posted
I disagree with your assessment about the source of the problem, and I do not care about the Clive guy. He'll fade. Lisa's hateful vomit is, sadly, apparently forever.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Shes passionate, if anything I think Clive is the problem here bordering on anti semetism.
Excuse me? I have spoken of Zionist Jews in the same manner that Lisa frequently speaks of Arabs. If I'm an anti-semite, then Lisa is a racist.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Hmm... let's see. Controversial, yes. Inflammatory, yes. Irrelevant or off-topic? In a thread about the subject? I think not.
But wait. "...with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." Who comes into a thread, posts absolutely nothing of content, but starts throwing around insults and calling other people trolls? Sound like me? Or maybe kat needs to look in a mirror.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
trolls post links to 2 girls 1 cup under the heading of it going to a puppy dog show, trolls do not passionately argue one particular subject.
IP: Logged |
posted
A post of mine from days of yore: WHAT IS A TROLL?
quote:The word 'troll' is getting overused to the point of uselessness. Not that I ever particularly liked the term, but I use it in a usefully constrained definition describing people who actually troll, as in: engage in the act of trying to upset or anger others, disrupt the community, sow discord or combativeness, or any combination of the above and engage in these acts purposefully and with intent to cause emotional harm in others and/or to entertain themselves.
Today the term gets so overused that its just spat out at pretty much anyone who bruises egos, talks too frank for the delicate sensibilities of some, has positions that drive others to (ironically troll-ish) anger and hateful counterposting, or even just fails to fit in with the community at large due to the way they post or the positions they take. Yes, people get called trolls just for not being serious or polite enough for the forum's social base in given circumstances.
The term was already sort of silly right from its inception since the term originated from an advisory soundbite that has proved about the single most useless strategy in internet history: "Don't feed the trolls"
posted
Well, actually, it originated as trolling for reactions, and had nothing to do with trolls. But other than that, you're completely right.
And kat, when Sam and I agree on something, it's unusual enough that you might want to consider what you're doing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, actually, it originated as trolling for reactions
"trolling for suckers" originated based on a fishing maneuver. The etymology for the internet term and its subsequent subgroups ('concern trolls,' etc) goes back to early Usenet times where DNFTT appeared as a piece of advice, which led to the appearance of the phrase "trolling for newbies" on an urban folklore group.
Or so it has been told to me by obsessive e-tymologists.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Also - I don't remember reading Lisa's "hateful" comments.
She has several times advocated making Israel and Gaza 'Arab-free', although she does not use that term.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But surely I must have said something hateful this time, or kat wouldn't have come around spewing her vitriol.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Also - I don't remember reading Lisa's "hateful" comments.
She has several times advocated making Israel and Gaza 'Arab-free', although she does not use that term.
Nah. I'm willing to allow any non-Jews who want to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state to remain. Up to a certain number, of course. And with the understanding that their children will also have to take the oath, let's say at 13 and again at 20, or leave.
They wouldn't be allowed to be segregated, mind you. No Arab towns and villages. They could live amongst us with civil rights and no political rights.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one can hit you, harm you, steal from you, kill you, violate contracts with you, poke you with a pointed stick. If the country in question taxes and gives goodies to the population (and I think you know how I feel about that), they have to tax you the same and give you the same goodies.
What part of that is hard to understand?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you have to be jewish in order to be allowed to vote, or what
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There's nothing inherently wrong with that if they're upfront with it being a Jewish State, considering the large number of "Islamic Republics" are out there I see no problem with this.
IP: Logged |
posted
How well have loyalty oaths worked throughout modern history? How have countries fared that required this kind of thing of their citizens? What kinds of governments are they?
In the US there have been a few instances of loyalty oaths -- during the Civil War and Reconstruction, during WWII on up into the early 1960s (when the Supreme Court started striking them down), and, oddly enough, as a requirement for admission to certain GOP events during the 2004 campaign.
The public reaction to that last one, in particular, is sort of instructive as to how well this stuff "flies" with Americans. It just becomes self-parody.
What I'm trying to get at here is that loyalty oaths seem pretty laughable and naive from a US perspective, but we're just one country and we don't suffer from that large of a domestic terrorism problem. When we thought we did (during McCarthyism) there were oaths aplenty, and it took until that sad chapter was being closed and ridiculed before the Supreme Court acted to remove those laws.
I know that such oaths were very popular during the WWII -- not just in fascist countries, but pretty much everywhere.
They just seem so passe and laughable now. In the case of Israel, for example, the people calling for such oaths believe two contradictory things:
1) That Arabs in Israel are the worst sort of internal threat, each of them a potential killer of innocents, and,
2) That they will honorably respond to a requirement to take an oath by either fessing up that they don't support Israel (and thus losing their rights) or living up to the words they say if they go ahead and take the oath.
Doesn't that seem positively silly?
Granted, the oath also comes with a requirement to serve in the military. I don't know how this is dealt with now, but it raises some questions in my mind about how Israel could ever trust people in the military that it doesn't trust walking down the street.
I have a jaded view of such things. I think that people will lie to the extent they can stomach, and they will do what they need to to survive under whatever silly conditions the government comes up with. And they will justify it as moral in that it's plainly a case of coercion and racism (remember, that's the perception, and that's pretty much all that matters).
So, what does the oath and military service requirement actually "buy" Israel? A few Arabs leave, the majority give the oath the enthusiasm it deserves and just get on with live, and a few take the oath but secretly vow to kill, maim and destroy whenever they can.
In other words, it changes nothing.
Who is this oath for? Will it make Israel a more peaceful or secure place? Doubtful. Will it give people a sense of security? Not if they're very smart, or not for very long, regardless.
Will it expose ALL ARABS as duplicitous? Only to those already convinced that Arabs (in general) can't be trusted.
You know, Israel has some top flight social psychologists. It would be interesting to hear how well they think this scheme will work -- or what exactly it would accomplish.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, let's see how well something like that would work in practice.
It's worse than an oligarchy.
Why? That's a hell of a big olig. Israel is the state of the Jewish people. Only Jews should have a say in questions that affect its nature/future.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: "They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: They just seem so passe and laughable now. In the case of Israel, for example, the people calling for such oaths believe two contradictory things:
1) That Arabs in Israel are the worst sort of internal threat, each of them a potential killer of innocents, and,
2) That they will honorably respond to a requirement to take an oath by either fessing up that they don't support Israel (and thus losing their rights) or living up to the words they say if they go ahead and take the oath.
Doesn't that seem positively silly?
Not when you add the fact that the oaths will be public record. Right now, an Arab taking an oath like that would be painting a target on himself. So we'd have two possible situations. In one, the level of hatred among the Arabs stays at its current level, and no one is willing to sign the oath. So they all leave except for the very few who are willing to risk making a stand. In the other, the Arabs in Israel (or those left in Israel) calm down enough so that it isn't suicide to sign the oath. In that case, I don't really care how they feel about the oath. Whether they mean it or not. Because if Arabs can get away with signing such an oath publically and not be killed by other Arabs, it means that they're relatively safe as a population. Which is not the case right now.
Incidentally, I should clarify that this isn't about Arabs as such. This is about any non-Jews who want to live there.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Granted, the oath also comes with a requirement to serve in the military. I don't know how this is dealt with now, but it raises some questions in my mind about how Israel could ever trust people in the military that it doesn't trust walking down the street.
Yeah, no. They won't be in the military under any circumstances. Obviously.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good, good. Take the soon to be majority and tell them to swear an oath or get torn from their homes, and oh by the waaaay even with the oath you aren't allowed to vote because you worship the wrong god. Sorry!
Let's just sit back and watch how well that works in a real-world scenario. I will bring the popcorn and kevlar.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually 75.5% of the population is Jewish, 20% is Arab/Muslem, maybe if you include gaza and the West Bank this changes but in Israel proper.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: It makes any crime they perpetrate punishable by death as treason against the state.
God, no. That's ridiculous. But it makes any attempt to undermine Israel as a Jewish state or act in opposition to the government punishable by expulsion.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Good, good. Take the soon to be majority and tell them to swear an oath or get torn from their homes, and oh by the waaaay even with the oath you aren't allowed to vote because you worship the wrong god. Sorry!
Let's just sit back and watch how well that works in a real-world scenario. I will bring the popcorn and kevlar.
Like I said, "up to a certain manageable number".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, no. They won't be in the military under any circumstances. Obviously.
I must've missed something. Are you talking about the loyalty oath proposed by Avigdor Lieberman et al., or is this some other proposal, as yet untested in the government.
another question arises with the denial of voting rights to Arab citizens -- what happens to the dozen-or-so seats held by Arabs in Parliament?
Are you planning to setupa permanent situation of disenfranchisement AND lack of representation?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. So even with the dhimmis, it's still about, say, three-fourths of the way to Arab-free. Perhaps you could introduce the concept of 'valuable Arabs', and put little crescent moons in their passports.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually found Clive to have interesting counterpoints and presented himself as politely as Lisa has.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne your replacement of my comments by the word "Snipe" is pretty dishonest. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit that post to show what I really said, and not your personal reaction to it.
Lisa, I know you just copied Blayne, but the way you did it perpetuates a dishonesty.
I would appreciate it if you would edit your post as well.
Be assured, I was not sniping.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Blayne & Lisa,
Blayne your replacement of my comments by the word "Snipe" is pretty dishonest. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit that post to show what I really said, and not your personal reaction to it.
Lisa, I know you just copied Blayne, but the way you did it perpetuates a dishonesty.
I would appreciate it if you would edit your post as well.
Be assured, I was not sniping.
No. I meant "Snip" as in I didnt feel like quoting your wall of text word for word, if people care about it they can go back and reread it.
IP: Logged |
quote:God, no. That's ridiculous. But it makes any attempt to undermine Israel as a Jewish state or act in opposition to the government punishable by expulsion.
I'm interested in the parameters of this. Could peaceful protest count as "acting in opposition" or "undermining Israel as a Jewish state?"
Would operating a non-Jewish religious school count?
Would donating money to cause that peacefully promoted a solution other-than the one supported by the then ruling coalition count as disloyalty?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The 600,000 Jews fought them off, losing 10% of their population in the process.
You should be more careful with your decimals. About 6,000, out of a of 600,000, Jews died during Israel's War of Independence (1% of the population).
I don't mean to nitpick but this just stuck out at me as painting an incorrect picture, which I know wasn't your intention. Plus, I figure you know the real stat anyway.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And for that matter, if the equivalent is 350,000,000 Americans, as you stated, that'd mean that, in 2009 numbers, something like 117% of the Israeli population was killed.
posted
Only 2%? Huh. Thats lower than I'd have expected.
By comparison, during the Taiping civil war in China, roughly 7% of the population died.
quote:By 1851, the population reached perhaps 431,896,000 before the effects of the disastrous Taiping Rebellion brought about a slowing of past growth patterns (Some 30,000,000 deaths occurred between 1851-1864 during the upheavals associated with the attempt to establish the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. In some areas of central China, the effects of this were not reversed until the mid-twentieth century).
posted
I always find it interesting when people try to employ numbers to put this debate into clearer focus. People die everyday in this conflict, how can it possibly make it more important? How can we possibly accept even 1 death? But clearly I digress...
BTW, I did want to add this. Clive is not, under any circumstances a troll. He is Lisa's mirror, her opposite, the other end of the spectrum, and I think that's important.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The 600,000 Jews fought them off, losing 10% of their population in the process.
You should be more careful with your decimals. About 6,000, out of a of 600,000, Jews died during Israel's War of Independence (1% of the population).
I don't mean to nitpick but this just stuck out at me as painting an incorrect picture, which I know wasn't your intention. Plus, I figure you know the real stat anyway.
No, you're right. My mistake.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, no. They won't be in the military under any circumstances. Obviously.
I must've missed something. Are you talking about the loyalty oath proposed by Avigdor Lieberman et al., or is this some other proposal, as yet untested in the government.
Lieberman's an ass. He actually proposed that? Sheesh.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: another question arises with the denial of voting rights to Arab citizens -- what happens to the dozen-or-so seats held by Arabs in Parliament?
My bad. Not only will they not be able to vote, they certainly will not be able to hold governmental office. Those seats will just be vacated until the next elections.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Are you planning to setupa permanent situation of disenfranchisement AND lack of representation?
Yes. Look, no one is going to force them to stay in Israel. If they want to, that's the price. It's our land, our state, and they're there by our sufference.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Blayne & Lisa,
Blayne your replacement of my comments by the word "Snipe" is pretty dishonest. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit that post to show what I really said, and not your personal reaction to it.
Lisa, I know you just copied Blayne, but the way you did it perpetuates a dishonesty.
I would appreciate it if you would edit your post as well.
Be assured, I was not sniping.
Sorry. I just quoted. In all honesty, I thought Blayne meant "snip" and just misspelled it.
[Edit: I wrote this before seeing Blayne's post. I guess I was right. Anyway, I pulled that out of my post.]
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. So even with the dhimmis, it's still about, say, three-fourths of the way to Arab-free. Perhaps you could introduce the concept of 'valuable Arabs', and put little crescent moons in their passports.
Oh, bite me. I'd rather they leave altogether. And again, this isn't about Arabs; it's about any non-Jews. The entire raison d'etre of Israel is to be a Jewish state. I can't fathom why it's so hard for you to understand that that means Jews run it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:God, no. That's ridiculous. But it makes any attempt to undermine Israel as a Jewish state or act in opposition to the government punishable by expulsion.
I'm interested in the parameters of this. Could peaceful protest count as "acting in opposition" or "undermining Israel as a Jewish state?"
Would operating a non-Jewish religious school count?
Would donating money to cause that peacefully promoted a solution other-than the one supported by the then ruling coalition count as disloyalty?
Maybe. It'd depend on the context, and would be subject to interpretation by the Israeli government. Christian missionary activity would certainly be included.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw, Here is an op-ed by one of the Jewish refugees whose family was expelled from Egypt and whose property was confiscated.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
wait so you'ld disenfranchise the druze? Isn't that going a little far? Some of them serve voluntarily in the military and if TheOtherWiki can be believed there's a "Covenant of Blood" between Druze and Israeli solders.
IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
