Scott Mayers

And the Jewish religious belief in their state was derived from Egypt. Egypt was the actual "promised land". What later became Israel was a remnant of the last era of the Egyptians. To assert who 'owns' what in some past is moot and arrogant of those demanding they have some intrinsic link to it.

Micro-evolution IS all that is required to justify evolution. It is THE logic that connects each part of evolution. "Macro-" evolution is just taking a step back to look at the whole to attempt to draw links between the micro-evolutionary steps. You cannot find absolute evidence of all large-scale changes just as you cannot go back in actual time to observe actual life changing. Thus we require inferring from what we ALREADY know is true of evolution as a fact and extending it on a large scale. The attacks against "Macro-evolution" is only just another religious means to legitimize what they hope to be an 'alternative' of some indeterminable 'variable' they just prefer to label as "God" and then TRANSFER this unknown in the minds of believers or potential candidates for belief to the PARTICULAR Historical Anthropomorphic "God"....especially, with arrogance, to some Judaeo-Christian one. I'm watching "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" again and see how they are presenting what could be legitimate complaints against authoritarianism that DOES occur in most institutes through time, as presumed PROOF of bias against "Intelligent Designers", a renewed term of "Creationism" these religious people are deluded into thinking is somehow sufficiently remote from specifying religion as its intent. But the "Intelligent" and "Design" in these are intended to suggest a god by default. Even pretending some possible real criticism of methodology as valid, it still has zero connection to allow for any 'holes' to simply be filled in by some theory of God into the subject of biology. And, betsy, If "no scientist today understands macroevolution", your understanding of the term would lack substantial meaning to those scientists. So how do you justify imposing your own definition there? It is as if you named your kid, "Dave", but I, as an outsider, assert that you don't understand the meaning of "Dave" but that the name refers to a different person I know instead; therefore, your son's name cannot be "Dave" but something else.

Okay, either these 1.4mm tall Canadians are just too small to see, or you are using "mm" to mean Million Million. (meaning "Trillion" here in North America) Maybe THIS is the misunderstanding? The Natives are just too 'small' to notice?

"Land rights" is misleading. The largest difference in lifestyle (NOT actually 'culture') of the North American Natives was due to the fact that they were still of an 'unsettled' ("non-civilized" has become pejoratively interpreted by many) livelihood. As such, "land ownership" was less specific in Canada by Natives as they were still roaming as hunter-gatherers. This clashes with the evolution of 'settlement' since the roamers don't respect barriers on claimed lands beyond what the land they were presently ON in hunting or gathering. It is this question that is at issue. "Reserves" were not considered as 'owned' specifically. Rather, it was understood as lands set aside for the sake of these people to be allowed to persist in their choice to wander freely without imposing harm against those who DID believe in "ownership of land". This is the kind of insult that only adds fuel with a worse kind that Aboriginals suffer for their own 'misunderstandings'. It doesn't help to belittle if you are trying to gain attention for some cause that also comes about from being 'belittled' (the Aboriginal concerns).

I agree partly with taxme's understanding of what he calls, "Indian Industry". But I think that this might be more generalized as "Bureaucracy"; and the nature of employment within these act as incentives in themselves where the original intent to serve certain people are lost at the expense of those they employ to achieve such goals. The argument against funding such ideals is thus just the same problem argued against supporting organizations meant to serve ANY ideal as it is often lost in the costs associated with the people presuming to be helping when they are actually profiting BY the helping. This happens in a lot of social services whereby the staffs hired lack voluntary concern to their cause except as what it represents to their particular jobs. They tend to ignore the GOAL of the entity or mistaken it as intending to serve themselves. (This is similar to unions of some capital entity which complains of job losses in some region without concern to the actual business or industry entity. What good is it to demand some mining company, for instance, to persist in some community when the oar the mining company served has run out? Job preservation is an absurd argument if the entity of the industry in question is unable to sustain itself.) I also agree that Natives have had a raw deal. But this is NOT due to ALL non-Native people. That is, just because you are 'white' does not assure that you had some OWNERSHIP to any portion of discrimination that had occurred to Native people of the past. In fact, like I've said before, I believe that those within specific established historically inherited families of wealth whose ancestors profited upon these should be specifically most accountable BUT have the political power to be able to distribute the loss due to their guilt upon the rest of society through taxation instead. Technically, many of those "reserves" are non-sustainable in our modern economic environment. But these were set up initially like wild-life reserves expecting such 'animals' to maintain themselves in their 'primitive' or natural lifestyle. This was understood for the Natives that this meant they were to presume their lifestyle 'as though' our capitalistic (property-ownership) ideals were non-existent to them. But those NOW do not, nor should expect to, live as their ancestors did in exclusion of modernity as the ancestors of Canada had formally "negotiated" as Treaties in perpetuity. This is a crime against both Natives AND all others in Canada, except for those particularly profiting upon maintaining this. For those like many of the Liberal Party, their Catholic (Anglican & French/Roman) dominance owed by their common wealth gained from the past, is an ideal scapegoat to justify preserving it in law, just as specific other select cultures, as a means to prevent themselves being held accountable and why the Multicultural concept was derived. It was to Constitutionally SAVE these wealthy inheritors of questionable pasts. Their only justification to supporting the Aboriginal as an accepted culture Constitutionally, assures that they always have a means to distribute their own personal debts to the debts incurred by their injustice against the Natives in the past that is being felt continuously in the present. We need to demand a dismantling of those 'Reserves', and require abolishing Multiculturalism in LAW, to redress violations against the Natives and to hold the actual perpetrators to account, namely, but not entirely exclusively, the Ontario/Quebec establishments most specifically being protected by hiding behind their religious constitutional and preserved cultures. The Churches, for instance, not the GENERAL population of 'white' males, are the ones responsible for any Residential school abuses. But the way our system protects these institutes, transfers their responsibility to the rest. It is also an accidental smokescreen that occurs where white (males usually) are assumed as some opposing class complaining for their own injustice as if they were neo-Nazis attempting to disguise themselves as victims. They ARE becoming victimized by what gets falsely assumed as their 'ownership' in past grievances. And those of you falling for it are successfully conned by that smokescreen which preserves the very persistent problems against the Natives. And note that if any misunderstanding appears 'against' the Natives here, this too has to be recognized sincerely of others given their circumstances.

"Illegal" would not be the operative term here as this is itself confined to some particular government. The German's "final solution", just as Israel's is with the 'question of the Muslims', is as equal in force to their Nationalistic hatreds. The first step is to assure we recognize how our concepts of 'morality' is insignificant to Nature (or people's beliefs in their 'gods') since it is this that gets used to justify 'our' presumptions of righteousness of us versus them. For Israel, this would require remodeling their constitution to be NON-Jewish (but universal), since this creates a default bias to their ingroup and is NOT the 'democratic' ideal you think it is. This would be the absolutely first step required. Regardless of what you could defend of Israel, if this one particular factor remains (Zionism), it defaults to absolute discrimination and is what divides which people get to experience the fruits of 'democracy'. It is NOT democracy if you cannot participate in it universally regardless of ethnicity.

I apologize if I've missed some comments you've already discussed up front. I disagree with your assumption of what is or is not 'democracy' as this is one of those generic terms that don't actually represent ANY system of government ideally. As to asserting bias, you are likely missing out on the details of other systems through our own propaganda. For instance, "Communist" countries use a system of democracy that demands more people being involved in politics than our trivial vote-once-every-few-years type of government that is not so 'democratic' in kind as we think it is. Government is run by the people in Communist states all the way down to one's work place and include 'interest' organizations. To trust ANY system without skepticism is problematic. So while you may 'trust' bias from other sources, you have to at least recognize some value in these sources but require weeding through the rhetoric to get to the bottom line. Our own CBC has banned 'freedom of speech', for instance, when they moderate (censor) media. This should be sufficient to recognize we too have our problems worthy of questioning.

Unless our Canadian government sites are owned outright by us, the people, this process may be too risky to trust. At present, the sites, while 'trusted' by private owners, grants the owners proprietary privilege to censure (like the CBC) AND with protected secrecy. As such, it would be highly unwise to place faith in an online voting system for such serious concerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine From the above: Thus, the land was originally Muslim and did not permit Jews, as they had a tendency to 'purchase' FOR sovereign control. Note that the Ottomans here are the ones which were later overthrown by the 'Allied' countries involving Britain and Zionist interests. As such, any ownership purchases through these periods would NOT have been 'legal' of this empire. And IF one considers this Empire a function of intolerance against its people, than those living in Palestine are also 'victims'. This establishes here that the actual 'Palestinians' (of the region understood as this from historical times) were being exploited by and for the Jews. This establishes that it was a "Jewish Nationalist" set of groups intent on this exploitation. This establishes that the conquering British played a role and such powers of the people there had no democratic say in what was or was not allowed without acceptance of Britain. This was the 'background' factor indicating the intentional predatory desire of the Jewish Nationalists to take over this historical land. Absorb some of this and look at the link above for more details. But here these point out specific key factors that demonstrate how and why the local peoples of Palestine were robbed from all ends and exploited for religious and ethnic purposes in a violation against the Muslims there. The Jews 'believed' that this land was already theirs. Imagine a strong and powerful 'gang' of some particular nationalistic ideal stalking your home with clear intent to destroy you. Is this not a violent act?

From whom?

Actually, they were, if you had paid attention. The concern was similar to what is now happening with the influx of refuges from the Middle East now. The British relented as no country elsewhere wanted to take on the extra populations since they've just exhausted themselves of resources in the war. The Jews leaving German occupied areas COULD have attempted to reclaim lands there too. I also outlined the actual 'crimes' with respect to all parties. There is a clear confusion between words and no one is willing to refer to definitions. You can't speak of 'facts' until you begin with definitions. I explained this in more context if you bothered to read. I'm not only not out of line, but if this thread continues this way, its not going to accomplish anything more than bickering which believes which is 'fact' while simultaneously missing the point of the definitions. (or are you guys just sock puppetting feigned opposing roles here?)

You're playing a child's game here. Parent: "Come 'here', now! " Child: "I AM 'here' " (points to where he's standing)

This is your presumptuous error. (that you assume this is 'not about morality religion or nationalism') You can't impose some value-laden word, such as 'crime' without interpreting its moral/ethical value AND to whom this term belongs. You cannot presume some 'legal' definition of the Israeli meaning of "crime", for instance, since what is 'legal' by a government that CREATES them lacks substance elsewhere unless it IS their sovereignty. This IS how Israel treats all of Palestine which only proves more that since they CREATE laws upon those lands that are supposedly not theirs, they have no justification for imposing such rules UNLESS they are desiring to have their cake and eat it too. Israel overpowers the West Bank and 'illegitimately' establishes (STEALS) lands that is NOT theirs, as if they DO OWN them, but discriminate against such "Palestinian" populations by not even allowing them to be a function of Israeli government, and so is TOTALITARIAN. These are "crimes" too. Now to deem rebellion of these Palestinians NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO as "terrorism" only adds another abused term to the dialogue as this too demonstrates hypocrisy of those they simply favor, namely Zionist Jews with token non-Jews to feign some sense of non-cultural bias without certain clarity. To me as is to many others, the vast POWER of the Israeli state acts with terror against Muslims everywhere and the only reason why Muslims against Jews there exist and use apparently 'terroristic' methods is due to their unequal FORCE to an extreme by the Israelis over them. Ironically, the Goliath now IS Israel, and the support it gets from our Western biased world greedy for oil and to RELIGIOUS biases of the Judao-Christian coalition to command the Middle East. Take David's 'clever' desperation to use a sling shot as a weapon against the Goliath actually demonstrates that Israel too from its past legitimized the very types of acts of desperation they NOW deem as "terrorism".

The State of Israel's existence is a 'crime'. I've given a clear example of this before: If a community of Canadians moved into some place in the U.S. then declared their 'community' sovereign from the U.S., creates their own government with exclusion to non-Canadians, then, using their economic and political (world) power to co-opt more land in the U.S. adding this too to some strict "Canadian" Nationalism, AND take the technical interpretation of 'buying' these territories from other non-U.S. sovereigns who 'legitimize' your purchase, DOES this not constitute a disrespect for the host country they've come to, opting to 'favor' the bargains of those supposedly absentee foreign 'owners' of which even such Canadians deem "illegitimate" ? Does this not constitute an illegitimate 'coup' based on foreign forces against the inhabitants of the U.S.? Would you, if you are American accept such 'ownership' as legit? And should such foreign 'owners' demand that they've been legitimized by such foreign bodies merely due to some such technicalities deem even the acts themselves at least 'suspect'? The Jewish Nationalists did this by (1) declaring legitimate 'purchases' of property from Turkish-empire loyalists of the very empire that was deemed illegitimate through the war that dismantled it, (2) ignored that this also 'should' represent that the Palestinians too there had been ruled by the same system unfairly [are VICTIMS] and likely why they have not had prior 'legitimate' ownership via Turkey, (3) that such 'ownerships' declared were 'legitimized' all by foreign (not local sovereign) powers, and so (4) the Israelis (and those supporting their settlements from without Palestine) were also TAKING ADVANTAGE of the weakness [we call, "exploitation"] of the Palestinians there. These are just factors from the world wars. But the Jewish settlers even in the late 1800s declared their intent with clarity to create Zion as a homeland for the Jews of which Palestine was the prime target. As such, this demonstrates PREMEDITATED intent to deceive and take advantage of those Palestinians REGARDLESS at any opportunities that presented themselves. And such too has been the 'fortune' that even in the 'evil' Turkish system, they granted quite the unusual benefit of the doubt to even ALLOW such a community to exist given their clear intents to settle for a strictly Jewish State. [Note that even these early settlers from Russia had biased employment only FOR Jews to replace any local population.] "Crime" is a term that is a just(ified) term here with respect to what Israel themselves would consider a 'crime' to their OWN people; it is a 'crime' relative to the U.N. in such blatant human rights infringements that we demand be remedied in other countries. So the 'hypocrisy' rule here applies without logical error. That is, if the very people deem what a 'crime' is to their own, their only possible differentiation to define it differently upon non-Jews, non-Israelis, is to deem themselves 'superior' and all others, especially the Palestinians they are replacing, as 'inferior'.

No, you require establishing what the word 'crime' is, since you or others seem contentious to the accusations against Israel for this word. Your thread won't add value that couldn't be fit in with the other but is intended to isolate (hide) the complaint by focusing on what is already a normalized view. I won't bother with this until you address the terms in a generalized thread in ethics or philosophy or to the already ongoing discussion of the last.

You ignored my suggestion. The default is already against the Palestinians by FAR and you're intention here to create some 'balance' is like a dictator complaining he/she needs to create more propaganda FOR his/her reign given some relatively trivial notice in some complaint raised against the reigning power.

Why not defer to a political philosophy thread instead? I started that one on Nationalism, but you can begin one on something more general, if this doesn't appeal to you. The problem here has to begin with philosophy of our differences of politics. It doesn't help to understand one another if you cannot get to the core of each other's ideas of what is or is not moral. The FACTS here lack meaning when one has some view based on evaluating X as 'good' when the other believes it 'bad' without realizing they disagree on the basis of morality.

And HOW do you determine your 'facts' if you can't trust that places like Iran as able to communicate this through some form of media that is trusted? All you could revert to is your assumed faith in external hearsay media that is defaulted to desiring support to go to war against Iran. It makes such supposed claims of Iran, whether potentially true or not, liable to distrust as propaganda. What is considered 'free' media is simply media we are capable of receiving. But when or where you dislike it, you dismiss such media as irrelevant with an accusation of it being Anti-Jewish/Anti-Semite propaganda. You appear to simply favor Israeli-Judaic ideals with disrespect to Muslim ones for personal biases. At least some, like bush_cheney2004 here, simply agrees to her bias in this way rather openly. Accepting the side your on for selfish reasons does not violate the logic. But pretending that one 'side' is somehow Superior versus the other as Inferior places a greater burden on you to digress into the nature of what you believe is or is not 'morally' correct or not. So... What are you basing your ethics on here? This might help to understand first off what you actually find 'good' or 'bad'.

Yes, this CAN be a 'fair' possibility but ONLY for those accepting Nationalistic ideals non-hypocritically. If you are accept Israel's "side" simply because they are the winners in some 'natural' way, then the "sides" are just as sport teams with irrelevant value because they are just arbitrary. So if you think Israel is 'just' simply because they are the winners, then you have to accept the extremes of irrational loves-versus-hate dynamics between each of the competing groups as no more better nor worse than the other. So Israel is no different morally nor ethically than their enemies and for such Nationalists, they'd have to accept ANY arbitrary hatred against them as is any love for them too, where it exists. In others words, nobody would be wrong for speaking against Israel even arbitrarily as those like yourself support such Nationalistic beliefs that lack anything more arbitrary than favoring one sports team simply based on preferring the color of their uniform.

No. Please don't falsely align me with your delusions here. My point was that Nationalist loves/hates of one group derives from Nationalism love/hates of another where extremes exist. The philosophical underpinnings of German Nationalism derived from the powers of Jewish Nationalism AS WELL as any similar segregated cultures that succeed based on isolation, exclusion, and biases of those outside of one's inner circles. This "natural" function of tribal survival served its evolutionary purpose prior to "civilization". But many still deem culture/ethnicity as THEE binding force along with their genetics, which when it becomes a constitutional factor in some governing system creates 'good' things for the in group AT THE EXPENSE of all those outside. But when this is maintained, there is always a bias to FAVOR the 'legalized' ingroup at the same time as DISFAVORING any especially similarly Nationalistic group in competition with the same kind of cultish segregational beliefs. I'm tired of extremes of these Nationalists to always take center stage to create the problems for ALL the rest of the varying peoples everywhere. And I think it is about time that the vast majority of society who gets caught in the middle of such love/hate extremes dictating our world stage gets recognized for who they are. Zionism/Israeli ideals ARE just such a form of organ creating the very opposing groups, like ISIL now. And it won't end until we defeat the rationale of Nationalism at its core.

And, like I've proposed, National Socialism of Germany derived from the perception of what they believed was the Jewish (as to any Nationalistic exclusive cultish..) means to empowerment. That is, Nazism, can be equally interpreted as deriving FROM even the Jewish Segregated Nationalists before them. To indicate who initially causes what regardless requires facing the fact that ALL Nationalism on ANY side ARE the cause of hate as it is the means to collectively draw the opposing and EXTREME love of their own in-group.

I can't comment on Iran as we ALL are biased to indirect information sources regarding this EXCEPT for likely propaganda regardless. That is, the media in our Middle East is predominantly of and default favorable TO Israel's concerns and most likely even owned by them. I don't speak Iranian either as most do not and so we cannot DETERMINE all the 'truths' regarding this. This is why it is good to at least take Big Guy's links to Al Jazeera (spelling?) as an alternate voice to try to measure what is or is not true. But for me, or even YOU, to simply 'trust' our media is as much dubious as to 'trust' any other source for now. That is why I focus on attending to the logic rather than the specific facts we are fed. Answered above. We are defaulted to FAVOR bias FOR Israel in an extreme. One of the contingent factors of this is due to Israel's interest to capitalize on media ownership for obvious reasons. So it is you I question if you simply 'trust' our news without recognizing this inevitable competition of political persuasion of media one way or the other. As to Iran, all I HEAR is defaulted to 'evil' caricatures as expected. And to the degrees that such are expected to cartoon the extremes for political appeal of us here, there is literally INSUFFICIENT means for us to 'trust' any VALUE JUDGEMENTS against the default against the Muslims in our non-Muslim, pro-Christian, pro-Judeo, cultures. The POWER of our organs leans default bias to Israel. Palestine 'governments' or Iran, etc, are not as PRIVILEGED to non-Muslim media to an extreme degree. So to interpret Israel even given what negative news we can glean of them is more than SUFFICIENT to question Israel's 'evils'. Just as you can EVADE that thread optionally and do so with likely 'fear' of competing logically, I have to come here where those of you are so cowardly choosing to evade the issue rationally. Nationalism IS the problem and I believe you know it but are FAVORING the same kind of Nationalism in opposition. That is, you recognize the actual logic and are simply trying to evade it FOR your own selfish and EQUALLY discriminatory attitude against Muslims, Palestinians, etc. I suggest you try to at least step back and look at this LOGICALLY, first. But if you don't, you are purposely doing so with intent to only draw the focus away from encouraging care and thought on the issue with fairness. My challenge is to PRESUME that you are CORRECT about your black-and-white stereotypical classifications at least for some of us to show how or why even given your perception, you cannot interpret some SUPERIOR logic FOR ISRAEL and some INFERIOR one against non-Israeli interests in the Middle East.

I don't CARE! I asked you to simply presume all you believe about your faith in Israel's innocence and those 'evil' Palestinians as 'true' and then look deeper at the issue of Nationalism that underlies all such abuses on all sides. Do you think there is anything intrinsically 'wrong' with Nationalism here? Do you not see the links involved? The Palestinians may be doing this too but does two wrongs justify both to maintain continuous Nationalistic hatreds by both sides? You just exchange the labels of the extremes of who is "perpetrator" and who is "victim" regardless.

Lets say all of this were 'true' for a hypothetical. Is it not the Nationalism involved that is creating the problems across the board? And that it can never end until this false belief in demanding a link of ones' genetic heritage to their cultural/religious ones are abandoned also? ...that resolving one conflict caused by some 'perpetrator' Nationalistic irrationality by replacing it with a vengeful 'victim' Nationalistic one is not a means to STOP the Nationalism that IS the cause? Edit: It is just exchanging which one is the victim and which one is the perpetrator in a never-ending cycle.

Wow, another question as an answer to a question unqualified. If one is against Israel's discrimination, where do you justify they are simultaneously FOR Iran's discrimination, where it may possibly exist? This is a distraction as, speaking for myself, I don't have even sufficient information about Iran to speak for nor against anything. But holding to your own argument, it IS clear that Israel and supporters such as yourself DO contend FAVOR to Israel with clear hypocritical bias against Palestine as well as to Iran for behaviors in kind. But this also distracts from my own argument I raised of an identity of Hitler's Nationalism in kind to Israeli Nationalism. Respond to this.