Israel/Gaza (Round 3)

[Chiki]

Invisible pink unicorns --> cannot be rejected --> unobservable --> rejected

there is no empiricism. it's a simple idea, but it's wrong. it's a wrong idea.

No, it's more like invisible pink unicorns --> cannot be in principle observed --> gives us a reason to reject it. Nothing can be rejected outright, but we have empirical reasons to believe that it does not exist, given that it is in principle unobservable. Occam's razor never gives us a completely certain rejection of something, but it does give us reason to think against certain notions.

Why is it a wrong idea? Because it's an unempirical idea, hence it's rejected based on empirical reasons. I honestly don't enjoy having to explain this trivial stuff over and over again, so I'm done unless you have something more interesting to say.

It isn't, and your argument does not lead to the conclusion that 'something being unobservable surely is empirical reason to believe it doesn't exist' in any way.

As a counterexample, it is possible for something to be unobservable (say, a comet in a very far galaxy) and still exist. The lack of observation is not an assertion that x [does not] exist. Besides, our observation is merely subjective and mind dependant, it has no bearing on the objective existance of said phenomenon.

I already talked about this... read my posts.

By definition, if something is concerned with observation, then it's empirical. Since the existence of invisible pink unicorns is unobservable, then it's concerned with science; hence, it can be rejected based on empirical grounds. (Because they're not observable.)

A lot of things aren't observable too though, like dinosaur poop 100 million years ago. Should we reject the existence of dinosaur poop based on that? No, we just have to improve our criteria a little bit.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Chiki

[Rehab]

Netanyahu "officially" says he'll never allow/broker a two-state solution.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Rehab

[Rapier]

Oh wait, this is actually a topic about Israel, not one about empiricism and the Problem of God and religion.

By definition, if something is concerned with observation, then it's empirical. Since the existence of invisible pink unicorns is unobservable, then it's concerned with science; hence, it can be rejected based on empirical grounds. (Because they're not observable.)

I think I understood this, but maybe not. Let me give it a try.

1) Something being unobservable -now- may be observable later. Maybe one day technology will make us able to observe far away comets, and it is likely that it will happen. Therefore, what you say you can "reject based on empirical grounds now because x is unobservable" now may actually be possible to observe later. So the true answer should be "it is not empirically probable NOW", not "it is rejected based on empirical grounds". The latter is a definitive answer, the former opens up a possibility that seems inductively plausible.

2) The claim that something is rejected based on empirical inability to observe is doubtful. As you said, empiricism has its limits and science handles with the rest that empiricism can't grasp. Therefore an empirically impossible phenomena should not be rejected under empirical grounds, because empiricism itself is not enough to reject certain phenomenons. In that case, only science would be able to. The best answer should instead be "empiricism is incapable of judging the truth or falsibility of x", a suspension on belief given the limits.

For empiricism to reject something, it must be within empiricism's grasp. It can't judge phenomenons that are out of its scope, logically.

[Chiki]

Oh wait, this is actually a topic about Israel, not one about empiricism and the Problem of God and religion.

I think I understood this, but maybe not. Let me give it a try.

1) Something being unobservable -now- may be observable later. Maybe one day technology will make us able to observe far away comets, and it is likely that it will happen. Therefore, what you say you can "reject based on empirical grounds now because x is unobservable" now may actually be possible to observe later. So the true answer should be "it is not empirically probable NOW", not "it is rejected based on empirical grounds". The latter is a definitive answer, the former opens up a possibility that seems inductively plausible.

2) The claim that something is rejected based on empirical inability to observe is doubtful. As you said, empiricism has its limits and science handles with the rest that empiricism can't grasp. Therefore an empirically impossible phenomena should not be rejected under empirical grounds, because empiricism itself is not enough to reject certain phenomenons. In that case, only science would be able to. The best answer should instead be "empiricism is incapable of judging the truth or falsibility of x", a suspension on belief given the limits.

For empiricism to reject something, it must be within empiricism's grasp. It can't judge phenomenons that are out of its scope, logically.

The reason invisible pink unicorns are rejected based on empirical reasons is because they are never ever going to be observable. On the other hand, dinosaur poop is in principle observable, and so are universes far far away.

empiricism is incapable of judging the truth or falsibility of x

Then why are we doing science???

Edited March 18, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

I understand now. Being empirically rejected does not mean x does not exist, it means x is beyond empirical reach (which was my point). That's more sensible and makes sense, sorry about the confusion.

[Chiki]

I understand now. Being empirically rejected does not mean x does not exist, it means x is beyond empirical reach (which was my point). That's more sensible and makes sense, sorry about the confusion.

And if something is beyond empirical reach, that's a very good reason to think it doesn't exist. It seems to follow from the doctrine of materialism (that everything which exists is physical) that everything should also be observable in principle.

[Radiant head]

I was going to post something about the elections, but fucking lol @ this thread.

[Chiki]

Well.. Israel made the wrong decision and voted for a sociopath. What can I say :<

[blah the Prussian]

Ladies and gentlemen, for our latest example of democracy royally screwing up, I give you all... ISRAEL!!!! Isn't it great?! Lets all give it a BIG round of applause! WOOT WOOT!

[Irysa]

I don't think you can say Democracy has "screwed up" here. Unless elections are rigged or the voting system is unfair in some manner, it reflects the will of the people who have decided to vote. The majority of Israelis obviously want this, so in that sense, Democracy has fufilled it's purpose.

Democracy's purpose is not to solve all problems, it's just trying to be (relatively speaking) fairer. Pragmatically, there are better ways to handle state governance (or at least, I believe so), but they would certainly be less fair.

[Rapier]

Being fair becomes irrelevant when we realize it is not good for the people, which is what democracies try to strive for in essence.

Also, I fail to realize how Netanyahu is a sociopath. As far as I see, the creation of a Palestine state, taking into mind that the palestines are allied with Hamas and thus share ideological thoughts, will only lead to the creation of yet another despotic State where the rights of the people are violated, like everywhere else in the Middle East bar Israel.

So yes, I prefer Israel as it is, where women may dress as they like and no radical religious supremacy is used to opress the people. Better this than batshit insane radical fundamentalist muslims.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Rapier

[blah the Prussian]

I don't think you can say Democracy has "screwed up" here. Unless elections are rigged or the voting system is unfair in some manner, it reflects the will of the people who have decided to vote. The majority of Israelis obviously want this, so in that sense, Democracy has fufilled it's purpose.

Democracy's purpose is not to solve all problems, it's just trying to be (relatively speaking) fairer. Pragmatically, there are better ways to handle state governance (or at least, I believe so), but they would certainly be less fair.

Fairness should have no bearing on the running of any nation state. One of the major flaws of democracy is that it is completely prostrate before the will of the people. This makes it exceptionally easy for demagogues like Netanyahu to take power. The will of the people is unfortunately easy to manipulate, especially if you have a clear enemy to rally around, like Israel does. I was more saying "democracy is flawed" than "democracy has failed". Incidentally, I myself am a royalist.

Being fair becomes irrelevant when we realize it is not good for the people, which is what democracies try to strive for in essence.

Also, I fail to realize how Netanyahu is a sociopath. As far as I see, the creation of a Palestine state, taking into mind that the palestines are allied with Hamas and thus share ideological thoughts, will only lead to the creation of yet another despotic State where the rights of the people are violated, like everywhere else in the Middle East bar Israel.

So yes, I prefer Israel as it is, where women may dress as they like and no radical religious supremacy is used to opress the people. Better this than batshit insane radical fundamentalist muslims.

There is so much wrong with this it's not even funny. First, there are reasonable governments in the Middle East. Jordan has widespread rights for women, and Turkey has been secular since the end of WWI. Now. Lets move on to the more problematic statement, shall we? Good. Now, Hamas is only in power in the Gaza Strip. The majority of Palestine, that being the West Bank, is controlled by Fatah, which is NOT radical. In addition, the notion that the rights of Palestinians are not being violated at least as much by Israel as they would be under any Palestinian state makes me laugh. Do some research into the conditions in the occupied territories, that Israel has done nothing to stop. Finally, I would like to point out that in many cases Islamic radicalism was brought into power by the people, like in Iran. Food for thought concerning democracy.

[Rapier]

First, there are reasonable governments in the Middle East. Jordan has widespread rights for women, and Turkey has been secular since the end of WWI.

The majority is still radical with their religious fundamentalism, so my generalization is still valid. Jordan and Turkey are exceptions to the rule.

Hamas is only in power in the Gaza Strip. The majority of Palestine, that being the West Bank, is controlled by Fatah, which is NOT radical.

I've never said Hamas is in power in the West Bank. I've said the Palestine is ideologically aligned to Hamas, which is a terrorist, radical group.

In addition, the notion that the rights of Palestinians are not being violated at least as much by Israel as they would be under any Palestinian state makes me laugh.

Let's see... Israel doesn't actually kill gay people or anyone who disagrees with their religion, it also doesn't force women to hide their bodies completely and act submissive, and it also treats its citizens equally (as in, they have the same rights enforced by the law), differently from the other Muslim states, which in majority persecute and oppress their citizens through religious fundamentalism. The laughable part is actually how you try to make Israel worse than Middle East dictatorships even as you fancy yourself as a specialist in the area.

Note that my post doesn't say in any way that Israel is a garden of flowers. Your point about Israel's negligence does not refute that in general they're more decent than their neighbors, which was actually my point.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Rapier

[blah the Prussian]

The majority is still radical with their religious fundamentalism, so my generalization is still valid. Jordan and Turkey are exceptions to the rule.

I've never said Hamas is in power in the West Bank. I've said the Palestine is ideologically aligned to Hamas, which is a terrorist, radical group.

Let's see... Israel doesn't actually kill gay people or anyone who disagrees with their religion, it also doesn't force women to hide their bodies completely and act submissive, and it also treats its citizens equally (as in, they have the same rights enforced by the law), differently from the other Muslim states, which in majority persecute and oppress their citizens through religious fundamentalism. The laughable part is actually how you try to make Israel worse than Middle East dictatorships even as you fancy yourself as a specialist in the area.

Note that my post doesn't say in any way that Israel is a garden of flowers. Your point about Israel's negligence does not refute that in general they're more decent than their neighbors, which was actually my point.

First. Those are two pretty big exceptions. Three, actually; Egypt is also secular. So, with three major powers in a region not run by a bunch of crazy religious fundamentalists, your generalization doesn't hold water.

Two. Prove that the government of the Palestinian Authority is in any way aligned to Hamas. It is not in any way.

Three. This isn't about Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is about Palestine, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to suggest that an independent Palestine will commit any of the grievances you mentioned. I am not setting Israel up as worse that these governments. I am not making that comparison in the first place.

Fourth. I am not setting myself up as an expert on the conflict. I have all the knowledge a high school course on the topic will give you.

[Life]

Honestly, a lot of people here are ashamed the Bibi won. My friend had a great post on Facebook about it.

Bibi will now drive us into the ground just to stay in power.

[Irysa]

Being fair becomes irrelevant when we realize it is not good for the people, which is what democracies try to strive for in essence.

Fairness should have no bearing on the running of any nation state. One of the major flaws of democracy is that it is completely prostrate before the will of the people. This makes it exceptionally easy for demagogues like Netanyahu to take power. The will of the people is unfortunately easy to manipulate, especially if you have a clear enemy to rally around, like Israel does. I was more saying "democracy is flawed" than "democracy has failed". Incidentally, I myself am a royalist.

I don't think democracy fundamentally is about being good for the people though (that's just what egalitarians believe). As I've said repeatedly, it's about being fairer. I do think there are better systems of government that are less fair. For example, I think the fact we have an unelected house of lords in westminister is an extremely good thing, despite the fact it is very much unfair. Any political system has flaws on some level or other. I'm not here to defend democracy per se, simply to point out that it's doing exactly what it's meant to do.

Broadly speaking, I think that even if I disagree with what evils may be wrought from a country, if politicians and policies were democratically voted in, that situation is at least fundamentally better than evils being wrought in a sytem where those politicians and policies were NOT voted in. Shared responsibility is a good thing.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Irysa

[Moishe Oofnik]

Just here to point out im stupid and this went way too off topic so drop it and make a new thread

[blah the Prussian]

Honestly, a lot of people here are ashamed the Bibi won. My friend had a great post on Facebook about it.

Bibi will now drive us into the ground just to stay in power.

Edit: oops, completely misread that. Sorry.

I don't think democracy fundamentally is about being good for the people though (that's just what egalitarians believe). As I've said repeatedly, it's about being fairer. I do think there are better systems of government that are less fair. For example, I think the fact we have an unelected house of lords in westminister is an extremely good thing, despite the fact it is very much unfair. Any political system has flaws on some level or other. I'm not here to defend democracy per se, simply to point out that it's doing exactly what it's meant to do.

Broadly speaking, I think that even if I disagree with what evils may be wrought from a country, if politicians and policies were democratically voted in, that situation is at least fundamentally better than evils being wrought in a sytem where those politicians and policies were NOT voted in. Shared responsibility is a good thing.

Two points to make here: one, democracy, or at least modern democracy, when it first came into existence, was NOT about providing the people with a voice. It was about providing the states/provinces/whatever with a voice. Basically, please show me where it says Democracy is about fairness.

Two: it is a lot easier for evil policies to happen in a democratic society. If you think about it, the US genocide of the Indians was done with the approval of the people. Essentially, monarchy is better because a monarch is less susceptible to radical influences than the people. While shared responsibility is a good thing, it sometimes gets denied by the people- look at all the Japan apologists out there.

Edited March 20, 2015 by blah2127

[Irysa]

Two points to make here: one, democracy, or at least modern democracy, when it first came into existence, was NOT about providing the people with a voice. It was about providing the states/provinces/whatever with a voice. Basically, please show me where it says Democracy is about fairness.

That's a relatively minor nitpick. Even devolving power slightly was essentially a way to make the system fairer. And I also did not claim specifically that modern democracy was about fairness, I simply specificed democracy. The original Greek democracies weren't entirely fair, but the history of it (in Athens at least) stemmed from the citiizens being disgruntled with being treated unfairly by the elite. Democracy came into existance in Athens as a result of expanding the privileged class to more than a tiny circle, which the people (well, men) were happier with because they felt the system was fairer towards them. They didn't actually vote in politicians, they just all voted on everything, that is EXACTLY about giving more people with a voice that matters.

Two: it is a lot easier for evil policies to happen in a democratic society. If you think about it, the US genocide of the Indians was done with the approval of the people. Essentially, monarchy is better because a monarch is less susceptible to radical influences than the people. While shared responsibility is a good thing, it sometimes gets denied by the people- look at all the Japan apologists out there.

This is completely irrelevant to the point. Once again, I'm not interested in debating what political system is better for humanity. However, I don't like the implied viewpoint here that because people can be influenced to desire things that this neccessarily absolves them of blame. Whether you were influenced or not doesn't remove your own agency in deciding on that position.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Irysa

[blah the Prussian]

That's a relatively minor nitpick. Even devolving power slightly was essentially a way to make the system fairer. And I also did not claim specifically that modern democracy was about fairness, I simply specificed democracy. The original Greek democracies weren't entirely fair, but the history of it (in Athens at least) stemmed from the citiizens being disgruntled with being treated unfairly by the elite. Democracy came into existance in Athens as a result of expanding the privileged class to more than a tiny circle, which the people (well, men) were happier with because they felt the system was fairer towards them. They didn't actually vote in politicians, they just all voted on everything, that is EXACTLY about giving more people with a voice that matters.

This is completely irrelevant to the point. Once again, I'm not interested in debating what political system is better for humanity. However, I don't like the implied viewpoint here that because people can be influenced to desire things that this neccessarily absolves them of blame. Whether you were influenced or not doesn't remove your own agency in deciding on that position.

Point 1: yes, it is, and this debate is rather irrelevant to the topic. HOWEVER, practically every political system comes to power because the people are tired of being treated unfairly. This actually best describes Communism. Also, the original Greek democracies aren't exactly shining examples of justice for all.

Point 2: Fine. Lets end it here. One last thing, though: I'm interested in knowing where I implied that the people can be absolved of atrocities because they were convinced to do them by demagogues.

[Irysa]

Point 1: yes, it is, and this debate is rather irrelevant to the topic. HOWEVER, practically every political system comes to power because the people are tired of being treated unfairly. This actually best describes Communism. Also, the original Greek democracies aren't exactly shining examples of justice for all.

That's simply not true. The English Crown wasn't reinstated after Cromwell because of people being tired of being treated unfairly, they just wanted a more proactive head of state. And I also repeatedly said in the last post that the Athenian democracies weren't really entirely fair, but the system was based upon moving to fairness. I agree that the basis of communism was also rooted in a belief of a fairer system.

Point 2: Fine. Lets end it here. One last thing, though: I'm interested in knowing where I implied that the people can be absolved of atrocities because they were convinced to do them by demagogues.

I didn't mean you, I meant apologist viewpoints that deny that shared responsibility. It came out awkwardly, I apologise.

[Radiant head]

State where the rights of the people are violated, like everywhere else in the Middle East bar Israel.

That's pretty gross to say, considering how Arab people are forced to live in Israel. People compare it to Apartheid, but if anything, this shit is worse.

Any leader who errs on the side of fear over humanity is pretty damn sociopathic.

[KMT4ever]

That's pretty gross to say, considering how Arab people are forced to live in Israel. People compare it to Apartheid, but if anything, this shit is worse.

Arabs are not forced to live in Israel. They stay there because it's better than living elsewhere in the region. Arabs can vote like any Jew.

Any leader who errs on the side of fear over humanity is pretty damn sociopathic.

Or a realist. I'll admit that Netanyahu seems to be going down a bad path, but one should remember that for the first 32 years of Israel's existence, until it signed an agreement with Egypt, Israel was living in a constant fear of war. That sort of history doesn't go away easily. When Hamas goes away and the Palestinian Authority proves it can govern responsibly I'll criticize Israel for being harsh. Until then, no.

[Radiant head]

Arabs are not forced to live in Israel. They stay there because it's better than living elsewhere in the region. Arabs can vote like any Jew.

Oh wow, they can vote. I guess that automatically nullifies every other human rights violation they go through in Israel.

Or a realist. I'll admit that Netanyahu seems to be going down a bad path, but one should remember that for the first 32 years of Israel's existence, until it signed an agreement with Egypt, Israel was living in a constant fear of war. That sort of history doesn't go away easily. When Hamas goes away and the Palestinian Authority proves it can govern responsibly I'll criticize Israel for being harsh. Until then, no.

History doesn't go away, but status quos still change. Maybe a decade or more ago there would be some semblance of a reasoned thought behind this (that's a BIG maybe), does anyone still really think Israel and their hugely funded Iron Dome is under threat from Palestinians and their bottle rockets?

Israel just uses the fear and the idea that they need to protect their existence to justify oppression. None of it justifies illegal occupation or mass murder.

[Moishe Oofnik]

Oh wow, they can vote. I guess that automatically nullifies every other human rights violation they go through in Israel.

Violations like how they have full religoes freedom and have the rights as every other person in the state of israel we dont massacare arabic citizens but they throw stones at us your claim is entirely hipocritical you know that there are arabic doctors cops etc. they can get a job as easily as anyone

History doesn't go away, but status quos still change. Maybe a decade or more ago there would be some semblance of a reasoned thought behind this (that's a BIG maybe), does anyone still really think Israel and their hugely funded Iron Dome is under threat from Palestinians and their bottle rockets?

Imagine being constantly bombed ever since you gave the arabs the gaza strip they go and send terrorists to literly just blow shit up and kill people so remember here your mass murder arguement like your infinite bexp arguement is entirely false hipocritical jibbar jabbar

Israel just uses the fear and the idea that they need to protect their existence to justify oppression. None of it justifies illegal occupation or mass murder.

When a place has bombed you constantly ever 2006 you claim our Iron dome will just save us

You know how much that things costs and the expenses you have to waste also what oporession again Arabs get full religoes freedom and rights like any other person its the only place in the middle east where women arent treated like pigs

Mass murder like warning civilians and giving them time to escape there houses in the gaza strip remember that the al jazira numbers are not only falls they count Hamas as citizens

all I am getting from you is "Israel is rich and stuff they can spare expenses and let people live in fear the iron dome costs nothing and is flawless an all"

If a rat comes to a cat and constantly annoys it and pickers it the cat is going to eat the rat

Hamas doesnt want a palestinian country the want israel gone

Edited March 21, 2015 by TTPK_Tal