|
|
| Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar (1182615) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 11:11:15 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 04:00:24 2014. Add to that question about what is doable for Israel. Then you'll have your answer.Accepting refugees is doable. If they don't want to, that's their problem. If they can reproduce and/or convert enough people to Christianity to create a Christian majority, then that's a problem Israel will have to deal with. And they will deal with it in what way...? It would be a little weird to reject Jews from entering a supposed Jewish haven and homeland, without a really good reason (like the person is a serial killer or a terrorist). Yet again, you declare a double standard without offering even the slightest attempt to justify it. Do you simply not believe that everyone is created equal? Democracy? Maybe. Equality? Not so much. If anything, it's brought the inter-demographic hatred to the forefront. I'm sure plenty of black people who lived through segregation would care to disagree with you. Except Poland and Germany are not in Asia. My point was that the Soviet Union, which controlled a good swath of Asia, has collapsed and its former territories are now generally better off for it. China, Myanmar, and Thailand are, for example. And lately they've been demonstrating how enlightened they are. China has abandoned its failed attempt at "communism" and has also abandoned the idea of totalitarianism— over the last few decades, it's gone from economic stagnation brought on by the policies of a single moronic ruler and complete control of citizens' private lives to an economic powerhouse with limited personal freedom. Myanmar's military dictatorship has officially ended and the country's human rights record has shown signs of improvement. Thailand has had some troubles, but nothing to suggest human progress is moving backwards (and Thailand by itself couldn't disprove a global trend anyway). And the countries carved out of the Soviet Union? The majority of the ones in Asia have turned into corrupt tinpot dictators, if not outright puppets of Russia. Russia represents a good chunk of Asia and it's doing better than in the Soviet days. I haven't looked up the details of all former Soviet territories in Asia, but some improvement over the Soviet Union seems present by and large; I'm pretty sure Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are showing obvious signs of improvement. Hmm, a party that was known for being conservative but reasonable - sometimes even liberal - has turned into an amalgamation of corporatist elitist jerks, illogical fanatics, and Christian evangelicals. I'm not sure when they were ever "liberal," unless you're going back to the 19th century (maybe early 20th). Yet they carry nearly half the states in the Union, and have a majority in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives. That does not sound like progress. No, but the fact that even the states they control most completely (like Arkansas) have legalised gay marriage in spite of their best efforts does. The fact that racial equality is at an all-time high despite their best efforts does. The fact that they have failed to ban abortion despite their best efforts does. The fact that they have failed to dismantle Social Security despite their best efforts does. The fact that they can only cling to power through artificial techniques like propaganda and voter suppression as the populace rejects their toxic ideology does. That's the point. The Republicans are doing everything they can to reverse historical progress and despite the amount of power they have, they are failing. I mostly agree, but the point is that your example of changing human nature involved a massive military campaign, trials, imprisonment, and executions. No, my example is that an unwillingness to change human nature on behalf of the German populace and/or the Allied powers produced a situation where a military campaign was necessary. As I said, by the time military power is the only solution, humanity has already failed. Of course, even once that point is reached, it still serves as an example of changing terrible policies rather than ascribing them to unchangeable human nature and ignoring them. Since you mentioned Nazis, I mentioned Nazis. Germany still exists because we were primarily after NAZIS not Germans as a whole. And your point is...? The Nazis did bad things. The people of Germany passively accepted (or even supported) them by and large. And some people decided that those bad things were not the inevitable product of human nature not worth doing anything about and stopped those bad things. My original point here was that trying to change bad policies and end injustices (on whatever scale they may be) is not a futile endeavour because bad policies and injustices are not unshakable aspects of human nature. As of now, I consider this point to be proven. Although given the circumstances of Israel's creation, I would tend to think you believed it all along. And after all that, we STILL have Nazism (as neo-Nazism), even in Germany (though much more underground). No need to be perfectionist. I'm willing to accept reducing Nazism from "absolute ruling power over a country" to "a bunch of dudes whose opinions are completely irrelevant to the vast majority (which never even gets to see them)" as sufficient improvement. France still has its monarchists, Germany still has its Nazis, America still has its pro-slavery advocates, and none of them matter because all of them are tiny minorities justifiably viewed as crazy by everybody else. No, the Jew would go through a different one. And that's exactly my point. The persecuted refugees have to go through a more difficult process and risk being turned away, while the non-persecuted Jew gets fast-tracked through the whole thing. And I though the argument I had with Chris and/or Spider Pig over birthright citizenship was bad. Sarcastic answer for a sarcastic question. No, it was a serious question with a sarcastic addendum unrelated to its content. If the addendum was confusing you, I can remove it (it's conveniently detachable) and offer only the question with a less sarcastic followup: So Israel can take in hundreds of thousands of refugees in a short time span, but only if they're Jewish? How does Judaism make the refugees easier to accommodate? 1) Why was Israel created? Irrelevant. Unless you want to argue that the circumstances under which a country was founded place a permanent chokehold on its development and progress over decades and centuries. Remember, America was founded as a slave state. Most countries in Europe were founded as monarchies. That Israel's founding charter is less odious is a function of its relatively recent birth. 2) Given its stated purpose, how much further beyond that purpose can it support, given its available resources? Also irrelevant. My point is that its "stated purpose" isn't justification for anything it does. Stating you intend to do something doesn't justify it. Stating that it's your "purpose" to do something still doesn't justify it. That's your answer. OK, so your answer, then, is that their religious persuasion doesn't matter, but Israel has chosen to enforce a double standard, and while double standards are generally considered anathema in any civilised country, this one is OK because Israel has declared their "purpose" is to have a double standard. |
|
|
|