Israel approves plan to uproot 30,000 Bedouin

Discussion in 'Politics' started by S.A.M., Sep 11, 2011.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    I view any differences the same as I would hair and eye color differences. Are blue and green and brown eyed people different in some way other than they have different eye colors?

    I take health, interests and mental acuity as a measure of a person as they are different or similar from me or others.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    The point being there is no good evidence of the supernatural and so religion is ONLY a social construct.

    Poor ignorant highly-superstitious people on average have more children than wealthy educated less-superstitious people. The later group generally have social contracts whereby women have more rights equivalent with men.

    You keep making the mistake of thinking of modern Christianity. I suppose if you wanted to define it that way then you'd be correct, but, we're referring to belief 1350 years ago.

    See above.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    That is an interesting time period

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It's amazing that mythologies about Gods and Goddesses from 2500 years ago could result in people killing one another in an age when we can communicate instantaneously around the world, genetically modify organisms (including ourselves), understand particles smaller than atoms and even have a good handle on the creation of the universe.

    Can the I-P reach a solution? I don't think so, this is a stubborn problem and probably will only cease to exist when their category of religion cease to exist.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    If we were not killing over 2500 year old mythologies we would be killing over something else.

    The problem is not just the bad ideas. The problem is also the emotional state that makes people adopt the bad ideas. Since under normal or bad conditions human nature creates these emotional states that cause the adoption of bad ideas the real problem is the emotional wiring of human nature. The emotional wiring of humans is similar to that of chimpanzees and has served both well evolutionarily. But evolution uses happiness and misery, generosity and selfishness, humility and pride, ambition and lethargy, justice and murder for evolution's own purposes. Evolution does not care about human suffering, truth, or justice it just uses these emotions and ideas to further competition to project genes and ideas into the future.

    Evolution does not care about good and bad genes or good and bad ideas. Those genes that are capable of surviving survive and those ideas that are capable of surviving survive. Genes and Ideas must partially die AKA evolve to survive.

    Chimpanzees and street gangs and tribes and nations fight wars for territories. Corporations fight for market share and retail shelf space.

    The US military industrial complex had the cold war with the Soviets and when that failed they tried to promote the war on drugs and when that failed they promote the war on terror.

    George Mallory responded to the question "Why climb Everest" with "Because it is there". Why did Napoleon invade Russia, "Because it is there"?

    Why did communists kill priests? They hated religion for the reasons you hate religion plus they hated religion for it's alliance with entrenched kleptocracy. But Communism was their religion, their sacred idea and they behave like holy warriors. Communism was new but it protected it's delusions and promoted intolerance of all who would criticize it just like religions did.

    The "Thirty Years War' in Germany that attracted soldiers with appeals to their Catholicism or their Protestantism was on the levels of Kings and generals a lust for more power because the possibility of more power "was there".

    The Generals and arm chair generals will always compete for power and will try to "win" for the same reasons that I try to win games, because trying to win is my instinct.

    Is a leader more of a winner than followers and bystanders are? Leaders will say whatever they must to get followers. What do followers get out of being followers?
    Followers get to feel like they are part of something important. Followers and fans get to win when their teams win.

    How can I have the land, wealth, prestige and sexual partner that I want if somebody else has them?

    How can I have my cake and eat it too without mythology? If I want to be a just honorable man but I also want to steal your property or status then I must adopt a mythology that makes it just and honorable to steal from you like how racism made slavery OK.

    If the 2500 year old mythologies were not there people would create new ideas to fight about and feel important and superior about.

    The question is how do you channel the competitive energy and desire to be superior into efforts that won't hurt other people. How can I be a winner without losers? How can I be superior without others being inferior? How can I be sure that I am right if I hear people explaining how I am wrong?

    Religion is not the real problem. Religion is just a form the problem can use.
  8. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    following the rule of law which protects but doesn't harm.
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Much of what you wrote is true, and yes people have conflict for all sorts of monkey reasons. I've seen a guy punch another guy for "loooken ae es woman, e twas" *POW*.... neverhtheless, we still attempt to "develop" and leave some ideas behind (take racism for example). Surely that's a worthwhile cause?

    Also, in the I-P conflict, there'd be no I-P conflict if there were no religion. Religion is the fuel that keeps that beastie running. If your Jewish, the door's open, if not, it's closed. Not to mention the fact that many of the Jews are Germanic or European, they aren't really "returning" so much as colonizing. That colonization was specifically brought about by their superstition of god promised that land or some nonsense like that.

    I don't "hate" religion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Although I don't like the irrationality superstitions ask of people (and I really don't like religious supremeism) in general I feel religion has been stunted to the point where it bears little weight on most of our lives, if we avoid it. I still think it's an interesting social construct

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Sep 26, 2011
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    really the palestinians problem is that they were dispossed by jews and not that they were dispossed? your wrong and showing your true colors. you hate the islamic fiath and will stop at nothing to attack religion and blame it even if their is no cause to. the I-P conflict would still exist with out religion if a group stole their land.
  11. arauca Banned Banned

    How did stole their land ? The Jews and the Palestinian are the same people ,
    The Romans changed the name of the land, that land is Israel . The people that live there are Jew it could be they are converted Jew into Islam
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    In this case the land was taken because of religion.

    I don't see any of the other colonies of the Europeans in a 40 year war.

    I don't "hate" religion, I don't like monotheism because of it's inherent intolerance which is quite plainly on display by the I-P conflict. If you're Jewish you get to migrate and live there, if you're Muslim you don't. THAT is a clear case of religious bigotry. You'd have to be blind or an idiot not to recognize it as such.
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Many of the Jews are Russian and European. Which itself isn't unusual, Europeans successfully colonized many continents. What is unusual is the continued religious nature of this colonization.
  14. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Spanish made a big effort to convert Native Americans but also tried to exploit them as semi-forced labor. Spanish successfully made most of the Philippines Catholic.

    Puritans in New England and to some degree US colonists in general felt religiously entitled to displace native Americans.

    Has any non-stone age people ever displaced or enslaved or colonially exploited another people without claiming their actions are justified by some sort of genetic, cultural or moral inferiority of the victimized people?

    When the victims "had to be defeated" because they were a threat that is a type of moral inferiority. I suppose there have been situations like WW1 which resulted in French take over of parts of Germany in which the threat was real. In general colonization is not done to a nation of comparable strength to the colonizer.

    Since strong nations require rules against their own people (at least the dominant ideology, class and ethnicity and religion) criminally exploiting each other in order to be a strong nation and since these rules against criminal behavior must be inculcated in childhood in order to suppress natural human criminal selfishness; these inculcated rules against criminality require an inculcated exception in order to be not applied towards humans from other nations, ethnicities classes, and ideologies. To outlaw stealing from your own group while accepting stealing from other groups requires either a justifying mythology or a mythology or censorship based unawareness of the stealing from other groups.

    When the IMF and CIA conspire to help corporations exploit developing nations they use justifications of inferiority of the developing people's ability to govern themselves or moral/ideological inferiority of the ally (Soviets) of the developing people's leaders to justify imposing a multinational corporation friendly dictator on the developing nation.

    I don't know what Clinton's justification for replacing the French domination of Central Africa with American domination but I bet he has some sort of ideological bullshit that he tells himself to justify that considering the effort to push replace the French got 5 million people killed.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2011
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    The one thing that's slightly different (or at least I think is different) is that while Europeans, like any colonizer, were happy to obliterate the indigenous population they're also just as likely to breed with the Infidel women and in time convert the infidel men. Muslims meet this definitional of colonizer as well. More than happy to take Constantinople and, if the Dhimmi submit, use their women for making more Muslims.

    European Jews are lagging a little in this regards. Normal colonization would see the Palestinians Jewified by now. If we went back further in time, a time when people were polytheistic, they'd just be scoffed at (obviously the Gods didn't favor them, they lost) and just left to their gods. But, monotheists take a different tact: Conversion. So? Why aren't Palestinians Jewish? Certainly a lot of Jewish were converted to Islam by Muslim pressures, why not the other way around?
    The only instance I can think of were Roman's view of Greeks (including Alexandria) and Arabs view of Greeks. I'm not so sure about the Arabs, but Romans held a lot of Greek philosophy in high esteem. While they thought the contemporary Spartans were inbred dolts (apparently they were) they held their Spartan forefathers in great esteem. Same with Alexander. We still looked towards the English in many way after we freed ourselves. European culture was still valued.
    This might need to be expanded upon.
    Is this an example of the above paragraph?
    I'm not sure, I figured Clinton probably wanted to extend American power and influence, particularly as Africa is resource rich.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011
  16. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Kleptocary is that a real word . Is that like governments that steal from :
    1 other countries
    2 Its own citizenry
    a. by political will
    b. brute force
  17. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Kleptocracy is not a real word yet. But I did not make the word up; people are using the word. How long does a word have to be used after It has it's own Wikipedia article before it gets to be a "real" word?

    Kleptocracy is a democratic or non-democratic government that steals from it's own people or taxes it's own people for the purpose of making politically powerful people and corporations wealthier at the expense of the majority. The USA would be a borderline Kleptocracy because corporations can get returns on their investments in campaign contributions in the form of unjustifiable grants, subsidies and policies and by the government selling it's assets at below market prices or buying products and services at above market prices.

    I think I first heard the word "Kleptocracy" applied to post Soviet Russia when the "oligarchs" Russian Mafia and former KGB people were buying Government assets at prices well below market value in order to become extremely wealthy.

    No not other countries. That was what Colonial imperialism was intended to do. The British Empire was supposed to make the average English man wealthier by extracting wealth from from the colonies. I don't know if the Average English man ever was a net economic winner from the activities of the empire.

    Like Mobutu. Generally I think of Kleptocracy as at least making some effort to hide pretend that the stealing is beneficial to all or pretend that the stealing is not happening. When brute force is required it is not the stereotypical idea of kleptocracy.

    Not by political will; more by political deception.

    Mubarak in Egypt claimed to be giving stability and building a economy but he was helping his friends steal from Egypt. That would be kleptocracy.

    The post Soviet Russian basically democratic government claimed to be making a transition to capitalism but was really helping politically connected people to loot assets the belonged to the Russian people collectively. That would be Kleptocracy.

    The US government let TV stations use spectrum owned by the American people without paying market rate for that spectrum because the TV stations were supposedly doing the American people a service while showing them whatever nonsense the would watch and collecting advertising revenue. That would be a Kleptocratic policy if you did not respect the content the TV showed to the people. Letting defense contractors overcharge the government is Kleptocracy. Letting oil companies pay less to drill on government land than they would have to pay to drill on the same land if it was privately owned is a kleptocratic policy. The US government paying to develop a drug and then giving the marking rights to that drug to a pharmaceutical company at below market rates would be a kleptocratic policy. In each of these cases the American people would put a stop to these policies if they could but the mere fact that the USA is a democracy does not enable the American people to stop politically connected people from stealing their tax dollars.

    The reason I can't decide if the USA is a Kleptocracy is that the government gifts to wealthy political insiders have to reach a certain level before you should call a nation a kleptocracy. The USA's corruption is bad but is probably a few steps below the arbitrary kleptocracy threshold.
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    nirakar, since we're talking kleptocracy [and no one seems interested in the Bedouins anyway!] I just read this by Jerome Slater at Mondoweiss:

    There seems to be a very important point which he discounts in my opinion, i.e. the American people. Where are the American people while all this is happening?
  19. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    the etymology of the word palestine predates the achreological evidence for jews. the land is palestine. beling the big book of jewish myths doesn't change historical and acheological evidence. the jews and the palestinians are not the same people as an ethnicity and a religion cannot ever be considered the same thing.
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    true but to say the conflict could only have come about via religion like you did( you said the only reason their is a conflict is due to religion) is blatently false.

    yes africa turned into such a peaceful paradise.
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    How can Russian Jews and Arab Palestinians be "the same people"? As for stealing land, its very simple, you don't have land ownership based on ethnicity or even religion.

    *bracketed addition my own
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    I'm saying that this particular conflict only came about due to religion. If it weren't for religion then there'd BE no Israel and there'd be no conflict. It's blatantly true.

    Yes, Africa has a lot of wars due to resources, religion as well as ethnicity. I'm not sure of your point. I certainly didn't say Greater Syria would be a paradise if there were no European Jew immigrants. My guess is it's be a third world nation with all the same problems all the ME third world nations have. If not more.

    As it is, there is an Israel and it is a religious state and similar to KSA, Iran, Pakistan, etc... it's religiously bias. I fail to see what we're disagreeing to here?

    As for me not liking "Islam", as an ideology and a culture it's really not much different than Christianity was 1000 years ago. Completely moronic replete with all those silly stories only an irrational idiot would think true. Sadly it has all the "One True God" trappings of any Abraham religion. A nice dose of intolerant religious supremacism wrapped in a irrational fajita of appeal to authority. How many Muslims think the Qur'an is the only perfect book? Or that ONLY Mohammad was the Last Prophet. Many are so utterly delusional into their racist like thoughts they think "Arabic" is the One God language (and by extension Arabs are a better "race"). It's no wonder so few people raise an eyebrow when they see Jews dishing it out just as bad TO the Muslims. Not to mention that Jews and other minorities live as second class citizens in so-called "Islamic" Republics. As such it suddenly seems reasonable that Jews be just as intolerant as the Muslims around them. Of course it's not, but nothing is going to change as long as people retain their monotheistic intolerance.

    Do you seriously think SAM just woke up one day and decided to take up the cause of the Palestinians out of the blue? All the while entire segments of Indian society, such as untouchables, are discriminated against and treated like shit? No. She's Muslim, so she sides with the Muslims. If she were Jewish, she's be a Zionist. At least that's how it seems to me. Case in point: She can not accept anyone's differencing belief (take Native American faith as an example) is equivalent to her own. Equal. Well, if an educated woman like SAM is that brainwashed, imagine what half illiterate Muslims all over the rest of the world must be thinking about other people's faiths? And no, saying "each to their own" does not address the problem. If anything, that's a weasels way of being a bigot and feeling good about it. Let me be clear: Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism are equally as bad. It's just that our societies saw fit to segregate religion from the political arena. As such people have grown to be much more tolerant and outside of fundamentalists, many Christians would actually agree Native American religion is equally as valid and equivalent to their own beliefs. Hopefully over the next 80-100 years Muslims come to be as equally tolerant.

    Anyway, all of this goes to why the body of nations are more than willing to look the other way when Israelis march the Bedouin off to reservations - which will be horrid squalor drug ghettos in a few years time and the State'll then have the excuse they need to do whatever it is they like.

    All THANKS to monotheistic religion.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011
  23. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    In what sense? It's in the OED, and they say its been in use since at least 1811. Sounds pretty "real" to me.

    In this case, it was a real word for nearly two hundred years before Wikipedia even existed.

    ? That Wikipedia article you linked to says explicitly that kleptocracy often operates "without the pretense of honest service."

Share This Page