Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

so why is genocide of human beings wrong but genocide of another species isnt?

Im not suggesting that the entire population be culled, but as I said earlier, we cant do that so nature will take its course.

Explain the contradiction? I said since we dont cull our over population in order to protect food sources, nature will do it for us... you know, in the form of malnutrition and disease.

so... all you people who are so outraged about the situation in Israel and Gaza... have you actually done anything about it? or are you just trying to satisfy your ego's by posting your outrage on an open forum?

woohoo, another negative rep... once again the member doesnt have the balls to sign it.
and to reply to that person, yes the palestinians are animals, just like you are, and I am... we're mammals, part of the animal kingdom.

 

@Shoshino, do you have any kids? I've known a fair number of people over the years who have felt similarly to you about humanity, but their attitude always changes when they have kids.

 

Animal rights people have been arguing this forever.

But this thread is about Palestine and Israel. That is hardly a "nature-driven" event, but an artificial, man-made event. What's happening to the Pals is similar to what happened to the American Indian. The Pals are essentially contained within a "reservation" on their own land. At least the Indians can have casinos.

Does that mean that I believe we should give America back to the Indians, even though they suffered obvious injustice? Hardly. But my problem is with the nations in the region who are using this to their own political advantage. If one removes the obvious threats to Israel, there would no longer be any reason, or excuse, for Israel to treat them in this manner. Everyone sorta knows that, but everyone continues to ignore it.

---------- Added 0 hours, 24 minutes and 23 seconds later... ----------

No, they are not. That is according to science, which in my opinion is over-rated (we've had this debate before).

You should consider getting an account if it bothers you; that way you can see just who is negative repping you. I think this is an important debate, and one we should not be afraid to have. I'm on the completely opposite side from yours, Shoshino, but rather than just yell, "Nazi!" I'd rather debate just how wrong I believe you are. If you are up for it, I'm willing to have this debate, in an honest and respectful manner.

First, we don't have "overpopulation." Even those "population alarmists" from the '70s, now admit they were wrong and that overpopulation is not a significant problem.

 

no I dont have kids, maybe with any luck when that happens I will feel differently, though thats hard to see at this moment in time.

I agree, and as I said earlier, further intervention in the form of aid exacerbates the issue as it keeps a population reproducing. If a cat cant feed its litter it picks the weakest to die, if it cant feed its litter at all, it leaves them all to die, if there isnt enough food in palestine to feed the population on a patch of land which is not fertile enough to produce enough food for the population, then the population needs to drop.

I agree 100%

what are they then?

It bothers me because it seems cowardly, its like ringing someone to threaten them but withholding your phone number. also, I was unaware that there was any account other then what I have now, after a peruse of the website I noticed "SPS account", and have now donated.

Im happy to debate anything with anyone at anytime, my strong views have in the past made for good debates at other sites.

You dont think we have overpopulation? tell that to the people who's houses have been destroyed on flood plains because there is nowhere else to build them, food sustainability:

 

I think that statement needs to be qualified. I think it largley depends on what you mena by "we". The only way "we" could apply to the human population as a whole is if we did something silly, like switch all agriculture to organic methods.

 

If the food and drinkable water in the world were better managed, would we still be talking about starvation and overpopulation? We seriously throw away too much food in the developped countries. Same with water (how many people in Canada and the US use a garden hose to wash away dirt and stuff from their driveways). I believe in helping others in our world. How we treat our weaker compatriots is how we are defined as a species. I don't see how going contrary to what a cat mother does to her litter is necessarily a bad thing.

 

but how far can you stretch resources? medical science for example has resulted in a longer lifespan as well as ill people surviving, baby mortality rates have improved, our old people are now living longer and consuming resources, they need to be looked after, how many old people can be cared for, along with ourselves, our young and our weak?

 

Since I happen to be the board's resident animal rights activist, I'll take this one. The short answer, of course, is that it isn't. The long answer, however, is that no one is actively pursuing the genocide of another species. It is true that this often happens as an unintended consequence of human activity, and no one can objectively argue that there are no similarities between our modern feedlot and slaughterhouse systems and the "final solution", but it is folly to argue that man and beast are equal or that a slaughterhouse is somehow equivalent to genocide. The beef industry has no interest in eradicating all cows. Doing so would put them out of business. Some (like me) believe that the slaughter of such animals on such a grand scale is an atrocity that doesn't need to happen, but to call it genocide? That's just going too far.

I naturally believe that a man and even the lowliest insect have an equal claim life -- that is why I am vegan. I most assuredly do not, however, believe that a man and a sparrow have equivalent needs or desires. A sparrow would neither appreciate nor benefit from comprehensive health care reform or imported coriander, for instance. A sparrow, unlike a man, is not constrained by arbitrary borders. If there is no food in Palestine, the sparrow can just eat in Israel. It there are no twigs to build its nest in Gaza, the sparrow can just build its nest where there are twigs. The Palestinians have to stay in Palestine. When there's no concrete to rebuild, the Palestinians don't rebuild. When there isn't adequate nutrition available, the Palestinians don't get adequate nutrition. They can't just "go somewhere else". Not everything that happens in nature is ethical, nor are natural law arguments applicable to a species that does everything within its power to subvert it at every turn. Applying natural law to man made phenomena is pointless and silly.

 

Like I said before, Im not seeking the genocide of the Human race, just not helping those who will die to live.

they have free passage out of palestine through egypt.

If there is no predator, I agree. Sparrows dont land in my garden despite the fact that it has plenty of food for them, because they would be killed by cats.

Israel is the predator, they are the ones with the teeth and claws.

so could the palestinans, they can leave palestine through egypt, or Israel as the palestinians can actually enter israel through the checkpoints, and travel until they find somewhere to "build their nest".

Also bringing me back to another point, the sparrow doesnt travel to where it cannot get twigs or food, humans are the only species on this planet which inhabit areas of land that cannot support them

 

IDF admits doctoring audio of raid on Gaza flotilla

Surprise!

 

...where they will be refugees, living as second class citizens, and where there lot could very well get worse rather than better.

Israel is no animal. It is a nation, and the laws of nature have no bearing on the ethics, legality, or propriety of their actions.

Of course, because up-rooting your entire family and moving them to a new region where you will immediately have to find a new job and place to live is so simple and inexpensive in human society. Come on, dude, the situation isn't that simple.

 

no, youve pointed out once again how weak the human species is, weve lost all of our instincts, we dont know how to hunt or forage for food, we dont know how to build a simple dwelling - we are dependent on a society which has been created to keep the rich and powerful at that station and the poor and weak at that station. that is Human society.

what is a second class citizen?

 

Thank you Drew for bringing some sanity in this thread.

Doing a quick search on the net I've found that according to UNRWA there are 402,582 refugees in Lebanon and 1,951,603 in Jordan (out of a total of 5,100,981 inhabitants in Jordan). There are "only" 70,000 Palestinian refugees in Egypt.

Israel's population is estimated at about 7.5 million (over 20% are Arab citizens of Israel).

No, it's not that simple.

A citizen that is denied some of the basic rights that citizens take for granted and/or citizens that are being discriminated because of their appartenance to a different ethnic group or religious group.

 

so, your basically saying a person, who in all purpose is equal as a species to the others in that society, yet is shunned because that society doesnt want them?

also, how can it be possible to have an accurate count of refugees?

 

Ahem... Smallpox? Malaria? Mosquitoes? Bed bugs? Ticks? Ok, I guess smallpox is a bacteria, not an animal, but the others are animals Man has tried to eradicate. Bed bugs with some (though not complete) success.

It's rather off-topic, but I've often wondered why this same logic isn't applied to plants and fungi? They're also alive, aren't they?

I've got a question for anyone in the know. I've looked for details, but couldn't find anything on my own. Various articles that I've read have suggested, but not clearly stated, that Egypt's border with Gaza was substantially less restrictive in terms of goods allowed across. For example, Iran recently stated that it will send aid via Egypt, and will send aid ships to try to get through the blockade. Now, it seems Egypt has permanently opened it's border, but for an understanding of the previous situation, could the 'restricted' food and construction goods pass through the Egyptian border, but not the Israeli border? And, if so, is it really Israel's fault that Gaza didn't get these goods, if it could instead be sent through Egypt?

 

Uh-huh. And what does any of that have to do with whether or not Israel shares some degree of culpability for the plight of Palestine? What does any of that have to do with whether the way Israel has conducted itself in Gaza is moral, ethical, or legal? If you want to go on a cynical rant about the evils of modern society, knock yourself out, but I'd point out that Anarchy's even worse...

Mosquitoes, ticks, and Bed bugs have never been eradicated, nor have we ever tried to do that.
Attempting to remove such creatures from your house isn't the same thing as trying to wipe them from the face of the earth. In the case of bugs or bacteria, it isn't even possible.

Immaterial. Livestock also eat plants -- and without the meat industry and consumer demand artificially propping up livestock populations, there would be far fewer livestock animals. It takes 4.8 pounds of wheat to yield one pound of beef. By simply eating my wheat directly, I'm murdering far fewer innocent vegetables than you are.

 

All ive said about Israel and palestine, is that Israel is more powerful and so it is their will which will be enforced, just like in world war 2, we won, so we look like the good guys, despite the atrocities committed by the allies.

 

Wow. There is a lot posted since I was here last. This reminds me of the days of yore on this board.

Sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

Well, yes. You can blame this on corporatism more than on population growth. I noticed that my grocery bill has increased as well, even though we are in a "recession." As corporate competetion decreases, and government protections of the private sector continue, eveyone, even here in the "Land of Plenty," can expect to pay more. No surprise there.

And this is your model for humanity? But let's put that aside for a moment. It seems strange that you argue against food being shipped in and then use the argument to say that there is not enough food there so the people should die. Sorry, but there is a term for that and it is "self-fulfilling prophesy." Nothing like stacking the deck to be sure of the desired results.

But let's get back to the model for humanity. Humans are far more advanced than animals in many areas, and the distribution of food and materials is certainly one area. This is one of the reasons why I believe that humans are different than animals - we can do more. If food is actually available for a mother cat to feed her kittens (but certainly within her capibility), but she had to go an extra distance to get it, would she still allow them to die? Probably not.

Shoshino - You are from Wales and you don't think people should stand-up for property rights? I find that hard to believe. You strike me as someone who would fight for your rights rather than be thrown off your land.

American Buffalo come to mind on this thread, for some reason.

 

If you're referring to the fact that "winners" write the history, I'm not really seeing your point. Perspective is not reality. Might doesn't make right. If all you wish to say is that Israel is going to get its way because it can, that isn't exactly controversial, and we all pretty much agree on that. The question is whether they will be able to continue doing whatever they want indefinitely, and also whether what Israel is doing is legal and ethical. I'd argue that it can't. Israel is stronger than Palestine, sure, but if it goes too far, it won't just be Palestine they have to contend with. It'll be the entire middle east -- and, at the rate things are going, they aren't going to have any friends left to come to their aid.

 

In other words, despite the growth rate dropping, the population is still growing at a high rate and it estimated to continue the trend for another 40 years, however food supply is not able to handle this population increase, and with the fall in fresh water around the world the agricultural problem will worsen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Ill reply to more from those posts later