reasonably believe it's only fair to let them have it. But under ISIS and their ideology? I couldn't support that.
But overall, both the atrocities of the Israelis, Nazis and even ISIS are rooted in their ideology > The nationalist ideology of the state > The state. Would you feel better if I rephrased that as "Zionism is the Jewish equivalent of Nazism"?
Identical. Equivalent. But OMG, no genocide can only possibly mean that LordRahls argument is solid! "Israel didn't commit genocide" is literally your entire argument for 6 pages now. It must be the most legit, because whoever can repeat themselves more wins, right?-
1
-
-
Yes. I argue that they are different because they do demonstrably different things. Hence the equivalency that you try to argue is invalid. I do understand WHY you do not want to argue it anymore. It would be easier for you to admit it but whatever. Interesting that you accuse others of having a closed mind.......
So, now that we have established that Israel =/= Nazi Germany on to jus ad bellum. In what ways do you find that Israel is not justified in conducting war against Palestine when it is attacked?
Israel wasn't attacked. Palestinians are defending their own land.
And of course, they are not the same exact state in the same exact time. Of course they don't do the same exact things. The states, still carry the same concepts of nationalist, cultural superiority. They still imprison and massacre people they consider undesirable. They still believe their people are inherently better. I'm getting insanely sick of repeating that just for you to say "but Jews no holocaust ppls!!!"
Yeah? Neo-Nazis aren't committing a holocaust, but they're still Nazis, no?
-
Do stocks represent ownership? What if I buy a majority stock?
How is the money handled? Is it generated out of thin air or are alliances/nations expected to pay it? If the latter, what if they cant afford to pay?
EDIT: Clarification.
-
As long as Israel insists that Palestine and Israel are two separately governed areas (essentially states), then they should accept Palestines right to hold a military, it's own economy, own foreign policy, own everything. They simply cannot treat Palestine as their own little internment camp and not expect them to fight for their basic human rights.
-
You are comparing them on how they behave. Even if we accept all of your opinions above as facts then you are still actually comparing them based on behavior. And that comparison, as you admit, is invalid. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.
Just because of the lack of genocide? We already had this discussion just ten times over now. I can't make myself more clear and you're just insisting on using the same rebuttle while expecting me to respond to the same exact piss poor excuse every comment. No.. I'm tired or repeating it.
I want you to get off of this site, and go research Israel. Your perceptions of Israel are formed by your own attempt of comprehension of what's going on in the Middle East. Israel has a problem with the treatment of Palestinians. Gaza is not a !@#$ internment camp. I don't know where or how you're coming to these conclusions because it would appear all that you know about Gaza was the first 15 words of every newspaper headline and nothing more.
Gaza is growing ridiculously fast due to cooperation between Israel and Gaza, there are a number of New Cities that are currently being developed with both Israeli and Palestinian money. While Israel has launched attacks and assaults that have been very clearly defying laws of war, that is NOT THE ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO.
I want people, such as yourself who are only versed in what the front page of a newspaper said about Israel and Gaza, to actually put in some research into your !@#$ claims. If you want to get angry about Israel's actions, GOOD! Look into what Israel and Palestine have done cooperatively as well as independently.
Every one of your posts have been nothing but closet anti-semitism and sheer ignorance.
I want you to make me a sandwich but I suppose that;s not happening.
Gaza is an internment camp. It's specifically isolated from the entire world by Israel. Not allowed to have it's own economy by Israel. Any infrastructure they build is blown away in a year. It's people are indiscriminately massacred frequently. The people have nowhere to flee. Nowhere to feel safe. All they can do is rebuild every year or two and keep fighting every day for the sake of their existence. It's one giant, very densely populated internment camp. Israel likes to claim that if they stopped fighting, it would be genocide. The same can equally be said for Palestinians. Difference is, it's not Israeli civilians taking the brunt of this disagreement. It's Palestinian civilians.
Israel is consistently occupying more and more Palestinian land. Gaza is growing because they reproduce faster than the Israeli Jews. It's certainly not because of Israel bombing the shit out of UN schools, the tunnels they depend on for any kind of foreign trade and their one, primary power source for virtually the entire city. That isn't helping at all. Unless you're some delusional Fox News watcher who buys into the idea that Israel, land of democracy that slaughters political opposition, is the symbol of freedom in the middle east. Are you out of your mind?
I've researched this more than you have, I can quite definitely tell. The government of the west bank is not Hamas, although Hamas enjoys quite a bit of support from people in the west bank. Ever wonder why?
War is a keen interest of mine and I make a very, very solid attempt to understand both sides of any conflict. I don't even speak about a conflict unless I've studied it to an extent which I feel I understand both sides. If you prefer, I can own you in a debate about why ISIS exists, what exactly their ideology is, what makes it different from others and why it's Americas fault they exist.
I suggest you do some research, buddy. I know my shit. My anti-zionism is not anti-semitism. That's what's called the "Jew Card". Accusing someone of being an anti semite just because they questions the state of Israel. If that makes me anti-semitic in your eyes, then we have nothing to talk about. I'm not having this debate with such a closed mind.
^Holy shit! Those Jews are anti-semites!! What a bunch of !@#$!
EDIT: Moar pics.
-
Then you have been proven wrong.
I don't see how. I've already explained why genocide is not a requirement for my comparison.
Then I ask that you relook over your argument because it's a... terrible one, and I doubt you can demonstrate it properly without being bias due to your emotions on the matter.
Gaza is a giant !@#$ing internment camp that is indiscriminately bombed every year or two. IDF soldiers do not seem to differentiate between civilian, child or combatant. Their unspoken policy is quite clearly "Palestinians must die". One claim I find to be a joke is that "Israel is the only democracy in the middle east". That's not true, there are several. Westerners don't consider them democracies because of their corruption. Meanwhile, Israel is a state that is literally waging war on it's own people solely because they refuse to even acknowledge their opinions. They prefer to kill them rather than compromise like a real democracy. Yeah, that sounds pretty !@#$ing democratic to me. Not even Putin is that blatant about killing political opponents. Good ol PR democracy.
The inhumanity displayed by the state of Israel is rivaled by few. Combined with the nationalist superiority complex, I stand by my statement. Simply saying "you're wrong" or "Israel didn't commit a genocide" does not invalidate my statement/comparison form my point of view. I'm not comparing the two based on how many people they've killed, rather, everything else.
-
I meant what I said.
-
Yet you did. You said the Israel (the State) is the equivalent of Nazi Germany (the State).
Yes, and I didn't use the word genocide did I?
I define both states by their ideology. Zionism carries the same basic concept of Nazism. Nationalist, cultural superiority justified by something that doesn't even exist.
I can say the same about ISIS. I don't define ISIS by their atrocities. I define them by their ideology. In fact, if enough Muslims want a "caliphate", I reasonably believe it's only fair to let them have it. But under ISIS and their ideology? I couldn't support that.
But overall, both the atrocities of the Israelis, Nazis and even ISIS are rooted in their ideology > The nationalist ideology of the state > The state. Would you feel better if I rephrased that as "Zionism is the Jewish equivalent of Nazism"?
-
Maybe and we can debate that. However, we are still left with the issue that a State defined by Genocide is not equivalent with one that is not.
Well I don't define Nazi Germany by genocide. I also don't define Israel by their atrocities.
The Great Debate on Atheism
in General Debate
Posted · Edited by Fox Fire
Theism in a classical sense is extremely unlikely. The roots of religions, according to experts, appears to have evolved as a social construct out of our own intellect, and branched off as a revivalist type movement in the wake of charismatic, intelligent people. [1][2] The primary conflict between theism and atheism is probably the fact that science has a method for confirming its assertions as fact through experimentation and is always subject to change based on new evidence. Religion has no such method for confirming anything about its own assertions.
So let's skip a wall of text about science vs scripture and get right to the point. Going back to the beginning of time, the big bang, theists will argue that something must have come before the big bang. I agree. The big bang is clearly a reaction, but was it a God that initiated this? No. Not any God in any traditional sense could have logically created the universe.
All of our knowledge is based on interpretations of a limited perception. Further more, if everything in the universe began as a singularity [3], that means that every imaginable concept your limited human consciousness could possibly comprehend is bound within this singularity. Any God beyond, unbound or individual from this singularity is logically beyond it's countless concepts if it can exist outside of it's singular form. Not a single thing you could think of could possibly be used to explain God. The closest you could ever come to explaining God is to sum up the entirety of existence, and even then, you would have no knowledge of God. Only your own existence.
Our conscious experience is the conscious experience of the universe itself. We can conclude that from the idea that the universe is a singular thing. Anything outside of it (if anything at all) is beyond comprehension or concept. Good and Evil become non-existent as even possibly being concepts at the point of a singularity. They fundamentally "do not exist". There is no "you". "You" are physically and fundamentally a part of your environment. Being conscious doesn't change that solid fact.
So what did come before the big bang? Well the leading theories for the source of the big bang in modern times are:
​Thus, no God is required to initiate our own existence. Nor is a traditional concept of deity logically possible. But regardless of any way we look at our reality, our existence remains, and always will be, illogical. "What came fist, the chicken or the egg?" We can place the archetype of existence at any point we desire, but the only reason we even attempt to do this is because our egos exist in a very brief and linear manner. The way we perceive nature makes us assume that existence is linear, but you can never use logic to explain existence, because the phenomena itself is completely illogical. When eastern philosophies such as Taoism speak of "transcendence", this is what they are referring to. The ability to see beyond concepts and labels.
Thus do I conclude that the "nature" or "existence" is a paradox. There was never a beginning. There will never be an end. I argue that this nature is self justifying as one might with a God. Nothing needed create it. It's far greater than the human mind could possibly comprehend and just as capable as any God of being self justified, if not more so, based on scientific theory.