The USA and Israel

[Gary Childress]

And I don't believe that Hamas is anything but a terrorist organization.

According to my research I’d say you are wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas is a branch) is a deeply integrated social movement and organization that does all sorts of social work, building hospitals, charity work, etc. It also has a militant and terrorist branch.

Let Mel explain.

Patriotic violence is, for us, a tenet of America’s civil religion. It is a Holy Violence — when we engage in it.

But we cannot see that others, engaging ideologically with the same sentiments, do the exact same thing. (Though ours is far more extreme really because, well, God is with us).

I'm sure by the same criteria the Netanyahu government has engaged in charity for various causes and such in Israel. That does not make Hamas' actions any less reprehensible than those of the Netanyahu government. The people of Israel are no more to blame for what is happening than the people of Gaza. Both are caught in the middle of a war between two corrupt leaderships.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Philosophical clarification — seeing clearly, describing honestly — is not going to make seeing truthfully any easier to accept or digest.

Eat your tortellini … and try not to choke.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel — get your fraudulent ass down here. I’ve not finished with you.

And you two — our Grumpy Grandparents! Lock the doors and hand me my riding crop!

I’ve only just begun!

[Gary Childress]

Eat your tortellini … and try not to choke.

Get your head out of Hollywood movies.

[Gary Childress]

Immanuel — get your fraudulent ass down here. I’ve not finished with you.

And you two — our Grumpy Grandparents! Lock the doors and hand me my riding crop!

I’ve only just begun!

Do you plan to ride a horse or is it going to involve handcuffs and someone's bare behind?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You missed the point. A popular movie is a text illustrating common conceptions.

Jack serves his nation — and accepts the consequences. Israel defends its interests and right & wrong do not apply. Am chai yisrael.

Your perspective — childishness — keeps you from seeing the world as it really is.

All I do is to suggest clarity.

[Gary Childress]

You missed the point. A popular movie is a text illustrating common conceptions.

Jack serves his nation — and accepts the consequences. Israel defends its interests and right & wrong do not apply. Am chai yisrael.

Your perspective — childishness — keeps you from seeing the world as it really is.

All I do is to suggest clarity.

Yes. The world as it "really is" is something that neither YOU nor I (nor any human being for that matter) can handle. It's best to stay with human ideals.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The theme of ideals interests me.

[Gary Childress]

The theme of ideals interests me.

I'm more interested in universal ideals. Factionalism needs to be transcended.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You can be “interested” in such values and the cow may jump over the moon … it is just that the world of ideals envisioned has not yet descended from the transcendent height.

Factionalism refuses now, and will always refuse, to conform to your ideal.

Chew, swallow the tortellini. Don’t choke.

“Sufficient unto the day is the pasta-bit thereof.”

[bahman]

Immanuel — get your fraudulent ass down here. I’ve not finished with you.

And you two — our Grumpy Grandparents! Lock the doors and hand me my riding crop!

I’ve only just begun!

I am not done with him either but he refuses to talk with me about the creation!

[Immanuel Can]

In that case, one can say that caring will produce a better understanding and interaction between people.

What is the source of the duty to "produce understanding" or "interaction"? Why says we owe it to somebody to do that? And if there's a group of "people" we don't happen to like, what obliges us to include them?

Why don't you ask yourself why you don't like people who you don't personally know.

I didn't say I didn't. I'm asking you what obliges us to "produce understanding" or "interaction" of some kind. What is the source not of our mere "liking" to do something, but of what you seem to suggest -- that we have a definite moral obligation to do so.

What makes that the case?

[Immanuel Can]

I am not done with him either but he refuses to talk with me about the creation!

That's ALL I was trying to talk to you about, on the other thread. I was asking what the nature of the Creation is...what or Who did it, and how? And you were the one who was saying the things I couldn't make sense of...

Like that there is a thing called "the Singularity," which is both the Big Bang and not the Big Bang, and is both the explanation of the First Cause, but is not the first thing in the causal chain...

So it wasn't me refusing. It was really you fumbling the explanatory "ball," and leaving us with no explanation at all.

[phyllo]

What is the source of the duty to "produce understanding" or "interaction"? Why says we owe it to somebody to do that? And if there's a group of "people" we don't happen to like, what obliges us to include them?

Why don't you ask yourself why you don't like people who you don't personally know.

I didn't say I didn't. I'm asking you what obliges us to "produce understanding" or "interaction" of some kind. What is the source not of our mere "liking" to do something, but of what you seem to suggest -- that we have a definite moral obligation to do so.

What makes that the case?

I never said "care equally" nor did I say it was an "obligation". VT introduced those words for some purpose.

That's why I gave the "short answer". I had no interest in arguing about those points.

Now you want to introduce "a definite moral obligation"?

If you have something to contribute, then just come out and say it.

[Gary Childress]

Your perspective — childishness — keeps you from seeing the world as it really is.

All I do is to suggest clarity.

Of course, I see what is going on. I see what "really" is. And it's pretty appalling to me. Now what? Should I roast marshmallows over all the funeral pyres? Or should I speak up?