[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
You believe Israel is purposefully “systematically” as you said, killing children. [/quote]
He’s been begging the question, like you point out, and openly admitting he is ignoring facts and instead just making up his own version of reality.
You’re trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
You believe Israel is purposefully “systematically” as you said, killing children. [/quote]
He’s been begging the question, like you point out, and openly admitting he is ignoring facts and instead just making up his own version of reality.
You’re trying to reason with an unreasonable person. [/quote]
Whether is is systematic or not the fact remains that Israel has decided to attack Gaza and they are now killing 100’s of children. What do you not understand about this?
So obviously Palestinian children are worth more than Israeli children, in your opinion correct?
/thread
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So obviously Palestinian children are worth more than Israeli children, in your opinion correct?
/thread[/quote]
Please explain yourself?
[quote]lou21 wrote:
What do you not understand about this?[/quote]
Why you and Pitt refuse to address half the facts, and only focus on the half that supports your opinion.
Pitt openly admitted in the other thread about this that he is ignoring facts, and you have consistently only mentioned one side’s story. Why anyone capable of critical thought would do this is beyond me…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
What do you not understand about this?[/quote]
Why you and Pitt refuse to address half the facts, and only focus on the half that supports your opinion.
Pitt openly admitted in the other thread about this that he is ignoring facts, and you have consistently only mentioned one side’s story. Why anyone capable of critical thought would do this is beyond me…[/quote]
Actually I have been reading the Israeli papers far more than any of the Palestinian stuff. For example where did I get the idea that Israel started the recent attack on Gaza? The Times of Israel. Where did I get the idea the Israeli prime minister will not accept a two state solution? The Times of Israel. As far as I know this is not a Hamas backing publication.
In fact in the “This is Israel” thead that I started I posted the opinions of a couple of Israeli MKs. The fact that their opinions are not savoury is not my fault.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
What do you not understand about this?[/quote]
Why you and Pitt refuse to address half the facts, and only focus on the half that supports your opinion.
Pitt openly admitted in the other thread about this that he is ignoring facts, and you have consistently only mentioned one side’s story. Why anyone capable of critical thought would do this is beyond me…[/quote]
Actually I have been reading the Israeli papers far more than any of the Palestinian stuff. For example where did I get the idea that Israel started the recent attack on Gaza? The Times of Israel. Where did I get the idea the Israeli prime minister will not accept a two state solution? The Times of Israel. As far as I know this is not a Hamas backing publication.
In fact in the “This is Israel” thead that I started I posted the opinions of a couple of Israeli MKs. The fact that their opinions are not savoury is not my fault.[/quote]
<----- My Point
You ------>
Nevermind.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
What do you not understand about this?[/quote]
Why you and Pitt refuse to address half the facts, and only focus on the half that supports your opinion.
Pitt openly admitted in the other thread about this that he is ignoring facts, and you have consistently only mentioned one side’s story. Why anyone capable of critical thought would do this is beyond me…[/quote]
Actually I have been reading the Israeli papers far more than any of the Palestinian stuff. For example where did I get the idea that Israel started the recent attack on Gaza? The Times of Israel. Where did I get the idea the Israeli prime minister will not accept a two state solution? The Times of Israel. As far as I know this is not a Hamas backing publication.
In fact in the “This is Israel” thead that I started I posted the opinions of a couple of Israeli MKs. The fact that their opinions are not savoury is not my fault.[/quote]
<----- My Point
You ------>
Nevermind. [/quote]
I’ve also stated that I don’t like Hamas and that some of their leadership should face trial…
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
What do you not understand about this?[/quote]
Why you and Pitt refuse to address half the facts, and only focus on the half that supports your opinion.
Pitt openly admitted in the other thread about this that he is ignoring facts, and you have consistently only mentioned one side’s story. Why anyone capable of critical thought would do this is beyond me…[/quote]
Actually I have been reading the Israeli papers far more than any of the Palestinian stuff. For example where did I get the idea that Israel started the recent attack on Gaza? The Times of Israel. Where did I get the idea the Israeli prime minister will not accept a two state solution? The Times of Israel. As far as I know this is not a Hamas backing publication.
In fact in the “This is Israel” thead that I started I posted the opinions of a couple of Israeli MKs. The fact that their opinions are not savoury is not my fault.[/quote]
<----- My Point
You ------>
Nevermind. [/quote]
I’ve also stated that I don’t like Hamas and that some of their leadership should face trial…[/quote]
So you don’t like the Palestinian Government? Because that what Hamas is. How do you propose that they stand trial? The Palestinian govt and police are Hamas so they aren’t going to turn them over. Maybe then they should just attack those that are responsible for random acts of violence, like killing three teens? But then the elected government of Palestine starts lobbing rockets at you. So you end up with a war where the militants are purposefully fighting from civilian positions to increase collateral damage so that they might can win a propaganda war because they no they cant win a real war or even put up much of a fight. That is at least until the blockade is lifted and they can spend the UN’s money on Turkish and Iranian weapons.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
What do you not understand about this?[/quote]
Why you and Pitt refuse to address half the facts, and only focus on the half that supports your opinion.
Pitt openly admitted in the other thread about this that he is ignoring facts, and you have consistently only mentioned one side’s story. Why anyone capable of critical thought would do this is beyond me…[/quote]
Actually I have been reading the Israeli papers far more than any of the Palestinian stuff. For example where did I get the idea that Israel started the recent attack on Gaza? The Times of Israel. Where did I get the idea the Israeli prime minister will not accept a two state solution? The Times of Israel. As far as I know this is not a Hamas backing publication.
In fact in the “This is Israel” thead that I started I posted the opinions of a couple of Israeli MKs. The fact that their opinions are not savoury is not my fault.[/quote]
<----- My Point
You ------>
Nevermind. [/quote]
I’ve also stated that I don’t like Hamas and that some of their leadership should face trial…[/quote]
So you don’t like the Palestinian Government? Because that what Hamas is. How do you propose that they stand trial? The Palestinian govt and police are Hamas so they aren’t going to turn them over. Maybe then they should just attack those that are responsible for random acts of violence, like killing three teens? But then the elected government of Palestine starts lobbing rockets at you. So you end up with a war where the militants are purposefully fighting from civilian positions to increase collateral damage so that they might can win a propaganda war because they no they cant win a real war or even put up much of a fight. That is at least until the blockade is lifted and they can spend the UN’s money on Turkish and Iranian weapons. [/quote]
I also said that many in the Israeli government should stand trial. And many of the IDF should be there as well. The nature of Hamas does not change the right of the cause that they are fighting for.
OH and the venue? Why not the Hague? That is where war criminals are generally supposed to be tried.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]lou21 wrote:
What do you not understand about this?[/quote]
Why you and Pitt refuse to address half the facts, and only focus on the half that supports your opinion.
Pitt openly admitted in the other thread about this that he is ignoring facts, and you have consistently only mentioned one side’s story. Why anyone capable of critical thought would do this is beyond me…[/quote]
Actually I have been reading the Israeli papers far more than any of the Palestinian stuff. For example where did I get the idea that Israel started the recent attack on Gaza? The Times of Israel. Where did I get the idea the Israeli prime minister will not accept a two state solution? The Times of Israel. As far as I know this is not a Hamas backing publication.
In fact in the “This is Israel” thead that I started I posted the opinions of a couple of Israeli MKs. The fact that their opinions are not savoury is not my fault.[/quote]
<----- My Point
You ------>
Nevermind. [/quote]
I’ve also stated that I don’t like Hamas and that some of their leadership should face trial…[/quote]
So you don’t like the Palestinian Government? Because that what Hamas is. How do you propose that they stand trial? The Palestinian govt and police are Hamas so they aren’t going to turn them over. Maybe then they should just attack those that are responsible for random acts of violence, like killing three teens? But then the elected government of Palestine starts lobbing rockets at you. So you end up with a war where the militants are purposefully fighting from civilian positions to increase collateral damage so that they might can win a propaganda war because they no they cant win a real war or even put up much of a fight. That is at least until the blockade is lifted and they can spend the UN’s money on Turkish and Iranian weapons. [/quote]
I also said that many in the Israeli government should stand trial. And many of the IDF should be there as well. The nature of Hamas does not change the right of the cause that they are fighting for.[/quote]
The Palestinians had an election. That election was essentially should we become a terrorist state or should we be a legitimate government. They chose terrorist state. The minority that thought this was a bad idea could have left (because they aren’t in prison) Palestine if they didn’t want to be members of a terrorist state. Could they have become citizens of Israel, probably not. Could they have went to another Middle Eastern country like Jordan? Maybe, I don’t know. But they chose to be a part of this through inaction. Israel cannot and should not be held copable for dealing very harshly with the members of a terrorist organization and those that side with them. Will there be collateral damage in war? Yes. In America, 50,000 Confederate non-combatants were killed during the Civil War. These types of wars are particularly nasty.
Losers in war stand in trial. Like serbs, like ww2 losers, like Saddam. You never see representatives of the victorious side in Hague, so maybe Hamas should just revise its tactics.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
all human lives are equal [/quote]
What about human fetuses?[/quote]
They are not people , they are fetuses 
I guess , I have to ask , Can I spank my monster , tomorrow :)?
Hundreds of thousands human lives 
[/quote]
Actually by definition a fetus is a stage of life so it must be a “human life” regardless of your political views. What you are talking about is person hood which there is some controversy on rights.
[/quote]
Thanks for fixing that for me , I forget that I am @PWI some times and that I am not dealing with normal people .
Here you must speak everything right the 1rst time , thanks :)[/quote]
If its normal to accept the taking of an innocent human life simply because it is in utero, I don’t want to be normal, I want to be right.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
all human lives are equal [/quote]
What about human fetuses?[/quote]
They are not people , they are fetuses
I guess , I have to ask , Can I spank my monster , tomorrow :)?
Hundreds of thousands human lives
[/quote]
Here’s pitt, making up “science” as he goes, like he always does.
As to the thread in general: Idealistically all people are created equal under the law. We certainly aren’t created equal in ability, not even close. Some will be good at some things, other good at other things, and that is good. Society will by and large, through a relatively “free market of ideas and perceptions” place a value on these “talents” and reward individuals appropriately.
Realistically: it depends on perspective, and this has been mentioned. If we look at things from the collective, all human life is worthless, and we (the global community) prove this every day. Abortion, killing, raping, war, torture, abuse, etc etc etc. It is only once we get to the individual level and individual relationships does anyone put any value on one another. So big picture, because we find anyone worthless, we are all worthless on a big enough scale.
[/quote]
We are either all equally valuable, or worthless, in either way we are equal. And in that sense nobody has the right to willfully do harm to another person.
Say we’re both $100 dollar bills. One is a clean, crisp, newly minted bill, the other is wrinkled, dirty and old. Which one is worth more?
Which one would you rather have?
They are both worth the same, but most would pick the new clean, crisp one. But the other one is worth just as much.
Same with people. We’re worth the same, but some are more damaged than the other.
It isn’t the fact that humans are evil to each other anyway, so screw it. It’s wrong to be evil to one another, notwithstanding the fact that it happens. We don’t accept it just because it happens. We stand up and say it’s wrong.
When you want to understand it, internalize. What gives someone the right to hurt you, enslave you, rape you, take things away from you?
Now we complicate the issue. What if you did some real bad shit? What if you hurt somebody, damaged them, or are threatening somebody? Does that diminish your worth? No. However, now you are in a position where you have artificially elevated yourself above others and you glass ceiling needs to be shattered less your hurt someone.
I don’t think we can explicitly state what a natural right is. But implicitly, acting as if it exists serves the individual as well as society better than legalism where the law exists over the natural right.
If in practice treating rights as they exist serve for the betterment of man individually as well as sociologically, then implicitly they seem to exist.
We know that love is better than hate, help is better than hurt.
It’s not as bad to believe it’s bullshit as it is to act as if it’s bullshit.
The dignity of man is best understood through suffering. Once you have been through it, you get it. If your life is peachy and you are in good health all the time and have not ever been troubled with real suffering I don’t think you can get it. It’s merely an academic game. I know suffering and it’s no game to me.
[quote]pat wrote:
We are either all equally valuable, or worthless, [/quote]
I’m not arguing morals, I’m stating the way the world is today.
The bigger the scale, the more worthless any one or group of individuals are. The smaller the scale, individuals become valuable. Right or wrong, this is the way of the world.
I’m not arguing philosophy, or what should be. I’m simply pointing out we, on a macro level, are insignificant cogs in the machine of life, based on the way we treat each other.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Losers in war stand in trial. Like serbs, like ww2 losers, like Saddam. You never see representatives of the victorious side in Hague, so maybe Hamas should just revise its tactics.[/quote]
Hamas should not start a war they cannot win. In war, you often don’t have the luxury of distinguishing the good from the bad. The goal is to win the conflict and end it as soon as possible. That’s the greatest good for the most people. Fat load of good it does for the innocents, but war does not make that distinction. War is ugly, it’s horrible and it causes undo suffering.
Since it’s clear, by their own statements, that Hamas will never make peace with Israel. I think the best solution is a total takeover of Gaza and annex it to Israel fully.
Round up all of Hamas and give the people there the choice to stay and live peacefully in Israel as resident aliens with a path toward citizenship, or a ticket anywhere they want to go that is willing to accept them.
At this point, I think that’s the only viable solution.
Hamas will never recognize Israel’s right to exist nor will they renounce violence. This being the case, I believe take over is the best option.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
We are either all equally valuable, or worthless, [/quote]
I’m not arguing morals, I’m stating the way the world is today.
The bigger the scale, the more worthless any one or group of individuals are. The smaller the scale, individuals become valuable. Right or wrong, this is the way of the world.
I’m not arguing philosophy, or what should be. I’m simply pointing out we, on a macro level, are insignificant cogs in the machine of life, based on the way we treat each other.
[/quote]
Yes, that is a correct observation. But I am not stating an ‘is’, I am stating an ‘ought’. We treat human life as cheap, but it’s not.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
We are either all equally valuable, or worthless, [/quote]
I’m not arguing morals, I’m stating the way the world is today.
The bigger the scale, the more worthless any one or group of individuals are. The smaller the scale, individuals become valuable. Right or wrong, this is the way of the world.
I’m not arguing philosophy, or what should be. I’m simply pointing out we, on a macro level, are insignificant cogs in the machine of life, based on the way we treat each other.
[/quote]
Yes, that is a correct observation. But I am not stating an ‘is’, I am stating an ‘ought’. We treat human life as cheap, but it’s not.[/quote]
For the record I agree with you.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Losers in war stand in trial. Like serbs, like ww2 losers, like Saddam. You never see representatives of the victorious side in Hague, so maybe Hamas should just revise its tactics.[/quote]
Hamas should not start a war they cannot win. In war, you often don’t have the luxury of distinguishing the good from the bad. The goal is to win the conflict and end it as soon as possible. That’s the greatest good for the most people. Fat load of good it does for the innocents, but war does not make that distinction. War is ugly, it’s horrible and it causes undo suffering.
Since it’s clear7, by their own statements, that Hamas will never make peace with Israel. I think the best solution is a total takeover of Gaza and annex it to Israel fully.
Round up all of Hamas and give the people there the choice to stay and live peacefully in Israel as resident aliens with a path toward citizenship, or a ticket anywhere they want to go that is willing to accept them.
At this point, I think that’s the only viable solution.
Hamas will never recognize Israel’s right to exist nor will they renounce violence. This being the case, I believe take over is the best option.[/quote]
You may be right, I don’t know. There purportedly are two branches of Hamas, military and political, at least according to Jerusalem Post. I don’t know what their differences are, I guess it is as their names imply, political and military.
Some say Hamas would be replaced with something else, some say it wouldn’t. There have been several commentaries on the subject in J Post. I has access to it’s electronic look-a-like version which I have been reading almost daily recently.
A CEO has much more “value” then the widget-market employee. The CEOs goal is to increase profits and share-prices. If they do, they are awarded millions. The CEO creates jobs. The employee creates widgets.
Not equal.