It was mentioned on another thread that there is a lack of philosophical debate on the issues that really matter. Here's one to get your teeth into.
Printable View
It was mentioned on another thread that there is a lack of philosophical debate on the issues that really matter. Here's one to get your teeth into.
Don't mess with Israel they are nutters.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
No preference or interest in it.Not our war, keep well clear. We are not the world police.
More a humanitarian & political issue than philosophical I would have thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
6 of one half a dozen of the other, if the roles were reversed and Hamas had the military power of Israeli how restrained do you think they would be? Not that I condone the killing of innocents by either side. Banning of all religion would be a good start to stopping half the worlds wars IMO.
Genghis Khan's regime managed to kill around 40 million people yet he actually passed laws allowing religious freedom and was not aligned to any particular faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Just saying.
Religion is to blame.
What about hate, greed and intolerance?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
And the desire for power. In religious societies, religious people wield power. I don't think secular societies throughout history have been any better at avoiding war and suffering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ady In Accy
It's the inevitability of it all that amazes me. I can't see anything changing in the next 30 years.
If I walked into your house, said "My granddad lived in this house years ago and I've had a rough time so I want it back, then gave you the conservatory would you be happy?
Nope
Then imagine, I actually took the back garden gate off you so you couldn't get out and filtered your post through to you slowly and rationed your tesco home delivery to you at a level where you were just about getting by but not well- would you not be throwing your shit at me by that point?
This is a non-religious issue insofar as it's the tyranny of a state against another. It;s only religious in it's historical context but seeing as though Israel flouts religious values in order to wage it's campaign against Palestine I wouldn't say it is truly relevant that it was borne out of religiosity.
The relevant fact about this conflict is; Israel could move every vulnerable citizen out of the way of those bombs, but as Israel restricts the Palestinians' movement none of them can escape it. So Israel is choosing to escalate the death count as it has total control over the workings of this
A lot of it comes from religion. Religious texts are routinely used to justify 'holy wars' and have the participants believing their efforts are righteous. Nations having undergone a scientific revolution casting aside devout religious beliefs tend to participate in conflict less, and let religion enrich their lives peacefully...if they so desire. The Middle East is one massive tinderbox because they have yet to undergo scientific enlightenment; the clerics will not be able to control people with fear and conjecture forever, and there will come a time when the wars will end both in the Middle East and in Africa. My only concern is that this natural progression towards a more complete scientific age will be hijacked by an extinction event or die-off of some kind, rendering the process incomplete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ady In Accy
People killing people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
Phew, where to start?
Science does not lead to more tolerant, less war-mongering people: evidence - USA, many European countries, any country which has colonised.
People have used anything and everything to justify tyranny, religious texts and beliefs and twisted versions of these are only one misused tool.
Knowledge and power, whether from money, land ownership, language, exploiting others' lack of education or whatever, have always been misused.
Rather than scientific advance, it is opportunity and choice which tend to lead to greater freedom, that's why education and social mobility are so important.
Region and its abuse is not the same as faith and morality, the former are usually twisted versions of the latter.
Branding an entire region - the Middle East, Africa - as war riddled and unenlightened is, well, not very enlightened.
I like your optimism that wars will cease though!
Agreed. Europe managed to start two world wars in the twentieth century without having to rely on religious differences. People will always find a way.
Mein Kampf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlegs
Religion is just one form of neurolinguistic programming. NLP will always be used to control power and wealth whether it be religion, geopolitical or just plain old tribal. Its escaping the NLP mindf*ck that leads to freedom.
.
Aye, it's not really fair to blame religion. Religion being used as a justification/motivation is symptomatic of a deeper problem within the human psychological make up, not the cause.
There are enough wars where we have found none-religious reasons for war to know it's not necessary. Religion might be thrown into the mix to help sway the mob, but there's often other reasons too. Did the British throw people into concentration to die by their 10s of thousands in South Africa because of religion, or gold and diamonds? Did the Romans invade Dacia for religion? The proxy conflicts of the Cold War? The list of pathetic justifications for taking someone's life for your own gains is seemingly endless.
For me, I'd suggest root causes are all tied into 'us and them' 'fear and greed' we don't need Religion to make state sanctioned and organised mass murder happen. It comes up a lot as an excuse, but we'd find another reason without it. In the Middle East it'd probably be oil, farm land and water, and spheres of influence.
If as a species we could get it into our thick skulls that there is no us and them, just us, then perhaps we would be a damn sight less violent/tolerant of violence on our (alleged) behalf. Not that I believe the human Ego is really capable of such a thing. We do love to have our own identities.
As for Israel and Gaza, neither side is right. But right now one side is a damn sight more wrong than the other. And it's the one with Fighter jets.
But religion tries to ground an arbitrary set of rules as morals, which is especially distasteful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
My favourite (let's make it about football..) is to say, well you could have grown up a Liverpool supporter just as easily as a Man U supporter, it would be precisely the same thing, but the exact team was an accident of birth/upbringing/etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
Some newspaper articles..
Independent: joan-rivers-palestinians-deserve-to-be-dead :confused:
And today's Guardian on the language used by different sides in the conflict (ie spin)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYTimes
Quote:
Hamas told its supporters, when referring to those killed by Israeli actions, always to use the phrase "an innocent citizen", though some of those killed had actually been fighting or launching rockets at Israeli towns. But the wider metaphysical problem of this language is: who among us is innocent? Of everything?
Well said that man. The trouble starts proverbially in the playground, if we don't teach acceptance and tolerance this becomes tribal hooliganism, I don't like them next door, why don't they speak English, they started it, they deserve to die, blah blah blah. You've got to try to embrace people in your own circles and shout about tolerance to spread the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
I was going to cite the US as an exception and a rule, depending upon which party is in the Whitehouse. GWB is a deep souther and constantly used religious references in his speeches re. Iraq/Afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knightrunner
I didn't blame religion entirely, i said it has a lot to do with it- which i reckon it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
I don't think Israel is more wrong than Hamas, when you say that it is i'm assuming you refer to the massive humanitarian crisis created by Israli air strikes? It's been well noted that geurilla tactics include using human sheilds such as densely populated areas and schools. If Hamas don't like the result of Israeli efforts to neutralise the threat they could always stop firing rockets and digging tunnels; they've been busy little bees, their tunneling skills would probably impress a victorian navvie.
I think aswell that getting the true picture of who did what to who is very difficult, and the media cannot be trusted to be unbiased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
I'm not being consistent here, i retract my first comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
Some good points but then you contradict everything you say with your last paragraph. It's nonsense and is one of the reasons why violence is seen as a means to achieve ones goals. Identify the good side as the culprits and you inspire the savages all around the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
The fault for the conflict in Gaza lies with the Palestinians. They are in the majority an irrational people who hate the Jews because they brought reason and technology into their lives. Whatever claims they have to land has been lost through time and their own desire to slaughter innocent people. All the deaths on both sides are the responsibility of Hamas and its supporters for starting the trouble. If you look back over the last decade you'll see that the Palestinians can't even get on amongst themselves. Killings amongst different factions and vast corruption in areas they control.
Israel despite its religion is a civilised country and the majority of people rational. They have to deal with constant attacks from savages and when they retaliate all the 'war and peace' brigade are squealing about the injustice of it all, but they don't squeal when the Palestinians hurl rockets over the border. Oh no you don't even hear a squeak from them.
Israel should forget all about these ceasefires and get the job done. Re-occupy the Gaza Strip and destroy Hamas' ability to wage war.
Have you been to Israel Chris? I've only been five or six times and then only for a week or so at a time, but anyway I'm not sure I agree with you
Regards your last paragraph: don't get bogged down in tit for tat. Just ask yourself WHO started the trouble and apportion all blame to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
No but I know someone who has. Anyway your comments above are precisely why I would NEVER share a tent with you. You haven't got anything to say on the issue as you aren't sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
To me this is what Lissa Juicy was against in regard to morality - arbitrary rules. Tolerance and acceptance depend on ones code of values. Should we tolerate all actions in the name of tolerance and acceptance or is it right to draw the line? Of course what people really mean by tolerance is 'my way or the high way.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Knightrunner
Highly intolerant in my view!
Blimey CL, do you have an extreme view about everything? You have dismissed one side as more or less all bad (savages) and one as more or less all good. All the blame for all the deaths is apportioned to the Palestinians. Any historic rights or wrongs are dismissed as 'lost through time'. Israel brought only 'reason and technology' into their lives. I believe that your view and solution is a minority view even in Israel.
Surely the reality is that the the situation is so complex and nuanced that a solution is near impossible. Can you think of any other world issue with so many differing opinions?
Only if the rules are arbitrary. There must be a common set of human 'code of values'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
I nearly weighed in on this myself.. multi-culturalism / tolerance (I will use the latter but talking about both) depends on a core value of not tolerating intolerance (there was an article a few days ago Indie/Guardian with that in the title but I didn't read it & can't immediately find it). This is not a contradiction; I call it a meta-value.
There's an awful paradox that everyone shy's away from. 50% if not 75% or arguably close to 100% of the World's population does not have the benefit of tolerance. They are stuck in pretty horrible local cultures that control their thinking as they grow up (programming) combined with force and with economic power to control their behaviour. The worst of these cases are deemed worthy of asylum (but only if by some miracle they land on these shores).
If you truly believe in human rights then you'd need to invade every country that doesn't live up to the standard of tolerance and sort it out. This is well nigh impossible anyway, but to portray it as a 'wrong' thing to do ridicules the notion of tolerance.
And if you fail to invade those countries, instead just washing your hands of it all (or nonsense like Think Global Act Local) then you are just abandoning billions of people's lives to be worthless, short, and to not have what we consider 'Universal Human Rights'. (Although at another extreme, some philosophers muse that all human thinking is caught in such a trap and there can never be any escape, I think this misses the point when around the planet, women are being coerced/controlled and gay people persecuted, etc. etc.).
Logically (due to land & resource usage) it must be considered a form of warfare when a country/government makes its inhabitants feel compelled to claim asylum elsewhere.
Israel & Gaza ~ what CL said, Israel should have been allowed to sort it out properly decades ago. Over a million Jews were forced out of Arab countries so it's nowhere near as one-sided as people claim, and don't forget that the Arab countries had to wait for Israel to be constituted before they could declare war and try to wipe the place out.
I find it highly anomalous when strands of liberal/progressive thinking ally themselves with groups that are certainly not liberal and certainly not progressive. It's not just the liberals of course; yet again in Iraq, American weapons are in the hands of some not-very-nice people.
Can't speak for anyone else.
But I'm on no ones side. As a species I think we are a bunch of stupid idiots. The "trap" has always been there, and probably always will.
Rarely is, which in itself is usually part of the the problem.Quote:
so it's nowhere near as one-sided as people claim
At least somebody is making the money out of the continuing cluster****Quote:
I find it highly anomalous when strands of liberal/progressive thinking ally themselves with groups that are certainly not liberal and certainly not progressive. It's not just the liberals of course; yet again in Iraq, American weapons are in the hands of some not-very-nice people.
Again, can't speak for anyone else. But as far as moral codes go.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
'Go your own way if you wish, just don't force me to follow' (again, more of a least worst option)
Divide and conquer?Quote:
If you look back over the last decade you'll see that the Palestinians can't even get on amongst themselves.
One question for you. And bearing in mind our species wonderful capacity for holding grudges and difficulty in accepting change. Who started it and when? And what players are responsible, both presently and historically?
That's a good idea if you can identify who started it all. Which sources can be trusted and which can't? I know the British media can't be trusted to tell the truth. It didn't take them long to start blaming Putin for MH17, this dispite there being more evidence of it being the Ukranian Army. We've now got sanctions over the Crimea takeover dispite there being no British or US interests at risk; and the media report to us it's necessary, but i don't believe them. I also think HAMAS are nothing more than glorified terrorists, they began as terrorists back in the early 90s and they just happen to have cleaned their act up a bit since.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
What he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlegs
CL you have strong, closed views.
Israel / Gaza / Palestine is extremely complex with many factions and states involved over years, including good old Blighty :-) Like other such muddles, say Northern Ireland, the original causes, even if identifiable, are only part of an understanding. Those involved have to find a solution which suits current and future needs so far as possible instead of holding up historical claims as justification for current actions. A solution agreed by those involved is the most lasting solution: history shows violence or impositions from outside don't tend to last.
The best deconstruction on this I've seen recently was Adan Hills' on The Last Leg ... worth YouTubing
I like the extremes they have consistency. As to historic rights and wrongs, yes there were some on both sides but whatever happened in the past is not the fault of most of those living today. What you don't do is punish people for the sins of their parents, particularly when you didn't suffer any injustice yourself. If you don't like the way things are get your facts right and change minds with the right ideas. The Palestinians don't do that they just blame the Jews without judging themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlegs
But Lissa Juicy your opponents could be saying exactly the same thing, that they are intolerant of your intolerance towards them or others with whom they agree. They may also claim it is a non-contradictory meta-value!Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
Really if you uphold tolerance as a virtue - which I don't in one context - then you should also be tolerant of those who disagree with you. Where intolerance is always wrong is when individuals or groups start physical force against others who forced no one but disagreed. This is another point I don't agree with you on. Economic power and political power are not the same thing in a free country. The former can only use the power of persuasion, not force.
That's because Putin was to blame. He - via his president henchman - invaded Georgia after stirring up trouble for those same people in Ossetia, then he annexed Crimea and finally he stirs up trouble in Ukraine. As for the passenger jet shot down, take it from the rebels own word which he spread on Twitter triumphantly before realising the military plane - wasn't a military plane.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
When trying to ascertain who started something, I look at the nature of the people involved and try to find differences in ideology. From that I get a feeling about a situation before looking at other evidence.