The USA and Israel

[Immanuel Can]

Why don't you ask yourself why you don't like people who you don't personally know.

I didn't say I didn't. I'm asking you what obliges us to "produce understanding" or "interaction" of some kind. What is the source not of our mere "liking" to do something, but of what you seem to suggest -- that we have a definite moral obligation to do so.

What makes that the case?

I never said "care equally" nor did I say it was an "obligation". VT introduced those words for some purpose.

Here's what our exchange has been, so far:

But if we don't believe any of that, then what creates the alleged obligation?

In that case, one can say that caring will produce a better understanding and interaction between people. There will be better solutions to problems. Overall, the result will be a better society. Which is mutually beneficial.

One can also argue that there will be potential reciprocity in the future.

But you say that there IS no "obligation" for us to care, or "produce better understanding," or better "interaction between people." So we can do it if we want to, but if don't, then there's zero responsibility on any of us to do that.

But then, how are "producing better understanding" or "better interaction" incentives for anything? Why shouldn't we, say, do the kinds of things revolutionaries and rebels routinely do, jamming up the lines of communication and imparing interaction, so as to "destabilize the oppressive status quo," as they would say? Why not just wreck the existing "system" with its "systemic" biases, and thus free up history to create something better...like the triumph of the proletariat, or the libertarian utopia?

Right now, your answer would have to be that we have NO obligation to produce any such "understanding," nor any to care about what kind of "interactions" there are. We certainly are not, according to you, under any "obligation" to care about anybody, whether far or near from us.

However, I can't imagine that what you were trying to tell us is that we should sympathize with Palestinians and Ukranians for no reason at all, and we have no obligation to do so. That doesn't seem the sort of thing a sensible person would even bother to say; and it would not give us any reason to care about them...far less about Jews and Russians.

So what is it that you ARE saying, if that's not it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Of course, I see what is going on. I see what "really" is. And it's pretty appalling to me. Now what? Should I roast marshmallows over all the funeral pyres? Or should I speak up?

You did not create this world. The way it is is the way it is, and it seems destined to go on, more or less, in that direction.

So yes, I’d go with the marshmallow option.

Not sure how to respond vis-a-vis “speaking up”. Some people find only the hard, tragic and painful edge of the world; others find a way to ‘see’ the beautiful edge of the world. By your own admission (constant refrain) you get something out of depressing misery. So what you “speak” is pretty dreary …

It’s a choice, isn’t it?

Marshmallows are pretty cheap, aren’t they?

Really, considering what comes next I think that option is as sensible as a sturdy pair of black loafers.

Did you ever hear the story about the Goy’s teeth?

[phyllo]

But you say that there IS no "obligation" for us to care, or "produce better understanding," or better "interaction between people." So we can do it if we want to, but if don't, then there's zero responsibility on any of us to do that.

But then, how are "producing better understanding" or "better interaction" incentives for anything? Why shouldn't we, say, do the kinds of things revolutionaries and rebels routinely do, jamming up the lines of communication and imparing interaction, so as to "destabilize the oppressive status quo," as they would say? Why not just wreck the existing "system" with its "systemic" biases, and thus free up history to create something better...like the triumph of the proletariat, or the libertarian utopia?

Right now, your answer would have to be that we have NO obligation to produce any such "understanding," nor any to care about what kind of "interactions" there are. We certainly are not, according to you, under any "obligation" to care about anybody, whether far or near from us.

However, I can't imagine that what you were trying to tell us is that we should sympathize with Palestinians and Ukranians for no reason at all, and we have no obligation to do so. That doesn't seem the sort of thing a sensible person would even bother to say; and it would not give us any reason to care about them...far less about Jews and Russians.

So what is it that you ARE saying, if that's not it?

Sure.

If you want war without end. If you want to take control of something or someone. If you want some group to suffer.
Then you would not work towards better understanding or interaction. Or rather, you would define "better" as something which is advantageous to you and your goals.

Some people want that. But is that really what most people want? Or do they want interactions which are not controlling, not manipulative and not destructive. Maybe a society of mutual cooperation and prosperity.

I think that's the goal and caring is part achieving it.

That's not an 'obligation'.

[bahman]

I am not done with him either but he refuses to talk with me about the creation!

That's ALL I was trying to talk to you about, on the other thread. I was asking what the nature of the Creation is...what or Who did it, and how? And you were the one who was saying the things I couldn't make sense of...

Like that there is a thing called "the Singularity," which is both the Big Bang and not the Big Bang, and is both the explanation of the First Cause, but is not the first thing in the causal chain...

So it wasn't me refusing. It was really you fumbling the explanatory "ball," and leaving us with no explanation at all.

Honestly, is that all you get from our long debate?

[Immanuel Can]

I am not done with him either but he refuses to talk with me about the creation!

That's ALL I was trying to talk to you about, on the other thread. I was asking what the nature of the Creation is...what or Who did it, and how? And you were the one who was saying the things I couldn't make sense of...

Like that there is a thing called "the Singularity," which is both the Big Bang and not the Big Bang, and is both the explanation of the First Cause, but is not the first thing in the causal chain...

So it wasn't me refusing. It was really you fumbling the explanatory "ball," and leaving us with no explanation at all.

Honestly, is that all you get from our long debate?

No...I'm rejecting the substunce of your claim that I "refuse to talk about the creation," which is clearly untrue, as anybody who checks the thread will be able to see.

[Immanuel Can]

But you say that there IS no "obligation" for us to care, or "produce better understanding," or better "interaction between people." So we can do it if we want to, but if don't, then there's zero responsibility on any of us to do that.

But then, how are "producing better understanding" or "better interaction" incentives for anything? Why shouldn't we, say, do the kinds of things revolutionaries and rebels routinely do, jamming up the lines of communication and imparing interaction, so as to "destabilize the oppressive status quo," as they would say? Why not just wreck the existing "system" with its "systemic" biases, and thus free up history to create something better...like the triumph of the proletariat, or the libertarian utopia?

Right now, your answer would have to be that we have NO obligation to produce any such "understanding," nor any to care about what kind of "interactions" there are. We certainly are not, according to you, under any "obligation" to care about anybody, whether far or near from us.

However, I can't imagine that what you were trying to tell us is that we should sympathize with Palestinians and Ukranians for no reason at all, and we have no obligation to do so. That doesn't seem the sort of thing a sensible person would even bother to say; and it would not give us any reason to care about them...far less about Jews and Russians.

So what is it that you ARE saying, if that's not it?

Sure.

If you want war without end.

I'm asking why somebody shouldn't want that. Because some people certainly do. Neo-Marxists, for example, think "struggle" is a perpetual process of rejecting the status quo, overthrowing it dialectically, and producing the future.

Now, I think they're nuts. But given your claim that they have no "obligation" not to be like that, why shouldn't they do that?

If you want to take control of something or someone. If you want some group to suffer.

They do.

Then you would not work towards better understanding or interaction. Or rather, you would define "better" as something which is advantageous to you and your goals.

They do.

Some people want that.

Yes. So why shouldn't they?

But is that really what most people want?

But "most" isn't a moral quality, and doesn't produce an obligation either. And it only takes a few such boat-rockers to upset any system, whether we want that or not. Why shouldn't they?

Or do they want interactions which are not controlling, not manipulative and not destructive. Maybe a society of mutual cooperation and prosperity.

They don't want that. They want perpetual overthrow of the status quo.

I think that's the goal and caring is part achieving it.

That's not an 'obligation'.

So they don't owe us to do it, then. And again, I can't see how, on the basis of no moral obligation at all, you can tell them what they should or shouldn't do or want.

How then can you tell us anything about Israel or the Ukraine? There are people who WANT war to be there. How do you prove to us and to them that they have any obligation not to cause or perpetuate it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

In that case, one can say that caring will produce a better understanding and interaction between people.

What is the source of the duty to "produce understanding" or "interaction"? Why says we owe it to somebody to do that? And if there's a group of "people" we don't happen to like, what obliges us to include them?

Why don't you ask yourself why you don't like people who you don't personally know.

Ask yourself what kind of treatment, respect and consideration people you don't like, ought to get.

Ask yourself why it's okay (or not okay) for people to be fired from their jobs if they state opinions which differ from your opinions.

While you are at it, imagine that don't know the religions of the people involved in the Gaza war. Would your evaluation of the situation be different?

Then imagine that the people in Gaza are Jews and they are being attacked by Muslims. Again, would your evaluation of the situation be different?

If the people in Gaza were Jews and they were being attacked by muslims then you wouldn't give a rat's arse, just as you don't give a rat's arse for the Jewish children who were tortured to death on 7/10.

[Dubious]

How much of what Dubious wrote is to be taken seriously

During all the beer virus nonsense, dub was gung-ho for having folks like me (those who wouldn't mask up, lock down or accept the jab) box-car'd to camps for isolation, re-education, and whatnot.

I took him seriously.

It's not often you're right! I noticed you're no-longer using women as a form of detriment and insult. Why! Did someone give you a lecture on that too?

[henry quirk]

It's not often you're right!

It's not often I'm wrong.

I noticed you're no-longer using women as a form of detriment and insult.

You miss bein' called pussy?

Why! Did someone give you a lecture on that too?

There's not a soul, in forum or out, fit to lecture me on diddly shit (that never seems to stop any of you, though). As to why: most of you are pussies. You know it. I know it. No reason to keep pointin' it out.

[Dubious]

There are people - if one can call them that - in every group meaning not to be referenced to any ethnicity or nationality, that one can easily qualify as Untermenschen who should be disposed of as organic garbage who have no right to be called human. The solution is to eliminate that detritus and distortion of a homo sapien, cremate it and throw its ashes in the landfill as appropriate to its erstwhile despicable existence.

Duly noted, Dubious. Thanks for sharing!

You're welcome in spite of the fact that it all went over your head which even a mental midget would have no problem doing.

[Dubious]

It's not often you're right!

It's not often I'm wrong.

I noticed you're no-longer using women as a form of detriment and insult.

You miss bein' called pussy?

Why! Did someone give you a lecture on that too?

There's not a soul, in forum or out, fit to lecture me on diddly shit (that never seems to stop any of you, though). As to why: most of you are pussies. You know it. I know it. No reason to keep pointin' it out.

That term is best applied to you. You're the one who constantly keeps crying about his rights ad infinitum as if you were already deprived of it. You're a wimpy, crying little troll. No reason to keep pointin' it out.

[henry quirk]

crying

So, when faced with hordes, in forum and out, who demand submission, asserting one's natural rights to life, liberty, and property is crying.

If so, then: yes, I cry loudly.

[Dubious]

crying

So, when faced with hordes, in forum and out, who demand submission, asserting one's natural rights to life, liberty, and property is crying.

If so, then: yes, I cry loudly.

No one deprived you of those rights, though there are limits, so why do you keep crying?

[henry quirk]

No one deprived you of those rights,

They try to, daily.

though there are limits,

Sure. I have an absolute moral claim to my, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

so why do you keep crying?

Cuz my life, liberty, and property, my moral claim to my life, liberty, and property, is under assault...same as it always was, for everyone.

[phyllo]

What is the source of the duty to "produce understanding" or "interaction"? Why says we owe it to somebody to do that? And if there's a group of "people" we don't happen to like, what obliges us to include them?

Why don't you ask yourself why you don't like people who you don't personally know.

Ask yourself what kind of treatment, respect and consideration people you don't like, ought to get.

Ask yourself why it's okay (or not okay) for people to be fired from their jobs if they state opinions which differ from your opinions.

While you are at it, imagine that don't know the religions of the people involved in the Gaza war. Would your evaluation of the situation be different?

Then imagine that the people in Gaza are Jews and they are being attacked by Muslims. Again, would your evaluation of the situation be different?

If the people in Gaza were Jews and they were being attacked by muslims then you wouldn't give a rat's arse, just as you don't give a rat's arse for the Jewish children who were tortured to death on 7/10.

And what evidence do you have for that statement?

None.