Israeli’s laws are based on given preference in everything based on ethnicity. By definition, Israel cannot be a democracy. And it’s not.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
18 year old girls walk around toting assault rifles. [/quote]
So what’s wrong with that?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
18 year old girls walk around toting assault rifles.
So what’s wrong with that?[/quote]
Did I say it was wrong? I said it was fascist. Whether it’s wrong or not depends on your opinion of fascism, I suppose.
[quote]
ISRAEL: A SOCIALIST SPARTA
by Justin Raimondo
If war is the health of the State, as Randolph Bourne put it, then the Israeli state must be bursting with a monstrous vitality ? and so it is. The beleaguered and shrinking private sector groans under the burden of a parasitic state that grows fat on an endless stream of American “aid,” both economic and military. As the Israeli economy goes into another of its periodic tailspins, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s “right-wing” government calls for higher taxes and “belt-tightening,” one can almost hear the cry to bail out our good and faithful ally even before it is uttered. Anticipating this, why not examine just what sort of economy we are subsidizing ? and ask what we’re getting out of it.
THE SOCIALIST ROOTS OF ISRAEL
Israel was conceived in the minds of its original founders and supporters as an explicitly socialist state. The very idea of private property was anathema to the founders of the state of Israel, who were socialists almost to a man. However, the early success of the Zionist project demonstrated, not the superiority of socialism over capitalism, but quite the opposite. As Alvin Rabushka points out, prior to independence, virtually all investment in the country was private, involving the purchase of land by private individuals and the dispensing of private funds raised by the Zionist organizations abroad. But it wasn’t just ideology that prompted the still-birth of the Israeli private sector. After independence, private capital investments in Israel contracted to no more than 15 percent of the total between 1948 and 1990. The reason: German reparations. Rabushka writes:
“In what must rank as one of the great ironies in economic history, German reparations financed the transformation of Israel from a private-investment, private-enterprise, free-market economy to a socialist system that fulfilled the vision of Jewish leftists?. The German government gave $850 million, a huge sum at the time, to the government of Israel as collective compensation for the millions of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazi regime and had their property stolen.”
…[/quote]
Read the rest:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j042902.html
Another piece:
[quote]
Fascism in Israel?
In a rare show of unity, Israel’s economic leaders met on November 14, 2001, and established a task force that will design a package deal for the economy, to cope with economic deterioration and a wave of strikes.
The deal calls for a possible freeze of public sector wages, a cessation of layoffs in industry, a reduction in interest rates, and subsidies for industry.
Minister of Finance Silvan Shalom was delighted with the meeting. Apart from himself, the participants were Bank of Israel Governor David Klein, Manufacturers Association head Oded Tyrah, and Histadrut Chairman Amir Peretz.
There it is: money, big government, big business, and big labor, the cornerstones of the fascist economy.
But not everyone is equal in the fascist state. Some are more equal than others. In this case, Histadrut rules the roost. Peretz warned that any deal will not be “on the workers’ backs.” “After all,” said Peretz, “the economy belongs to the workers. Governments rise and fall, but the workers remain constant.”
Not to be muscled, Klein warned that interest rates depended on Shalom producing a realistic budget, not one based on pie-in-the-sky projected growth of 4% in 2001.
For his part, Tyrah wants subsidies to keep the manufacturers afloat.
Why was Silvan Shalom delighted with the meeting?
It’s reassuring in this age of globalism, multi-national corporations, capitalism, and markets, that Israel can remain true to its economic heritage: the fascist state lead by the workers.[/quote]
[quote]samsiavashi wrote:
Israeli’s laws are based on given preference in everything based on ethnicity. By definition, Israel cannot be a democracy. And it’s not.[/quote]
Where do you get your definition of democracy?
There is also a theory of tyranny of the majority which would make no government a democracy.
Israel by political definition is a democracy.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Dweezil wrote:
The dominance of the United States in all things is relegated to the Navy. While I hate to turn this into some military armchair general circlejerk, our Navy is really the only thing that is just so far ahead of everyone else as to make us invincible in that regard.
[/quote]
Marines are part of the Navy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Yes, I would argue it for the simple reason that it just isn’t something that passes my common-sense test. i.e: I don’t see how society might benefit from it.
The quran prescribing the 100 lashes is another issues…[/quote]
The Hadith is considered a secondary source to the Qur’an, this I recognize. But just because it violates your common sense, because you don’t like it or think it’s accurate, doesn’t mean it isn’t written. There is nothing in the Qur’an that would overrule what the Hadith says with regards to stoning, there’s really no mention of it at all.
If your criteria for considering whether something is valid is if you like it or not, then it’s pretty shitty criteria. There is nothing in the Qur’an that would contradict what the Hadith says on this subject. Therefore, it’s a supplement to the Qur’an, just like most other things in the Hadith, which validates it.
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him. In the hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.
While it’s not fire and brimstone like Revelations or The Old Testament, it’s pretty fucking obvious what that means to me. It will never be accepted of him could easily be interpreted as a reason to actively resist, which is how it has been interpreted by many extremists.
Which makes them as insular as Jews and Christians.
Your government fights you when you don’t pay taxes. This is not written for governments. It’s a holy book, it’s for each believer, just like every copy of the bible.
Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day
COMMA
nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
This in your world apparently means go pay an income tax. In my world it means kill the non-believers until you subdue them and force them into financial slavery.
Really?
Matthew.16:18-19: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
While this isn’t meant to give power only to Roman bishops, it strikes me as biblical mandate to be titled the Vicar of Peter. While the Vicar of Christ was later decided to be used by the Church, the mandate was still there to be essentially the spokesman of a disciple of Christ.
You quoted the Old Testament in an attempt to make Jews look bloodthirsty. I’m sorry that it upsets you that Islam has much the same text and Christianity has sensitized implications. Again, just because you don’t like it doesn’t invalidate the foundation. The Papacy is clearly mandated by a gospel of the New Testament to speak as the vicar of a disciple.
So you think there’s been modification to the New Testament but not the Old Testament? Which is, uh… older?
I agree that America controls NATO, I was just stating that American forces by themselves would probably not be sufficient to hold air superiority over the entire world. It’s pretty clear we’re not that far ahead of the world in that regard.
Yes, we’ve got a lot of nukes. The sophistication of weapons is becoming less exclusive for us as many r&d projects are being shared with other countries. The F-35 Lightning II, for instance.
[quote]If that’s not blatant bias, I don’t know what is! Why on Earth would you assume the Iran is inherently evil and Israel inherently well-intentioned. Who’s got a history of waging wars? Let me remind you that the Iranian revolution would have not happened if it wasn’t for the US putting the Shah in power.
To top that off, I clearly referred to “Arabs” in my post. Dunno where you got Iran from.[/quote]
Iran is going to be the first country in the region other than Israel, India and Pakistan to (attempt to) get the bomb. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt will want the bomb to even the playing field and mitigate Iran as a threat to them.
I don’t think Israel is inherently well-intentioned. I think that America has a large amount of control of Israel, while may conspiracy theorists seem to think that it’s the other way around. Israel knows not to use the bomb unless it’s an incredibly bad situation, because the international fallout for them would be absolutely horrendous. It’s clearly a last resort measure.
Iran, on the other hand… I don’t even know what you want me to say. Yes, the United States played a large role in the Islamic Revolution. It doesn’t change the fact that they’ve clearly stated their intention to destroy a nearby country if given the opportunity. They have ties to countless terrorist attacks, and they have a history of funding terrorism. And now they have nuclear aspirations. Yes, I think this is a problem.
I don’t think Islam has an inherent hatred of the Jews. I think many Muslims do, and most Arab countries do, as a result of a tremendous amount of history. Believing otherwise is almost comically naive.
Because most Middle Eastern countries have horribly inefficient, corrupt governments and people are living in squalor? Why does anyone change the subject? Give people something to focus on so they believe their situation is a result of it instead of blaming the real causes. I hate to make it sound so simple, but it’s a pretty large part of it.
The Palestinians can be made martyrs as a source of distraction, much like we’re GONNA GET FUCKING BOMBED HOLY SHIT YOUR KIDS ARE GOING TO BE EATEN BY SHARKS EVERYBODY RUN whenever presidency is pushed on issues they’re not keen on talking about that aren’t related to national security.
Yes, Jews are not Israelis, Israel does not represent the Jews. My mother maybe 30 years ago had dinner with someone pretty high up in what was then basically the PLO. In Africa. He didn’t know she was a Jew until part way through, and he told her that he didn’t have a problem with her, just the Israelis.
Unfortunately, it’s not 30 years ago. The environment has changed, and while historically small Jewish communities have been able to live in peace segregated from most Muslims in Muslim countries this has changed pretty significantly. In Africa, interestingly, moreso than the Middle East.
I agree.
That’s a very keen way of taking what I said and applying it to sound cruel. War is disgusting. What I found amusing was how most of the world was telling Israel to stop attacking, even before they started making airstrikes, without coming up with any idea of what to do. The central government in Lebanon clearly had no control of Hezbollah, and as is generally the case, the UN was not in a position to do anything.
Israel would still be getting hit by rockets today if they didn’t escalate and force the world to react, even if the reaction was detrimental to them. It’s a net loss for Israel, but I fail to see how they had a choice.
Really? You’ll have to excuse me, because outside of the recent war over the last 5 years I don’t recall Israel bombing Lebanon with their air force.
The Hezbollah response? All these arguments are intellectual cul-de-sacs. You go in, and you end up having to turn around, and it’s usually a waste of time to drive down them in the first place.
This is where we’ll have no agreement, because there had been relative (relative to the Middle East) calm with regards to Lebanon until Palestinians kidnapped an Israeli soldier, and Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers and started launching rockets. You see it as a response, I see it as an unprovoked attack in a time of relative calm with Lebanon.
The truth is that these wars cannot be fought in the global climate of today. Guerilla warfare is not new; on this scale, however, it is.
I’m sure most strategic planners are on the verge of suicide, because there is no other way to fight a large enemy force blending in inside large civilian populations that are friendly to them.
You win these wars by slaughter, and you lose them by slaughter. Israel was restrained compared to how almost any other country on this Earth would have responded, and they still come out as murderers without even being successful in dismantling Hezbollah. Yes, Israel was caught on the fence, even though you appear to think any civilian deaths imply a slaughter.
This is interesting. I don’t know if you’re young, or if you’re just saying this because it’s a nice thing to say, but it’s not accurate. Authoritarianism has a much, much longer history in this world than democracy does. Far more countries are under authoritarian rule today than countries that are socialist or democratic.
Most of the world has forgotten, fairly quickly considering the recent end of World War II, what war is when you’re not fighting it at arms length. You can break people, and you can break entire societies and rule them. While it’s more difficult with modern technology and means of communication, it’s doable.
I don’t have a doubt in my mind that Israel could be in complete control of Southern Lebanon today, although it would be a bad decision to do so. And I have no doubt in my mind that we’d be seeing very little news about violence in Iraq had we gone in with the force required. It would be pretty goddamn horrible in the initial stages (not for the occupiers, but the ones being occupied), but it would be far less tenuous than what we have today.
I think you’d probably be interested in this topic, you should maybe read some general fluff psychology books or something along the lines of The Gift of Fear. People can be broken, and violence at the start of anything is an effective way of doing it. For Christssake, most modern militaries employ indoctrination in early training, which involves breaking a person and essentially retraining the way they think and respond.
As we speak the UN has not fully stepped forward (SHOCKING!) to control Southern Lebanon. Although I don’t know of any recent attacks on either side, as I haven’t been following the news much.
We are, and you’re assuming that there are sects in the Arab world that don’t hate Jews and raise their children to feel the same. My piece of advice to you would be to avoid most media in general. Independent media is going to be at risk of bias even more than mainstream garbage. I like snippets. The less information presented, the less chance it’s been tampered with.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
When you say “Navy”, I assume you are including the Marine Corps. The ability to pound inland cities with cruise missiles and naval artillery, while certainly impressive, is pretty pointless without the grunts to secure the territory afterwards. And our Marines pretty much lead the world in that arena.[/quote]
I believe that the Marines are the most elite expeditionary/spearhead/first response/whatever the hell you want to call it military force in the world, but no, I am not including ground forces in my statement.
Our military, much like most of the business world, government and militaries across the world have been affected pretty negatively by middle management. Whenever you’re presenting American troop numbers, you’ve got to do it with the caveat that those numbers are going to be influenced by non-combat officer personnel ranking O-2 → O-4 (or the equivalent for the other services).
Our Navy, if you really look at it and you’re willing to count the Coast Guard when war is declared and they become a service of the Navy (despite that the Coast Guard fleet is getting pretty old), is just so ridiculously overpowered compared to the rest of the world that if we had a little military sandbox we could simulate our Navy against the Navy of every other country in the world combined and still come out as victors.
We can say that in no other category. Our Army is… an army. There is not a significant amount of advancement to consider us above the armies of other first world nations. Our Air Force is nothing to scoff at, but our air superiority is more in relation to the lack of strength and size of most other air forces than our strength. And I’ve already stated my opinion on the Marines.
China has 3.9 million people with training they can arm.
China has 997 million other soldiers they could use if they could retain any form of command in an instance of invasion or a war with a neighboring country.
[quote]I don’t know about the universe, but yeah, that’s probably how Israel will end: with a whimper…after an innumerable series of very loud bangs.
[/quote]
If there’s a lot of very loud bangs in short succession, then there’s going to be some even louder bangs 20 minutes to a few hours later in the capitals of some nearby countries.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Israel is a model fascist state. I’ve been there twice. 18 year old girls walk around toting assault rifles. It’s economy operates on collectivist principles.
[/quote]
You really need to stop editing your posts. I’m not sure what’s going to be there whenever I look.
I think, for the most part, we’ve ignored your opinion. JTF didn’t bother me, and I almost never call someone anti-semitic, but you’re pretty clearly a crazy fucking asshole.
While most people may have missed the links you posted early on in this thread, I did not.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Where do you get your definition of democracy?
There is also a theory of tyranny of the majority which would make no government a democracy.
[/quote]
I get my definition from de Tocqueville, who defined democracy as just that: a tyranny of the majority. Or, as more eloquently put by Jonah Goldberg, “the right of 51% of the population to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Where do you get your definition of democracy?
There is also a theory of tyranny of the majority which would make no government a democracy.
I get my definition from de Tocqueville, who defined democracy as just that: a tyranny of the majority. Or, as more eloquently put by Jonah Goldberg, “the right of 51% of the population to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%”[/quote]
Then it seems we agree on our definition of democracy.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
samsiavashi wrote:
Israeli’s laws are based on given preference in everything based on ethnicity. By definition, Israel cannot be a democracy. And it’s not.
Where do you get your definition of democracy?
There is also a theory of tyranny of the majority which would make no government a democracy.
Israel by political definition is a democracy.
[/quote]
There are many countries that “by definition” are democracy’s. Isreal is a democracy if you are jewish, and a theocracy if you are not.
Technically, Iraq was a democracy, they just only had one guy on the ballot.
The only problem that I have with isreal is that there are a lot of Americans without healthcare, education, heck, without food or a place to sleep, so it makes me unhappy when tax dollars go to help anyone but Americans. (feel free to call me an ethno-centric pig or whatever). I beleive that more should be done to help Americans before Americans worry about others.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Jews, being way above average in intellect, should be MORE in favor of very limited government. The experiences of the 20th century at minimum should cause that to happen. Yet, we see Jews vote overwhelming for Democrats, the party of tax-and-spend, run from your enemies, and ‘Let’s start a new program!!’[/quote]
Sorry. But I really have to ask- Is it ok now to assume that their are differences in intellegence, and other traits based on different ethniticity and race? Just curious, see as how you said that jews are way above average in intellegence.
[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
samsiavashi wrote:
Israeli’s laws are based on given preference in everything based on ethnicity. By definition, Israel cannot be a democracy. And it’s not.
Where do you get your definition of democracy?
There is also a theory of tyranny of the majority which would make no government a democracy.
Israel by political definition is a democracy.
There are many countries that “by definition” are democracy’s. Isreal is a democracy if you are jewish, and a theocracy if you are not.
Technically, Iraq was a democracy, they just only had one guy on the ballot.
The only problem that I have with isreal is that there are a lot of Americans without healthcare, education, heck, without food or a place to sleep, so it makes me unhappy when tax dollars go to help anyone but Americans. (feel free to call me an ethno-centric pig or whatever). I beleive that more should be done to help Americans before Americans worry about others.[/quote]
regarding foreign aid I agree with you. But I also don’t like the budget for NASA in light of our budgetary crisis.
Also, Israel is not the only country, nor the country receiving the largest share of foreign aid.
But this thread is not about Israel. It is about anti-semitism. Don’t confuse the country and its government with the people.
It’s like when people say they hate Americans because of decisions made by our government.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
regarding foreign aid I agree with you. But I also don’t like the budget for NASA in light of our budgetary crisis.
[/quote]
If cookies weren’t so terrible you would win a jars worth.
Sometimes I think that legislators need courses on how money works, and how Money is supposed to be piling up, not flowing out. Apparently, spending money that you don’t have is the new trend. I wonder if the federal government could get a visa card?
Maybe we need to elect some Jews to the congressional budget committee. (no pun intended. I am being dead serious)
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
18 year old girls walk around toting assault rifles.
So what’s wrong with that?
Did I say it was wrong? I said it was fascist. Whether it’s wrong or not depends on your opinion of fascism, I suppose.
[/quote]
Let me just drag out the old Oxford Unabridged Dictionary here…
Let’s see… fasciculation…fascitis…fascioliasis…a
Ah! Here we are.
fas•cism [fa’ SH izəm] noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Hmmm. Nothing in there about young women carrying assault rifles. So I’m gonna have to say that I find nothing wrong with 18-year-old girls carrying assault rifles, inasmuch as this is not a defining feature of fascism. 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Let me just drag out the old Oxford Unabridged Dictionary here…
Let’s see… fasciculation…fascitis…fascioliasis…a
Ah! Here we are.
fas?cism [fa’ SH izəm] noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Hmmm. Nothing in there about young women carrying assault rifles. So I’m gonna have to say that I find nothing wrong with 18-year-old girls carrying assault rifles, inasmuch as this is not a defining feature of fascism. ;)[/quote]
Are you playing dumb, or can you truly not see how arming and conscripting teenagers would precisely fit the (limited) terms of that definition?
Fascism is, first and foremost, an economic system adopted by certain governments.
Did you not read the articles I posted about the Israeli state’s socialist roots? Everything is revealed there.
Any further questions, feel free to ask. Dismissed for now.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Are you playing dumb, or can you truly not see how arming and conscripting teenagers would precisely fit the (limited) terms of that definition?
Fascism is, first and foremost, an economic system adopted by certain governments.
Did you not read the articles I posted about the Israeli state’s socialist roots? Everything is revealed there.
[/quote]
Boy, you sure fly off the handle easily, don’t you, Sparky? Yeah, for the record, I was being facetious in that post (hence the little smiley face at the end), and yes, I read the articles you posted. I agree that the economic structure of Israel is highly socialist (and even communist, if we’re talking about kibbutzim). Politically, Israelis can be extremely nationalistic, and certainly authoritarian (read “intolerant and oppressive”) toward ethnic and religious minorities. You add this all up and call it “fascism”. That’s fine.
I was merely poking fun at the fact that your definition of fascism apparently includes a bundle of extraneous fasciae that have nothing to do with the actual economics and politics of this system.
For example, based on your statement above, every country that conscripts and arms 18 and 19-year-olds for military service must, prima facie, be fascist. Switzerland (about as non-fascist a country as you’ll find) has been conscripting “teenagers” for its armed forces for the last five centuries, and of course every nation conscripts men (and in some countries, women) in time of war. Surely you don’t claim that when Britain and the United States conscripted 18- and 19-year-olds to fight the fascist Axis powers that they were, themselves, fascist? That would indeed be fatuous.
Or do you take issue with the fact that the M16-toting person you saw in Israel was not merely an 18-year-old, but an 18-year-old woman?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
18 year old girls walk around toting assault rifles.
So what’s wrong with that?
Did I say it was wrong? I said it was fascist. Whether it’s wrong or not depends on your opinion of fascism, I suppose.
Let me just drag out the old Oxford Unabridged Dictionary here…
Let’s see… fasciculation…fascitis…fascioliasis…a
Ah! Here we are.
fas?cism [fa’ SH izəm] noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
[/quote]
Which is of course bullshit because fascism started as an Italian left wing worker movement and only became open to the middle class later.
The whole image of the fasces implies strenght trough unity. United we stand, divided we fall, and so on.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Many world powers would defend Israel because it is a democratic nation in a sea of communism and facism, not to mention religious zealotry.
Israel is a model fascist state. I’ve been there twice. 18 year old girls walk around toting assault rifles. It’s economy operates on collectivist principles.
Headhunter wrote:
Why are Jews so liberal?
Liberalism today means that government is looked to in order to right all wrongs and secure justice. If history teaches us anything, governments are the worst abusers of human rights and justice.
Jews, being way above average in intellect, should be MORE in favor of very limited government. The experiences of the 20th century at minimum should cause that to happen. Yet, we see Jews vote overwhelming for Democrats, the party of tax-and-spend, run from your enemies, and ‘Let’s start a new program!!’
Why are academics overwhelmingly liberal? As a teacher, give us your take.
Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism - Ludwig Von Mises Institute
Some interesting statistics from that article on predominant political affiliations in various fields of academia:
A 1989 study for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching used the categories “liberal” and “conservative.” It found that 70 percent of the professors in the major liberal arts colleges and research universities considered themselves liberal or moderately liberal, with less than 20 percent identifying themselves as conservative or moderately conservative.
…
Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein have recently examined academics’ political affiliations using voter-registration records for tenure-track faculty at 11 California universities. They find an average Democrat:Republican ratio of 5:1, ranging from 9:1 at Berkeley to 1:1 at Pepperdine. The humanities average 10:1, while business schools are at only 1.3:1.
…
Now here’s a surprise: Even in my own discipline, economics, 63 percent of the faculty in the Carnegie study identified themselves as liberal, compared with 72 percent in anthropology, political science, and sociology, 76 percent in ethnic studies, history, and philosophy, and 88 percent in public affairs. The Cardiff and Klein study finds an average D:R ratio in economics departments of 2.8:1 - lower than the sociologists’ 44:1, to be sure, but higher than that of biological and chemical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, management, marketing, accounting, and finance.
How repulsive to see so many socialists involved with economics. On the positive side, though, it’s good to see the highest proportion of conservatives belonging to the hard sciences – those are my fields.
Give us your take, HH, as I’d be interested in hearing it. Surely the majority of your coworkers are and have been of liberal persuasion?[/quote]
One of my colleagues called me a ‘murderer’ because I send care packages to the troops. So, yeah, there are some pretty lib people here.
This is a good question, NP. I think it goes back to Philosophy. As the Mises study pointed out, people in hard sciences seem to be more conservative, which to me means that they have more of a grasp of cause-and-effect relationships. A Lib, for ex, would pass a law of rent control to keep rents down for old people. A Conservative would ask: “What are the long-term effects of doing that?” Of course, a shortage in housing soon ensues.
So, I think many of my colleagues are very liberal because they don’t understand how using a government club over the head will cause people to react. They seem to be a group of people that don’t grasp things like Transitivity and Modus Ponens.
There’s a thread in the Get A Life section about human speciation. Humans are evolving into 2 groups: Group A (the smaller) is able to think in terms of Concepts and to think long-term. Group B (much larger) thinks mostly at the Perceptual level of awareness, without much thought for long-term consequences and chains of reasoning. Conservatives tend to be in group A.
Good question, NP! Let’s keep it going.
[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Jews, being way above average in intellect, should be MORE in favor of very limited government. The experiences of the 20th century at minimum should cause that to happen. Yet, we see Jews vote overwhelming for Democrats, the party of tax-and-spend, run from your enemies, and ‘Let’s start a new program!!’
Sorry. But I really have to ask- Is it ok now to assume that their are differences in intellegence, and other traits based on different ethniticity and race? Just curious, see as how you said that jews are way above average in intellegence.[/quote]
Ashkenazi Jews, the ones Hitler hated the most, tend to have an IQ about one standard deviation above the norm. They’re a tiny percent of the world’s population and win proportionally more Nobel Prizes than any other group. I think I posted this stuff earlier in the thread.
[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Sorry. But I really have to ask- Is it ok now to assume that their are differences in intellegence, and other traits based on different ethniticity and race? Just curious, see as how you said that jews are way above average in intellegence.[/quote]
Ashkenazi intelligence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Ashkenazi intelligence refers to the general intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews, the Jews of Central and Eastern European origin who are the descendants of Jews who settled in the Rhineland beginning about the year 800 CE.
Many studies show that Ashkenazi Jews perform as a group better than other groups on standardized tests of general intelligence. On IQ tests the average score of Ashkenazi Jews is higher than that of any tested ethnic group, being roughly one standard deviation higher than the mean of the general white population.[5] These studies also indicate that this advantage is primarily in verbal and mathematical performance; spatial performance is about 90, if whites are taken as the mean. Estimates vary from 107 to 117. [6][7][8][9]
Ashkenazi Jews achieve out of proportion with their numbers in areas that presumably require high intelligence. For example, although Ashkenazi Jews represent only about 0.25 percent of the world population, they make up 28 percent of Nobel Prize winners in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Economics, and have accounted for more than half of world chess champions.[10] In the United States, Ashkenazi Jews represent less than 2 percent of the population, but have won 40 percent of the Nobel Prizes in science awarded to U.S. citizens, and 25 percent of all Turing Awards. A significant decline in the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to Europeans and a corresponding increase in the number of prizes awarded to U.S. citizens occurred at the same time as Nazi persecutions of Jews drove them from Europe during the 1930s and the Holocaust reduced their number in Europe during the 1940s.[11]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…Or do you take issue with the fact that the M16-toting person you saw in Israel was not merely an 18-year-old, but an 18-year-old woman?[/quote]
Based on the tone of his posts about women I would venture you hit the nail on the head.