Sunday School

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg,

7 good reasons why we shouldn’t free Palestine.

I agree that a Gaza or West Bank ran by Islamists like Hamas is unacceptable. But I am equally not sure if anything beyond destroying Hamas is a good idea, such as Netanyahu’s proposal to take-over and hand it over to another Arab regime.

Doesn’t this assume there is an Arab regime that would want Gaza, as well as an Arab regime that isn’t equally as Islamist and Anti-Istael and Antisemitic as Hamas?

Obviously, Trump’s throw-spaghetti-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach has spread it’s contagion to Netanyahu.

Whoever is next up in Gaza needs to be completely un-Islamized and at least neutral toward Israel, but how to get there is unknown.

[StregaModerator]

I wonder if the Saudi’s in partnership with Jared would be interested in this ‘piece of prime real estate’.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Strega,

Whoever would want Gaza would have their work cut out for them. It wouldn’t be like The Donald’s glitzy, shiny AI prospectus.

First, they would have to clear out all the unexploded ordinance. That would include both all the ordinance in the tunnels and all the ordinance on the surface, conventional, plus Chemical, Biological, and maybe rudimentary Nuclear.

And you might never know if you found it it all. Europe and all of it’s former colonies in places like Southeast Asia, Africa, and the High Seas still have unexploded ordinance from decades or even centuries of war. Even in the U.S. we occasionally run up on buried forgotten unused ordinance from WWI and WWII.

While taking care of unexploded ordinance, whoever has Gaza will have to deal with the mass amounts of dead. Not just humans, but also livestock, pets, and wildlife carrion.

Then there are destroyed buildings and infrastructure like roads, bridges, power plants, transformers, water treatment, sewers systems, communications towers and cable, hospitals, Police Departments. Fire Houses. Even standing buildings could be uninhabitable or unusable because of cracks, sunken foundation, abandonment which means lack of maintenance of systems, squatting which means looting and trash and untreated waste, pest infestation, and so on.

Even if all this was completely remedied, there would have to be enough human needs, services, amenities, and entertainment available for people to want to stay or come. And more people always have an impact of one form or another on any place that needs to be ameliorated.

I’m no multi-billionaire developer, but I can tell you that it would be a big risky drain to make Gaza a ‘piece of prime real estate.’

• This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addenda

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Strega wrote:

But that’s not what stops us from randomly killing annoying people. We don’t think “I want to throttle you but I’d better not because it’s wrong”.

Well, this is true I agree.  There’s no such thing as moral obligation, having to do things because it’s the morally right thing to do.  We follow moral principles because we don’t like the unpleasant consequences of not following them, even if that is our upset feelings or conscience.

So, I think there’s a full spectrum of innateness from welfare-related principles of not killing or harming living beings (unnecessarily), to highly cultural codes of etiquette, which are not innate at all but constructed by human societies.  But following norms in itself is instinctive.  If there aren’t norms, in a given situation, we soon invent them.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@jakelafort – it doesn’t take a lot to destroy the feeling of “I feel your pain”.  All it takes is if we don’t approve of someone, so for some reason, they are not “deserving” of our empathic concern.  A set of people we don’t approve of is hated out-group members.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Strega,

I meant to add as punctuation: All this fine mess is ultimately what Hamas hath wraught. Lots of IDF members would much rather be planting a tree or building a gazebo addition.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg,

Are you sure Walter isn’t dipping into his own prescription there? The less strung-out would just use fly paper or trap them in jugs of sugar water.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Reg writes:

That is what the civilized world hopes for. And behind all of this, in the background, are the religious zealots and power grabbing bigots that nobody seems to be talking about. They are like woodworms in a library. By the time anyone reacts to them all the books will be damaged. Then they will bring in a pedestal and put one book on it.

I assume it is indeed the case Nonamericans will largely recoil at the trajectory of the USA. And what will they think of Americans? We are morons. And throw in many other ways of characterizing our collective intelligence and decency. Problem is once again looking at it from a free will perspective. We should instead wonder at the influences on Americans.

Oh the failure of the left and almost everyone else to call out religion as a bad influence. The authoritarianism as a bad idea is similarly missing. I mean the left used to champion bill of rights. Now they use it for toilet paper. And the Magas reuse the used toilet paper. Ewww. They have their own brand of authoritarianism. And the right is by nature i think a bit more inclined toward authoritarianism.

Is the everyday Joe or Jane capable of thinking critically? I really do not know. You would know in short order cuz everyone would be an atheist. I have a feeling though that the capacity is quite limited. Ultimately it will be group think for the greater number of us.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Fellow Unbelievers,

There are some things that need adding to this video below:

For one thing, Jeffrey could have said: “Oh, I meant to mention, John Mearsheimer and myself both hate Israel with a passion, so just forget all that Adam Smith rot about the benefits of trade and global interconnectedness; it doesn’t apply to the ‘Zionist Entity.’ Boycott Divest and Sanction in the name of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion!”

“And all that zero-sum clash of great powers stuff John Mearsheimer talks about only means the world is the oyster for BRICS and CRINK and OPEC and the OIC and the UN, but not for geopolitical piss-ants like Israel! As Thucydides put it: ‘The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must’, so step to, die, and chop-chop, Israel!”

And judging from their faces, Jeffrey Sacks could conclude by singing: “NYAH!NYAH!NYAH!NYAH!NYAH! I’m gonna be the last one eaten by the crocodile and you aren’t!”. And John Mearsheimer could refrain: “NYAH!NYAH!NYAH!NYAH!NYAH! I’m gonna be on the back of the crocodile when that day comes and you aren’t!”

Here’s John below. Ain’t he missing his chance to be a Bond villain? All he needs is a fluffy Persian kitty.

• This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Video addendum

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

In a recent book, ‘How States Think’, Mearsheimer says that in an ‘anarchic international system’ (one with no world government – i.e. the real world), each state must ensure its own survival. Great powers seek to maintain or expand their security buffer zones to prevent potential threats from getting too close. Russia’s view of NATO expansion, which includes many former Warsaw Pact and Soviet states and with Ukraine’s deepening ties with NATO was seen as a threat. Even if NATO’s stated mission is defensive, its closer proximity to Russia’s borders changed the balance of power in ways Putin had to consider. From Russia’s standpoint, this means a possible future where NATO forces, missile systems, and intelligence assets could be stationed near major Russian cities.

We can argue about how Putin’s perception of this ‘threat’ being irrational or morally wrong but from Moscow’s standpoint, ignoring such a development would be irrational. Even if Western leaders see NATO as non-threatening, Russia’s historical experiences (Napoleon, Hitler, Cold War encirclement) make it inclined to treat any military alliance near its borders as hostile.

The Western powers call the attack on Ukraine irrational, but they might be conflating “irrational” with “morally wrong” or “self-damaging”. The war has been economically and diplomatically costly for Russia, so critics say it was bad strategy. But in realism, a bad outcome doesn’t necessarily mean irrational decision-making — it might mean the risk assessment or execution of the response failed. Rationality is subjective to the actor’s information set and worldview.

In Alaska, will Trump say “From a realist security perspective, your (Putin’s) perception of NATO expansion as a threat — and how you are acting to counter it — could be understood as rational”.

Whether that perception is accurate, and whether the invasion was the optimal way to address it is for another discussion. So, if NATO say that Ukraine cannot join, will Putin give the land back or will Trump suggest that Ukraine cede territory to give Russia a buffer zone, but they then can join NATO? Or I am being irrational?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

each state must ensure its own survival.

They also need to work together to ensure their own and each other’s survival.

We can argue about how Putin’s perception of this ‘threat’ being irrational or morally wrong but from Moscow’s standpoint, ignoring such a development would be irrational.

What is irrational about Putin is that he doesn’t see he causes the backlash in the first place by being so thin-skinned, paranoid and aggressive.  He’s a typical malignant narcissist – acts aggressive to someone, and then plays the victim when they react negatively.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg:

One big problem with both Mearsheimer and Putin is they have a concept of rationality that is totally unmoored by human nature or by evidence of either history or the present.

If Man is a Aristotlean “Rational Animal” who survives by exercising rationality, then if he is doing an act that ends up self-damaging, rationality requires that he change course. And if lifea is a good thing, rationality is certainly a moral course of action.

Mearsheimer also ignores a most obvious fact about Putin. Vladimyr Putin thus described what he called the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the Twentieth Century:

“It was a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union,” Putin said of the 1991 breakup, in comments aired on Sunday as part of a documentary film called “Russia. New History”, the RIA state news agency reported.
“We turned into a completely different country. And what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost,” said Putin, saying 25 million Russian people in newly independent countries suddenly found themselves cut off from Russia, part of what he called “a major humanitarian tragedy”.

Putin rues Soviet collapse as demise of ‘historical Russia’
By Andrew Osborn and Andrey Ostroukh
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-rues-soviet-collapse-demise-historical-russia-2021-12-12/

For Putin, the problem was not the simple survival of Russia proper, but of the Empire Russia built up and held together by force under both the Czars and the Soviets. Thus, the neighbors and the newly independent break-offs had more to fear from Putin’s beloved Empire than his Empire had to fear from them.

Also, the Soviets were hardly “encircled” during the Cold War unless you count polar bears in the Arctic. The Soviets not only conquered Eastern Europe, but had close relations with Red China up to the 1960s and India to the 1980s, acquired client states in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, and in the Americas through Castro’s Cuba and Allende’s Chile.

As for Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union, that was preceded by The Soviets enabling and aiding Hitler through The Non-Aggression Treaty of 1939, where they jointly pieced apart Poland and exchanged raw materiels from Russia and war machinery from Germany. The Soviets and Communists worldwide supported Hitler up to the moment he turned on them. Hitler was like a bomb going off in the Soviets’ own hands.

And while Napoleon at his time was a threat to Russia, there is a reason why today the word “Waterloo” is a synonym of overwhelming defeat. During France’s invasion of Russia, Napoleon’s men were frozen to death and those left were forced to eat their own horses. The threat of Napoleonic Empire to Russia is long since dead, and judging from France’s reputation since World War II, any threat from France is Slim and None and Slim’s still on the Left Bank.

Putin’s wannabe Revanchist Empire is no helpless put-upon victim and Trump is simply dangling Ukraine ws raw meat in from of Putin with these negotiations.

Trump is so deranged he probably thinks the Johnny Horton song is saying: “North to Alaska, we’re going North to Russia’s Zone!”

• This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling and addendum

[UnseenParticipant]

What we need is a state for every disliked or hated minority. Nor just one for Jews, but one each for Roma (gypsies), LGBTQ, liberals, conservatives, females, etc. In other words, a complete partitioning of the world. And who better to take on the assignment than Donald Trump?

Alternatively, we could work harder on getting along with each other.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg and Fellow Unbelievers,

How the “woke right” mirrors the tactics and mindset of the postmodern left with its disregard for objective truth. Both sides prioritize narrative and performative transgression over honest persuasion or reasoned debate.

If there’s one thing that’s as irrational and nonsensical as “Woke Right,” it has to be the “Based Left.”

Pastor Sees Boycott of Target Stores as New Civil Rights Fight
Story by Jeff Green • 10h • 10 min read
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/ar-AA1Kn1up

Pastor Jamal Harrison Bryant is wanting his flock of sheep and others to boycott Target, not because of any invidious discrimination, but because the store no longer (at least explicitly) supports DEI hiring and merchandising, even though Target still hires minorities, still sells minority-made and minority-bought brands, and still supports HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities.). In fact, the reason Pastor Bryant wants to boycott Target is precisely because it has minority-made brands! How boycotting a store that sell minority-made brands will help those brands or customers or workers is not specified.

What’s more, he actually thinks his boycott will energize his younger church members and younger internet followers by encouraging them to not buy things they want and need. Like young people of any background are enthused by not buying things! And doesn’t civil rights include working, purchasing, and selling as you wish?

Alas, here it reveals more about Pastor Bryant’s deeper goal:

The decline in the Black church attendance, which has been integral to the modern Civil Rights movement for three quarters of a century, is another challenge. Less than a third of Black people said they attend services weekly last year, according to a Pew Research Center survey online and by mail. That compares with more than half attending weekly, according to a telephone survey from 2007. Younger Black churchgoers are also less likely to attend a historically Black church. With fewer people in the pews, the message doesn’t reach as far as it used to.

Bryant says a boycott is one way to energize those younger churchgoers that remain, and a successful one might help keep the church relevant…

Sorry, Pastor Bryant, Modernity knows no skin color or heritage. You’re going to have to “Michael, row your boat to shore” or tread water while trying to walk on it like every other minister nowadays.

Tighten up on your back stroke, Pastor Bryant and never mind how other people want to do business!

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

What we need is a state for every disliked or hated minority. Nor just one for Jews, but one each for Roma (gypsies), LGBTQ, liberals, conservatives, females, etc. In other words, a complete partitioning of the world. And who better to take on the assignment than Donald Trump?

Alternatively, we could work harder on getting along with each other.

Micronations have already been proposed for many different groups for many different reasons. Probably every politically-aware kid has had that dream too.

List of Micronations–Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations

Patri Friedman has proposed the idea of man-made seasteads that could serve as micronations as well

Home

And, yes, we could also work harder on getting along together too. The biggest challenge to this in the Middle East would be new mass-accepted “holy books” like The Holy Bible 2.0 and The Qu’ran 2.0: The Really, Really Last and Final Word of Allah which would have no references to hatred and horrors against anyone.

A long distant third behind that is if everyone woke up without a religion or totalitarian ideology or a desire to harm anyone.

Until then, existing nation-states are the coin of the world realm and we have to make what we have better and scrape the rotten stuff off when it gets flung our way.

• This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum
• This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum

[Author]

Posts