Palestine discussion

[tryptakid]

I don't give people only a single chance, this learning happens over many interactions over many months to years. Yes I do take into account possible mental status, economic status, and the cultural and material reality of the person I am engaging with. I tend not to make snap judgements on whether a person is engaging in good faith or not because you can't make that judgment over only a few interactions with limited knowledge

This statement is in direct conflict with this one:

I give every new person that I meet the benefit of the doubt, but I would be foolish to continue that with people who I have learned to operate in bad faith

Either you only give new people the benefit of the doubt, or you always do over the course of years and years and many interactions.

But if you learn that they argue in bad faith, does that mean you still do over years and years, or that your own bias has written them off and are waiting for them to change to say something you agree with, and will only listen to what they're saying under a contextual set that you've privately decided.

This is also getting really close to psychoanalysis of you which you did not ask for and I am an expert in because of my profession - so I'm going to stop and offer apologies right now as I'm not trying to do this. I just hope that some of what I have been saying may be helpful in some way.

I like you a lot and I agree with you quite a bit. You're a good human in my book.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

In the end, it sucks to be the person who is in the spotlight, having to defend statements that are pages and pages old. Unfortunately, you are someone that likes to invite it a bit because you immediately write off people who you don't agree with. In general, we get along because I often agree with you and as such, don't often take on perspectives that you disagree with. @-=SS=- on the other hand.... not someone you're going to have a lot of baseline commonality with, but he's a really fucking thoughtful person when he's discussing things. You'd probably learn a lot if you gave him more of a chance, even if you don't change your beliefs to line up with his.

It'll certainly make you better at making the points you are trying to make, because you'll know how to navigate the types of things that people who disagree with you think. It'll also give you more empathy around why they might think the way they do, and when maybe it isn't the best thing to get into a debate with them about.

As I mentioned SS and I have a history of discussing many things on these forums, I have read many of his posts and while they may appear thoughtful and well written, many of the ideas he espouses are based on fundamental misunderstandings of basic concepts, at least in the scientific domain. Again, I have read many posts he has made on these topics fully and attempted to engage. It becomes tiring when that person brushes off every single piece of evidence about those fundamentals. Every time that I do read one of his posts fully, it is very easy to spot the misunderstandings which underlie the rest of his arguments.

I'll repeat, I did give him a chance and he refused to engage in good faith for the many months that I attempted. I have still read his posts since then, and they are just as filled with the same misunderstandings and refusal to view any other perspectives other than his own.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

This statement is in direct conflict with this one:

Either you only give new people the benefit of the doubt, or you always do over the course of years and years and many interactions.

But if you learn that they argue in bad faith, does that mean you still do over years and years, or that your own bias has written them off and are waiting for them to change to say something you agree with, and will only listen to what they're saying under a contextual set that you've privately decided.

This is also getting really close to psychoanalysis of you which you did not ask for and I am an expert in because of my profession - so I'm going to stop and offer apologies right now as I'm not trying to do this. I just hope that some of what I have been saying may be helpful in some way.

I like you a lot and I agree with you quite a bit. You're a good human in my book.

I was saying that I cannot continue to give a person the benefit of the doubt after that individual has proven to me that they don't operate in good faith, that I would be foolish to do so. This has no impact on people that I have not yet encountered

 

[brokedownpalace10]

This statement is in direct conflict with this one:

Either you only give new people the benefit of the doubt, or you always do over the course of years and years and many interactions.

But if you learn that they argue in bad faith, does that mean you still do over years and years, or that your own bias has written them off and are waiting for them to change to say something you agree with, and will only listen to what they're saying under a contextual set that you've privately decided.

This is also getting really close to psychoanalysis of you which you did not ask for and I am an expert in because of my profession - so I'm going to stop and offer apologies right now as I'm not trying to do this. I just hope that some of what I have been saying may be helpful in some way.

I like you a lot and I agree with you quite a bit. You're a good human in my book.

I maybe shouldn't get into the middle of this... but I never had any sense.
As to the "bad faith" thing. Once you have seen a person will lie... a few times. How much does it take before you will believe that person again?

Not necessarily a direct comparison to this conversation, but a little bit it is?

My biggest problem with current politics is how the truth doesn't seem to matter at all anymore. Play hard, but play fair.

 

[mal3volent]

You were making the claim that it was a real issue, simply because it was being reported on by a major outlet. That claim was false, a major outlet reporting on a rich nutcase making an absurd claim is not evidence for the claim. You then cited the report as if it substantiated the absurd claim so I read the report, which you very obviously did not, and I suggested you read it so you might modify your opinion on the reporting. Instead of simply reading the report you have chosen to dance around the issue

Everyone besides you sees the glaring issues in how you've gone about this. You can continue lying and presenting lazy arguments or you can admit to making a mistake and own up to it. It happens to the best of us.

Because of our past disagreements you made a rushed characterization of my words that isn't supported by the facts.

If there was some kind of real, tangible contradiction you would have proven it by now. But after multiple opportunities, you just continue making broad statements and doubling down on your flawed rhetoric.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Everyone besides you sees the glaring issues in how you've gone about this. You can continue lying and presenting lazy arguments or you can admit to making a mistake and own up to it. It happens to the best of us.

Because of our past disagreements you made a rushed characterization of my words that isn't supported by the facts.

If there was some kind of real, tangible contradiction you would have proven it by now. But after multiple opportunities, you just continue making broad statements and doubling down on your flawed rhetoric.

You can continue to twist things around but I don't really care because you're one of those who manipulates the conversation by moving and deleting posts, I don't particularly care to engage with your bad faith arguments nor am I required to respect your "arguments"

 

[mal3volent]

You can continue to twist things around but I don't really care because you're one of those who manipulates the conversation by moving and deleting posts, I don't particularly care to engage with your bad faith arguments nor am I required to respect your "arguments"

Oh is that the route we're going now? I used my admin powers to manipulate the conversation to make you look bad? It couldn't just be that you messed up. Nah, it's a huge conspiracy. Pretty ironic...

You aren't required to respect my arguments but you are required to respect basic expectations of logic and decency...

 

[tryptakid]

I maybe shouldn't get into the middle of this... but I never had any sense.
As to the "bad faith" thing. Once you have seen a person will lie... a few times. How much does it take before you will believe that person again?

Not necessarily a direct comparison to this conversation, but a little bit it is?

My biggest problem with current politics is how the truth doesn't seem to matter at all anymore. Play hard, but play fair.

Usually I need to see that someone recognizes the ways in which they have been mislead or misleading to others. If I've seen someone blatantly lie, with little awareness of why they're doing it, or with obvious awareness about why they're doing it, I find it difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt.

It's a really really difficult thing to break once I've formed a mental schema of someone, which is why I do my best to give people as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible.

For example, I spend a lot of time trying to figure out WHY Elon believes what he believes as I find him to be a reprehensible human. But like all humans, I believe him to be capable of change, and trying to understand what causes him to be such a piece of shit would be helpful in flagging if he is doing something to try to and change.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Usually I need to see that someone recognizes the ways in which they have been mislead or misleading to others. If I've seen someone blatantly lie, with little awareness of why they're doing it, or with obvious awareness about why they're doing it, I find it difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt.

It's a really really difficult thing to break once I've formed a mental schema of someone, which is why I do my best to give people as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible.

For example, I spend a lot of time trying to figure out WHY Elon believes what he believes as I find him to be a reprehensible human. But like all humans, I believe him to be capable of change, and trying to understand what causes him to be such a piece of shit would be helpful in flagging if he is doing something to try to and change.

I guess I do still retain some faith in the basic decency of every human. I will say that, at my advanced age, I pretty much will rarely give actual trust again once a certain point has been reached. At least not in things that are important.

I do hope Elon finds redemption and believe there is humanity left in him and it is possible. However, I would never support him being in a position of power again.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Oh is that the route we're going now? I used my admin powers to manipulate the conversation to make you look bad? It couldn't just be that you messed up. Nah, it's a huge conspiracy. Pretty ironic...

You aren't required to respect my arguments but you are required to respect basic expectations of logic and decency...

I didn't say that about this time, just your past actions

There are many reasons based on our past interactions and my own observations over the years that have led me to not respect or trust your statements

 

[mal3volent]

I didn't say that about this time, just your past actions

There are many reasons based on our past interactions and my own observations over the years that have led me to not respect or trust your statements

I know you have a penchant for drama, but please knock it off.
You came up a little short in this exchange, it happens. Live to fight another day.

 

[Jnowhere]

Here is another example of this two-tier, political correct, establishment meddling. A man attempted to burn a Quran in front of the Turkish embassy in London, and another man came up to him and started to stab him. The man who burned the book is remanded in custody, the man who attempted to kill him is let out on bail.

EDIT: There was a man in Sweden recently who did the same and was killed in his home if I remember correctly. So much for 'tolerance'. They can't tolerate burning of a book (or cartoons of their 'prophet'), so they respond by trying to fucking kill the person instead of engaging in a dialogue. Spin it anyway you like, but that is clear representation of a culture that is not on the same level as ours. It just isn't.

These stories come out all the time; I wonder how much is not reported, ignored or swept under the rug.

These people will want sharia law someday as the numbers rise and the high birth rates on the 'immigrants '
What then public stonings( not the fun kind) of women who have sex before or outside of marriage? They usually let the man live. Rape victims have been stoned to death.

Are they going to want to execute homosexuals? Many Islamic countries have homosexuals acts as a capital crime. It is not reported but if you look around you can find pictures and even videos.

In Iran they like to use a crane to hang people so they suffer more. Couple of minutes of suffocation vs a long fall from a short rope.

Drugs will be punishable by death.

No alcohol or you will be whipped mercilessly.

Woman will be second class citizens and have to adhere to a dress code and 'know their place' and be limited in job options. Burkas or

At least abortion will be illegal

Anything said against Islam or The Prophet Muhammad will be put to death.

All media censored.

Drugs including Marijuana could get you executed, luckily the British hate drugs.

The reason I bring this up is because of the high birth rates and it is usually the offspring of the ' immigrants' that become radicalized.
The high birth rates of rates of these 'immigrants'. So what happens generations from now; other than historians shaking their heads and laughing?

Sharia Law which there have been calls for. What happens when there is a majority? Why Sharia law could be implemented or a dictatorship or more specifically a Muslim Theocracy established. Bye Bye Royal family. A hamas style government.

This is going to take generations so who cares?

There is no tolerance and with huge numbers of unemployed young people in the future who will be easily radicalized and this isn't about race.
I saw a bunch of white British people,
who joined ISIS; so many others who will join in also.

This is just a short list but this is about long term.

The left will try to change the subject or avoid it. But what happens when the British people have had enough or are they that brainwashed and are they going to have sharia law way into the future?

What will become of Jolly old Englandistan

 

[brokedownpalace10]

These stories come out all the time; I wonder how much is not reported, ignored or swept under the rug.

These people will want sharia law someday as the numbers rise and the high birth rates on the 'immigrants '
What then public stonings( not the fun kind) of women who have sex before or outside of marriage?

Are they going to want to execute homosexuals? Many Islamic countries have homosexuals acts as a capital crime. It is not reported but if you look around you can find pictures and even videos.

In Iran they like to use a crane to hang people so they suffer more. Couple of minutes of suffocation vs a long fall from a short rope. Drugs will be punishable by death to?

No alcohol or you will be whipped mercilessly.

Woman will be second class citizens and have to adhere to a dress code and 'know their place'

Anything said against Islam or The Prophet Muhammad will be put to death.

All media censored

Drugs could get you executed, luckily the British hate drugs.

The reason I bring this up is two fold.
1 it is usually the offspring of the ' immigrants' that become radicalized.
The high birth rates of rates of these 'immigrants'. So what happens generations from now other that historians shaking their heads and laughing?
Sharia Law which there have been calls for. What happens when there is a majority? Why Sharia law could be implemented or dictatorship established, but historical lyrics the British are use to this.

The man burning the koran was charged with a religiously aggravated public order offence. A non-imprisonable offence and the maximum penalty is a level 4 fine.
The man attacking him was charged with causing actual bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon. In the UK, the penalty for possession of an offensive weapon can range from a fine to four years in prison. The penalty for actual bodily harm (ABH) can range from a fine to five years in prison.

Both are out on bail.

There is no story here. No reason to clutch pearls. Everything was done well and properly.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

I know you have a penchant for drama, but please knock it off.
You came up a little short in this exchange, it happens. Live to fight another day.

You just love to go around claiming that a point wasn't addressed when it clearly was, this is a behavior that you've exhibited for the entire time I've been on Blue Light and is one of the primary reasons I do not think you are trustworthy.

 

[-=SS=-]

As I mentioned SS and I have a history of discussing many things on these forums, I have read many of his posts and while they may appear thoughtful and well written, many of the ideas he espouses are based on fundamental misunderstandings of basic concepts, at least in the scientific domain. Again, I have read many posts he has made on these topics fully and attempted to engage. It becomes tiring when that person brushes off every single piece of evidence about those fundamentals.

So that's what this comes down to with you and me, that because I don't believe wholescale in 'the science' - or to be less abrasive let's say the 'mainstream of consensus science' - that that somehow precludes every other point I make in different topics of discussion from being valid? You do realize that is a form of religious zealotry, right?

Look, I'm not some double digit IQ fundamentalist who thinks the Earth is flat or 6000 years old, I don't need to be talked down too about 'fundamentals' in science. Least of all because (and this is an assumption) in all likelihood neither you nor I, nor 99% of people, have actually repeated all the experiments that make up our scientific ecosystem.. everything that we believe, and we do believe, is based on trust. And humans are fallible. Nothing should be off the table - let's remember that the entire scientific enterprise rests on 'one free miracle' as Terence McKenna put it, referring to the big bang theory.

Have you ever asked yourself why you feel the need to defend something that isn't supposed to be a religious belief system in the first place? Least of all from some anonymous face like me? Do you not trust the intellectual judgement of other people to evaluate my position and come to their conclusions accordingly?

 

[someguyontheinternet]

So that's what this comes down to with you and me, that because I don't believe wholescale in 'the science' - or to be less abrasive let's say the 'mainstream of consensus science' - that that somehow precludes every other point I make in different topics of discussion from being valid? You do realize that is a form of religious zealotry, right?

Look, I'm not some double digit IQ fundamentalist who thinks the Earth is flat or 6000 years old, I don't need to be talked down too about 'fundamentals' in science. Least of all because (and this is an assumption) in all likelihood neither you nor I, nor 99% of people, have actually repeated all the experiments that make up our scientific ecosystem.. everything that we believe, and we do believe, is based on trust. And humans are fallible. Nothing should be off the table - let's remember that the entire scientific enterprise rests on 'one free miracle' as Terence McKenna put it, referring to the big bang theory.

Have you ever asked yourself why you feel the need to defend something that isn't supposed to be a religious belief system in the first place? Least of all from some anonymous face like me? Do you not trust the intellectual judgement of other people to evaluate my position and come to their conclusions accordingly?

I defend the fundamentals of techniques that I have not only seen first hand but have used myself. If the fundamentals were wrong then the techniques simply would not work

Its not a belief system any more than driving a car is a belief system in the operation of the internal combustion engine

 

[mal3volent]

 

[-=SS=-]

 

[-=SS=-]

 

[paranoid android]

What about all the children that those settlers and the army killed? I guess you only care about Israeli deaths