Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Israel's Impunity
LAXCENTRAL:
--- Quote from: RoCcY on August 23, 2009, 03:26:22 PM ---
--- Quote from: LIGHTS on August 22, 2009, 11:38:18 AM ---
--- Quote from: RoCcY on August 19, 2009, 04:26:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: LIGHTS on August 19, 2009, 08:19:12 AM ---ITS SO HARD TO CHOOSE SIDES THOUGH... JEWS AND MUSLIMS HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY...
BUT THEY SHOW THEY HATE HEACH OTHER...
--- End quote ---
Jews and Muslims have lived together in peace for years...there is no hate on either side.
--- End quote ---
are u fuckin shrooming dogg?
lol look at palestine and israel...
obviously there is hate
--- End quote ---
btw..Palestine=1 country..cant talk for all muslims.
--- End quote ---
true but there still is fighting
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: Illuminati Clique on August 24, 2009, 06:12:08 AM ---Thanks Infinite.
Before you made a huge post, I agree with alot of it, but I must admit I don't know much about US social issues or affirmative action in the US. Positive discrimination dosn't have to be racially based however, its just another word, for instance, here in Australia you have to meet certain requirements to be eligable for welfare (such as only earn a small amount of money, no job, etc) so in this sense welfare here discriminates between rich and poor and targets the poor and needy, hence the term 'positive discrimination'. I was talking more from a legal perspective, on what the law should be and justifying it for what it is. The law may say one thing, and I believe it is essential to have laws first, so that society can have something to build upon, but I never argued that the law is a 'magic wand'. Afterall, most countries (including the US and Australia) are bound by the UN International Convenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, and according to this document nobody is suppose to be homeless without shelter, without food, without adequate drinking water, etc. Its all excellent in principle, however it is far from the actual reality.
Concerning affirmative action however, in Australia it is kind of a different story. Black people here are indigenous, native to the country, right now, Australia has actually derogated from the UN International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and has temporarily put aside its anti-discrimination laws so that it can positively discriminate against indigenous Australians, so this country is engaging in a level of positive discrimination that Conservative Americans would probablly find ridiculous. Now its not an easy issue, indigenous Australians have never really had a motivation to create wealth and such for themselves, which is also fine. Really, before the European settlers came, they lived a very nomadic lifestyle. The government has tried all types of policies including doing nothing, however, many tragic issues within Aboriginal society like petrol sniffing, child abuse, alcoholism, have always drawn back the intervention of the government. Its a sad issue for Australia.
Peace
--- End quote ---
yur welcome, peace...
Yeah, I just don't like that. Why do we turn to government to solve our problems? Government has never been a solution to solving problems, they can only make matters worse. The only advantage government has over a free market institution is the ability to employ the use of FORCE. So like I said above, that will only last as long as you can hold your foot on somebodies head, and then they will go right back to doing what they want to do, whether that is sniffing petrol or whatever the aboriginals are doing in Australia.
Also, the government and most people in general can only understand what is "SEEN" in the economy and they are unable to see what is 'UNSEEN". It's like the whole argument that war is good for the economy, because of rebuilding projects and war economy utilizing excess resources, etc.
It's the broken window theory. A kids throws a rock and breaks a window to a barber shop, the people cheer because they say "now the plasterer will have employment in fixing the window". What they don't see is that now the barber will have to spend money to fix the window, rather than spending it on a luxury item like taking his wife to see a movie, or investing in more comfortable chairs for the customers inside the barber shop, etc. So you've lowered everyone's standard of living.
Likewise, in welfare, the people cheeir, because they say "now the poor will have more money". What they don't see is the unseen. The unseen is that those same businessman that you are stealing money from, will now have less money to invest in expanding their businesses, which could have helped supplied jobs and wealth for the poor who are now instead living off the state.
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: IslamInevitable on August 23, 2009, 03:23:10 PM ---
what you are purporting is essentially a nihilistic skeleton of a existentialist ideology... but all forms of practiced ideologies are judged by their own course of existence; in your case you state uS to be that example where, although the reality contradicts it, "freedoms" are afforded to everyone and according to you these are the products of objective idealism.
in an existentialist perception, this freedom of attaining pleasure is suitable to everyone's carnal appetite... so as long as that persuit doesnt violate another's persuit;
but in your terms if you look at it in a utilitarian perspective its a society thats doomed to implode, cuz the utility of an object is derived from its moral worth, since no moral code is standard as that would be infringing on people's freedom, this spirit of nihilism has led to multiple conflicts that are bound to pour over eventually into an implosion -> dysfunctional america which is the true america and full of contradictions, and the one you paint is only applicable to you!
and please dont be a cross cultural judge and state that muslim societies suffer due to the lack of these objective idealism... its only due to the european invasion of those lands that those conflicts arose, and european invasion was incited due to its own ideology of objective idealism which you fervently espouse...
--- End quote ---
Okay... so you don't want cross-cultural references... then.. this is why it's important for Muslims to study the era of the Ottoman Empire. Because essentially this is the last time that Muslims were strong enough to repel any advances made by the West. So with the Ottoman Empire as your standard, can you still make the same statements you made above?
I'm trying to understand exactly what your saying, so correct me if I'm wrong. But are you saying that because the West is built on the idea that man's goal is to consume and expand and that therefore it must ultimately overextend and implode upon itself?
I think your assuming that capitalism is a "Zero Sum Game". I think your assuming that the only way to gain in capitalism is when another person loses. But this is not the case. Any time a trade is made in the capitalistic free market, BOTH SIDES GAIN! Simply put, if I buy a watch from you for $20 I am saying that I value that watch more than the $20, while you are saying you value the $20 more than the watch, so we have both gained and our standard of living have improved by this trade on the free market. From an employment standpoint, if I work at your factory for $1 an hour in the free market, I am stating that I value that $1 more than any other alternative available, and you are saying that you value my services more than holding onto that $1, thus we have both improved our standard of living and both GAINED. Then whatever capital is derived from the business is then invested back into the market either by investing it in a bank, or the stock market, or expanding one's business to create even greater employment and wealth creation opportunities.
IslamInevitable:
i see a lot of good diversions and digressions, all tangential and well in their own respect...
i dont know how it got this far, but i only had two points i wanted to make with illuminati...
1st: the garb of sophistry, however technical, can never attain what it claims to attain -> that is objectivity; although i said you can get far from your prejudices that doesnt mean you can get anywhere near being objective. and i alluded to this earlier that objectivity comes with a standard, for example illuminati you give value to certain objects and that is depended on your own experience and that is dependent on the collective experience of your people, your "moral code" within your collective that you can consider yourself objective in, but as soon as you extrapolate that same standard elsewhere it becomes subjective to the nth degree, your ancestors didnt have any value for the native americans, so their extermination by giving them reservations was considered a good objective decision, to the natives it was unfathomable, and now since americans have evolved their standard, they can come to look at those times differently...
2nd: okay i'll give you that you are very objective in your line of thought, but you have to accept that when you parade and pontificate that objective standard, you are doing nothing but the same intolerance you convict other subjectivists of....
i'm speaking in paradigms... your speaking within a paradigm...
thats why we are not understanding each other
The Overfiend:
^Thats just another way of saying "everybody thinks inside of the box except for meeee!"
My response to that is that there is certain objective standards that are universal. The Right to life and existence, the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of liberty, a prohibition on slavery, a prohibition on genocide, women's rights, rights of the child, the laws of war, Geneva Conventions, etc. These are objective standards that are held to be universal, they have their root in religious, spiritual and philosophical thought and despite the misgivings of history they have remained in representation and carried within the minds of individuals always at some point no matter how minute or token, for instance during the Spanish invasion of South America and the following genocide and destruction the Catholic priests attached to the Spanish army documented the horrors and continuely objected to the military campaign, these were individuals who kept their morals while those around them shed theirs. Also I know that Muhammad's army was suppose to be ethical to a degree and when He took Mecca he bid his men to refrain from slaughter of the innocents and those that had surrendered, etc. All these acts by various people throughout history have influenced and embodied the development of an unwritten natural law, that has in turn, influenced the development of international humanitarian principles that are held to be an objective universal standard today. I don't mind parading such objective standards and shoving them down the World's throat when you have 13 yr old pregnant child brides in Saudi Arabian hospitals, when you have Afghan boys who are raped by older men then made to keep silent about it lest it shame themselves, when you still have a culture of Islamic female clitoris mutilation in North Africa, etc
not even the golden arthritis of King Midas can buy peace for the righteous
You keep claiming my 'Mayflower' ancestors did this and this (even though I'm not American) but I bet if you look back into your ancestry you will find your ancestors are not without a history of violence as well. During WWII my grandfather was a Hungarian nationalist who sided with the Nazis out of convenience and flew bombers that dropped bombs on supposed Communist targets calmly killing scores of people. The other side of my family goes waaay back and they were most probably native Malays who ran through the jungle and chased down Spanish explorers and ate their hearts. These amazing acts of butchery and violence were committed against invading forces, however if haven't realized it yet: the world is a violent place and you are delusional if you think your genetic ancestors are without blood on their hands. The difference is I am righteous, but it seems you are self-righteous.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version