The Terrible Sweal
-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Terrible Sweal
-
-
This seems germane to these discussions (and may serve to amuse, some at least).
-
Well, that statement is so incomplete as to be incorrect. The conditions Isreal has indicated it presumes to impose on such a 'peace', were not realistic, or justifiable.
Your statement is pure conjecture. Not only do you cite nothing to back it up, you don't even explain why.
I'm going by the last bargaining positions in the Oslo rounds before the 2nd Intifada broke out. The 'state' offered to the Palestinians was to be a truncated, underprivileged bantu-stan.
I already gave an answer to this. Just to repeat it, the problem is that while Israel is perfectly prepared to accept a separate Palestinian state the simple fact is that such a state would be a grave danger to Israel.First, based on the formetioned Oslo negotiations, Israel is not really prepared to accept a Palestinian state.
Second, the (alleged) dangers such a state poses to Israel is not a sufficient justification for them to carry out the Occupation, particularly in the fashion they have been doing. States frequently pose a danger to eachother, but that, in and of itself, does not allow one to attack or occupy the other.
I'm tempted to laugh in your face here. The Palestinians are Occupying themselves? The Palestinians are flying helicopters over their own cities firing missiles? The Palestinians are flattening their own homes? No. Israel is doing that.Great work. Now ask the follow-on question: why are they doing that?
Because the Palestinians refuse to accept their status as a conquered subject people, I guess. Golly, how awful of them!
And what are the Palestinians doing to dispel the reasons Israel has for doing that?What would you have them do?
What on Earth are you going on about? The existence of Israel is not under discussion here as far as I know.It's under discussion in Yasser Arafat's clique.
Oh yes? And just how often are you at that table to hear this?
The Arabs have never come to terms with the existence of Israel. Their peace treaties are a joke because they all continue to support and sponsor terrorism against Israel, and note that Syria and Lebanon do not even recognise Israel and have no peace accord with her.First, who are 'the Arabs' you refer to there? I believe the PA has recognized Israels right to exist. As has Egypt. Jordan?
Also your dismissal of 'their' peace treaties is factually unfounded. Those states which have entered peace treaties with Israel have adhered to them, so far as I know.
Israeli offers of territory in exchange for peace have all been rejected. Why would that be, do you think?First, Israel has made any bona fide meaningful offer of peace since 1967 that I am aware of.
Why the Palestinians gave up on the Olso game is that the last offer they received fell substantially short of thier expectations. Having read the offer, I can see why they didn't accept it, though their alternate strategy has been a bad one.
This was a really pathetic reply from you, Sweal.
-
The former may have a resolution and Israel has offered to give up the West Bank and Gaza Strip almost completely in exchange for peace.
Well, that statement is so incomplete as to be incorrect. The conditions Isreal has indicated it presumes to impose on such a 'peace', were not realistic, or justifiable.
... The occupation of Palestine is a problem, but it's a problem because the Palestinians insist on making it one.I'm tempted to laugh in your face here. The Palestinians are Occupying themselves? The Palestinians are flying helicopters over their own cities firing missiles? The Palestinians are flattening their own homes? No. Israel is doing that.
I can't see the Jews going quietly this time, nor should they be forced to. Israel is, historically and culturally, their homeland too.What on Earth are you going on about? The existence of Israel is not under discussion here as far as I know.
I am curious why you cannot see or won't admit that these perspectives in the Arab world are at least not unexpected or unnatural.I never said they were not. I said that your proposed solution to them wouldn't work.
Okay. It seemed to me the two went hand in hand though.
What was your point?I feel that the policy you advocate will be more costly in human lives and damage and so is subject to the criticism I made. I have repeatedly explained why.Yes. It seems we disagree on the efficacy question. There is, of course, the ethical question.
-
Why can I hardly claim that is was because of Christianity? Let me paint a picture in broad strokes. Eastern religion tends to say the material world is an illusion, not something to be studied. General polytheistic paganism has no base for assuming the world is orderly. Many gods lead to conflict, contradiction, a measure of chaos, even if one happens to be stronger than the rest. Christianity, Islam to a lesser degree (Islam can be seen as a Judeo-Christian heresy; undeniably it shares some of the same roots) and Judaism affirm that this world is a meaningful place, not part of the divine. It was that valuing of this world, without making it divine & so too holy to study, which moved Christians to science. Furthermore, biblical teaching led them to embrace logic. The Bible declares that God does not contradict himself; which establishes the basic principle of logic.
But that's mere opinionating. And again your argument proceeds from an irrelvant negative: The deficiencies of eastern religion are not in dispute here.
If I am bound by your definition, there is no argument. But I reject your definition. Roman Catholic doctrine requires “implicit faith”, acceptance of the dogma without question. My church confesses that the call for such implicit faith is sin. “the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 20:2. That may mean that my your definition, my Christianity is not religion, but I reject implicit faith in your views, too!
Well, you define reason as whatever you interpret to be god's will. I define reason as the discerning faculty operating in accordance with the laws of causation and relevance (logic). Let us then talk about the relative merits of Reason(DAC) and Reason(Sweal). I take it from your reference that you are, correct me if I'm wrong, Anglican (if I may call it that) -- a denomination which I do grant you gives substantial ambit and importance to reason. However, you're next comment throws that all out the window...
People in my tradition do not reject reason. In fact we believe that rejection of God is actually an irrational rejection of truth that is visible.I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless statement, built around fallacy. You believe that the rejection of God is irrational, therefore you do not reject reason. Nonsense.
The Bible tells us that those who fail to see in the creation sufficient evidence of his eternal power and Godhead “suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18-22).Well, that's just ... just ... whatever. The Bible says the Bible is true. That may hold up under Reason(DAC), but under Reason(Sweal) it doesn't. Appeal to authority (especially one's own) is not a valid argument.
I do not deny that there are Christians who throw out reason and think they are doing well. Far too many take that route. But in my opinion they are being unfaithful to some of the teaching of the Bible.But that's just it, don't you see. They would say YOU are being unfaithful to it. And who then is to judge? By what criteria?
3. I’m not sure I understand your distinction of secularism from atheistic science. Generally secularism is seen as rejection of any religious explanations, including such things as origins. That’s why I highlighted some problems in them, pointing out that secularism is not free from blind faith. However, if your use of the word is different, perhaps you could explain it more for me.My original post was a meandiring swipe at expressing the idea that the adoption of secularism by states is not because there is a free standing 'secularist' philosophy or agenda at work. 'Secularism' in this sense is not a plan, but a result of the need for a common meaning-making system that doesn't rely on archaic arbitrary superstitions.
What is the evidence that the primordial atom riginated in some “secular” way?The evidence for that is the accumulated knowlegde of astrophysics and quantum mechanics, incomplete, possibly wrong, always to be amended when better information comes into play.
The common views of the development of the universe extrapolate back to such an “atom”. There is some data which appears to be direct evidence of the first seconds of the big bang. But what evidence tells you that there is a naturalistic explanation of the origins of this atom?In addition to the accumulated knowledge of astrophysics and quantum mechanics? Well, there's the statistically accumulating fact that most other phenomena have a naturalistic explanation, so likely the universe does too. Plus while explanations of 'design' vs. 'emegence' are at least equally untestable the later at least has parsimony in its favor.
Here in fact, we come to another serious difficulty with your position which you have yet to satisfactorily address ... if you challenge science on the basis that something cannot proceed from nothing, how do you meet that same charge from you side of the fence? If God can come from nothing, why couldn't the universe come from nothing?
What is the evidence that life formed by accident? And developed by accident? There is evidence that it formed. There is evidence (though there are a lot of problems with that evidence) that it developed. But where is the evidence that this happened in a naturalistic way (i.e. without a designer)? Those are the questions I asked.Begin with the accumulated knowledged of geology, biology, botany and paleontology. Then add the fact that we can observe the process of evolution in lower animals during the length of a human lifetime -- living proof, if you will. Furthermore, other than intricate complexity, nature shows no signs of an intent of the kind typically attributed to God. If such an entity has a plan, why not get about it?
I have no inherent problem with the big bang. I have no grave problem with the idea of life as we know it forming in a developmental process. But my reason bucks hard at the idea that these things happened naturalistically, accidentally.That's not your reason bucking. It's your sensibilities -- In proof of which, I point out that you have yet to offer any of the positive 'evidence' for your position which you have mentioned.
-
I think it fair to say that the former policy, the one you advocate, would perpetuate this conflict longer than necessary. The source of the hatred and violence in this conflict is the Arab world, excising it requires going to them, as much as excising Nazism required the invasion of Germany.
Well, that is where we disagree. I believe that this conflict is fueled by two things:
a) remotely, the pan-Arab sense of having been wronged by, in their view, the imposition of the state of Israel, and
proximately, the sense of being wronged by the Occupation of the Palestinians.Accordingly, ending the Occupation will reduce the main proximate fuel of the conflict.
I am curious why you cannot see or won't admit that these perspectives in the Arab world are at least not unexpected or unnatural.
Then what was your point? Israel has been doing pretty well, so don't worry about the destruction caused by the wars and 10,000 dead?My point was that Israel has been and will continue to be capable of defending itself against any likely strategic aggressors. Therefore the policy I advocate, that Israel should aggressively defend itself within its own borders, is not subject to the criticism you made.
What was your point?
I think it is the case that Israel has done very well and, had it not had to fight off Arab aggression for so long, it would have done even better. And so, possibly, would the Arabs.I agree. I think the Palestinians and Israelis would make great progress if they could do so together. Unfortunately they are locked into the socio-cultural insanity of an Occupation instead.
Ah, so you were making a separate, tangiential point....your reply was, basically, "Ah, no, in one of those wars Israel actually fired the first shots despite not actually being the aggressor." I said that there were "surprise attacks." There were. You tried to find an exception to a general rule you thought I made but did not.Hey, don't quote me if you're not going to quote me. Look at what I actually wrote and get back to me if you still disagree.
-
Reviewing the discussions of recent days, it seems a central theme is that because science cannot confirm any particular theory about the origins of the universe, this, in and of itself, supports the validity of religious claims.
Since this is a clear logical fallacy, I wonder if we could just vote on it, and then get past it, take the dispute as read between the theist and non-theists, and proceed to more fruitful levels of analysis.
For example, even accepting that a universe as complex as this must have had a 'designer', so what?
-
(DAC @ Jul 12 2004, 11:04 PM)
The second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, ... If the universe had existed forever, all available energy would be gone.
...
Okay, that's seems like a sound point.
...for the presently available decay products to exist, if we extrapolate backwards, at a point not greatly prior to the present estimates of the age of the universe, it would have to consist entirely of heavy radioactive elements, which would then go BANG.Well, an important theory of science does bring us back to a Bang beginning the universe, doesn't it. So this would seem to support that.
...whether or not you accept the Big Bang theory, there has to be a beginning point, which cannot be explained by science. What we know of science tells us that matter cannot be self-starting and cannot have existed forever.True. Entirely true. But not particularly telling, in that science never claims to do more than offer the best probable explanation about these things based on observations of data. So, to criticise science for lacking a verifiable answer only confirms the difficulty of the question rather than pointing out a deficit in science.
But Okay, start right there... Science cannot explain everything. No problem. How does that say anything positive for religion?
-
I look forward to it at your convenience.
-
Significant change, eh? You say that like any sort of change would be welcome. I think this last election is proof that the galumphing mass of the electorate don't want 'significant' change, they want change around the margins but a steady course.
Moreover, none of the alternatives offered had any strong appeal. What, honestly, is there to Jack Layton or Stephen Harper that would make them better PMs than PM?
-
Now not only do you imply I am bigoted, now you accuse me of despising all mankind.
I am confused as to why you would say this were false when you are advocating a return to a policy that made possible wars costing tens of thousands of lives when an alternative exists.
It is odd, and somewhat vexing that you are so quick to apply moral judgments against me based on your political biases. This leads you into three important errors which I will correct for you:
-the policy I advocate was not the cause of the conflicts at that time;
-circumstances have changed such that now that policy doesn't have even the dangers you perceived then;
-I don't advocate it out of a belief that it will cause harm, quite the contrary.
It has lost no territory, it has grown more prosperous over time, it has obtained weapons and allies that hold it proof against any danger of extinction, and it has sufficient power to impose an Occupation on a neighboring people. Don't short-change Isreal's successes out of your desire to paint it as a victim.You think the wars cost Israel nothing? I beg to differ.
Since I never said anything of the sort, I invite you to fight such strawmen on your own time and not trot them out for my sake.
I never denied that Israel struck first, what I am claiming is that Israel was not the aggressor in the 1967 war or any other.Ah, so you were making a separate, tangiential point.
-
I think you owe me an apology.
None will be offered. I believe that your earlier ideas show that you have a blatant disregard for human life, because you advocate deserting a policy that demonstrably saves lives and returning to one that cost hundreds of thousands.
Interesting. Now not only do you imply I am bigoted, now you accuse me of despising all mankind. (Both utterly false.) In my view, that you will cavalierly make such unfounded imputations against someone conscienciously discussing the issues of the day in a civilized manner makes you a very bad person.
the state of Israel has been entirely successful in defending itself.In that it exists, yes.
More than that. It has lost no territory, it has grown more prosperous over time, it has obtained weapons and allies that hold it proof against any danger of extinction, and it has sufficient power to impose an Occupation on a neighboring people. Don't short-change Isreal's successes out of your desire to paint it as a victim.
What you are saying is that a successful defence is irrelevant of the costs, that a phyrric victory is as good as a bloodless victory.No. You are trying to say that success at a cost is not success. You are mistaken. Success, even at a cost is still success. If you WANT to talk about the costs of that success, that is a different discussion from the one I am having with you. If you want to change the ground we are on, just let me know. But don't pretend that one thing is another.
regarding 1967, I am well acquainted with the history, thank you.Your posts show otherwise.
How so?
According to the United Nations and international law, Egypt committed the first act of war and was the aggressor in 1967.And that act was?
...a pre-emptive strike and it does not shift the onus of aggression.At least according to the 'pre-emptor'. But again, the 'onus of aggression' is not the discussion we're having. We are talking about surprise attacks, are we not?
-
Your argument is defeated by the fact that the notwithstanding clause is an integral element of the charter itself. A constitution cannot be interpreted to outlaw its own provisions.
-
I have a few quotes from certain founding fathers that say ...
I am familiar with this particular dispute from prior go-arounds with others. I can equally offer you quotes from other Founders denying religious intent in the foundations. The views of various Founders, however, are not really the important matter. What they placed in the founding documents is the relevant concern.
Disavowal of reason? Pray tell do explain.To me reason is understanding that an entire universe with exquisite laws doesn't just 'happen', no matter how many zeros you add for timeline =p
I don't have to explain, because you just provided an example. Your understanding of reason is not even remotely related to reason. Reason is the application of the discerning faculty to available evidence in a manner consistent with the laws of relevance and causation (otherwise known as 'logic'). The appeal that a particular opinion may hold to you does not convert it into Reason.
But, nevertheless, I will explain what I meant by 'disavowal of reason'. Fundamentalist (supposedly) believe that the Bible is literally true. It is not a metaphor, it is not man's attempt to understand the divine. It is (to them, supposedly) simply True.
So, a Fundamentalist is required to believe both
1) that God is omnipotent; and
2) that God can attempt to do something and yet not succeed (Exodus 4:24).
As these beliefs are inconsistent in reason, and the Fundamentalist is required to believe both of them, he must be required to disavow reason.
... certain SECTS may be extreme but go sit in a church service. You obviously dont know much about religions if you think they promote extremism, its the sects that promote extremism.I have been to numerous religious services. (I would actually appreciate if you would stop imputing ignorance or inexperience to my positions in the absense of you having any real knowledge about me. I'll extend you the same courtesy.) I willingly admit that most religious organizations do not promote extremist behaviour among their members. But that was not my point. My point was that religions are susceptible to extremism because they implicitly call upon absolute authority and explicitly deny subjection to the testable realities of reason. In short, they can be led to behave unreasonably because they deny reason.
3-because religions have dealt with numinous, unknowable, or difficult to observe matters in unreasonable ways, many of them have accumulated ludicrous and/or harmful dogmas and attached inordinate importance to them, e.g. immaculate conception.This point is well.. pointless. What are you trying to prove? You fail to make reference to anything I can refer to, all you do is spill out your own 'dogma' and expect me to stomach it.
I don't understand what your complaint is about. My 'point' is to answer your question about what is wrong with religion. One thing that is wrong with religion is that it generates ludicrous and/or harmful dogmas. I gave an example of a ludicrous one. An example of a harmful one is 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'. I explained that these dogmas are ludicrous because they are made up without good reason about things there can be no certainty about. Sorry you didn't get that.
I stated earlier regarding this, reason and religion walk hand in hand.But that statement is merely your assertion. You make no reference to the general elements of what reason is, and simply state that religion is reasonable, seemingly solely because it's claims appeal to your tastes.
What do you believe? Evolution? Atheism?I don't see how my beliefs are relevant to this discussion.
-
I begin to suspect you are not paying very close attention to posts. We were talking about treaties, not houses burning down. Household insurance was an example for analogy and I might as easily have chosen any other legal agreement.
You're suggestion that contracts are always and only terminable by the "paying" party is, simply wrong. For example, try terminating a car lease before it's due ... you still have to pay. Contracts involve mutual obligations. They are terminable by a party only according to the terms specified within them. The treaties are no different and as you pointed out contain no termination clauses.
In addition, you have failed to acknowledge the point that the native parties to the treaties have paid what they owed under the contract.
I have no clue what to make of the remainder of your arguments, so I leave them aside.
-
For the record, when I posted "???" I meant "What the heck does that mean?" which I personally would judge to be an attempt to stimulate discussion.
-
First, your insinuation that "dead Jews" is somehow appealing to me is totally baseless and suggests you know no limits of decent respect for people who's opinions differ from yours. I think you owe me an apology.
Second, your cries for the dead combattants on ONE SIDE of the fight indicates clearly enough what your underlying political views are, but does not materially change the fact, my point, that the state of Israel has been entirely successful in defending itself.
Third regarding 1967, I am well acquainted with the history, thank you. The question between us just now was: who surprised whom. On that point, the facts are clear. Israel attacked first, and crowed victoriously about the surprise they acheived. You have recited the Israelis justifications for doing so, but they don't change the point we were discussing.
-
I meant "centuries" since the need for the separation was recognized by institutions in western democracies. The U.S. for example did so over two centuries ago.
It is absolutely and simply incorrect to say Canada or the United States were "founded on biblical principles". It is more correct to say that their founding documents contain vague nods to even vaguer deities.
Waht is wrong with religion? Specifics:
1-the central element of religion in general is that it requires of its adherents the disavowal of reason and therefore the disavowal of what makes us human;
2-because of the disavowal of reason, religions are open to untrammelled extremism and they tend to lead their followers away from detecting and determining the truth about the world;
3-because religions have dealt with numinous, unknowable, or difficult to observe matters in unreasonable ways, many of them have accumulated ludicrous and/or harmful dogmas and attached inordinate importance to them, e.g. immaculate conception.
You will note that we differ on one especially important point. You seem to believe that religion encourages reason whereas I say specifcally that religion and reason are entirely incompatible.
-
How is the number or keystrokes relevant?
Would one question mark be better, or four?
-
...
1. We pay the insurance company for the coverage, natives dont pay us, we pay them.
2. We are talking about a treaty not an insurance policy
3. There are clauses in the insurance coverage that sometimes allow them to say 'hey get over it' there are no such clauses in our 'treaties'
1. We were talking about treaties ... legally binding arrangements between parties for agreed consideration. Our government agreed to the consideration in the treaties and therefor YES, the contracting aboriginal peoples DID indeed 'pay'.
2. I fail to see what distinction you are attempting to make between two types of agreements. Insurance policies, treaties, cargo haulage contracts, whatever ... they are all agreements by which parties are bound.
3. This point actually detracts from your position and favors mine.
-
So far as I can tell you didn't ask a question. You made an incomprehensible rhetorical statement.
Calling my three question marks 'spam' seems to be a purely aesthetic judgement on your part. You're welcome to it.
In my personal judgement, short vacuous incomprehensible rhetorical statements are spam. Perfectly clear brief questions about such rhetorical statements are not spam.
-
Israel should withdraw to its own borders and defend itself aggressively there.
Been there, done that. The result was several wars of aggression against Israel by her Arab neighbours, from which Israel was barely able to prevail, given the size of the armies set against her and the surprise attacks.
Let's be clear, shall we.
Israel has "been there done that" with perfectly satisfactory success. Furthermore, as I noted, the strategic danger from neighboring states has receded to virtually nothing now that Israel has vastly superior forces.
Also, let's be accurate... the conflicts in the 50's and 70's may have been 'surprise attacks.
But 1948 war was not a surprise, and the 1967 war was a surprise attack by Israel.
-
Quebec, and any other province, does have the power to make a subvention to groups in other provinces. Neither the federal government nor any province is restricted by law in the way it spends its money.
Just a quick aside... that's absolutely correct which is why the complaints by provincial power advocates and western alienationists about the federal goverment 'abusing' it's spending power are completely without foundation.
-
I'm sorry you were unable to detect the intent of my post. Allow me to laboriously make it clear to you...
You wrote: "What is it with left-wingers and hating who they are"
I wrote: "???"
By which I meant to indicate: 'What the heck does that mean?'
I do hope my meaning is clear enough now?
And BTW, given your post compared to my post, I wonder about your definition of spam.
-
Some things leap out ...
1-The author's inability to refrain from a gratuituous slam at 'socialism' suggests he harbors certain political biases which detract from the value of his opinions.
2-He lists problems but offers no solution. Such shallowness suggests a polemical, rather than informative or consultative, purpose to the article. And as polemic it is unoriginal.
What's happened? What can we do?
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted
I wonder if you would please address the following points:
1) Accepting for the moment that your above statement is correct, how scientifically, could anything create itself? In other words, how does 'God' appearing out of nothing make any more sense than 'universe' appearing out of nothing?
2) Science posits an accumulation of evidence tested by a consistent methodology based on demonstrability to acheive the theories that become operating facts in our society. The 'evidence' for scientific conclusions, whether you agree with it or not, is available for you to challenge on defined terms.
Compared to this, the posits of religion fall short for the rigour with which they are established, scrutinized and upheld, as well as for their demonstrability.
3) Different theistic groups make different claims about propriety, observance, and even right and wrong. They all claim to have the sanction of celestial authority. How should society slect from among such competing claims?