Did you notice the bit where I said the thing missing from the calculation is it might not be the best thing for Palestinians - though also it might be? Tbf that might be better put as, in one sense it would be, but in another it isn’t.tell us why you think it'd be better for them? millions of refugees in Jordan or Egypt - I notice Trump isnt proposing they all come to the US a refuge from the violence?
Did you notice the bit where I said the thing missing from the calculation is it might not be the best thing for Palestinians - though also it might be?
you buy that? were clearance or coffin ships an act of kindness? the arrogance to presume to know what is better for another without even asking them is breath-takingPeople would escape intractable conflict and have far better facilities and opportunities.
After all, and contra the imagining of some, there never was a Palestinian state, nor were the Palestinians a nation. They were the people of Ottoman Syria which included, iirc, today’s Syria and Jordan among others. These countries approximate to districts within Ottoman Syria which was an administrative division of the Ottoman Empire. They then ended up on different sides of lines drawn by the League of Nations.
However, Trump overlooks that :
- it’s not about a better life as the western mind would view it. It’s about Islam not giving up anything to the Jews, and a blood and soil attachment to a particular location
- their neighbours don’t like the Palestinians other than as a chip on the board to manipulate events
- they have have a record of destabilising (Jordan) or near destroying (Lebanon) neighbouring countries when landing there in numbers
Nope, that’s not my intent. I’ll not repeat myself at length; Ive already explained it. In short though, if you view a good outcome as living in peace in better material conditions, it might well be ‘better’ - ‘in one sense’ - but that isn’t what it’s about, another sense and the key one.I think that framing is disingenuous, while it sounds reasonable (i.e. of course it will either be a good thing or not) but its purpose is really about introducing the notion that we think its possibly the right thing to do and even that possibility as fucking remote as it is in some warped way gives legitimacy to the thought. Never should we presume that forcibly and permanently removing people from their homes can ever be 'for their own good' - its the language to excuse imperialism and conquest its not about actual benefit.
Oh stop doing the emotionalist thing please. Once more, I have just stated at length why a ‘proposal’ that bears no resemblance to those things would, even if it’s pie in the sky were deliverable, miss the point - precisely because it ignores what is important to the people concerned.you buy that? were clearance or coffin ships an act of kindness? the arrogance to presume to know what is better for another without even asking them is breath-taking
Don’t be daft. And 1922 is a ‘baseline’ because it’s the whole reason for the conversation. The invention by westerners of nation states that both never existed in practice and were culturally alien is the backdrop to all of this. This is usually frowned upon, until it’s not.not sure why 1922 becomes the baseline - Jewish people also liven under the Ottomans - does that also make them kinsmen?
Ironically, you seem to be making the same mistake Trump is making.you think adding a further million (for example) refugees to Jordan would improve matters in Jordan in a country where refugees outnumber Jordanians? Are the Palestinians just being obstinate? maybe there's a reasonable case for them to move and its only their anti-Semitism that prevents them from grasping that opportunity? right enough that seems the only plausible explanation - who wouldn't want a better life after all thats entirely rational
Fucking hell R. I honestly don’t want to sound like I’m just throwing barbs , but seriously, could you reject reality with any more vigour or wilfulness?we could offer all these people a 'better' life in Scotland to the one they currently are experiencing in Gaza - they are our 'kinsmen' too in many ways - would it not be the Christian and moral thing to do to bring them here? if not why not?
Nope, that’s not my intent. I’ll not repeat myself at length; Ive already explained it. In short though, if you view a good outcome as living in peace in better material conditions, it might well be ‘better’ - ‘in one sense’ - but that isn’t what it’s about, another sense and the key one.
all nation states are artificial constructs - I'm considering at a more fundamental level - that of a home, a communityDon’t be daft. And 1922 is a ‘baseline’ because it’s the whole reason for the conversation. The invention by westerners of nation states that both never existed in practice and were culturally alien. This is usually frowned upon, until it’s not.
ignoring that Egyptians are a completely distinct ethnic and cultural group then i'm not sure why you think proximity makes it ok to harm x to help y - your 'toleration' of the proposition on betterment grounds for the Palestinians either holds or doesn't - holding just so long as it doesn't impact you and yours shows the fallacy of the argument. Imo your kinsmen framing is a fabrication - ordo amores eh?Ironically, you seem to me making the same mistake Trump is making.
Fucking hell R. I honestly don’t want to sound like I’m just throwing barbs , but seriously, could you reject reality with any more vigour or wilfulness?
The answer to your question btw - well one of them - is you can’t just harm x to help y. Something the socialist spin out from Christianity didn’t forget, but actively embraced, almost as an end in itself
You really really need to drop this white mans burden colonialist mindset by the way. Palestinians are not kinsmen of Scots. They really, really aren’t. And certainly not by comparison to other members of a common ethnic group until some other western patrician drew a line on a map.
Only if you want it to be. Given I spell it out explicitly. And even then, only if you basically turn what I said upside down. As you have.might not be your intent but thats the effect
Well then, a) the community was across greater Syria, precisely my point., but b) people also have a not strictly rational attachment to a geographical home, which is one reason among many Trump’s ‘plan’ is irrational, and indeed absurd, albeit exceeded in absurdity here.all nation states are artificial constructs - I'm considering at a more fundamental level - that of a home, a community
You don’t have to ignore it, I noted Egypt’s distinction from the outset. They are however - in great majority- part of the Ummah, which is a rather more coherent conception of extended kinship than your own.ignoring that Egyptians are a completely distinct ethnic and cultural group
Exactly who am I suggesting harming ?then i'm not sure why you think proximity makes it ok to harm x to help y - your 'toleration' of the proposition on betterment grounds for the Palestinians either holds or doesn't - holding just so long as it doesn't impact you and yours shows the fallacy of the argument.
@Smurf said today this place is turning him into a Tory, in response to the utter fantasy land some inhabit.Imo your kinsmen framing is a fabrication - ordo amores eh?
no - despite all your caveats my view is your framing allows the possibility that Trumps proposals have in some sense a benign and paternal intention. Its a classic lib mistake to search for merit where there be none - its also employed by those with less noble intent to justify their interests. we clearly disagree on that and have done so in the past at all but at this point with the ethnic cleansing solution on the table in my view we cant afford to be anything other than clear. Our UK govt are a disgrace in their silence, Swinney to be fair to him is calling it as it is.Only if you want it to be. Given I spell it out explicitly. And even then, only if you basically turn what I said upside down. As you have.
Well then, a) the community was across greater Syria, precisely my point., but b) people also have a not strictly rational attachment to a geographical home, which is one reason among many Trump’s ‘plan’ is irrational, and indeed absurd, albeit exceeded in absurdity here.
I’ll note again that such attachments both ethnic and geographic are usually frowned upon, until they’re not.
ummah isnt about kinship iirc its explicitly co-religionist not ethnic - it replaced kinship as a binding identity in an effort to move beyond the tribal (kinship) allegiances. in essence its the opposite of kinship (shared roots)You don’t have to ignore it, I noted Egypt’s distinction from the outset. They are however - in great majority- part of the Ummah, which is a rather more coherent conception of extended kinship than your own.
Exactly who am I suggesting harming ?
Exactly what am I tolerating?
How have you managed to construe something I have said is a product of irrationality come psychopathy to be something I endorse? Is nuance really that difficult
?
@Smurf said today this place is turning him into a Tory, in response to the utter fantasy land some inhabit.
It’s not doing that to me, but along with other things in the world I am becoming ever more convinced that ‘the left’ don’t understand the world, nor humans, and are wrapped up in a racist and colonialist mindset that will not take non white peoples seriously, no matter how much evidence is before them.
Historically unprecedented comfort and insulation - enjoy it while it last folks - seem to have increased the number trapped in Hume’s fallacy:
![]()
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
This is in your own head, and I cannot take responsibility for that.no - despite all your caveats my view is your framing allows the possibility that Trumps proposals have in some sense a benign and paternal intention. Its a classic lib mistake to search for merit where there be none - its also employed by those with less noble intent to justify their interests. we clearly disagree on that and have done so in the past at all but at this point with the ethnic cleansing solution on the table in my view we cant afford to be anything other than clear. Our UK govt are a disgrace in their silence, Swinney to be fair to him is calling it as it is.
You got a bit ridiculous on this, I’m sorry. If the UN drew lines through Scotland and declared the Lothians one country and Strathclyde another, it doesn’t suddenly mean Glaswegians have no more in common with Edinburghers than they do the people of Tanzania.I'm not focused on race/ethnicity or 'kinship' you are - my focus is community and sense of place and to a degree property rights
ummah isnt about kinship iirc its explicitly co-religionist not ethnic - it replaced kinship as a binding identity in an effort to move beyond the tribal (kinship) allegiances. in essence its the opposite of kinship (shared roots)
‘You perceive’ is key to this. I’m not sure that any non ideologically motivated reading could construe a post suggesting that Trump’s plan makes sense only from an irrational perhaps psychopathic standpoint the way you have done.youre not nuanced - you're confused or lack principle on this question. see above on how I perceive your framing to be a risk.
Genuinely, what are you talking about? My whole theme has been that while such a plan may make sense to an ‘irrational rationalist’ who thinks this is all about better material conditions and ignores the human condition, that is in fact bonkers, because of the human condition. That is not changed by the fact it might well be right that those better material conditions could be enjoyed. Sorry but I don’t need to reduce things to cartoon simplicity to take a view on things.without roots its easy to get swept along by the shift in political discourse towards the MAGA talking points. But explain to me please if you will how by suggesting we should not countenance the possibility clearing Gaza without the consent of the population who live there is racist and colonial?
I’ve spilled tens of thousands of words on this theme over two decades. You have endured a fair chunk of them. I don’t think you are unfamiliar with my view on this R. We don’t need to fork of from the topic here.why do you think we've had unprecedented comfort and insulation (assuming you mean in and between the western countries) since 1945?
They American fuckin owners eh C?I cannae even wrestle with @egb_hibs the day, im that disappointed in the latest accounts.
Where the fuck is Petrie when he is neededThey American fuckin owners eh C?
That Trumps probably a fuckin shareholder in Byland Sports.
What a pair of fuckin bams she and her daftie husband are.Utterly insane. A death cult.
(not that such a freeloader was ever likely to contribute to the nation’s future that way, in in any case)
![]()
I’m a Democrat politician. This is why I sterilised myself after Trump’s election
Laurie Pohutsky, 36, opens up on decision to voluntarily forgo having children rather than raising them under new Republican governmentwww.telegraph.co.uk
Absolute insanity ffsUtterly insane. A death cult.
(not that such a freeloader was ever likely to contribute to the nation’s future that way, in in any case)
![]()
I’m a Democrat politician. This is why I sterilised myself after Trump’s election
Laurie Pohutsky, 36, opens up on decision to voluntarily forgo having children rather than raising them under new Republican governmentwww.telegraph.co.uk
The only thing I found about the Gordons (I suppose probably Ron) was that donations were for the other side and stopped years before the investment in Hibs.They American fuckin owners eh C?
That Trumps probably a fuckin shareholder in Byland Sports.
Utterly insane. A death cult.
I think we should go further than that and help less well off countries out more generally - where it has a demonstrable benefit, and very much proportionate to spending on our own shitshows.I can see the point giving aid during a crisis or natural disaster.
But why not give the UK citizens a help now and then?
And yep it's an open goal for the Tory press.
One resents even having to think about this stuff.
This is in your own head, and I cannot take responsibility for that.
You got a bit ridiculous on this, I’m sorry. If the UN drew lines through Scotland and declared the Lothians one country and Strathclyde another, it doesn’t suddenly mean Glaswegians have no more in common with Edinburghers than they do the people of Tanzania.
It was in the context of you positing equivalent barminess that I said the Ummah was a more coherent take on extended kinship than yours. And it is. You might note the use of the terms brother and sister within it. It is metaphysically premised kinship, which is more coherent than your own claim, which this morning and here you are yourself refuting. That was never to say it is the same as the actual kinship among the people of former Greater Syria, I explicitly made that distinction along the way.
it may but you can surely understand the need for clarity and thoughtfulness given the cards on the table? (see below)‘You perceive’ is key to this. I’m not sure that any non ideologically motivated reading could construe a post suggesting that Trump’s plan makes sense only from an irrational perhaps psychopathic standpoint the way you have done.
You are seeing it as you want to: and that take is warped.
the dispute is that we can and should judge what makes sense from a materialist perspective for the people of Gaza - you saying that suggests that if we were to apply logic it may be the right choice for them. thats it its a fairly simple point that has somehow required the spilling of 100s of words, you obviously disagree - I do think there's a legitimate 9unwarped) point here which isn't to suggest you have to agree or that was your intention. I'll leave the rest, home time. cheersGenuinely, what are you talking about? My whole theme has been that while such a plan may make sense to an ‘irrational rationalist’ who thinks this is all about better material conditions and ignores the human condition, that is in fact bonkers, because of the human condition. That is not changed by the fact it might well be right that those better material conditions could be enjoyed. Sorry but I don’t need to reduce things to cartoon simplicity to take a view on things.
You keep overlooking that these are the same people. Jordan and Syria have far more obligations to Palestinians than anyone else, or should do. ‘Jordanian’, ‘Syrian’, ‘Palestinian’ are nationalities invented by League of Nations partitioning. Only the allocation of a partition for the Jews seemed to get danders up. See my hypothetical about Scotland being carved up.sorry about slow response dude - life etc. just so you don't misunderstand i wasn't suggesting Scotland should rehome the ~2 million Gazan's my view is there should be a home for them in their homelands - I was instead trying to test the principles that should be in play by 're-patriotising' (i.e. ethnically cleansing) them to another country - I suspect most of your objections to Scotland taking the load 9depite our space and common humanity) would be put forward by Jordanians - proximity and co-religion aside
I think my op is perfectly clear: what makes sense from a purely materialist rationalist point of view, does not in fact make sense and is not in fact rational; to the point that you’d need a perspective bordering on psychopathic to entertain it.it may but you can surely understand the need for clarity and thoughtfulness given the cards on the table? (see below)
the dispute is that we can and should judge what makes sense from a materialist perspective for the people of Gaza - you saying that suggests that if we were to apply logic it may be the right choice for them. thats it its a fairly simple point that has somehow required the spilling of 100s of words, you obviously disagree - I do think there's a legitimate 9unwarped) point here which isn't to suggest you have to agree or that was your intention. I'll leave the rest, home time. cheers
Everyone agrees Trump is a cnut; get over it.If i were to run, I'd run as a Republican. The're the dumbest group f voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they'd still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.
Fat Orange convicted felon and rapist Trump
Peoples Magazine 1998.
Nothing on the thread so far suggests that the radge is out of the "hes a *&*^ camp". Anyone feel hes now not a *&*^? The removal of the penny maybe
You hate, hate when you thow a statement out there and someone advises you that its the not case. I only persue points YOU make. You then go on a tangent and try and bury the point, and all I do is reply the same as the first time.Everyone agrees Trump is a cnut; get over it.
That irk you? Its the fucking title of the thread. I reserve thr right to call him a *&*^ anytime I want. You get over it.Everyone agrees Trump is a cnut; get over it.
when have I or anyone else disputed Trump is a cnut? This is an argument no one is making, and noone has ever made, and yet you keep revisiting it. It’s a little odd, but I guess it’s easier than engaging with the tangled mess western politics and the west itself, are in.You hate, hate when you thow a statement out there and someone advises you that it’s the not case. I only persue points YOU make. You then go on a tangent and try and bury the point, and all I do is reply the same as the first time.
Indeed. But I was referring to your continual suggestion that others think he isn’t.That irk you? It’s the fucking title of the thread. I reserve thr right to call him a *&*^ anytime I want. You get over it.
and that seems to irk you. Well, on a thread about him being a *&*^, you might get that ehIndeed. But I was referring to your continual suggestion that others think he isn’t.
when did i say you disputed it?when have I or anyone else disputed Trump is a cnut? This is an argument no one is making, and noone has ever made, and yet you keep revisiting it. It’s a little odd, but I guess it’s easier than engaging with the tangled mess western politics and the west itself, are in.
As for the rest, a bit laughable given the other threads on the go right now.
You asked if anyone else had experienced a penny dropping moment. Why would they, when no one has disagreed he is a cnut from the get go?when did i say you disputed it?
Oh! is it easier than engaging with the tangled mess western politics and the west itself are in is it?
Did i tell you, I think hes a *&*^? If I didnt, could I take the opportunity here, to say that I think hes a *&*^
Yes, but I wasnae meaning you. I was meaning anyone else. You alright hun?You asked if anyone else had experienced a penny dropping moment. Why would they, when no one has disagreed he is a cnut from the get go?
I’m fine barring a growing concern for the morning you are having.Yes, but I wasnae meaning you. I was meaning anyone else. You alright hun?
I just don't buy the ethnic/kinship argument as being as important as that even if we categorise them as such (which I am far from convinced we should) - there are significant cultural, economic and political differences at play which make that obligation as you have it tricky. I'd also suggest Israel have a lot of obligations (even more so than Jordan and Syria).You keep overlooking that these are the same people. Jordan and Syria have far more obligations to Palestinians than anyone else, or should do. ‘Jordanian’, ‘Syrian’, ‘Palestinian’ are nationalities invented by League of Nations partitioning. Only the allocation of a partition for the Jews seemed to get danders up. See my hypothetical about Scotland being carved up.
Both those countries don’t want them because a) they are likely to cause them problems and b) the whole Arab world prefers them as a human sacrifice to manipulate world opinion vis a vis Israel
going round the houses on this one but I dont think it does even make sense from a materialist rationalist POV, I agree that that alone would not be all that matters if it were. First test should always be to ask them what they think - lets leave it there budI think my op is perfectly clear: what makes sense from a purely materialist rationalist point of view, does not in fact make sense and is not in fact rational; to the point that you’d need a perspective bordering on psychopathic to entertain it.
again I’m going to use my previous analogy to try and bring the implications of this to the fore: if the UN drew lines through Scotland and declared Strathclyde to be a different country, and if it subsequently went Pete Tong; do you really feel the rest of Scotland would have no greater obligation to weegies than the people of Palestine would, or the people of Tanzania or Timbuktu?I just don't buy the ethnic/kinship argument as being as important as that even if we categorise them as such (which I am far from convinced we should) - there are significant cultural, economic and political differences at play which make that obligation as you have it tricky. I'd also suggest Israel have a lot of obligations (even more so than Jordan and Syria).
But I’m not disagreeing with that. Hence my comments on Trump’s plan from the get go.I think your characterisation re b) is overplayed a) is more significant and there is a fundamental principle at play here - Palestine is home to Palestinians - why should they move?
I’m happy to leave it also but you’ve not got my point from the outset.going round the houses on this one but I dont think it does even make sense from a materialist rationalist POV, I agree that that alone would not be all that matters if it were. First test should always be to ask them what they think - lets leave it there bud
The FT suggests that rate of US inflation is expected to be down. This against jumps last two Januaries. The figures aren’t out till tomorrow though so they’re speculating / educated guessing.Despite pledges to cut grocery prices on day one, prices have in fact gone up since day one.
whodathunkit.
The paper ones soaked up too much ching C.i think he has signed an executive order to restore the use of plastic straws. The fat hopeless oaf.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.