But not when choosing who to believe when it comes to evidence.Not necessarily.
Prejudice is horrible.
But bias can have a reasoned & evidenced basis,
eg, a bias towards environmental protection.
Last edited:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But not when choosing who to believe when it comes to evidence.Not necessarily.
Prejudice is horrible.
But bias can have a reasoned & evidenced basis,
eg, a bias towards environmental protection.
I thought this sentence addressed that clearly.Only if "later" you continued to nurture and validate them.
One can be biased towards authoritative sources.Burt not when choosing who to believe when it comes to evidence.
I thought I was reinforcing it.I thought this sentence addressed that clearly.
(Notice particularly the underlined portion.)
"Being an employer means hiring people you
later find out you wish you never met."
Veiled claim? No.You wouldn't be making the veiled claim
that UNRWA nurtures & validates terrorists
would you? Or that I might be grooming
drunks, murderers, & pedohphiles?
The supposition is far from stupid. Meanwhile, stupid, antisemitic vitriol is not hard to find.I can agree with that, but the supposition that they participated is about as stupid as claiming palestine is to be israel, because a god said so.
I am relieved.I thought I was reinforcing it.
Veiled claim? No.
OK.I do, however, suspect that UNRWA is laced with Hamas militants and sympathizers. GAZA is dense, and both Hamas and UNRWA have a massive footprint in the region wherein sophisticated tunnel systems are built and sustained, terrorist attacked are conducted behind human shields, and civilian hostages are sequestered. To presume that UNWRA has maintained some semblance of independence from Hamas seems more convenient than reasonable.
So when we have two conflicting parties we should trust?One can be biased towards authoritative sources.
Bias towards untrustworthy sources supporting
one's agenda would be prejudice.
abti semitic? The same trope. Always the same going backwards to substantiate a supposition that everyone hates us (israel).The supposition is far from stupid. Meanwhile, stupid, antisemitic vitriol is not hard to find.
I urge healthy skepticismSo when we have two conflicting parties we should trust?
You implicitly deny an increase in antisemitism while justifying it.abti semitic? The same trope. Always the same going backwards to substantiate a supposition that everyone hates us (israel).
And no true Scotsman puts porridge in his porridge.The actual Jews are against what israel (zionist) are doing.
Speaking of tropes ...... the religion, suggests that 'they' are better than the rest of mankind, as 'chosen ones' by god. Then I could see what would make people hate such a tyranny of self condemned arrogance.
Deny? Where did you get that? I said the use of the trope is getting old. Then I ask if you could show any reason why ANY could hate a JEW?You implicitly deny an increase in antisemitism while justifying it.
So you hate Jews for being against israel and zionism?And no true Scotsman puts porridge in his porridge.
Do you even know what the word means?Speaking of tropes ...
Though I suspect that you're doing your best, the question is too incoherent to be defamatory.The actual Jews are against what israel (zionist) are doing.
And no true Scotsman puts porridge in his porridge.
So you hate Jews for being against israel and zionism?
It is worth noting that the UNRWA employs some 30,000 people according to their website, given that UNRWA is being demonized by many right now.
Let's see what the investigation finds.
I am unable to disagree or agree with this post due to the ambiguity of this statement.It's been known for quite a while that UNRWA is supporting terrorism.
Canada threw it's hat in the ring too: https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.7097515?feature=randomMeanwhile, yesterday's Washington Post lists the countries withholding funds as:
I find this to be criminal.
- Australia
- Germany
- United Kingdom
- Italy
- Netherlands
- Finland
- Japan
- Austria
I am unable to disagree or agree with this post due to the ambiguity of this statement.
If you're saying that the UNRWA has 'supported terrorism' in the sense that terrorists have used resources gathered from UNRWA in their operations, I agree that this is an established fact. That members of Hamas have been students at UNRWA schools or fewer have actually been employed by the UNRWA, I do not disagree.
On the other hand, if you're suggesting that the UNRWA mandate or leadership defend or actively promote terrorism, you've lost me.
I find it unconscionable that the alleged crimes of a dozen employees who have already been fired is being used an excuse to take the last lifeline of millions of people days after Israel was ordered by the ICJ to provide basic humanitarian aid to avoid a potential genocide.
Despite Israel’s long-running objections to UNWRA, it also continues to cooperate with the agency