Deadpool wrote:
As for the question of religion, I am an atheist, and consider the idea of a god ridiculous as well. However, there is a very, very, large difference between religion and faith. And here's where I always have issues making myself clear. When people bash institutions like organized religions, they, rightly, bring up all the horrible things that have been done in their name, such as the Crusades. However, they tend to forget a relevant point. Namely, why are the Crusades considered bad? Because humanity has decided on a basic ethical approach to human relations. And where does that approach come from? Religions! Have horrible things been done in the name of religion, yes, and they will continue to be done as such. However do those things outweigh the basic social understanding and structures that have been built by those religions, do they outweigh the role the church (not the Christian church, but in the general sense) has played in giving people moral and psychological balance? I say no. Not at all. I am an atheist and a nihilist, and you probably won't find a stronger defender of religion than I. Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, and some of the Protestant denominations (not a fan of faith and faith alone will save you) are all, to me, some of the best things humanity has ever created.
Really? I would you like you to show the evidence that the "basic ethical approach to human relations" comes directly from religion
Deadpool wrote:
As for the question of religion, I am an atheist, and consider the idea of a god ridiculous as well. However, there is a very, very, large difference between religion and faith. And here's where I always have issues making myself clear. When people bash institutions like organized religions, they, rightly, bring up all the horrible things that have been done in their name, such as the Crusades. However, they tend to forget a relevant point. Namely, why are the Crusades considered bad? Because humanity has decided on a basic ethical approach to human relations. And where does that approach come from? Religions! Have horrible things been done in the name of religion, yes, and they will continue to be done as such. However do those things outweigh the basic social understanding and structures that have been built by those religions, do they outweigh the role the church (not the Christian church, but in the general sense) has played in giving people moral and psychological balance? I say no. Not at all. I am an atheist and a nihilist, and you probably won't find a stronger defender of religion than I. Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, and some of the Protestant denominations (not a fan of faith and faith alone will save you) are all, to me, some of the best things humanity has ever created.
Really? I would you like you to show the evidence that the "basic ethical approach to human relations" comes directly from religion
As with everything in life, Patton has the answer
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Deadpool said:
One important point. As everyone knows I am Jewish and a huge supporter of Israel. I'm sure most you aren't. That's fine. There are perfectly valid reasons to not support Israel, but there are also perfectly invalid reasons to not support Israel, and I will argue with the latter. But because this happened the last time an Israel discussion came up. Israel's existence is due to 3500 years of continual prosecution, racism, and murder propagated on the Jewish people by the Philistines, the Inquisition, the Cossacks, the French (here's looking at you Dreyfus), and countless, countless others. However, the final act, the one that ultimately led to the creation of the Jewish state, was the Holocaust. So let me make one thing explicitly clear. I fully agree with Godwin's Law, but if anyone, and I mean anyone, pulls it out during a discussion of Israel, or, frankly, any other discussion of WWII, or any other place where it is perfectly valid to bring up the Nazi's, then you will officially be declared the biggest fucking asshole ever. Godwin's Law applies to bringing up the Nazi's in situations such as the following:
I don't see an argument here, but I haven't seen the original thread that the discussion was held on.
My take on Israel is fairly pragmatic, in my opinion. Israel is here to stay, so arguing about whether or not it should exist is a waste of time. However, blind support of Israel, especially from the US, only exacerbates the problem. It gives Israel the illusion that it has more leverage when push comes to shove. In essence, the check isn't enough to balance. It creates a disturbance in the force. Perhaps Israeli politicians don't get it, but recent events indicate that the leadership of the IDF and Mossad do.
It seems fairly simple to me. Israel pulls it's settlers out of the West Bank and allows for Palestine to take it's place among the nations of the world. This alone would defuse geopolitical tensions to a great extent and make Iran little more than a noisy neighbor. And if the Iranian government loses it's marquee cause, then it would only be a matter of time before there was a restoration of the more Democratic government that the US overthrew in the 50's and Democratic Peace theory states that Democracies play nice.
Edited by Levi4life on 13-09-2012 19:33
You brought up Israel, and how there are valid and invalid criticisms of Israel, I would argue that the Holocaust is an invalid defence of what Israel's current actions are, and hence is an inherent Godwin, in that the attempt of the person using the Holucaust allusion is inevitably to try and get the person on the other side of the argument into a position of defending the Holocaust.
I don't think any of the current wars between Israel and the various Arab nations have anything to do with the holcaust, and as such I think that bringing it up is, for the wont of a better word, cheating.
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182]Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Deadpool said:
One important point. As everyone knows I am Jewish and a huge supporter of Israel. I'm sure most you aren't. That's fine. There are perfectly valid reasons to not support Israel, but there are also perfectly invalid reasons to not support Israel, and I will argue with the latter. But because this happened the last time an Israel discussion came up. Israel's existence is due to 3500 years of continual prosecution, racism, and murder propagated on the Jewish people by the Philistines, the Inquisition, the Cossacks, the French (here's looking at you Dreyfus), and countless, countless others. However, the final act, the one that ultimately led to the creation of the Jewish state, was the Holocaust. So let me make one thing explicitly clear. I fully agree with Godwin's Law, but if anyone, and I mean anyone, pulls it out during a discussion of Israel, or, frankly, any other discussion of WWII, or any other place where it is perfectly valid to bring up the Nazi's, then you will officially be declared the biggest fucking asshole ever. Godwin's Law applies to bringing up the Nazi's in situations such as the following:
I don't see an argument here, but I haven't seen the original thread that the discussion was held on.
My take on Israel is fairly pragmatic, in my opinion. Israel is here to stay, so arguing about whether or not it should exist is a waste of time. However, blind support of Israel, especially from the US, only exacerbates the problem. It gives Israel the illusion that it has more leverage when push comes to shove. In essence, the check isn't enough to balance. It creates a disturbance in the force. Perhaps Israeli politicians don't get it, but recent events indicate that the leadership of the IDF and Mossad do.
It seems fairly simple to me. Israel pulls it's settlers out of the West Bank and allows for Palestine to take it's place among the nations of the world. This alone would defuse geopolitical tensions to a great extent and make Iran little more than a noisy neighbor. And if the Iranian government loses it's marquee cause, then it would only be a matter of time before there was a restoration of the more Democratic government that the US overthrew in the 50's and Democratic Peace theory states that Democracies play nice.
I second that. But I'm getting worried by the Republicans at yours. Hopefully Romney won't be elected later this year, but when you look at his stance on Israel vs Iran + Palestine, it's scary (his party's actually, cause he hardly has an opinion on anything). It's like "Israel may do whatever they want, we'll (blindly) support them". That just can't work, unless the aim is to bring more war, death and hatred on the region.
I feel Obama's stance is more balanced. I read it frustrates the most war likers among the Israeli government, but checking first if there's common sense in your allied actions before giving it a thumb up seems more commonly sensed to me.
baseballlover312 wrote:
@Aquarius Are you saying we don't care about other problems???? Crossing the line now. That is absurd. Because I wasn't mentioning it I don't care?
I wrote "seem to", because I have no way to check it (and I don't think it's that black and white). It's mostly that 9/11 is getting a treatment on forums or television that no other comparable subject gets.
One cold argue that the main reason the US supports Israel in their actions is due to the relatively large base of Jewish voters in the states. A Presidential candidate who is friendly towards Israel will be able to gain some votes which may help, even though it's far from the majority.
What does surprise me however, is the focus on religion during many of the US Presidential campaigns. Some presidents might focus heavily on Christians by showing their support to God. George Bush Senior and patriots, anyone?
With this focus on religion one would think that the vast majority of citizens who were eligable to vote would be either Christian or Jewish. Infact, a study done a few years back showed that the secular/atheist branch outnumber the Jewish branch 7 to 1 and the Christian 3 to 1. Ofcourse, these numbers might differ depending on the study, but it does point a bit of a picture.
Why is there such a focus on being friendly towards Israel if the goal is to capture the jewish voters? How come no one reaches out (in a somewhat decisive manner) to the non-religious voters?
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
About religion, more generally, you've to look at history, and who emigrated to the U.S.A. and why. At a time it was mostly people who tried to flee from Europe to escape persecutions because of their religion. A couple of years ago I read about a study that said being an atheist would seriously harm a candidate's chances. Even more than being Muslim. I'm not sure which importance educated people give to a candidate's religion, but more conservative people (why was I going to write "retards" instead ?) may give it an importance (and a vote). And of course they've to prove they're believers, and better twice than once (see how the Tea Party or its likes tried to make Obama a Muslim).
I'm still curious to read our American friends' view on this though.
Here, in comparison, hardly anyone gives a damn about a candidate's religion or lack of religion.
How could you even appeal "non-religious" people to vote for you? They're too heterogeneous to have an approach which would work for all of them. It makes no sense.
cactus-jack wrote:
One cold argue that the main reason the US supports Israel in their actions is due to the relatively large base of Jewish voters in the states. A Presidential candidate who is friendly towards Israel will be able to gain some votes which may help, even though it's far from the majority.
What does surprise me however, is the focus on religion during many of the US Presidential campaigns. Some presidents might focus heavily on Christians by showing their support to God. George Bush Senior and patriots, anyone?
With this focus on religion one would think that the vast majority of citizens who were eligable to vote would be either Christian or Jewish. Infact, a study done a few years back showed that the secular/atheist branch outnumber the Jewish branch 7 to 1 and the Christian 3 to 1. Ofcourse, these numbers might differ depending on the study, but it does point a bit of a picture.
Why is there such a focus on being friendly towards Israel if the goal is to capture the jewish voters? How come no one reaches out (in a somewhat decisive manner) to the non-religious voters?
Have you got a link to that study? Wikipedia disagrees
as a israeli, i can tell you we are not afraid from the chance of war, we are afraid of an islamic country that states she wants to kill us and then gets a nuke. so its easy to get why we want an american president that is willing to keep his word and have all the cards on the table (including a bombing card) so to get the jewish votes all Romney had to do is to say that he will give israel help on the iranian subject, considering Obama gave us nothing and the top of the israeli goverment hates Obama.
acac wrote:
as a israeli, i can tell you we are not afraid from the chance of war, we are afraid of an islamic country that states she wants to kill us and then gets a nuke. so its easy to get why we want an american president that is willing to keep his word and have all the cards on the table (including a bombing card) so to get the jewish votes all Romney had to do is to say that he will give israel help on the iranian subject, considering Obama gave us nothing and the top of the israeli goverment hates Obama.
acac wrote:
as a israeli, i can tell you we are not afraid from the chance of war, we are afraid of an islamic country that states she wants to kill us and then gets a nuke. so its easy to get why we want an american president that is willing to keep his word and have all the cards on the table (including a bombing card) so to get the jewish votes all Romney had to do is to say that he will give israel help on the iranian subject, considering Obama gave us nothing and the top of the israeli goverment hates Obama.
Your opinion on the future of Israel/Palestine?
well that depends, about a year ago there were talks about peace that looked promising, but failed becuse israel wanted abu mazan to recognize its right to exist as an independet jewish nation, and they wanted israel to freez the cunstractuon in the settelment if we wanted the talks to even start. if both will settel into reasonable terms, then peace will come shortly after that.
i prefer the "one nation two people" idea, so that we will live in the same nation as them.
