Student Protests Against Israel Are Wonderful

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn't say they were fine. Why do you people do that? Why do you attach your assumptions to the words others? Frankly it's lazy and unproductive.

Because that's the relevant point. If it's not, then your pointing out the ethnography of these states is just a misnomer. It's completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the debate - it's just a distraction to suggest that, because Israel are better in some ways, that somehow implies that they have more right to commit war crimes.

If that's not what you believe, then I would very much like for you to unambiguously state that the ethnographic makeup of a region has no bearing on whether or not that region is committing war crimes or the justification for its actions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because you're "mean" if you don't want radical islamists in your country.

I don't particularly want fundamentalist Christians in my country. But I believe in freedom of religion, so...

 

[Debater Slayer]

Interesting post. I wonder if you could clarify something so I can better understand your position. You said something about a subset of "Westerners" having "...anti-immigrant views that propagate stereotypes and overgeneralizations...". I am a "Westerner" and I oppose the uncontrolled influx of immigrants we have coming across the southern border of the US which I consider illegal. I am quite fine with legal immigration. That is people approaching a point of entry and following the legally determined steps to gain entrance I to America. Now that you know my position would you say that I am a Westerners having "...anti-immigrant views that propagate stereotypes and overgeneralizations...". ?

I believe that any country should be able to ensure immigration is reasonably controlled. Open borders are unrealistic and would be destructive in many ways, in my opinion, but virtually no country has open borders, and whether the US is currently experiencing an "uncontrolled influx" of illegal immigration is a question that would require a separate thread to discuss.

With the above clarification aside, no, your position as you stated it above doesn't seem to me to propagate stereotypes or overgeneralizations, although I think the accuracy of the claim it seems to rely on (about the "uncontrolled influx") is up for debate. In my previous post, I was talking about people like Geert Wilders, Trump (whose immigration ban was sweeping and heavily biased against Muslims in particular), and Victor Orbán, among others.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What that tell us is Israel is far more tolerant of Palestinians than Hamas is of jews.

No, it doesn't. And even if it did, what bearing would that have on whether or not Israel were committing war crimes?

Do you believe states that are more tolerant have a right to commit war crimes on countries that are less tolerant? Do you believe civilians in less tolerant countries have less of a right to life than those in more tolerant countries?

If not, then you must admit this argument is irrelevant.

It's almost has if you purposely ignore the desire of hamas to eradicate Jews.

I've repeatedly acknowledged it, directly, in this very conversation.

It's almost as if you're just lying. And it's almost as if you constantly equate Gazan civilians with Hamas, and therefore believe they have a right to be eradicated.

 

[Ignatius A]

Because that's the relevant point. If it's not, then your pointing out the ethnography of these states is just a misnomer. It's completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the debate - it's just a distraction to suggest that, because Israel are better in some ways, that somehow implies that they have more right to commit war crimes.

If that's not what you believe, then I would very much like for you to unambiguously state that the ethnographic makeup of a region has no bearing on whether or not that region is committing war crimes or the justification for its actions.

I added to that post. What nearly 2 million Palestinians living in Israel tells us is Israel has far more tolerance for Palestinians than Hamas has for Jews. It's a rather simple straight forward observation. And AGAIN hamas has explicitly stated its desire to eradicate jews

 

[Watchmen]

What does that matter? Why would the ethnographic details of these two states, in any way, be relevant to whether or not they are conducting illegal or unjustified actions against each other?

Do you really need that explained to you?

 

[Ignatius A]

Because that's the relevant point. If it's not, then your pointing out the ethnography of these states is just a misnomer. It's completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the debate - it's just a distraction to suggest that, because Israel are better in some ways, that somehow implies that they have more right to commit war crimes.

If that's not what you believe, then I would very much like for you to unambiguously state that the ethnographic makeup of a region has no bearing on whether or not that region is committing war crimes or the justification for its actions.

I added to that post. What nearly 2 million Palestinians living in Israel tells us is Israel has far more tolerance for Palestinians than Hamas has for Jews. It's a rather simple straight forward observation. And AGAIN hamas has explicitly stated its desirentk eradicate jews

I don't particularly want fundamentalist Christians in my country. But I believe in freedom of religion, so...

So you're "mean".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I added to that post. What nearly 2 million Palestinians living in Israel tells us is Israel has far more tolerance for Palestinians than Hamas has for Jews. It's a rather simple straight forward observation. And AGAIN hamas has explicitly stated its desire to eradicate jews

Again, you're pointing out that Israel is "more tolerant" of Palestinians, because...?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you're "mean".

No, I'm reasonable. I think extremist religions are evil, and I think fundamentalist Christians do significant harm to western society.

We should deport them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you really need that explained to you?

Yep. Please explain to me the relevance of "This country is more tolerant in some ways than this other country" to the issue of "This country is committing war crimes against this other country".

Do you believe more tolerant countries have the right to kill civilians that live in less tolerant countries?

 

[Ignatius A]

I believe that any country should be able to ensure immigration is reasonably controlled. Open borders are unrealistic and would be destructive in many ways, in my opinion, but virtually no country has open borders, and whether the US is currently experiencing an "uncontrolled influx" of illegal immigration is a question that would require a separate thread to discuss.

With the above clarification aside, no, your position as you stated it above doesn't seem to me to propagate stereotypes or overgeneralizations, although I think the accuracy of the claim it seems to rely on (about the "uncontrolled influx") is up for debate. In my previous post, I was talking about people like Geert Wilders, Trump (whose immigration ban was sweeping and heavily biased against Muslims in particular), and Victor Orbán, among others.

Are you and American? If as you claim a country "...should be able to ensure immigration is reasonably controlled." then it's quite alright for any country to decide who they let.in.and who they don't. Correct?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Of course I agree.

But I'm talking about broad policies here. About 1/3 of all Muslims are Islamists. It's the Islamists I'm talking about. Why would a western country want to allow lots of Islamists to immigrate?

The claim that a third of all Muslims are "Islamists" is unevidenced, not to mention that one would first need to define what an "Islamist" was to make such a claim.

Why would a Western country want to allow anti-LGBT, anti-reproductive rights, and anti-secularist politicians to run for government posts? Should it implement some sort of punishment for voters who support such platforms? If freedom of religion applies to them and the only requirement to live peacefully in a country is to respect the rule of law, I don't see any realistic or fair way to treat people from other countries differently if they also respect the law and coexist peacefully with others in society.

So what to do with the 2/3 of Muslims who are not Islamists? How about you guys create a denomination (or some sort of subset), of Islam that is explicitly NOT Islamist, that explicitly denounces Islamism? There is an organization of Muslims in the west that is doing that, they are called the Muslim Reform Movement.

Not sure why you're including me in the above question with the "you guys," but I don't see why Muslims should have to jump through hoops that other religious groups don't have to jump through in order for them not to be lumped in with extremists.

 

[Ignatius A]

No, I'm reasonable. I think extremist religions are evil, and I think fundamentalist Christians do significant harm to western society.

We should deport them.

And radical islamists. Correct?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you and American? If as you claim a country "...should be able to ensure immigration is reasonably controlled." then it's quite alright for any country to decide who they let.in.and who they don't. Correct?

They literally just told you that they don't believe in uncontrolled immigration.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And radical islamists. Correct?

Sure. I agree. Explicitly only the radical ones that present a clear and well-evidenced danger to others. Same with extremists of all religions, or non-religions.

 

[Ignatius A]

Again, you're pointing out that Israel is "more tolerant" of Palestinians, because...?

Hamas is far less tolerant and therefore assumes even more responsibility for the position they find themselves in. It's clear now that you purposely pretend to not understand these things.

 

[Ignatius A]

Sure. I agree. Explicitly only the radical ones that present a clear and well-evidenced danger to others.

Just like the "fundamentalist" Christians right? Or are you one of those "they're all bad" types?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hamas is far less tolerant and therefore assumes even more responsibility for the position they find themselves in. It's clear now that you purposely pretend to not understand these things.

Why do you keep lying about me and avoiding my questions?

What point do you think you're making? Again, do you believe that - because Israel is more tolerant than Hamas - that therefore Israel have a right to commit war crimes? That a state that is tolerant has a right to commit crimes against a state that is less tolerant?

 

[Ignatius A]

They literally just told you that they don't believe in uncontrolled immigration.

Are you their lawyer?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just like the "fundamentalist" Christians right? Or are you one of those "they're all bad" types?

If you make no distinction, why should I? I'm happy to say "there are people who shouldn't be allowed into a country". I just don't make the conditions for that allowance along purely religious lines. I think Muslims have as much right to immigrate to America as any other person of any other/no religion, and I think the exceptions should be the same exceptions as every other group as well.