What's up with Israel?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

And again, it's worth noting that many nations were born of concentrated campaigns of what could be termed terrorism. If such a thing precluded nationalism then, by virtue of that very notion, Palestinians would not be able to have a state.

Still, I really want to know what makes Israel a particularly egregious nation, per your concept of what makes nations good or bad. Without this information we are at an impasse of entirely your imposition.

You:

1) disregarded my point that a single unflattering statement can be made about anything with equal effectiveness and accuracy, and does not serve anything but a deceptive purpose,

2) disregarded my point that a nation's people's opinion of their own history makes that history relevant to a judgement of that nation,

3) are forming assumptions about my opinion. I did not say anything about the Palestinian state or its correctness. I did not say Israel was a particularly egregious nation. I have made no comparisons of Israel against other nations. You are very eager to ascribe to me things that I do not say. I don't find Israel particularly egregious, and trying to subvert my statement that "Israel is bad" into "Israel is the worst" is a re-contextualization that is a very sloppy way to discuss a complex issue.

4) disregarded my statement of familiarity with your position on the matter.

If I have a conversation with anyone about anything serious for a length of time, I only do so because I am interested in examining the subject for myself, or I am interested in learning about why somebody thinks what they do. Repeating an entire exchange with you would be fruitless in that regard; it is of no interest. It has no intellectual value, nothing to think about, nothing to consider. I have an oddly keen memory, and I do not expect you to remember anything you have debated with me, but if you cannot understand the reason I have here stated for not caring to do nothing but repeat myself, you and I employ speech for entirely different purposes.

That aside, even if I was unfamiliar with what you have to say, I still probably wouldn't care because I find you unintelligent and very partisan.

If you answer specifically enough to the following and pique my interest, maybe I will re-discuss Israel with you. I might listen if you will approach it from a different angle, as I will define subsequently, but if you are just going to repeat what you have already said to me, I do not give a fuck.

A) How many years away does a nation have to be from the end of its crime to no longer be responsible for it? (Let me be clear, since you have a tendency to view things in a very binary way: I am not insinuating anything by that question. You surely must have an answer, because you cannot not have an answer to that question and have an opinion on how responsible a nation is for crimes in varying degrees of time, so I am interested what that answer is.)

B) If a crime is continued throughout another generation, is the nation as responsible for that crime as when it started? Is that nation then responsible for the entire length of that crime?

C) Does a nation's opinion of an action matter at all, regardless of the morality of the action? If you dislike the action, and the nation likes that action, even if that action is not continuing and is in the past, should that not necessitate your rejection of that nation? Or how much weight would that hold?

[dEadERest]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

I still probably wouldn't care because I find you unintelligent and very partisan.

Oh,

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You:

1) disregarded my point that a single unflattering statement can be made about anything with equal effectiveness and accuracy, and does not serve anything but a deceptive purpose,

2) disregarded my point that a nation's people's opinion of their own history makes that history relevant to a judgement of that nation,

3) are forming assumptions about my opinion. I did not say anything about the Palestinian state or its correctness. I did not say Israel was a particularly egregious nation. I have made no comparisons of Israel against other nations. You are very eager to ascribe to me things that I do not say. I don't find Israel particularly egregious, and trying to subvert my statement that "Israel is bad" into "Israel is the worst" is a re-contextualization that is a very sloppy way to discuss a complex issue.

4) disregarded my statement of familiarity with your position on the matter.

If I have a conversation with anyone about anything serious for a length of time, I only do so because I am interested in examining the subject for myself, or I am interested in learning about why somebody thinks what they do. Repeating an entire exchange with you would be fruitless in that regard; it is of no interest. It has no intellectual value, nothing to think about, nothing to consider. I have an oddly keen memory, and I do not expect you to remember anything you have debated with me, but if you cannot understand the reason I have here stated for not caring to do nothing but repeat myself, you and I employ speech for entirely different purposes.

That aside, even if I was unfamiliar with what you have to say, I still probably wouldn't care because I find you unintelligent and very partisan.

If you answer specifically enough to the following and pique my interest, maybe I will re-discuss Israel with you. I might listen if you will approach it from a different angle, as I will define subsequently, but if you are just going to repeat what you have already said to me, I do not give a fuck.

A) How many years away does a nation have to be from the end of its crime to no longer be responsible for it? (Let me be clear, since you have a tendency to view things in a very binary way: I am not insinuating anything by that question. You surely must have an answer, because you cannot not have an answer to that question and have an opinion on how responsible a nation is for crimes in varying degrees of time, so I am interested what that answer is.)

B) If a crime is continued throughout another generation, is the nation as responsible for that crime as when it started? Is that nation then responsible for the entire length of that crime?

C) Does a nation's opinion of an action matter at all, regardless of the morality of the action? If you dislike the action, and the nation likes that action, even if that action is not continuing and is in the past, should that not necessitate your rejection of that nation? Or how much weight would that hold?

Again, do you plan to actually answer my question about the context of your original statement?

Yes? No? Maybe so?

a. N/A; the core concept of nationalism is that said nation exists until dissolution, as do its actions; however, your issue here is actually "responsibility", and what value that term has with regard to nations as entities vs. nations as groups of people, which is pretty different

b. See point A

c. Such is a question of the value of moral utility. How much one dislikes those actions differs from person to person. However, the morality of those actions doesn't change.

Again, though, I'd like to ask what this means:

"Israel's always been pretty disturbing. Nothing about that country has ever been good."

Insofar as you define good or bad, how does Israel compare to other nations. Without that as a reference point, your statement is meaningless.

So again, please answer my question. I'm fascinated as to what your original statement meant.