[BlackDove]

Originally posted by vyper
[q]Palestinians do not deserve their land because they lost.[/q]

****ing. Hell. You. Nazi.

Wow. Just simply - wow. I've got nothing to that.

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

There are no civil minds and uncivil minds, there are only human minds. The idea of civilization is by definition perfect;  its goal is to counteract the destructive aspects of human nature, and all of human history has been our endless attempt to reach that goal. Wherever you see some atrocity committed, that is not civilization; it is the absence of civilization; it is primal nature winning out against society. If society did not exist, there would be no such thing as "good" and "evil." This is what humans are: Beings torn right down the middle between our instincts and our idea of perfection.

Yes, you can be a philosopher about it, but when it comes down to it, time dictates what is civil and what isn't. Until yesterday, black people were forced to work for no wages at all, and that was the way of the world. That was the idea of civility. While there were disagreements, that was the norm. We now have the rule that it is wrong, but are you seriously saying that civilzation at any point during our history was perfect - or almost within the reach of it? That will never happen because things change all the time, sometimes not for the better.

The whole idea was flawed in the first place as far as I'm concerned. Perfect ideals thought up by man who is not perfect himself. It's easily comparable to expecting a Gorilla to know Quantum Physics as soon as it gets out of the mother's womb.

I'd go for effectivness and preservation of the entire human species (black, white, yellow, orange, red - they're ALL needed if we're ever going to survive) becase we should be qualified by our natural instincts to move in that direction, and cut the inane bull**** of semantics and power struggle. It's not like we weren't given time to establish who should be in power. This is just a huge waste of time.

[Flipside]

It's the age-old question, simply because we can do a thing, does it follow that we must do a thing.

The choice really is with us, we know, apart from a few sad exceptions, what an ideal world 'should' be like, the mistake we always make is when we get to the word 'world'. The 'world' for a large number of people is about 100 square miles with it's centre on themselves. Anything else is just backdrop and doesn't count.

You are 100% right BD, in that mankinds nature is to abuse and exploit and destroy. Ford is 100% right in saying that mankind knows what it wants but never sets out to achieve it.

The sad fact is that if you asked an individual person whether they would be prepared to accept a slight drop in wages and standard of life to create a slight increase for someone far worse off, most people would at least consider the idea. However, if you asked the 'people' big, scary, instinct-led beast that it is, they would say a resounding No. We like our comfort too much, and a million tiny little prejudices and self-centred assumptions come boiling to the surface and find strength in numbers

[Ford Prefect]

I don't believe we've ever come close to perfection, and I'm not saying that it's an attainable goal. All I'm saying is that that's what civilization is; our attempt to reach perfection. I don't believe human beings have ever really changed, so I would go so far as to say that bigotry has never truly been considered civil. It has been accepted because people create moral loopholes around it; "They're animals, they're tainted by sin, we have no choice because our economy depends on it, etc," but I believe that people have always understood on some level that things like slavery cause suffering. We commit them anyway because, like I said, our nature compels us to ignore that ever-present idea of civilization.

[Flipside]

The fact of the matter is that, had slavery been generally and unquestionably accepted as civilised then it would still be going on today. But, at first, a few brave people spoke out against in, they were generally persecuted, more so because people knew they were right. But with time and courage that movement grew. Only the people who profited from slavery condoned it, but I don't think they didn't consider it 'wrong', merely allowed their greed to over-ride their morals.

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I don't believe we've ever come close to perfection, and I'm not saying that it's an attainable goal. All I'm saying is that that's what civilization is; our attempt to reach perfection. I don't believe human beings have ever really changed, so I would go so far as to say that bigotry has never truly been considered civil. It has been accepted because people create moral loopholes around it; "They're animals, they're tainted by sin, we have no choice because our economy depends on it, etc," but I believe that people have always understood on some level that things like slavery cause suffering. We commit them anyway because, like I said, our nature compels us to ignore that ever-present idea of civilization.

I am actually of the opinion that people are genuinly stupid. Brain controls everything. An idiot redneck wouldn't believe that "slavery causes suffering" because he thought black people are THE DEVIL anyway, and not "normal" humans (look at how FAR the human mind goes to justify such an act) so they pretty much deserved it on their account. He was civil. He knew how to pick up a fork, spoon and eat his meal properly. He knew how to dress, how to look and act like a gentleman. He was civil in the areas of his life. He went to church, obeyed God. Fact he had people dying in the back yard because he was working them to death, didn't really matter to him, did it?

Yes, some knew and felt it, I agree. But how do you classify those that didn't? Civilzation itself is a moot point. Nobody's idea of it is the same. That is why it will always fail time and time again.

[Ford Prefect]

But my point is that everyone understands, on some level, that oppression causes suffering. Our nature isn't all destructive; we may be cursed with bigotry and hatred, but we're also endowed with empathy. Suffering is universal, and thus all humans can understand it when they see it, but we're compelled by our natural desires to ignore it.

I'm not talking about cultural differences; those are specific to a different definition of civilization. Ultimately, the overlying goal of all civilizations is the same: to contain people's destructive impulses so they can coexist.

[BlackDove]

Which leads to a dead end - doesn't it?

As you said, even though people know others are suffering, personal desires negate all that. Exactly. A pedophile will know he is molesting and phisically/mentally hurting whoever his prey is, but that will be negated by the fact he has a desire.

Civilzation covers the aftermath to a point. It does not go all the way in a huge number of cases. The system which is supposed to be perfect is conflicting with itself. How can perfection ever be attanied?

It's an endless loop. Unless civilzation is removed and replaced with something more a) normal, b) better, c) actually attainable - it's all just a waste of time.

You can say Trial and Error works to our advantage, we learn, we grow. But at what cost?

[Flipside]

We trust our governments and media to supply our opinions.

Our current version of civilisation is far from complete or even correct, as you say, we are a worldwide organism with a tribal culture, a dangerous mix. Add to that the suppression and mob-derision of people who say things that question the Status Quo.
What do people really want? They want today to be pretty much like yesterday.

My own opinion is that mankind is reaching an 'envelope' in thinking. As fewer and fewer people are able to understand the truly high end of science, the less there is for 'normal' people to discover and create, the more nonchalant and ignorant we allow ourselves to become because we start to feel like our lives are pointless, going round and round in the work-sleep-work cycle.

It's like you say, today we walk around saying 'Oh, that business in the Sudan, it's so terrible', I can see people walking around saying 'Oh, those poor slaves, it's terrible'.

It's not weakness or strength that is killing these people, it is greed and apathy. We know it is wrong, and if people could develop a world-wide conscience, something would be done.

It IS the way things are, but it isn't the way the world must continue to be, we really and honestly have that choice sitting in all our laps, but we will always delay it or put it to one side because we are comfortable and scared of change.

[Ford Prefect]

You may be correct that perfection is unattainable, but there is no "replacement" for civilization. Whatever we do to keep ourselves in order will, by definition, be civilization.

Civilization is the same thing as spiritual elevation; it is something that humanity reaches for because to find it would be the ultimate triumph, so my response to your assertion that it is a waste of time is this: What else is there to find? Like those who spend their lives searching for God, there is nothing wrong with trying.

[BlackDove]

There are more ways getting from A to B. Yes, any different path we do choose that follows a similar purpose will be in fact civilization. But the fact that there are different ways to go about it is a place to start.

However I am willing to admit that I am in no way capable to decide for everyone on this planet, which path should be taken. I don't have enough knowledge yet. Not insofar to give credible examples, because I can't base them on much anyway. I may have an opinion on how individual matters should be dealt with, but considering I'm not the only one walking this earth, it'd be good to hear many more people what they have to say on the matter.

I am however endowned enough to know that the ways of today - stink. Heavily. Will I have the guts, knowledge and power to beat it? We'll see. I'm still only eighteen. God willing, I have a good ten years in front of me.

[Ford Prefect]

Well, I would say that if you think the situation we're in now sucks, it's because of people behaving in a primal manner.

[Corsair]

Okay, here's my two cents. I know a number of Palestinians living in the West Bank (not Palestinian-Americans) and a number of true-blue Israelis, so here's the feeling I'm getting from my friends.
As far as the PA goes, it's all the Palestinians have right now. Many of them see Arafat as their great leader and want him to be at the head of their government. On the other hand, some see him as a symbol of the corruption of the PA, but they are the minority.
Of course, in any final solution, the terrorism/freedom fighting has to end. Naturally, if a solution is achieved that is acceptable to Palestinians, the terrorism from that side will end because they will have obtained their freedom. As for Israel, one would assume that they will abide by a true peace agreement.
As far as Jordan being recognized as the Palestinian state is concerned, I think that's crap. The way I see it, Palestinian nationalism is at an all-time high. My Palestinian friends insist that they have a state already. They don't want to be absorbed into Jordan because they are citizens of Palestine. They have a flag, a national anthem, a passport, etc. In my opinion, they don't currently have a state but in any solution, I think a Palestine does need to be established.
As far as Gaza goes, I think that it should either return to Egypt or be a part of a Palestine. The people who live there identify themselves as Palestinians, so they would want to be a part of Palestine but their distance from the West Bank would create a separated state. It might be easier to have Gaza absorbed into Egypt, but I don't know exactly how well tha would work out. Why does Israel want Gaza anyway?
In terms of refugees, I think that some sort of rehabilitation is in order. At the very least, I think some sort of compensation should be payed to the refugees after they fled/were kicked off their land back in the beginning of this mess.
Peace and normalization will happen naturally. I believe that right now, the biggest problem is the refugee situation. I asked one of my Palestinian friends if she would settle for peace right now if Palestine was recognized as a state and the IDF withdrew and she said no. She told me that she would only accept peace if the refugees were allowed to return to their homes in Israel. She said she doesn't care if her father and brothers are killed in the process, but it is important to her that the Palestinians living in refugee camps have their lives improved. Only then will she make peace.

So, Jordan? Forget about it. This proposal sucks. It sounds like it might be a bit of a landgrab for Israel and I don't understand why Israelis would want sovereignty over areas that are almost 100% Palestinian. That doesn't make sense to me.

[ionia23]

Someone humor me, if you will.  A good chunk of the Arab world likes to speak extensively of the "plight of the Palestinians".  

Someone earlier was having the 'weak' argument regarding Kuwait, who got backing from the west to drive off the Iraqi invasion, something they would have failed to pull off had they been left to their own devices.

The big question is, if so many people are so pissed about the Palestine thing, how come the only people who seem to step up and do something about (albeit as unconstructively as possible) is Osama Bin Laden?

Serious question, btw.  No mockery indicitive of my usual behavior intended.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ionia23
The big question is, if so many people are so pissed about the Palestine thing, how come the only people who seem to step up and do something about (albeit as unconstructively as possible) is Osama Bin Laden?

Cause any idiot can unilaterally decide to pick up a gun and think that killing Americans is somehow achieving his goal.

The rest of us try to change the world through diplomacy. The fact is that the 1st step on the road to peace is to pursuade Americans that they need to stop supporting Israel regardless of whatever it does.

At the moment no president is ever going to stop supporting Israel unless it starts nuking Palestine because it would make him too unpopular. The only time this will change is when there are enough people who feel strongly about the other side of the argument.

There are plenty of people trying to alter the situation but the problem is that most of them are Europeans trying to solve an internal political problem in America.


Personally I lay the blame for this continuing situation at the feet of Tony Blair. He had the Americans over a barrel at the start of the war in Iraq yet when Bush humiliated him by shooting down his plan for peace he still trotted around like a lapdog at Bush's feet.

What he should have done is set his peace plan as the price for helping America in the war instead he backed down and got Britain involved in a stupidly executed war without getting a single f**king thing in return from America (well except for the enjoyment we got watching him having to make a humiliating climb down on his middle-east peace plan).

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Flipside
Well, I'm not out there, so I don't seek to judge either Israel or Palestine, but personally I think Pride and Stubborness has built a wall that will probably take years to be torn down between the two factions now

Wait...hang on... you're getting confused. Israel built the illegal wall between the two factions. An easy mistake to make though.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
Wait...hang on... you're getting confused. Israel built the illegal wall between the two factions. An easy mistake to make though.

[tEAbAG]

Every year I understand less and less.  Why are we, the teaming mass of humanity, stuck on the same little rock, with our gigantic frontal lobes, so willing to kill over a strip of land i wouldn't even want to take a **** on?  Is there any sane reason why Iseral should be fighting, why India and packistan have nukes pointed at each other, why NK has a million man army and a starving population?  We reallllly need to get out of the nation-state phase of our development.  I something doesn't change  quickly (within 200 yrs) we'll be screwed.  Civilization can't take another fall.  When (not if) the west falls to conflict, resourse strangulation, enviromental problems, what ever, it will make the dark ages look like spring break.  The system is comming to an end one way or another, Lets just hope (or make) that end a unified civilization and not crash back to random tribes.  

Although that would be kinda cool, just let me find a vault and some power armor.

[magatsu1]

Originally posted by karajorma
Personally I lay the blame for this continuing situation at the feet of Tony Blair. He had the Americans over a barrel at the start of the war in Iraq yet when Bush humiliated him by shooting down his plan for peace he still trotted around like a lapdog at Bush's feet.

You're not the first person I know who blames the war on Tony Blair. Intresting argument, which I'm inclined to agree with.

[vyper]

[q]The big question is, if so many people are so pissed about the Palestine thing, how come the only people who seem to step up and do something about (albeit as unconstructively as possible) is Osama Bin Laden?[/q]

Mainly because whenever someone tries to do something at the UN, they're blocked by either US or one of it's allys. (Sadly us a few times).

[magatsu1]

Example.