It is a more complex topic than these students understand. Whether elected or not, the government of your region represents you. You can either choose to go along with there agenda, oust them, or leave. If you stay, you are subject to their whims. The whole, “you took my land” point holds no water in global politics. Just like mergers and acquisitions in business, countries change hands. The rules change. No one possesses the Earth or a specific plot of land in any sense beyond what can be inferred through the social contract of your government. There government collapsed. A new one formed with new rules. This is the way of the world. Your deed is only as good as the authority of the land deems it.
Building upon social contracts, and continuing to work off many concepts from Locke’s Treatises of Government; something these students should have read, someone who declares war can be met with the same. This is the breakdown of civil discourse. In the case of Gaza, the government chose that path at the detriment to their citizens. War is by its nature an indiscriminate mess. We should all strive for peaceful discourse. The issue here is that one side has been teaching their young to hate the other for allowing liberalism and egalitarianism into their communities. They are rigid and believe in a system where women and gender fluid are inferior. They have been unwilling to come to the table and Hamas’ constitution basically calls for the eradication of the Jewish race.
In conclusion, being pro-Palestinian and properly calling out that there is no excuse for terrorism is somewhat acceptable, which is not what these students did. Being against Palestine because a territory with several million people should simply assimilate into the larger country surrounding them is in fact the logical best choice. They don’t have to give up their culture, except for the parts that call for war against others for being different. They live in segregated apartheid because they chose to cut themselves off from Israel. Deals have been offered to assimilate them into society have happened for years. They live as a failed region, propped up by charity. Their experiment in micronation didn’t work. Not Israel’s fault. It would have helped their cause if they could control the militants firing rockets at a sovereign nation, but alas it was their own government all along.
If we go at this from a debate of who was there first, I have a nice copypasta for that. Am I naive or practical. You can’t just throw political theory out the door. We aren’t savages. Well at least some of us.
I’m not falling for your sealioning and wasting time trying to argue against you, especially when there isn’t definitive objective evidence I can present to you to diffinitively show you why existing in a society does nit mean you implicitly support the government because of “social contracts” so I’m just going to block you.
I’ll take that as a win. Come back when you want to have an actual conversation and I can also present a detailed account of who was there first, if we want to do the whole colonialism versus indigenous peoples debate.
It is a more complex topic than these students understand. Whether elected or not, the government of your region represents you. You can either choose to go along with there agenda, oust them, or leave. If you stay, you are subject to their whims. The whole, “you took my land” point holds no water in global politics. Just like mergers and acquisitions in business, countries change hands. The rules change. No one possesses the Earth or a specific plot of land in any sense beyond what can be inferred through the social contract of your government. There government collapsed. A new one formed with new rules. This is the way of the world. Your deed is only as good as the authority of the land deems it.
Building upon social contracts, and continuing to work off many concepts from Locke’s Treatises of Government; something these students should have read, someone who declares war can be met with the same. This is the breakdown of civil discourse. In the case of Gaza, the government chose that path at the detriment to their citizens. War is by its nature an indiscriminate mess. We should all strive for peaceful discourse. The issue here is that one side has been teaching their young to hate the other for allowing liberalism and egalitarianism into their communities. They are rigid and believe in a system where women and gender fluid are inferior. They have been unwilling to come to the table and Hamas’ constitution basically calls for the eradication of the Jewish race.
In conclusion, being pro-Palestinian and properly calling out that there is no excuse for terrorism is somewhat acceptable, which is not what these students did. Being against Palestine because a territory with several million people should simply assimilate into the larger country surrounding them is in fact the logical best choice. They don’t have to give up their culture, except for the parts that call for war against others for being different. They live in segregated apartheid because they chose to cut themselves off from Israel. Deals have been offered to assimilate them into society have happened for years. They live as a failed region, propped up by charity. Their experiment in micronation didn’t work. Not Israel’s fault. It would have helped their cause if they could control the militants firing rockets at a sovereign nation, but alas it was their own government all along.
And you’re not even joking, are you?
What part of my statements do you refute and why?
You sound young and naive, and completely lacking any practical experience with humans.
If we go at this from a debate of who was there first, I have a nice copypasta for that. Am I naive or practical. You can’t just throw political theory out the door. We aren’t savages. Well at least some of us.
My god, this whole account is nothing but blsting shilling for Israel. I sincerely hope you’re getting paid for this, because if you aren’t… my god.
Once again, what part of what I said do you refute and why. I’m willing to have a spirited debate.
I’m not falling for your sealioning and wasting time trying to argue against you, especially when there isn’t definitive objective evidence I can present to you to diffinitively show you why existing in a society does nit mean you implicitly support the government because of “social contracts” so I’m just going to block you.
I’ll take that as a win. Come back when you want to have an actual conversation and I can also present a detailed account of who was there first, if we want to do the whole colonialism versus indigenous peoples debate.
Don’t worry,
lemmygradLemmyworld is a tankie instance without reasoning. Just don’t argue with them, use a app to block their entire instance at best