Total Posts:225|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Israel vs. Palestine debate topic ideas

HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 9:27:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We had a pretty lively Israel/Palestine thread going about a week ago. I believe a few people inquired about a debate, or at least further discussion (Airmax in particular), but I was unavailable due to Final Exams (gasp-shiver). Please feel free to recommend or discuss specific topics that such a debate could be waged on. Any extra feelings, discussions, misconceptions, or questions would be fun as well.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 3:02:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
^ bump
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 5:30:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 9:27:42 PM, HPWKA wrote:
We had a pretty lively Israel/Palestine thread going about a week ago. I believe a few people inquired about a debate, or at least further discussion (Airmax in particular), but I was unavailable due to Final Exams (gasp-shiver). Please feel free to recommend or discuss specific topics that such a debate could be waged on. Any extra feelings, discussions, misconceptions, or questions would be fun as well.

I had some debate you could look at.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 6:04:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I had some debate you could look at.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

They are interesting, if a little silly.

The debate of whether or not Israel should have been founded is incredibly subjective, and somewhat hypocritical on its face, since most countries today were founded by atrocity; so unless we are willing to say most countries should never have been founded, we can't really say that to Israel. This type of debate doesn't advance the current predicament, nor is it particularly relevant to resolution.

The second debate was somewhat puzzling, as its about whether or not Israel should stop killing innocent people. You won the con position due to Pro being non-coherent during most of the debate, but I think we can all agree that all countries should stop killing innocent people. Again, this doesn't seem like a relevant topic, or controversial, in terms of the larger conflict today.

Thanks for responding.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:37:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 6:04:49 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I had some debate you could look at.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

They are interesting, if a little silly.

Agree, one of them was a straight forfeit, and the other one was a FUBAR clusterfvck that I personally have no wishes to revisit.

The debate of whether or not Israel should have been founded is incredibly subjective, and somewhat hypocritical on its face, since most countries today were founded by atrocity; so unless we are willing to say most countries should never have been founded, we can't really say that to Israel. This type of debate doesn't advance the current predicament, nor is it particularly relevant to resolution.

My understanding is that the foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology...but I am neither proficient enough nor motivated to research this topic enough to be willing to engage in debate about it. I'd much rather read someone else's debate about it first.

The second debate was somewhat puzzling, as its about whether or not Israel should stop killing innocent people. You won the con position due to Pro being non-coherent during most of the debate, but I think we can all agree that all countries should stop killing innocent people. Again, this doesn't seem like a relevant topic, or controversial, in terms of the larger conflict today.

Thanks for responding.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's come up with a resolution to debate HPWKA...

Offer some suggestions and we'll hone it down to something agreeable.

I'm open to pretty much anything, though we should probably focus on something specific.

Here are some ideas for resolutions we can discuss:

'67 was a defensive war for Israel (Pro)
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)
The "two state solution" is a viable solution to ending the Israeli/Arab conflict (Con)
Israel should return to the '67 borders (Con)

I'm open to pretty much any resolution you'd like to debate, and I'm certain we can find something specific we'd both find agreeable.
Debate.org Moderator
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 3:53:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

Don't even bother engaging with wrich. Do you know how he arrived at that conclusion?

The "two state solution" is a viable solution to ending the Israeli/Arab conflict (Con)

What position would you advocate here?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 4:45:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 3:53:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

Don't even bother engaging with wrich. Do you know how he arrived at that conclusion?

I reached this conclusion after engaging in a private discussion with several people that had a very bad reaction to certain statements you made about anti-Semitism.

As it is, it's a very preliminary conclusion, and I'd much rather see someone else engage in a debate about it before I speak any further about it.

The "two state solution" is a viable solution to ending the Israeli/Arab conflict (Con)

What position would you advocate here?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 5:03:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's an example of why I have this preliminary belief:

"To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

America was not founded on this kind of belief of self-determination for a certain race or religion. America was founded upon the belief for "freedom for all," regardless of race, creed, or religion. I'm not saying that America has actually upheld this kind of ideology, merely that that is the foundational ideology.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 5:05:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another example, same source:

"When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.""

So Zionism, the foundational ideology for the state of Israel, is specific to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the state of Israel was founded upon racial or religious prerogatives to the exclusion of other races and religions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:45:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 4:45:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:53:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

Don't even bother engaging with wrich. Do you know how he arrived at that conclusion?

I reached this conclusion after engaging in a private discussion with several people that had a very bad reaction to certain statements you made about anti-Semitism.

The sentiments of bigots concerns me not. I have never referred to anyone as anti-Semitic unless they have, explicitly and deliberately, targeted Judaism or Jews.

As it is, it's a very preliminary conclusion, and I'd much rather see someone else engage in a debate about it before I speak any further about it.

Or you could read a basic history. They're at the library, if you can muster up the willpower.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:49:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 5:03:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Here's an example of why I have this preliminary belief:

"To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

America was not founded on this kind of belief of self-determination for a certain race or religion. America was founded upon the belief for "freedom for all," regardless of race, creed, or religion. I'm not saying that America has actually upheld this kind of ideology, merely that that is the foundational ideology.

I'm not going to dignify you with a rebuttal anymore. I can't take having to explain and rehash history and basic political theory in order to refute your reductionist nonsense. Let me just clarify that there are two general of nationalism- civic and ethnic- and that most countries, including Western democratic countries, fall into the latter category. Do your own goddamn research, and note which countries grant citizenship to members of their own ethnic group (it's called Lex sanguinis- ooh, vocabulary!).
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:52:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 4:45:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:53:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

Don't even bother engaging with wrich. Do you know how he arrived at that conclusion?

I reached this conclusion after engaging in a private discussion with several people that had a very bad reaction to certain statements you made about anti-Semitism.

The sentiments of bigots concerns me not. I have never referred to anyone as anti-Semitic unless they have, explicitly and deliberately, targeted Judaism or Jews.

There is a difference between "targeting" and being critical of an ideology. What you're doing is the same as the Christian church calling anyone critical of Christianity a heretic.

As it is, it's a very preliminary conclusion, and I'd much rather see someone else engage in a debate about it before I speak any further about it.

Or you could read a basic history. They're at the library, if you can muster up the willpower.

I have, and thus have reached my conclusion. Now, perhaps if you could be less of an offensive troll, then perhaps my understanding will move beyond the basics.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:52:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 5:05:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Another example, same source:

"When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.""

Yes, it was, for the same reason that criticizing Indian nationalism could be construed as racism towards Indians. There's no historical precedent to that, is there?

So Zionism, the foundational ideology for the state of Israel, is specific to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the state of Israel was founded upon racial or religious prerogatives to the exclusion of other races and religions.

Zionism was secular, and there is a huge difference between an ethnicity and a race. Arguing with you is taking a toll on my mental health.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:53:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:49:31 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:03:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Here's an example of why I have this preliminary belief:

"To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

America was not founded on this kind of belief of self-determination for a certain race or religion. America was founded upon the belief for "freedom for all," regardless of race, creed, or religion. I'm not saying that America has actually upheld this kind of ideology, merely that that is the foundational ideology.

I'm not going to dignify you with a rebuttal anymore. I can't take having to explain and rehash history and basic political theory in order to refute your reductionist nonsense. Let me just clarify that there are two general of nationalism- civic and ethnic- and that most countries, including Western democratic countries, fall into the latter category.

America does not.

Do your own goddamn research, and note which countries grant citizenship to members of their own ethnic group (it's called Lex sanguinis- ooh, vocabulary!).

lol, perhaps you need to learn how to stick with an argument. Nothing you've said here refutes anything I've said.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:55:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:52:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:05:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Another example, same source:

"When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.""

Yes, it was, for the same reason that criticizing Indian nationalism could be construed as racism towards Indians. There's no historical precedent to that, is there?

If the Indian nation was founded upon racial ideologies, then India would be guilty of the same charge I'm levying against Israel. Same for Germany, Japan, Denmark, etc.

So Zionism, the foundational ideology for the state of Israel, is specific to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the state of Israel was founded upon racial or religious prerogatives to the exclusion of other races and religions.

Zionism was secular, and there is a huge difference between an ethnicity and a race. Arguing with you is taking a toll on my mental health.

Racism is secular. Your mental health wasn't very sound to begin with.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:56:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:52:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 4:45:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:53:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

Don't even bother engaging with wrich. Do you know how he arrived at that conclusion?

I reached this conclusion after engaging in a private discussion with several people that had a very bad reaction to certain statements you made about anti-Semitism.

The sentiments of bigots concerns me not. I have never referred to anyone as anti-Semitic unless they have, explicitly and deliberately, targeted Judaism or Jews.

There is a difference between "targeting" and being critical of an ideology. What you're doing is the same as the Christian church calling anyone critical of Christianity a heretic.

No, there are criticisms of Judaism and Jews, and there are anti-Semitic criticisms of Judaism and Jews. Nietzsche specifically criticized the Jewish prophets, yet he never never accused of anti-Semitism. If I argue that Jews are greedy and control the world's media, then I am indeed being anti-Semitic.

As it is, it's a very preliminary conclusion, and I'd much rather see someone else engage in a debate about it before I speak any further about it.

Or you could read a basic history. They're at the library, if you can muster up the willpower.

I have, and thus have reached my conclusion. Now, perhaps if you could be less of an offensive troll, then perhaps my understanding will move beyond the basics.

You have? Do provide a link.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:58:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:53:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:49:31 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:03:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Here's an example of why I have this preliminary belief:

"To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

America was not founded on this kind of belief of self-determination for a certain race or religion. America was founded upon the belief for "freedom for all," regardless of race, creed, or religion. I'm not saying that America has actually upheld this kind of ideology, merely that that is the foundational ideology.

I'm not going to dignify you with a rebuttal anymore. I can't take having to explain and rehash history and basic political theory in order to refute your reductionist nonsense. Let me just clarify that there are two general of nationalism- civic and ethnic- and that most countries, including Western democratic countries, fall into the latter category.

America does not.

It does not, indeed because of its founding by settlers. Most others do.

Do your own goddamn research, and note which countries grant citizenship to members of their own ethnic group (it's called Lex sanguinis- ooh, vocabulary!).

lol, perhaps you need to learn how to stick with an argument. Nothing you've said here refutes anything I've said.

You claimed Zionism was racist in your usual condescending-yet-barren-of-facts way. I refuted this claim (although I half-assed it). What's the difference between Germans and Polish having self-determination, and the Jews?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:59:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:56:44 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:52:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 4:45:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:53:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

Don't even bother engaging with wrich. Do you know how he arrived at that conclusion?

I reached this conclusion after engaging in a private discussion with several people that had a very bad reaction to certain statements you made about anti-Semitism.

The sentiments of bigots concerns me not. I have never referred to anyone as anti-Semitic unless they have, explicitly and deliberately, targeted Judaism or Jews.

There is a difference between "targeting" and being critical of an ideology. What you're doing is the same as the Christian church calling anyone critical of Christianity a heretic.

No, there are criticisms of Judaism and Jews, and there are anti-Semitic criticisms of Judaism and Jews.

Mine fall in the former. Your charges otherwise are baseless and fallacious.

Nietzsche specifically criticized the Jewish prophets, yet he never never accused of anti-Semitism.

You mean, Nietzsche was never criticized of anti-Semitism.

If I argue that Jews are greedy and control the world's media, then I am indeed being anti-Semitic.

The former definitely, the latter is debatable, at least if you limit "the world" to "America".

As it is, it's a very preliminary conclusion, and I'd much rather see someone else engage in a debate about it before I speak any further about it.

Or you could read a basic history. They're at the library, if you can muster up the willpower.

I have, and thus have reached my conclusion. Now, perhaps if you could be less of an offensive troll, then perhaps my understanding will move beyond the basics.

You have? Do provide a link.

"They're at the library."
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:01:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:58:54 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:53:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:49:31 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:03:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Here's an example of why I have this preliminary belief:

"To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

America was not founded on this kind of belief of self-determination for a certain race or religion. America was founded upon the belief for "freedom for all," regardless of race, creed, or religion. I'm not saying that America has actually upheld this kind of ideology, merely that that is the foundational ideology.

I'm not going to dignify you with a rebuttal anymore. I can't take having to explain and rehash history and basic political theory in order to refute your reductionist nonsense. Let me just clarify that there are two general of nationalism- civic and ethnic- and that most countries, including Western democratic countries, fall into the latter category.

America does not.

It does not, indeed because of its founding by settlers. Most others do.

Do your own goddamn research, and note which countries grant citizenship to members of their own ethnic group (it's called Lex sanguinis- ooh, vocabulary!).

lol, perhaps you need to learn how to stick with an argument. Nothing you've said here refutes anything I've said.

You claimed Zionism was racist in your usual condescending-yet-barren-of-facts way. I refuted this claim (although I half-assed it).

You've just affirmed my point actually. America is materially different from the other nations you've attempted to cite, many of which have much in common with Israel.

What's the difference between Germans and Polish having self-determination, and the Jews?

There is no difference, all are founded upon racist ideology, if the criteria for nationhood is based upon one being German or Polish.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:01:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:55:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:52:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:05:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Another example, same source:

"When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.""

Yes, it was, for the same reason that criticizing Indian nationalism could be construed as racism towards Indians. There's no historical precedent to that, is there?

If the Indian nation was founded upon racial ideologies, then India would be guilty of the same charge I'm levying against Israel. Same for Germany, Japan, Denmark, etc.

What are you rambling about? If someone suggested that India or Africa needed to remain in the British Empire, what exactly do you think they mean, other than the white man bringing reason, justice and well-aired genitals to the bepantalooned dark-skinned barbarian?

So Zionism, the foundational ideology for the state of Israel, is specific to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the state of Israel was founded upon racial or religious prerogatives to the exclusion of other races and religions.

Zionism was secular, and there is a huge difference between an ethnicity and a race. Arguing with you is taking a toll on my mental health.

Racism is secular.

You specifically said "religious."
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:03:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:59:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:56:44 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:52:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 4:45:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:53:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

Don't even bother engaging with wrich. Do you know how he arrived at that conclusion?

I reached this conclusion after engaging in a private discussion with several people that had a very bad reaction to certain statements you made about anti-Semitism.

The sentiments of bigots concerns me not. I have never referred to anyone as anti-Semitic unless they have, explicitly and deliberately, targeted Judaism or Jews.

There is a difference between "targeting" and being critical of an ideology. What you're doing is the same as the Christian church calling anyone critical of Christianity a heretic.

No, there are criticisms of Judaism and Jews, and there are anti-Semitic criticisms of Judaism and Jews.

Mine fall in the former. Your charges otherwise are baseless and fallacious.

Suggesting that Jews are racist is inherently anti-Semitic.

Nietzsche specifically criticized the Jewish prophets, yet he never never accused of anti-Semitism.

You mean, Nietzsche was never criticized of anti-Semitism.

Yes, in fact he defended the Jews and suggested that the anti-Semites be deported from Germany.

If I argue that Jews are greedy and control the world's media, then I am indeed being anti-Semitic.

The former definitely, the latter is debatable, at least if you limit "the world" to "America".

This is about where I stop responding.

As it is, it's a very preliminary conclusion, and I'd much rather see someone else engage in a debate about it before I speak any further about it.

Or you could read a basic history. They're at the library, if you can muster up the willpower.

I have, and thus have reached my conclusion. Now, perhaps if you could be less of an offensive troll, then perhaps my understanding will move beyond the basics.

You have? Do provide a link.

"They're at the library."

Amazon link to the particular book.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:03:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:01:30 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:55:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:52:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:05:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Another example, same source:

"When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.""

Yes, it was, for the same reason that criticizing Indian nationalism could be construed as racism towards Indians. There's no historical precedent to that, is there?

If the Indian nation was founded upon racial ideologies, then India would be guilty of the same charge I'm levying against Israel. Same for Germany, Japan, Denmark, etc.

What are you rambling about?

This is a violation of TOS.

If someone suggested that India or Africa needed to remain in the British Empire, what exactly do you think they mean, other than the white man bringing reason, justice and well-aired genitals to the bepantalooned dark-skinned barbarian?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

So Zionism, the foundational ideology for the state of Israel, is specific to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the state of Israel was founded upon racial or religious prerogatives to the exclusion of other races and religions.

Zionism was secular, and there is a huge difference between an ethnicity and a race. Arguing with you is taking a toll on my mental health.

Racism is secular.

You specifically said "religious."

You really are unable to follow a discussion:

At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:04:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:03:19 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:59:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:56:44 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:52:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 4:45:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:53:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

Don't even bother engaging with wrich. Do you know how he arrived at that conclusion?

I reached this conclusion after engaging in a private discussion with several people that had a very bad reaction to certain statements you made about anti-Semitism.

The sentiments of bigots concerns me not. I have never referred to anyone as anti-Semitic unless they have, explicitly and deliberately, targeted Judaism or Jews.

There is a difference between "targeting" and being critical of an ideology. What you're doing is the same as the Christian church calling anyone critical of Christianity a heretic.

No, there are criticisms of Judaism and Jews, and there are anti-Semitic criticisms of Judaism and Jews.

Mine fall in the former. Your charges otherwise are baseless and fallacious.

Suggesting that Jews are racist is inherently anti-Semitic.

I did not say that Jews are racist.

Nietzsche specifically criticized the Jewish prophets, yet he never never accused of anti-Semitism.

You mean, Nietzsche was never criticized of anti-Semitism.

Yes, in fact he defended the Jews and suggested that the anti-Semites be deported from Germany.

I was just correcting your grammar.

If I argue that Jews are greedy and control the world's media, then I am indeed being anti-Semitic.

The former definitely, the latter is debatable, at least if you limit "the world" to "America".

This is about where I stop responding.

Then don't.

As it is, it's a very preliminary conclusion, and I'd much rather see someone else engage in a debate about it before I speak any further about it.

Or you could read a basic history. They're at the library, if you can muster up the willpower.

I have, and thus have reached my conclusion. Now, perhaps if you could be less of an offensive troll, then perhaps my understanding will move beyond the basics.

You have? Do provide a link.

"They're at the library."

Amazon link to the particular book.

Amazon isn't a library.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:06:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:01:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:58:54 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:53:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:49:31 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:03:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Here's an example of why I have this preliminary belief:

"To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

America was not founded on this kind of belief of self-determination for a certain race or religion. America was founded upon the belief for "freedom for all," regardless of race, creed, or religion. I'm not saying that America has actually upheld this kind of ideology, merely that that is the foundational ideology.

I'm not going to dignify you with a rebuttal anymore. I can't take having to explain and rehash history and basic political theory in order to refute your reductionist nonsense. Let me just clarify that there are two general of nationalism- civic and ethnic- and that most countries, including Western democratic countries, fall into the latter category.

America does not.

It does not, indeed because of its founding by settlers. Most others do.

Do your own goddamn research, and note which countries grant citizenship to members of their own ethnic group (it's called Lex sanguinis- ooh, vocabulary!).

lol, perhaps you need to learn how to stick with an argument. Nothing you've said here refutes anything I've said.

You claimed Zionism was racist in your usual condescending-yet-barren-of-facts way. I refuted this claim (although I half-assed it).

You've just affirmed my point actually. America is materially different from the other nations you've attempted to cite, many of which have much in common with Israel.

I've cited Western, democratic nations.

What's the difference between Germans and Polish having self-determination, and the Jews?

There is no difference, all are founded upon racist ideology, if the criteria for nationhood is based upon one being German or Polish.

No, it isn't, just like certain Druze sects in Israel feel patriotic towards their country. But the broad group that self-identifies as Jewish has enough in common to want self-determination That's what nationalism is. The criticisms leveled at ethnic nationalism are that it is exclusionary and illiberal, not that it's racist. Of course, you don't actually know what racism is, do you?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:09:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:03:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:01:30 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:55:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:52:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:05:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Another example, same source:

"When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.""

Yes, it was, for the same reason that criticizing Indian nationalism could be construed as racism towards Indians. There's no historical precedent to that, is there?

If the Indian nation was founded upon racial ideologies, then India would be guilty of the same charge I'm levying against Israel. Same for Germany, Japan, Denmark, etc.

What are you rambling about?

This is a violation of TOS.

If someone suggested that India or Africa needed to remain in the British Empire, what exactly do you think they mean, other than the white man bringing reason, justice and well-aired genitals to the bepantalooned dark-skinned barbarian?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

How? You used an example of MLK suggesting that criticizing "Zionists" was a cover for "Jews." You took it literally, I pointed out through analogy that such racisms are implicit, rather than explicitly stated.

So Zionism, the foundational ideology for the state of Israel, is specific to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the state of Israel was founded upon racial or religious prerogatives to the exclusion of other races and religions.

Zionism was secular, and there is a huge difference between an ethnicity and a race. Arguing with you is taking a toll on my mental health.

Racism is secular.

You specifically said "religious."

You really are unable to follow a discussion:

At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

YOU JUST SAID IT RIGHT NOW YOU DUMB FVCK:
So Zionism, the foundational ideology for the state of Israel, is specific to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the state of Israel was founded upon racial or religious prerogatives to the exclusion of other races and religions.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:10:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:06:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:01:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:58:54 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:53:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:49:31 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:03:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Here's an example of why I have this preliminary belief:

"To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

America was not founded on this kind of belief of self-determination for a certain race or religion. America was founded upon the belief for "freedom for all," regardless of race, creed, or religion. I'm not saying that America has actually upheld this kind of ideology, merely that that is the foundational ideology.

I'm not going to dignify you with a rebuttal anymore. I can't take having to explain and rehash history and basic political theory in order to refute your reductionist nonsense. Let me just clarify that there are two general of nationalism- civic and ethnic- and that most countries, including Western democratic countries, fall into the latter category.

America does not.

It does not, indeed because of its founding by settlers. Most others do.

Do your own goddamn research, and note which countries grant citizenship to members of their own ethnic group (it's called Lex sanguinis- ooh, vocabulary!).

lol, perhaps you need to learn how to stick with an argument. Nothing you've said here refutes anything I've said.

You claimed Zionism was racist in your usual condescending-yet-barren-of-facts way. I refuted this claim (although I half-assed it).

You've just affirmed my point actually. America is materially different from the other nations you've attempted to cite, many of which have much in common with Israel.

I've cited Western, democratic nations.

Yes, Western, democratic nations with racist origins. Now, to Europe's credit, they'd much rather be "European," at least politically...but something is getting in the way.

What's the difference between Germans and Polish having self-determination, and the Jews?

There is no difference, all are founded upon racist ideology, if the criteria for nationhood is based upon one being German or Polish.

No, it isn't, just like certain Druze sects in Israel feel patriotic towards their country. But the broad group that self-identifies as Jewish has enough in common to want self-determination That's what nationalism is. The criticisms leveled at ethnic nationalism are that it is exclusionary and illiberal, not that it's racist. Of course, you don't actually know what racism is, do you?

Exclusion based upon race or ethnicity would corroborate my claim. When we talk about racism, it's typically much more to do with ethnicity than actual nose sizes, bone structure, etc...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:11:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:04:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:03:19 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:59:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:56:44 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:52:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:45:04 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 4:45:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:53:32 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

Don't even bother engaging with wrich. Do you know how he arrived at that conclusion?

I reached this conclusion after engaging in a private discussion with several people that had a very bad reaction to certain statements you made about anti-Semitism.

The sentiments of bigots concerns me not. I have never referred to anyone as anti-Semitic unless they have, explicitly and deliberately, targeted Judaism or Jews.

There is a difference between "targeting" and being critical of an ideology. What you're doing is the same as the Christian church calling anyone critical of Christianity a heretic.

No, there are criticisms of Judaism and Jews, and there are anti-Semitic criticisms of Judaism and Jews.

Mine fall in the former. Your charges otherwise are baseless and fallacious.

Suggesting that Jews are racist is inherently anti-Semitic.

I did not say that Jews are racist.

It seemed implicit.

Nietzsche specifically criticized the Jewish prophets, yet he never never accused of anti-Semitism.

You mean, Nietzsche was never criticized of anti-Semitism.

Yes, in fact he defended the Jews and suggested that the anti-Semites be deported from Germany.

I was just correcting your grammar.

Fell like engaging it anytime?

If I argue that Jews are greedy and control the world's media, then I am indeed being anti-Semitic.

The former definitely, the latter is debatable, at least if you limit "the world" to "America".

This is about where I stop responding.

Then don't.

As it is, it's a very preliminary conclusion, and I'd much rather see someone else engage in a debate about it before I speak any further about it.

Or you could read a basic history. They're at the library, if you can muster up the willpower.

I have, and thus have reached my conclusion. Now, perhaps if you could be less of an offensive troll, then perhaps my understanding will move beyond the basics.

You have? Do provide a link.

"They're at the library."

Amazon link to the particular book.

Amazon isn't a library.

I'm tearing my hair out. I JUST need to know WHICH book you read. Send me the Amazon link and I'll quiz you. If you won't, then piss off. You've never read a book and kindly stop pretending you have.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:13:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:06:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:01:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:58:54 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:53:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:49:31 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:03:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Here's an example of why I have this preliminary belief:

"To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

America was not founded on this kind of belief of self-determination for a certain race or religion. America was founded upon the belief for "freedom for all," regardless of race, creed, or religion. I'm not saying that America has actually upheld this kind of ideology, merely that that is the foundational ideology.

I'm not going to dignify you with a rebuttal anymore. I can't take having to explain and rehash history and basic political theory in order to refute your reductionist nonsense. Let me just clarify that there are two general of nationalism- civic and ethnic- and that most countries, including Western democratic countries, fall into the latter category.

America does not.

It does not, indeed because of its founding by settlers. Most others do.

Do your own goddamn research, and note which countries grant citizenship to members of their own ethnic group (it's called Lex sanguinis- ooh, vocabulary!).

lol, perhaps you need to learn how to stick with an argument. Nothing you've said here refutes anything I've said.

You claimed Zionism was racist in your usual condescending-yet-barren-of-facts way. I refuted this claim (although I half-assed it).

You've just affirmed my point actually. America is materially different from the other nations you've attempted to cite, many of which have much in common with Israel.

I've cited Western, democratic nations.

Yes, Western, democratic nations with racist origins. Now, to Europe's credit, they'd much rather be "European," at least politically...but something is getting in the way.

No, they wouldn't. There are plenty of people who fear their country losing sovereignty to the EU, and still plenty of ethnic conflicts.

What's the difference between Germans and Polish having self-determination, and the Jews?

There is no difference, all are founded upon racist ideology, if the criteria for nationhood is based upon one being German or Polish.

No, it isn't, just like certain Druze sects in Israel feel patriotic towards their country. But the broad group that self-identifies as Jewish has enough in common to want self-determination That's what nationalism is. The criticisms leveled at ethnic nationalism are that it is exclusionary and illiberal, not that it's racist. Of course, you don't actually know what racism is, do you?

Exclusion based upon race or ethnicity would corroborate my claim. When we talk about racism, it's typically much more to do with ethnicity than actual nose sizes, bone structure, etc...

You don't know what the term ethnicity means.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:13:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:09:29 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:03:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:01:30 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:55:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:52:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:05:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Another example, same source:

"When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.""

Yes, it was, for the same reason that criticizing Indian nationalism could be construed as racism towards Indians. There's no historical precedent to that, is there?

If the Indian nation was founded upon racial ideologies, then India would be guilty of the same charge I'm levying against Israel. Same for Germany, Japan, Denmark, etc.

What are you rambling about?

This is a violation of TOS.

If someone suggested that India or Africa needed to remain in the British Empire, what exactly do you think they mean, other than the white man bringing reason, justice and well-aired genitals to the bepantalooned dark-skinned barbarian?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

How? You used an example of MLK suggesting that criticizing "Zionists" was a cover for "Jews." You took it literally, I pointed out through analogy that such racisms are implicit, rather than explicitly stated.

I'm pointing out that your implicit statements are irrelevant to my explicit arguments.

So Zionism, the foundational ideology for the state of Israel, is specific to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the state of Israel was founded upon racial or religious prerogatives to the exclusion of other races and religions.

Zionism was secular, and there is a huge difference between an ethnicity and a race. Arguing with you is taking a toll on my mental health.

Racism is secular.

You specifically said "religious."

You really are unable to follow a discussion:

At 12/20/2013 3:28:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
The foundation of the state of Israel was based upon racist ideology (As inspired by Wrich's recent post - I'd be Con)

YOU JUST SAID IT RIGHT NOW YOU DUMB FVCK:

Another TOS violation.

Regardless, take a basic course in logic. The word "OR" has significant meaning.

So Zionism, the foundational ideology for the state of Israel, is specific to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the state of Israel was founded upon racial or religious prerogatives to the exclusion of other races and religions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?