Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:57 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 7:08 pm
tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:49 pmf I pretended to misread, I didn't actually misread.
Right. That's why you only "pretended" to.

That is you calling me a liar again.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 7:08 pmIt seems obvious to me you're intelligent enough to know what you were hearing. Nevertheless, you invented a claim, that I had called you a "liar," and presented it as if it were fact. That's a pretension at having misread.

You have wriggled so much you can no longer follow your own argument. This is when you accused me of misreading:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:07 am
tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:38 amOn the face of it, you accept that the media who describe their competition as the 'legacy media' are your own Pravda news.
You pretend to misread, I see.

You had the opportunity to correct a trivial little mistake on your part, that no one would have thought any the worse of you for, but instead you twisted yourself into knots to push your lie that I misread. If anyone is fooled by your chicanery, it is only you.
Certainly Harry Baird isn't fooled:

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:07 amYou pretend to misread, I see.
Nah. You actually misread, and tillingborn graciously and accommodatingly gave you the opportunity to see and recognise as much, so as to adjust your response. You spurned that opportunity.

Nor is seeds:

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:18 pm
tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:07 pmIt is quite possibly insane projection for you to claim that I misread,...
There is no "quite possibly" about it, tillingborn, for Mr. Con is the reigning queen of projection.

Nor vegetariantaxidermy:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:20 amPost of the week award

It's just you, Immanuel Can.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am**

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:49 am On the basis that they are kunts that want to live somewhere.

Oh. Well, I want to live somewhere too, so, say goodbye to your home.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:49 am Also, there was a Balfour agreement thing too, that said they could have a place called Israel. (don't forget that the British are the true custodians of planet Earth as per God dictate).

I'm not sure whether you're being serious or sarcastic.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am**

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:43 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:57 am I'm not here to educate you.
And I'm not seeking education from you. If you choose not to substantiate your claims, then the neglect and repercussions of that are on you. It's not an issue for me.

How about you substantiate yours?

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:28 am**

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:49 am On the basis that they are kunts that want to live somewhere.
Oh. Well, I want to live somewhere too, so, say goodbye to your home.

Oh. Well, Harry by your reasoning you would need to be Aborigine...and I would have thought you already had a home.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:49 am Also, there was a Balfour agreement thing too, that said they could have a place called Israel. (don't forget that the British are the true custodians of planet Earth as per God dictate).
I'm not sure whether you're being serious or sarcastic.

I am extremely serious.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:07 am**

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:43 am If you choose not to substantiate your claims, then the neglect and repercussions of that are on you. It's not an issue for me.
How about you substantiate yours?

Fine, I'll go first.

My first claim:

"according to the Book by which they justify their right to Palestinian land, the Jewish people in the first place invaded that land and kicked out its original occupants"

My substantiation of that claim:

By "the Book" I obviously meant the Old Testament of the Bible, or, in other words, though not quite the same, The Torah. That Book reports in Genesis 12:6-7 that:

Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.

The LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.”

Clearly, the Book recognises that there were original occupants (Canaanites) of the "promised" land, which the Jewish people thus would have to have kicked out. There are other places in the Book where this is recognised.

Claim substantiated.

My second claim:

"[The Canaanites,] plausibly, were ancestors of the people whom [Jewish people] once again kicked out [of the "Promised Land"] several thousand years later, last century".

My substantiation of that claim:

According to this National Geographic article from May 2020, the reality is slightly more nuanced than my claim:

Both Israeli and Palestinian politicians claim the region of Israel and the Palestinian territories is the ancestral home of their people, and maintain that the other group was a late arrival. “We are the Canaanites,” asserted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last year. “This land is for its people…who were here 5,000 years ago.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said recently that the ancestors of modern Palestinians “came from the Arabian peninsula to the Land of Israel thousands of years” after the Israelites.

The new study suggests that despite tumultuous changes in the area since the Bronze Age, “the present-day inhabitants of the region are, to a large extent, descended from its ancient residents,” concludes Schwartz—although Carmel adds that there are hints of later demographic shifts.

“One could analyze ‘Canaanite’ as opposed to ‘Israelite’ individuals,” adds archaeologist Mary Ellen Buck, who wrote a book on the Canaanites. “The Bible claims that these are distinct and mutually antagonistic groups, yet there's reason to believe that they were very closely related.”

Thus, the Canaanites are plausibly the ancestors of both those currently known as "Jewish" and "Palestinian".

In any case, this doesn't affect my point, which can be restated as being that those who currently identify as Jewish have no greater claim on the "promised" land than those who currently identify as Palestinian.

Claim substantiated albeit with added nuance.

Now, it's your turn.

Your claim:

"That doesn't even resemble what actually happened."

I await your substantiation of that claim.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:13 am**

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:28 am
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:49 am On the basis that they are kunts that want to live somewhere.
Oh. Well, I want to live somewhere too, so, say goodbye to your home.
Oh. Well, Harry by your reasoning you would need to be Aborigine...and I would have thought you already had a home.

No no, atto, I'm just a kunt who wants to live somewhere. Your home will do. Per your criterion, that's warrant enough for me to kick you to the curb and inhabit your home.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:28 am
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:49 am Also, there was a Balfour agreement thing too, that said they could have a place called Israel. (don't forget that the British are the true custodians of planet Earth as per God dictate).
I'm not sure whether you're being serious or sarcastic.
I am extremely serious.

Huh. OK. I'll give you the chance to substantiate your claim too: on what basis do you assert that "the British are the true custodians of planet Earth as per God dictate"?

Honestly, I suspect that you're just having a laugh here, but if you really are serious, then, by all means, explain.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:02 pm**

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:07 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:43 am If you choose not to substantiate your claims, then the neglect and repercussions of that are on you. It's not an issue for me.
How about you substantiate yours?
Fine, I'll go first.

My first claim:

"according to the Book by which they justify their right to Palestinian land, the Jewish people in the first place invaded that land and kicked out its original occupants"

My substantiation of that claim:

By "the Book" I obviously meant the Old Testament of the Bible, or, in other words, though not quite the same, The Torah. That Book reports in Genesis 12:6-7 that:

Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.

The LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.”
Clearly, the Book recognises that there were original occupants (Canaanites) of the "promised" land, which the Jewish people thus would have to have kicked out. There are other places in the Book where this is recognised.

Claim substantiated.

My second claim:

"[The Canaanites,] plausibly, were ancestors of the people whom [Jewish people] once again kicked out [of the "Promised Land"] several thousand years later, last century".

My substantiation of that claim:

According to this National Geographic article from May 2020, the reality is slightly more nuanced than my claim:

Both Israeli and Palestinian politicians claim the region of Israel and the Palestinian territories is the ancestral home of their people, and maintain that the other group was a late arrival. “We are the Canaanites,” asserted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last year. “This land is for its people…who were here 5,000 years ago.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said recently that the ancestors of modern Palestinians “came from the Arabian peninsula to the Land of Israel thousands of years” after the Israelites.

The new study suggests that despite tumultuous changes in the area since the Bronze Age, “the present-day inhabitants of the region are, to a large extent, descended from its ancient residents,” concludes Schwartz—although Carmel adds that there are hints of later demographic shifts.

“One could analyze ‘Canaanite’ as opposed to ‘Israelite’ individuals,” adds archaeologist Mary Ellen Buck, who wrote a book on the Canaanites. “The Bible claims that these are distinct and mutually antagonistic groups, yet there's reason to believe that they were very closely related.”
Thus, the Canaanites are plausibly the ancestors of both those currently known as "Jewish" and "Palestinian".

In any case, this doesn't affect my point, which can be restated as being that those who currently identify as Jewish have no greater claim on the "promised" land than those who currently identify as Palestinian.

Claim substantiated albeit with added nuance.

Now, it's your turn.

Your claim:

"That doesn't even resemble what actually happened."

I await your substantiation of that claim.

You haven't said anything. There's nothing to respond to.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:08 pm**

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:02 pm You haven't said anything. There's nothing to respond to.

Huh. Interesting. You're much more of a lightweight than I had estimated you to be. I had expected that you'd at least try to mount some sort of defence of your position, but it turns out that you're in denial that you even have to, despite my demonstrating to you that and why you do. Instead, you've offered empty hands. Too bad for you...

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:15 pm**

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:08 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:02 pm You haven't said anything. There's nothing to respond to.
Huh. Interesting. You're much more of a lightweight than I had estimated you to be. I had expected that you'd at least try to mount some sort of defence of your position, but it turns out that you're in denial that you even have to, despite my demonstrating to you that and why you do. Instead, you've offered empty hands. Too bad for you...

You don't have any position. You don't seem to have any knowledge of the subject whatsoever. What do you care anyway? The West has been blowing up Muslims in their own countries for decades, and that includes Australian thugs. What do you have to say about THAT? And as Atto pointed out, you should take it up with the British and all the Arab landlords who sold the land..

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:26 pm**

Harry Baird quoted:

Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.

The LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.”

Abram was acting as priest king, a designation that describes how regimes used to manage government long ago.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sacred ... t-and-seer

In modern times in Palestine-Israel priest kings don't exist. It's dishonest of the right wing Israelis to pursue an ancient policy that pertains only to a defunct style of regime.

Israel, and before Israel Britain, ruled Palestine and to do so they had to demote the status of the inhabitants they intended to displace.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:42 pm**

Right. Everyone's an 'expert'. What is this obsession with Israel? How is it different from every other country? It's not going to just disappear because of hypocritical wokie armchair 'experts'.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:45 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:07 am
seeds wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:34 pm I mean, how do you suppose the present population of America would respond if the varying tribes of North American Indians banded together, and, with the help of some super powerful military force, demanded that we all leave our homes and sources of income and relocate to some God-forsaken land in Canada or the American Southwest,...
Manhattan back to the Lenape! At least, at the very least, a substantial suite in Trump Tower…

Actually, thinking this through, it invites the idea of a super-advanced space-tribe (looking like Elves from the Lord of the Rings movies) arriving and setting demands of righteousness upon the errant peoples of the Earth. If their Chief looked much like Jesus (and eerily glowed) so much the better.

I think you might be missing a point.
This is a massive moral question.
At the end of WW2 the British Empire decided to solve the Jewish "problem" for all time: return a small area of the middle east to people claiming to have owned it at the time of the Emperor Hadrian.
Was this morally valid? or wise?
Did all these white people from Europe really have a valid claim against the brown people that had been living there since time immemorial and whose ancestors had lived there even before there was a Jewish religion?

If this is the sort of action that religious thinking leads to, maybe it is time to think again?

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:47 pm**

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:15 pm You don't have any position. You don't seem to have any knowledge of the subject whatsoever.

Ah, so, when you wrote...

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am How about you substantiate your [claims]?

...what you really meant was "You don't have any claims, therefore I'm not going to ask you to substantiate that which doesn't exist."

Yar yar. What a load of BS. You can't even maintain a semblance of consistency.

What it comes down to is that, rhetorically, you're a prize-winning pugilist, whilst, intellectually, you're gossamer.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:15 pm The West has been blowing up Muslims in their own countries for decades, and that includes Australian thugs. What do you to say about THAT?

What, is this supposed to be some amazing blow against me? If so, you're delusional. The truth is, it's irrelevant to the question at issue - a deflection - just like your "point" about post-Apartheid South Africa was: utterly disconnected from the exchange that proceeded it. You never even responded to me to explain its connection, just like, surely, you will avoid doing the same in this case.

Thus, your question is pure deflection, and you surely know that, but it's in any case not at all a difficult one for me to answer: what I say about THAT is that it's utterly outrageous, criminal, and indefensible.

Where too from here, my will-o'-the-wisp?

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:51 pm**

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:47 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:15 pm You don't have any position. You don't seem to have any knowledge of the subject whatsoever.
Ah, so, when you wrote...

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am How about you substantiate your [claims]?
...what you really meant was "You don't have any claims, therefore I'm not going to ask you to substantiate that which doesn't exist."

Yar yar. What a load of BS. You can't even maintain a semblance of consistency.

What it comes down to is that, rhetorically, you're a prize-winning pugilist, whilst, intellectually, you're gossamer.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:15 pm The West has been blowing up Muslims in their own countries for decades, and that includes Australian thugs. What do you to say about THAT?
What, is this supposed to be some amazing blow against me? If so, you're delusional. The truth is, it's irrelevant to the question at issue - a deflection - just like your "point" about post-Apartheid South Africa was: utterly disconnected from the exchange that proceeded it. You never even responded to me to explain its connection, just like, surely, you will avoid doing the same in this case.

Thus, your question is pure deflection, and you surely know that, but it's in any case not at all a difficult one for me to answer: what I say about THAT is that it's utterly outrageous, criminal, and indefensible.

Where too from here, my will-o'-the-wisp?

Because I can't be bothered discussing it with you? It's a MASSIVE topic. It's like arguing evolution with a creationist. You are never going to change your mind so what's the point?

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:52 pm**

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:13 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:28 am
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am

Oh. Well, I want to live somewhere too, so, say goodbye to your home.
Oh. Well, Harry by your reasoning you would need to be Aborigine...and I would have thought you already had a home.
No no, atto, I'm just a kunt who wants to live somewhere. Your home will do. Per your criterion, that's warrant enough for me to kick you to the curb and inhabit your home.

I'll tell you what Harry, the day that you can prove that the Jews have NO right to some of the land of Israel, coupled with the day that you don't have a home, coupled with the day that you think you can kick me to the kurb then, sure, come get some.

Harry Baird wrote:
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:28 am
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:04 am

I'm not sure whether you're being serious or sarcastic.
I am extremely serious.
Huh. OK. I'll give you the chance to substantiate your claim too: on what basis do you assert that "the British are the true custodians of planet Earth as per God dictate"?

Insidious Albion (I know, we gotta include our ol' mates from Wales Scotland and those uva kunts)

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:13 amHonestly, I suspect that you're just having a laugh here, but if you really are serious, then, by all means, explain.

Explain what? That God was behind the souls that incarnated through time to spur democracy and a way to live ethically (eventually) via the British?

Philosophy Now Forum

Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity

Re: Christianity