Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: POTF 7 - Nominations

  1. #1
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017

    Default POTF 7 - Nominations

    POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it.
    You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

    Post of the Fortnight - Rules

    -Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting
    with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!

    -Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

    - Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

    - There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

    - Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

    - The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

    - The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

    -The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

    -In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.

    - Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

    - People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.

    A nominated post should:

    1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
    2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
    3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
    4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
    5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.

    Good luck everyone!
    Under the patronage of Pontifex Maximus
    Check out the Post of the Fortnight Competition!
    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar Caligula_ View Post
    And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals. Amen.

  2. #2
    Flinn's Avatar Sometimes you eat the Bean, sometimes the Bean eats you!
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: POTF 7 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Have you confused a column (eg deep pike) formation (often depicted artistically as a square of men in solid formation, albeit one facing all the same way) with a square formation (a square of men facing outwards, often a hollow square)? There is an enormous difference, the chief one being the direction in which the men face.

    Infantry square

    Pike squares: essentially deep columns all facing forwards

    The second image is by Urs Graf, who was a landsknecht and fought many battles so we can assume he knows what he is depicting: in the top left you see two pike formations moving to engage. they are deep columns facing forwards, sometimes colloquially called "squares", but not in square formation (ie they all face forwards, not outwards).

    I doubt any unit ever advanced in square formation, that is with a quarter of the men facing forwards, half the men shuffling sideways and a quarter of the men marching backwards. It would be ludicrous on a perfectly flat parade ground and on a battlefield it would degenerate into chaos in seconds.

    Nosworthy in his "Battle tactics of Napoleon" notes the difficulty of getting infantry to change formation smoothly in battle. One in a protective square the men (for example at Waterloo) were reluctant to leave their protective huddle despite the shot tearing lines of of their ranks, and its a testament to the British and Allied officers that they were able to quickly deploy into line for example to receive the Middle Guard assault up the ridge.

    The Old Guard of course were the acme of experience, skill and elan: they were known in the heat of battle to redeploy their formation not by parade ground march and counter march, but simply by running to their positions to assume the new formation. Not even they could have marched in a square formation.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    The rationale supporting anything traditionalist Christians want isn't dependent on the proportion of Christians who adhere to it

    I don't think that means we assume that traditionalist Christians are the "true Christians". I don't think of Orthodox Jews as being the "true Jews".
    The claim that "the rationale which supports Christian pro-life perspectives isn't dependent on the proportion of Christians who adhere to it" does not imply a determination on my part as to whom "the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2: 39). At no point during our exchange have I made (or attempted to make) any such determination. It may be possible that you are conflating our conversation with your conversation with Podromos.

    My comment on proportionality was a response to your claim that you are "interested in what Christians believe and practice society-wide, not what the institutions say they believe". I found this to be a curious argument because:

    a) Our conversation has been largely focussed on institutional views;
    b) The statistical breakdown of Christian perspectives is relevant to the debate only insofar as potential electoral implications are concerned and;
    c) Non-institutional Christian views are largely unrelated to the positions I have attempted to articulate vis-a-vis the ethical rationale of pro-life advocates.

    You gonna just ignore the definition of secular I just provided for you? Because that is how I was using it. If a law exists only do to religious reasoning, that you can't give secular justification for it, it isn't secular. That isn't the exact same thing as like, Christmas (which isn't a law) where it is actually quite secular in it's practice in the US. I gave you an example; banning work on the Sabbath, which would not be secular. If the government is limiting store hours on Sundays, I would imagine that also isn't very secular as I am unaware of secular reasoning for such policies, though it is far less egregious than banning the whole day of work.

    This isn't like a trick, I am just saying you should have secular reasoning for laws. It tends to be better for society.
    Within the context of this debate, the nature of secularism is, to my mind, more complex than the definition you provided allows for. It would, to my estimation, be more accurate for you to claim your preference for atheist and/or irreligious rather than secular reasoning. Whilst I recognize that this is largely a matter of linguistic pedantry, I, being both a secularist and proponent of Christian rationale, reject any implication of theocratic advocacy on my part.

    We weren't actually talking about what arguments you have offered, it was about your reasoning. If you are saying your reasoning is irreligious, I don't believe you.
    The reason for an argument is different from the reasoning of an argument. I offered an irreligious perspective on the topic to appeal to the rationale of irreligious readers. In the same way, you have referred to Matthew 7 ("'considerest not thou the beam that is in thine own eye'") to appeal to Christian sensibilities.

    Where did I say that? I remember talking about how "human life" was too ill-defined to denote valued individuals, hence my preference for "persons". I also am pretty sure I never equated life and existence, I strongly disagree with that point.
    Supporting abortion by choice typically necessitates the prioritization of the parents interests over the life of the embryo. You appeared to justify this prioritization on the basis that whereas the personhoods of the parents have been fully established, that of the embryo had not. Whilst I note that this summary does not reflect the totality of your reasoning, I believe it to be a fair characterization.

    I watched loved ones die in a coma and would be confident in saying that their existence was gone well before their heart stopped beating. I don't know if that is getting off topic or is still on topic, though... For example, if someone is completely brain dead (I guess except for their brain stem), I would say their value as an individual is much different than that of an active person even though they are equally "alive" by any technical measurement.
    I have united the above bodies of text for thematic purposes.

    As we have discussed previously, end of life care is not ethically comparable to embryonic termination. The allowance of an unavoidable death via the withdrawal of medical treatment is morally distinct from the active administration of a process designed to terminate life. Where it is assumed that the patient has no realistic prospect of making even a partial recovery, the former case reflects a necessary yielding to the inevitability of mortality. By contrast, the latter reflects an avoidable loss of life.

    Of course you could use some other moral reasoning, but you personally don't and, at least here in the US, people who oppose abortion on secular grounds are rather few and far between. You don't tend to view fertilized embryos as equivalent human beings without some extensive religious-culture heritage.
    This is somewhat of a non-argument in the sense that it is easily reversible. I can claim that "one doesn't tend to view a fertilized embryo as a quasi-human, inhuman, subhuman or even non-human organism (for which legal protection from termination is not necessary) without some form of extensive socio-cultural conditioning. Only then could one justify the deliberate and premature termination of life and its unrivaled promises".

    Part of the issue/confusion is how we are defining "life" which seems to be different based on an individuals traditional beliefs and seems like you are using as synonymous with "value".
    The issue isn't so much how we "define" life as it is the ways in which we assign value to it. As a general principle, the value I assign to human life (which originates at the point of conception) outweighs that of any other solely temporal element, material, being or combination thereof. Life possesses an immeasurable value inherent and its place as the cornerstone of humanity (of which personhood is a constituent element) magnifies its worth immeasurably again.

    That said, it must be stated that:

    a) The complexity of the relationships/intersections between human life and its contingent counterpart humanity is acknowledged;
    b) The perspective herein offered operates within a context where the inevitability of mortality is viewed as existential and recognized as an integral feature of God's intentions (see Ecc. 3) and;
    c) It is understood that nothing suggested here implies that all human life ought to be viewed as equal, only that its value supersedes the value of all other forms of solely terrestrial existence.

    Sure, but you get why imposing secular wills in society is much more conducive to modern society than imposing religious ones, correct?
    Only if one assumes that "secular" reasoning refers to liberal democratic reasoning (where liberal democratic is understood in its broadest rather than its party-political sense). Notwithstanding, evidently I do not view the termination of foetal lives (which is permitted by the "secular" will) as being more conducive to society than protecting their right to life.

    Wait, so what exactly is your point?
    That Christianity had a greater impact on US politics, society and culture historically than it does currently.

    Perhaps we were having another issue of semantics here; I tried rereading this a couple different ways and found myself in agreement. Those Christians who seem most opposed to abortion are the fundamentalists who base their reasoning on traditional framework. "Traditional framework", however, is not synonymous with the teachings of Christ or fundamentalist as synonymous with being a "true Christian". Main point being; being a traditionalist doesn't make one the "true" something, especially with broad groupings like religion.
    I don't disagree with these remarks only the persistent inference that I had ever claimed to know the elect of Christ. Further, I fail to understand why the idea that I might make such claims would bother an atheist.

    Do you have some a solution other than making the situation to dangerous for them to successfully do themselves?
    Some provisional, short-hand alternatives would be:

    a) Expand family planning resourcing to reduce instances of unwanted pregnancies, encourage healthy long-term relationships and provide education on child care;
    b) Offer superior support to mothers and expectant mothers suffering from mental health issues, impoverishment and/or social isolation.
    c) Provide greater resourcing to adoption agencies, orphanages, and foster carers and;
    d) Fine and/or criminalize the sale of services and/or merchandise which facilitates unnecessary terminations.

    Of course not, that isn't what I asked. You mentioned a specific value, the sanctity of life, as being the reason you see abortion as wrong. I bring up other people have that value as well, but don't see abortion by choice wrong (usually until a certain point of development). If they had the same value that makes you believe a certain thing, surely they would believe that abortion is wrong too. Otherwise, you either don't believe that abortion is wrong because of that value or those other people don't have that value.
    If the value was identical so to would be the conclusion. The descriptive similarities belie fundamental theological differences - hence my inference that it isn't necessary for me to justify the theological positions of other faiths.

    I don't entirely know what you mean by "humanity". Like what specific values of being human are you talking about? Do you mean genetically homo sapien?
    I used the word "humanity" in this case to refer to the state of being a genetically distinct individual human being - a state which begins at the point of conception and continues biologically until death.

    Of course you believe that, others don't think humans have divine eminence. Does that make us immoral?
    Knowing not the Christ doesn't make you immoral. As I highlighted previously, the story of the good Samaritan shows that temporal righteousness existed prior to Jesus' appearance to men.

    Ok, we need to step back for another moment and hammer out what the original issues are/were. I have been under that assumption that your priority in the issue of reproduction is protecting unborn life (fertilized embryos and forward). I thought your goal was to minimize the amount of those lives lost, so I bring up IVF as the cause of a lot of unborn lives being lost. Then you say that you are actually alright with those lives being lost as it results in something else you are prioritizing (pregnancy?). So then, is protecting unborn lives what you are prioritizing here, or is it something else?
    My priority is the facilitation of human life wherever possible and/or reasonable. As I've stated, " it would be bizarre, inconsistent and illogical of me to demand that all IVF lives should be denied in order to prevent IVF deaths from occurring." Again, I'm not opposed to couples attempting to procreate because a certain percentage of said attempts will inevitably results in miscarriages.

    You sure aren't talking about existing lives there, you are talking about potential ones.
    I have no inherent preference for potential life over actual life. My acceptance of IVF does not support the hypothesis that I do. If you are categorizing IVF lives as "potential lives" then it is logically necessary for you to categorize IVF deaths as potential deaths since actual life is a prerequisite for actual death. Thus either I am prioritizing potential IVF lives over potential IVF deaths or I am prioritizing actual IVF lives over actual IVF deaths. The exception to this (which you didn't actually raise) would be the destruction of frozen embryos to provide the necessary freezing space for as of yet unfertilized yields. In such an unusual case, I am technically valuing potential lives over actual lives - but that certainly isn't a general principle.

    It was something I inferred from the perceived higher priority you have on birthing more (not yet existing) children than living humans.
    As explained, the assumption that I mustoppose contraception is an incorrect analysis of my view - a non-sequitur to be specific.

    Ergo, it is ok to end the lives of humans so that we can use as effective method of an IVF because that means more babies being born, in your opinion.
    I specifically argued that the loss of life which occurs during the IVF procedure should be as limited as possible - by which I mean that no more life should be lost than is realistically unavoidable to allow the service to continue. That is not the same as suggesting that fertilized embryos should be mindlessly sacrificed to achieve miniscule improvements in IVF success rates.

    We don't need IVF to keep population growth either, it just makes it more efficient if we have it. Really the point is it is something you are willing to give up lives other than your own over.
    "As I've stated repeatedly, it would be bizarre, inconsistent and illogical of me to demand that all IVF lives should be denied in order to prevent IVF deaths from occurring."

    I have not really heard that before, but is that not exact reasoning to restrict contraception or otherwise promote as many children being born as possible? The most sacred or important thing is having live people over non-existence, even at the cost of existing human lives, how are you so ok with allowing people purposefully avoiding those lives that could exist?
    The expression "life triumphs over nonexistence" was designed to indicate that in a binary choice between the two - such as is presented by IVF - life is preferable. An acknowledgement of the legitimacy if this sentiment does not further require a person to believe that all people are morally obliged to procreate.

    Whilst there is evident scriptural (and extra-scriptural) value in reproduction, there is certainly no general celestial imperative to have children: it is simply expected that married couples will.

    Of course it is an exchange, you don't have to have the procedure. No ones life would be lost if you didn't have the procedure. You could ban the procedure and no unborn or born lives would be lost if you did, you just want the results of the procedure and hold it as more valuable to get them than preserving unborn lives. That is an exchange, a trade off. You are willing to allow unborn lives to be lost so that a procedure to get women pregnant is possible.
    "I approve of a procedure that brings new human life. IVF Lives are unavoidably lost in order to facilitate life. This is the same reason why pro-life advocates will accept abortion in cases where the mother's life is at risk (because some loss of life is unavoidable).

    As I've stated repeatedly, it would be bizarre, inconsistent and illogical of me to demand that all IVF lives should be denied in order to prevent IVF deaths from occurring."

    I know some rather devout Christians who strongly disagree with this point. I guess they aren't true Christians?
    My mention of "publicized" instances of "prayer, charity and fasting" was a reference to a passage concerning hypocrisy from The Sermon On The Mount as described in Matthew 6:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    [1] "'Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.'" [2] "'Therefore when thou doest thine alms , do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do...that they may have glory of men.'"

    [5] "'And when thou prayest , thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray...that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.'"

    [16] Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.'"

    No Christian person or church believes that the faith supports the use of prayer, charity and/or fasting as a legitimate means of achieving personal accolades.
    Last edited by Flinn; March 07, 2019 at 03:32 AM.

    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22& Socrates1984; of the Imperial House of Hader

  3. #3
    Katsumoto's Avatar Quae est infernum es
    Content Staff Citizen Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default Re: POTF 7 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    I am not sure how many useful conclusions we can extract from the reference to a couple of unlinked incidents. Even the most innocent child can observe that politics are marked by partiality, hypocrisy and insincerity. Perhaps a flawlessly designed scientific research can shed some light on this phenomenon, by examining wider social trends, but the controversies mentioned in the original post certainly do not suffice for anything more valuable than arbitrary generalisations. My social media are flooded by Islamists, who simultaneously criticise Israel and American warhawks for their hostility against Arabs and then complain why neither of them invades Syria and ethnically cleanse the country's religious minorities. Not to mention the innumerable conservatives who mock the leftists for being sentitive snowflakes and then get immediately triggered, when the protagonist role of a blockbuster is given to a female or when a Democrat populist dares to endorse the most moderate parts of the social-democratic doctrine. And yet, singling out Sunni extremist and the right-wing for being exceptionally insincere would seem very unfair and biased to me.

    Moreover, I have my reservations about the examples you used, alhoon. For instance, your own source admits that there are two stories about the destroyed cement cross in the island of Lesbos. The first one (about the cross being erected in the honour of whoever lost his life swimming there) seems rather weird and is not supported by any other source I looked for. The only English-speaking article I managed to detect was published by Breitbart (surprise, surprise), whose original source leaves no doubt about what really happened*. Namely, ultra-nationalist groups exploited the tensions created by the presence of a great number of refugees to call for some sort of beach Apartheid, where the local swimmers would not mix with "brown and black subhumans". As a result, the cross was constructed at night and illegally, in order to provoke the immigrants, which explains why it was promptly destroyed by activists who disagreed with its reactionary and reactionary message.
    *The fact that the cross-controversy is probably a product of fake-news makes me also skeptical about the halal story, given that the Middle East Forum is a conservative think tank, generously paid to propagate a certain agenda.

    Therefore, given the truth about the event, I can easily reverse your conclusions and blame the conservatives for inconsistency. Given that the cement cross was erected without building permit in private or public land (with probably negative repercussions to the natural landscape and environment), protesting its demolition means that there is zero respect for the "holy right of property" for the sake of religious intolerance, so we could assume that "conservatives" are deeply hypocritical and it is quite a surprise why the public has not already shifted to voting the much more sincere and honest "progressives". Of course, I'm being ironical, but I think it is obvious how easily fragile argumentation like this can be distorted. After all, to be frank, in a country where the Constitution openly confirms the privileged position of Orthodox Christianity, at the expense of secularism, while blasphemy laws are still enforced, Christianity is not justified to complain about harsh treatment. In general, I would say that, thanks to the victory of Donald Trump, there is now more anecdotal evidence of "conservative" lack of credibility than the opposite, since the current administration is inevitably undermined by the contradictions between its rosy promises and actual reality: From the President's dubious stance on the Electoral College to its most dedicated fandom bashing Hillary Clinton as a warmonger and a Saudi puppet and fruitlessly trying to defend their Messiah's crystal ball dance and numerous bombing attacks against the sovereign Syrian Republic. Quite the spectacle, but as I underlined previously, focusing on a specific side of the political spectrum is usually indicative of bias and is unsupported by the necessary data.
    "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
    - John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)

  4. #4
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: POTF 7 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    That is false. You make it appear as if Turkey launched a second operation during those 9 years of negotiations. That did not happen. The first operation started on July 20 and took about 3 days. The fighting did not stop on July 24. Clashes in various locations continued. Attila 2 operation was launched on August 14 and it too took about 3 days. The fighting on Cyprus happened between July 20 and August 18. Even then, a Greek sniper killed the ambassador from USA, Rodger Davies, during an anti-USA demonstration by the Greek Cypriots.
    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    The Republic of Cyprus, the only recognized and legal authority in the island of Cyprus can invite whomever they want to help them, it's their country. Since they didn't ask for the Turkish troops, those troops are there illegally. They also have the right to invite people and theoretically, they can settle them in the occupied part. I remind you that Cyprus entered the EU as a single whole country. Turkey is occupying part of EU.

    The comparison with ISIS is not completely accurate since ISIS is a gathering of extremists and zealots that grabbed some land. Cyprus situation is closer to the one with Crimea - although there I support the Russian annexation since Crimea was theirs till Stalin decided to hand it to Ukraine in the 50s and also Russians didn't expel 1/4th of Ukranians out of Crimea nor they killed tens of thousands of civilians to cause them to flee so they could help a population exchange to be accepted after it has been done de-facto.
    Except, Makarios, the president of Cyprus at the time, did request the Greek contingent from Greece to leave the island. The Greek response was to go forward with the coup. Greeks were the first invasion force on the island. In such a case, under the guarantee agreement that Turkey is a party to, Turkey does not require a request from Cyprus to intervene.

    Southern Cyprus entering EU without reaching a solution is a complete travesty. It was nothing more than an idiotic and biased move on EU's part which defies EU principles all together. Southern Cyprus entered EU having a claim over the whole island without people in the north having any say in it.

    Expelling 1/4th of Greeks from the north of Cyprus sounds much better than what Greeks tried to do, to expel all Turks from entirety of the island. Trying to argue that somehow Turkey caused this debacle is to ignore historical context. Turkey didn't kill tens of thousands of civilians either. The total casualties of the conflict summed up from both sides barely pass 10 thousand. The population exchange did not just happen on paper because Turkey tried to somehow document a reality it caused. Population from both sides were living on the other side. About 50 thousand Turks from the south moved to north while certain Greek villages, with total population over 10 thousand, chose to remain on the north. The population exchange was done under the Third Vienna Agreement between Clerides and Denktaş.
    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    The president of Israel knows Hebrew. And no, he isn't talking about the settlements.
    As I said, Rivlin is quite clearly referring to community settlements in that quote. Section 7b of the Nation-State Law is even specifically referenced.

    This is exactly what you posted:

    are we willing to support discrimination and exclusion of men and women based on their ethnic origin? this clause (7b) would essentially allow any community to establish residential communities that exclude Sephardic Jews, ultra-Orthodox people, Druze, LGBT people. Is that what the Zionist vision means?
    However, section 7b was removed from the text before it passed, as you can see:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    In a religious state, everything is the Haaretz put it, .n Israel, Charlie Hebdo would not have even had the right to exist
    ...and don't blame the British.
    Speaking of incoherent. Are you claiming that the law against religious incitement doesn't date to the British Mandate? Are you claiming that said law is somehow responsible for a private entity firing an employee over drawing a cartoon unrelated to religion or religious figures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    According to Kretzmer, the racist nation-state law is an insult to the Arab "citizens" of Israel.
    Okay, so your point is that some guy has an opinion. Many Israelis have the same opinion, and most Arabs did see it as insulting. The law was meant to be divisive, but as a bit of political theater it wasn't directed at Arab citizens, it was meant to divide the supposedly true Zionist politicians from those politicians who are allegedly only Zionist in name. The Arab parties were completely irrelevant in this decision, since they refuse to sit in a coalition with any Zionist party, they are politically irrelevant.

    The reason Netanyahu brought it up now, and made a social media scene in a very Trump-like maneuver, is the same reason. His party is trying paint Gantz and Lapid as not true Zionists, but leftists in disguise in order to discredit them.

    You can see this clearly in Miri Regev's response to Rotem Sela over the issue:

    “Rotem, we have no problem with the Arabs,” she wrote on Facebook. “We have in our party many Arab, Druze and Christian members. We have a problem with the hypocrisy and the masquerade ball of Lapid and Gantz, who are trying with all their might to hide from the public the fact that they’re left-wing, and are dressing up as centrists.” Regev added that Matsliah “didn’t stop me because it’s the truth. It’s either Bibi or Tibi.”
    Anyway, seems like you're getting distraught about a situation you have no control over, rather than trying acquire a deeper understanding of the context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Simply put, the law declares that the state is only the state of its Jewish residents.
    This is the misunderstanding I tried to explain to you. It doesn't refer to individual rights. It refers to the self-determination of national identities within the state. I think you would still disagree with it even if you understood it and still consider it discriminatory, but that's neither here nor there to me. I consider the law to have been pointless from a legal standpoint.

    The first time I filled out a visa application to enter Israel, I was confused that the English/Hebrew form asked me to fill in my "nationality" (אזרחי) and then in the very next box asked for my "nationality" (לאומי). The first is nationality in more of a sense of citizenship, the second is nationality in the sense of deep community ties and culture. Even knowing this, I still didn't know what to put for the second box, because it doesn't exactly make sense in English, and I'm not either American or Jewish, or even Jewish vs non-Jewish. The form also asked for "religion", so a person could put Jewish as their religion, independent of whether or not they put Jewish as their "nationality". Israeli is not a "nationality" in the sense it is being used in the nation-state law. It is uncontroversial among Israeli citizens that the state contains members of multiple "nations". These "nations" are also not exactly synonymous with "ethnicities" in Hebrew either, before someone gets that notion. Sephardi is an ethnicity, Jewish is a "nationality". Naturally this concept is foreign to assimilated Jews in Western countries, who mostly see their nationality and citizenship as synonymous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Netanyahu has really gone too far here, he sounds like a racial nationalist.
    Israel has the complication of multiple indigenous "nations" in one state which makes things different, but as an example of how this is conceived of in Hebrew: What nationalities other than English do you think England is the nation-state of? Picking an example... Do Pakistanis in England have the right to self-determination since they are a different nationality? Do Pakistanis have the right to have English symbols removed from all government buildings, forms, and currency because such symbols are not inclusive of their separate Pakistani identity? The solution in England has been to try to make a civil English identity independent of other identities, but in Israel, neither the bulk of majority nor the minorities wish to create a civil Israeli identity independent of their community identities. In fact, a good portion of the minorities would be violently opposed to such an effort. What they want is an equal claim to the state by their own "nation". So the question arises, is Israel also a nation-state of the Arab people? Most Israeli Jews say no.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts