Hamas Launches Offensive Against Southern Israel

[TheRejectionist]

I mean, yeah? You are what you eat.

Or more likely, the person is just wrong. It's easy to say you're gay, it's hard to actually do gay acts if you aren't gay. Hence why all the people are going trans instead. Swallowing a pill is easier for a straight guy than swallowing a dick.

Anyway, back on the Hamas stuff:
I don't know there's been anything more revealing than the Hamas attack, followed by the hospital (parking lot) (self) bombing.

Disinformation reporter Ben Collins failed to correct the Gaza hospital story

Ben Collins specializes in coverage of disinformation and extremism, particularly on social media. Why did he fail to correct the Gaza hospital story?

reason.com

Uh...wasn't this the same YT channel that pushed pro-vaxx and big pharma lying propaganda? I remember because of theRFK JR attempted hit job.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Uh...wasn't this the same YT channel that pushed pro-vaxx and big pharma lying propaganda? I remember because of theRFK JR attempted hit job.

Yeah confirmed it :



Lying sacks of shit seems they are.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

I mean, yeah? You are what you eat.

"Your dick moved in wrestling practice so you're gay for life now no matter how many women you have sex with", classic grooming tactic.

 

[Abhorsen]

Uh...wasn't this the same YT channel that pushed pro-vaxx and big pharma lying propaganda? I remember because of theRFK JR attempted hit job.

It's a libertarian (ish) news source. Yeah, they were pro vax, so was CNN, but they've at least walked that back. They are by no means perfect, but they are different, which is useful, such as here.

"Your dick moved in wrestling practice so you're gay for life now no matter how many women you have sex with", classic grooming tactic.

... There's a difference between deciding to willingly give a guy a blowy and what you posted. You completely changed what you were talking about from one of your posts to the next. Are you going to pretend to debate honestly, or just post stupid statements repeatedly?

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

... There's a difference between deciding to willingly give a guy a blowy and what you posted. You completely changed what you were talking about from one of your posts to the next. Are you going to pretend to debate honestly, or just post stupid statements repeatedly?

Oh I consider them linked.

You (the proverbial you) spread this psychotic idea that Homosexuality isn't an action that you do or don't participate in, but an identity, something you are intrinsically and once proven to be, can never not be. So, have some confusing feelings about when you were molested? You're gay you always were gay and if you "pretend" you're not gay you're "lying to yourself".
It's a clever way to get people who fall into an unhealthy, degenerate pattern of behavior to never stop.
This logic trap mostly only works on boys though. Most "Gay" girls stop being gay within five years. No, they don't "remain Bi" they aren't "lying to themselves", they're not gay anymore.

But hey, rape enough boys with this mind toxin in the air and sure as shit some of them will fall for it and never recover.

 

[Rocinante]

I know Godwin's Law has become cliché, but surely, I'm not the only one imagining Hitler munching popcorn in Hell.

But yeah; contrary to their best interests, Hamas simps seem dead set on pissing away their good will in their new host countries.

Once the natives have finally had enough... well, just look at how viciously Hindutva nationalists in India retaliate whenever the Muslim population acts out, and that's basically the long and short of it. Heck, I don't think I'll be terribly surprised, if Hindu and Christian communities start to bond over their shared hatred of Muslim agitators in the near future.

Godwin's law doesn't really apply when we are talking about people going door to door murdering Jewish families.

Godwin's law is for when people cram nazi comparisons into unrelated things.

I'm gonna go ahead and say it's thoroughly appropriate in this situation.

 

[TheRejectionist]

It's a libertarian (ish) news source. Yeah, they were pro vax, so was CNN, but they've at least walked that back. They are by no means perfect, but they are different, which is useful, such as here.

@Abhorsen I listen and read your argumentations and even though I disagree with you make your point sound reasonable, unlike the confrontanional "mod" that named himself after a dead god who seems to have a tendency to insult non-moderator users than actually moderating...but I need something extremely substantial to trust AGAIN a source such as reasontv.

 

[CurtisLemay]

OK, NOW I AM SPEAKING VERY LOUD AS A MOD! GODWINS LAW IS APPROPOS! BUT GAY TOPICS AREN'T FOR THIS THREAD! STOP NOW! PERIOD.

IS THIS CLEAR? DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION? NOW BEHAVE!

 

[Marduk]

Im someone who cares about europe and thinks Israel should deal with its own problems instead of flushing their toilets on Europe

No, half the world is flushing their proverbial toilets on Europe already. The problem is that Europe is standing with a "please flush your toilet on me, you don't have to pay, in fact i will pay you" sign, not whether Israel or anyone else will join the very long queue of countries eager to do that, obsessing about the latter is a preferred establishment non-solution with plenty of opportunities to send money to shitholes in shady schemes, or in case of some people, just an excuse to have insane policy in ME to stick it to the Jews.

 

[AmosTrask]

Everyone: We don't want refugees from Gaza, do you think we are retarded and don't know what they are like or what?
Scotland:

Scotland offers to become 1st UK country to accept Gazan refugees, faces online backlash amid Israel-Hamas war

Scotland's First Minister Humza Yousaf advocated for a United Kingdom refugees resettlement program to bring in Gazans amid Israel-Hamas war.

news.yahoo.com

Hahahaha. I've been to Scotland. If the Gazans start anything the locals will fuck them up. The Scots are like us, but without the brain to mouth filter lol. I love them. They're a rough people, I look forward to the Gazans finding that out first hand. If that Palestinian disorder that happened in London occured in Scotland. Those responsible would have turned up beaten to a pulp and tied up outside the local constabulatory.

 

[DarthOne]

Hahahaha. I've been to Scotland. If the Gazans start anything the locals will fuck them up. The Scots are like us, but without the brain to mouth filter lol. I love them. They're a rough people, I look forward to the Gazans finding that out first hand. If that Palestinian disorder that happened in London occured in Scotland. Those responsible would have turned up beaten to a pulp and tied up outside the local constabulatory.

If that’s true, explain the current Scottish government still existing.

 

[Abhorsen]

@Abhorsen I listen and read your argumentations and even though I disagree with you make your point sound reasonable, unlike the confrontanional "mod" that named himself after a dead god who seems to have a tendency to insult non-moderator users than actually moderating...but I need something extremely substantial to trust AGAIN a source such as reasontv.

Eh, the thing is, you need to learn how to read biased news sources, not look for unbiased ones. I don't think you should trust them unconditionally, tbc. I think you should trust them very conditionally, on certain things.

Basically, things that are easy for you to independantly confirm are things you can trust any news story with. For example, Fox, CNN, and everyone else will agree on sports scores. They A) aren't really subject to much bias, and B) are objective facts that are independently confirmable. For things that are subject to bias, but are independently confirmable, you'll get it reported in some places but skipped over/hidden by others. But the places that do report it will include sources (or at least should), and these sources will be verifiable.

For example, Biden being senile. CNN just doesn't report on it or does their best to hide it. Fox reports on it. Who do you trust? Not Fox, but the video Fox shows of it happening.

Reason obviously mixes in it's opinion with its fact based reporting (as all do, Reason is at least honest about it). It's bias is Establishment Libertarian (an oxymoron, but they exist). Think of libertarians who are libertarians not because of a deep moral belief in the NAP, but they think that libertarian ideals create the most public good. So they'll instantly support the government if they think that vax stuff promotes the most public good.

So they are reasonably reliable when it comes to laughing at the media, like here. They are going to be a lot less reliable (but still better than MSM) on stuff like the Vax, Davos, Blackrock, etc. They'll admit they are bad eventually, but likely too late.

The article I gave? It's about laughing at a reporter. It's pretty reliable.

As for the parking lot actually being the thing hit, that's not from the article. That's available if you look for it though. There's no picture of the hospital with a massive hole in it (but the NYT ran with a fake picture). And on top of that, Palestine doing the strike? It's probably Palestine. The only source for it being Israel was Hamas saying it was. Israel has some evidence on its side (no smoking gun, but a fair bit), but I'd say that Hamas also lied about what was hit seals the deal on it being Palestine (though it could be Hamas or Islamic Jihad).

 

[King Arts]

History, the fact that most of the lands were bought by Israeli Jews from the Ottoman Empire completely legally, the fact that they're already there by the millions and have been for the better part of a century, the fact that part of the Jewish people have lived there continuously for thousands of years.

To be frank, Israel has one of the strongest claims to that territory in the world, based on entirely 100% secular reasoning.

This is the best argument tbqh. I generally don't support expelling people from their homes. But all of that other stuff is a bit shakier since again while there were Jewish people that lived there for thousands of years many of them haven't and came from elsewhere. Just because a country has Christians living there for a long time does not mean all Christians worldwide have a claim to it.

A counterpoint: why would it be horrific to murder you and your family based simply on the fact that you're King Arts?

It depends on the moral standard we are using. Under traditional Judaism and Islam killing someone for their name is usually considered murder and wrong. Now you can kill someone for other reasons like blasphemy or idol worship under those religions which I may or may not fall under. But I was responding to someone who I thought was an atheist. So under atheism no there is nothing wrong with gay sex, there is nothing wrong with criminalizing gay sex, there is nothing wrong with killing King Arts because he is King Arts, there is nothing wrong with grooming. Nihlism is the logical end point. You run into the Is Ought fallacy.

>most nations
No, silly, EU plus few western settler colonies do not contain most nations of the world. Yes, few of those do, because they are run by smug leftist assholes, but if i cared what smug leftist assholes think i would be one of them.
Nor am i interested in becoming a tactical leftist who spouts the leftist line regarding Israel's historic homeland but not other countries, as i'm not participating in any strategy requiring that.

Do you think @SoliFortissimi is a leftist? Again he seemed to have argued for standard capitalist policies including bringing in migrants to lower wages because it would be good for bussiness. That's not a leftist/socialist position thats closer to libertarian. I tagged him because I don't know well enough if he is libertarian or not so if he wants to clarify or say I'm wrong he can do that.

Phrased badly on my part.

For the second part, it's an axiom. Morality doesn't just exist ex nihilo, it needs to rest on some sort of philosophical assumption. This isn't unique to morality, for example all of Math rests on some unproveable axioms too (Euclid's fifth postulate being a famous one). For some, it's that God exists, and said what was moral, and that these were recorded right, and that God's opinion is what matters. A lot of assumptions.

The NAP is just the axiom on the assumption that unprovoked aggression is morally wrong. It's an objective morality system (the same rules for everyone, basically), so it satisfied the request.

I'm not really good with Math so I don't know. Now I do know that religious just need to accept one axium. That God the omnipotent creator of all exists. If that is true he is able to define morality in an objective manner. God's opinion matters because God's opinion is what created the physical laws of the universe like gravity, that is God's opinion if he wanted it to stop it would no longer be a law. So he can make objective moral laws or change them, because God is unbound by logic. For example people die when they are killed, an omnipotent God can make it so that does not happen.

That works for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. For Buddhism it would provide morality because you wanting to avoid the cycle of rebirth, or wanting a better life. Atheism, and nihlism provides none of that, the NAP does not give rewards or a reason to accept it.

There is still some logical issues here:

1. Homosexuality qua homosexuality, while being immoral and decadent (in the original sense of the word), does not necessarily require or connote child abuse (the two are linked more often than the alphabet community should be comfortable with, so yes, stricter scrutiny should apply). If you're killing people for engaging in child abuse - that would be a different matter, and would make sense as defending the young. But the land/faith that venerates a pederast is unlikely to start tossing straight child molesters off of roofs. And all available evidence indicates that they do nothing of the sort. Nor have I seen a scintilla of evidence alleged or shared that the amateur involuntary homosexual base jumpers were diddling kids. Ergo, they are tossing the homosexuals for being homosexual, not for being actual or even potential child abusers.

2. On the scale of evil, murder is normally considered worse than child abuse. Yes, this is very much a frying pan/fire comparison. But the horrible truth is that victims of child abuse can and often have been able to go on to live decent lives of their own. The dead are unlikely to do so. Also, for all you normies out there, I am given to understand that killing tends to reduce what little social conditioning you lot absorb during childhood, and hence lowers the bar for future killing, making more murders (of whomever is available at hand) more likely. Finally, all the universalist faiths (and most Islamic sects do retain universalist pretensions) have the concept of converting the sinner/infidel/pagan/etc to the true faith, causing them to repent of their sins and follow "the straight and narrow path" be it of the cross, submission, or otherwise. The dead can not repent, and having never repented, can not be held up as examples to follow for other wayward souls.

Killing non-child-abusing homosexuals is logically the bigger evil.

Expelling them from the tribe or reforming them (voluntarily or otherwise) would both be a better fit for the faith claims of Islam, and for the secular strategic imperatives of Islamic groups.

A final observation:

Hamas and similar groups seem to have settled on what amounts to an odd form of human sacrifice. It used to be that cultures would select unblemished sacrifices (originally livestock, but this is where the whole virgin sacrifice idea originated, I wager). Now we have a cult sacrificing what are, by their own declarations and estimations, "unclean vermin", to the Divine. I can not imagine the Almighty is overly pleased with the quality of the offerings, or the thought processes of those making them.

You seem to not be understanding it. No they aren't doing human sacrifice, they are doing the legal punishment for someone who violates God's commands.

1. I gave the example of universality and pedos to illustrate a point. Again why would protecting the young of a foreign group matter to you? But getting off track, unlike in Christianity with it's natural law traditional Judaism and Islam don't have a problem with people abusing children as long as those children are wives or slaves. So for them they don't see a problem with a man marrying a young girl just like you don't see a problem with a man marrying a man. You both hate what the other sees as ok. And for proof I don't need to prove anything about Islam since we all know about a certain prophet's tastes. As for Judaism while traditionally Jews are considered adults at 12 for girls and 13 for boys. With the father's permission a girl can be married younger. And I can find Bible verses in the old testament about slavery and polygamy if you want it.

Bar and bat mitzvah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jewish views on marriage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. Again what you see as evil and what they see as evil are completely different. For many traditional cultures blasphemy or idolatry and apostasy are the worst things you can do. So it's not inconceivable that certain groups may see sodomy as worse than murder. As for your argument about repentance yes these people would want people to stop sinning and join their religion but two things first Islam is not Christianity. Christianity is much more forgiving. As far as I know Islam only gives one "wipe the slate clean" thing and that is to converts. So a former homosexual who is not a Muslim after they become a Muslim then their previous sins would be forgiven and should not be held against them. But again Islam and Judaism are more legalistic than Christianity so future sins are considered as crimes. Though I don't know about Judaism and how past sins of converts work I'd ask
@Cherico
and @GoldRanger

Can you guys talk about converts to Judaism please?

 

[Cherico]

This is the best argument tbqh. I generally don't support expelling people from their homes. But all of that other stuff is a bit shakier since again while there were Jewish people that lived there for thousands of years many of them haven't and came from elsewhere. Just because a country has Christians living there for a long time does not mean all Christians worldwide have a claim to it.

It depends on the moral standard we are using. Under traditional Judaism and Islam killing someone for their name is usually considered murder and wrong. Now you can kill someone for other reasons like blasphemy or idol worship under those religions which I may or may not fall under. But I was responding to someone who I thought was an atheist. So under atheism no there is nothing wrong with gay sex, there is nothing wrong with criminalizing gay sex, there is nothing wrong with killing King Arts because he is King Arts, there is nothing wrong with grooming. Nihlism is the logical end point. You run into the Is Ought fallacy.


Do you think @SoliFortissimi is a leftist? Again he seemed to have argued for standard capitalist policies including bringing in migrants to lower wages because it would be good for bussiness. That's not a leftist/socialist position thats closer to libertarian. I tagged him because I don't know well enough if he is libertarian or not so if he wants to clarify or say I'm wrong he can do that.


I'm not really good with Math so I don't know. Now I do know that religious just need to accept one axium. That God the omnipotent creator of all exists. If that is true he is able to define morality in an objective manner. God's opinion matters because God's opinion is what created the physical laws of the universe like gravity, that is God's opinion if he wanted it to stop it would no longer be a law. So he can make objective moral laws or change them, because God is unbound by logic. For example people die when they are killed, an omnipotent God can make it so that does not happen.

That works for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. For Buddhism it would provide morality because you wanting to avoid the cycle of rebirth, or wanting a better life. Atheism, and nihlism provides none of that, the NAP does not give rewards or a reason to accept it.


You seem to not be understanding it. No they aren't doing human sacrifice, they are doing the legal punishment for someone who violates God's commands.

1. I gave the example of universality and pedos to illustrate a point. Again why would protecting the young of a foreign group matter to you? But getting off track, unlike in Christianity with it's natural law traditional Judaism and Islam don't have a problem with people abusing children as long as those children are wives or slaves. So for them they don't see a problem with a man marrying a young girl just like you don't see a problem with a man marrying a man. You both hate what the other sees as ok. And for proof I don't need to prove anything about Islam since we all know about a certain prophet's tastes. As for Judaism while traditionally Jews are considered adults at 12 for girls and 13 for boys. With the father's permission a girl can be married younger. And I can find Bible verses in the old testament about slavery and polygamy if you want it.

Bar and bat mitzvah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jewish views on marriage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. Again what you see as evil and what they see as evil are completely different. For many traditional cultures blasphemy or idolatry and apostasy are the worst things you can do. So it's not inconceivable that certain groups may see sodomy as worse than murder. As for your argument about repentance yes these people would want people to stop sinning and join their religion but two things first Islam is not Christianity. Christianity is much more forgiving. As far as I know Islam only gives one "wipe the slate clean" thing and that is to converts. So a former homosexual who is not a Muslim after they become a Muslim then their previous sins would be forgiven and should not be held against them. But again Islam and Judaism are more legalistic than Christianity so future sins are considered as crimes. Though I don't know about Judaism and how past sins of converts work I'd ask
@Cherico
and @GoldRanger

Can you guys talk about converts to Judaism please?

Two Jews three opinions, what your talking about has a whole range of opinions.

 

[King Arts]

Two Jews three opinions, what your talking about has a whole range of opinions.

Can you give me the three opinions on past sins of converts before they became jews?

 

[Zyobot]

Godwin's law doesn't really apply when we are talking about people going door to door murdering Jewish families.

Godwin's law is for when people cram nazi comparisons into unrelated things.

I'm gonna go ahead and say it's thoroughly appropriate in this situation.

All right, that's fair.

Not sure if the fuckers who're acting out right now know or care, but as I recall, Hitler's admired in the Muslim world precisely because of how many Jews he genocided. So, ultimately, if there's anyone itching for another Holocaust, it's gotta' be them.

 

[Cherico]

Can you give me the three opinions on past sins of converts before they became jews?

Depends on weather its a sin between man and god and men and men.

Some think that conversion gives you a clean slate, some state that good works are a way to deal with it, most agree that Yom Kippur lets you atone just like any other jew.

When it comes of sins between men things get messier, like migraine inducingly so. Some say that like I said clean slate others that you have to make things right with the people you sinned against once again its a mess because Rabbis have been bickering about the subject for centuries and as a Layman I'm not really qualified to say which is which.

 

[Abhorsen]

My overall take is that Israel has done some fucked things in the past. But Hamas is a literal deathcult. Look at MemriTv on what they think about the death of their own:

Jordanian-Palestinian Businessman And Politician Talal Abu Ghazaleh: We Welcome Death; So Far Gaza's Losses Haven't Even Been In The Thousands, The Russians Lost 27 Million In WWII; Hitler Left Some Jews Alive So We Will Know Why He Had To Kill Them

Jordanian-Palestinian businessman and former senator Talal Abu Ghazaleh said on an October 12, 2023, show on NBN TV (Leb...

www.memri.org

In short, for anything productive to ever happen, Hamas must be wiped out permanently, or at least tossed out of power in Gaza, then hunted down by Fatah.

I'm not really good with Math so I don't know. Now I do know that religious just need to accept one axium. That God the omnipotent creator of all exists. If that is true he is able to define morality in an objective manner. God's opinion matters because God's opinion is what created the physical laws of the universe like gravity, that is God's opinion if he wanted it to stop it would no longer be a law. So he can make objective moral laws or change them, because God is unbound by logic. For example people die when they are killed, an omnipotent God can make it so that does not happen.

You've combined/hidden assumptions. You need that 1) A god exists, 2) that it is your God, and 3) that the God has moral authority. You make an argument that God's opinion is what matters, but what if I say it doesn't? How do you prove it? It's obvious, but sorta unproveable. Hence it's an assumption.

That works for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. For Buddhism it would provide morality because you wanting to avoid the cycle of rebirth, or wanting a better life. Atheism, and nihlism provides none of that, the NAP does not give rewards or a reason to accept it.

... That's the thing. Instead of assuming that God exists, I assume the NAP is just. You assume God exists, and that provides meaning, morality, etc. I assume the NAP is a moral truth and follow it. I guess there's a hidden assumption there that one should want to be moral, so that's 2 assumptions.


But in short, all morality lays on human assumptions. The NAP is my assumption. You've made different assumptions. The request was for an objective morality, I provided one.

 

[LordsFire]

But in short, all morality lays on human assumptions. The NAP is my assumption. You've made different assumptions. The request was for an objective morality, I provided one.

No, now you're making an assertion.

We can reasonably test and see which worldviews, and their ideology, better reflect reality, and come to rational conclusions about which more closely cohere with the underlying philosophical truths of life.

Given that Christian societies have been the best for human flourishing, and atheist societies have been the worst, this has some clear suggestions about which has a better handle on truth.

Secular Libertarianism has never built a culture or society, so it literally is not even in the running.

Even Islam usually has a better track record than explicitly godless cultures, Hamas being one of the notable examples where they're actually performing down to the same level atheist governments tend towards.

 

[S'task]

My overall take is that Israel has done some fucked things in the past. But Hamas is a literal deathcult.

This is a point so many people so many people cannot seem to fathom in regards to Hamas. They are not acting based on economic or materialistic motives. There isn't a compromise position that Israel can agree to that will satisfy Hamas, yet for some reason so many in the western academics and elites seem to think there is...