Mynd44: Bias based on skin color in a religious arguement? Smh

Guys, let's play nice please

Dude, please read the arguments properly before shaking your head.

TheBigUrban2:


If women didnt have virginas there would be no brouhaha over female genital mutilation or circumcision.


Stop this Anonynizing. "If's" and "buts"......

Your inability to grasp points is amazing

TheBigUrban2:
1) The embro/foetus is a part of the woman. Unless you have been nourishing it for weeks, I think you should allow the woman to decide its fate.
2) Everyone else is also exempt from the charge of nourishing the embryo/feotus...so the pleading isnt miraculous or special or even pleading.

AlfaSeltzer:

It is not irrelevant. If we humans had evolved to lay eggs, would you hold the same opinion? Can the woman decide which eggs live or die just because she laid them? Obviously not. But because we evolved otherwise, the woman now decides who lives or dies. Well, not everybody agrees.

You don't have to even go that far to "egg laying". the question I would ask is Why stop at the womb? Does a woman have the right to kill her 3-month old baby because she is the one nourishing it?

Let's see if BigUrban can hold a consistent logical position

TheBigUrban2:


The embryo/foetus is a part of the woman until the umbilical cord is severed.


And stop anonynizing my arguments please.

So are you saying that the foetus is not a distinct human being but part of the woman's body like a leg or an arm or an internal organ until the umbilical cord is severed before it becomes a human being?

rationalmind:
1- As far as justice/fairness is concerned, no one should be made to suffer consequences of actions that most likely couldn't have been prevented.

WHY? Why is it fair and just?

The idea of justice/fairness is only valid if there is a law that ought to be obeyed. Since you are obviously alluding to a law, then please tell us who made this law and if no one made this law, then why should it be obeyed?

2- Being unequal with others is an unfortunate occurrence that most likely couldn't have been prevented.

WHY is it unfortunate? Why isn't it just how they happen to be.

3- The unequal is being made to suffer consequences of actions he/she couldn't prevent when treated differently from the equal

So what?

4- This on the basis of 1 above does not constitute fairness/justice.

Except that in 1 above, you have not explained why it isn't fair you have merely claimed that it isn't.

Therefore, it's fair to treat everyone equally despite not being equal.

Anything short of that cannot be termed as fair as shown above.

This destroys the whole concept of fairness because it suggests that we ignore the truth and pretend that what we know to be a lie is true. The statement above is like saying that it is right to maintain that 2+2 is 5 even though we know that it is actually 4.

TheBigUrban2:
1) The embro/foetus is a part of the woman. Unless you have been nourishing it for weeks, I think you should allow the woman to decide its fate.

2) Everyone else is also exempt from the charge of nourishing the embryo/feotus...so the pleading isnt miraculous or special or even pleading.

The foetus is not a "part of the woman" it is an independent human being. I hope you are not suggesting that nourishing another human being gives one the right to terminate his/her life.

TheBigUrban2:
Is your house made of straw? Because the amount of strawmen you throw is astonishing.

You haven't demonstrated that you know what a strawman fallacy is.

1) I put a fact from numerous studies (intelligent people are more likely to be atheists). I did not say that being non-religious is better.

I also put a fact from numerous studies (intelligent people are more likely to be white than dark-skinned). I did not say being white is better. Who's fooling who?

2) If you feel that it is not a fact that intelligent people are more likely to be atheists, TAKE IT UP WITH THE NUMEROUS STUDIES THAT SAY SO
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

If you think that it is not a fact that intelligent people are more likely to be caucasians than negroes then please TAKE IT UP WITH THE NUMEROUS STUDIES THAT SAY SO.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/140239668/IQ-and-Immigration-Policy-Jason-Richwine . Again, who is fooling who?

Kay17:
1. Read all what you have written and digest it. Then ask yourself if you ever indicated self defence was accidental and if not, ask yourself if you were confronted with an imminent danger on your life with limited options, do you at all conceive of an idea to meet such danger with similar force?

Please read all that I have written again and address the main issue which is that malice aforethought/premeditation can be shown in the case of an abortion but not in the case of self-defence. I refuse to chase the "self-defence" red herring.

2. Medical experts and patients who have gone through a coma, explain that a brain activity effects trance, visions, dreams etc.

You have not answered my question. I am here to discuss the issue of abortion with you and how it may or may not be murder. It seems that you are unwilling to do so judging by how you only selectively respond to the parts of my statement that are least related to the nature of the foetus and the morality of abortion.

If you want us to continue, please stay on topic.

TheBigUrban2:



I will report you for trying to derail if you mention your Caucasian nonsense again. Not only is it false and racist, it is a strawman.


The thread is asking why it is a fact that intelligent people are more likely to be atheists or irreligious. We are not here to argue against facts but to find out why it is so. You have been warned

Lol, I really had to laugh when I read this.

Here you are stating a "fact" and implicitly suggesting from it that somehow it is better to be non-religious than to be religious. I am merely stating a similar "fact" that implies that it is better to be a white man than it is to be black but surprisingly you find that hard to swallow. How inconsistent.

I know that you are mad that I have exposed your poor reasoning. Here you are complaining and crying racism because it suggests that people's intelligence is based on race while totally ignoring the fact that you are doing something similar by suggesting that people's intelligence is based on their religious beliefs. What a hypocrite.

As I said earlier, you haven't shown a valid relationship between atheism and intelligence but you want us to merely assume that it is true and proceed to discuss "why".
Propaganda only works on fools my friend. Skeptics will always challenge your unfounded assumptions. It is ironic that you who claims to be a skeptic is suddenly uncomfortable and resorting to threats when others are skeptical of your position.

Please feel free to report to Seun or whoever you like. You've kissed his buttocks enough already. Perhaps he'll throw you a bone.

TheBigUrban2:


When you kill a pregnant woman. double homicide/murder

If the woman chooses an abortion. Not murder

If the woman chooses to participate in artificial pregnancy. Not murder


Is it clear to you what I am saying now?

Special pleading.

So according to you, it is murder for everyone else but the woman is miraculously exempt from the charge when she does it.

TheBigUrban2:
Sir, address the topic. The fact remains that intelligent people are less likely to be religious (or more likely to be atheists/irreligious). The question is why

I am addressing the topic. The fact remains that intelligent people are more likely to be Caucasian and less likely to be Negro, The question is why.

You still haven't made any point. You can start by explaining to me the point you are trying to deduce from your "fact"

Can you spot the bigotted demagogue?

TheBigUrban2:
LMAO!!! the Satanist is talking about shaming atheists!!! Irony.
What you people fail to understand is that Striklymi is talking nonsense as usual....he doesnt know that it is very natural for embryos to die during pregnancy. 15%-20% of known pregnancies end up in miscarriage....percentage is higher if we consider unknown pregnancies.
For someone to be concerned about the death of embryos with the artificial pregnancy, it requires a high level of ignorance.

AlfaSeltzer:

You are the one talking nonsense. Striktlymi knows very well that embryos die during pregnancy. He considers those natural death and as a xtian, have no problem with natural deaths; which he considers inevitable and as act of god. Other deaths, provoked by man, is murder for him and thus very sinful. This includes death of embryos during IVF.

You are the one exhibiting high level of ignorance here. Should we start killing off old people because old people die naturally anyway? If not, why kill embryos because embryos die naturally anyway? That's what xtians are worried about.

TheBigUrban2:
Embryos are not people. And so, your nonsense analogy about old people is a failure.

AlfaSeltzer:
You are a fool.
I was trying to explain to you how xtians think. Xtians think that embryos are people.
Go back and read the whole thread so you can understand other people's argument. Understanding others doesn't mean you agree with them.
Anyway, according to you, who is people? foetus? zygote? 6 months in the womb? After birth? Please enlighten us?

TheBigUrban2:
I didnt mean to butthurt you.
Anyhoo, why should I waste my time appealing to a christian nutjob's argument? I understand it but I do not waste time with it!!!
No one knows when an embryo/feotus becomes a human per se.....
But we do know that outside of the womb is a good time to make a demarcation as the baby is not totally dependent on the mother.

AlfaSeltzer:
When I said you were a fool, it was not out of butthurt but merely a statement of fact.
You have just proved it with your statement. The only thing you have been doing since you joined NL was spending your time appealing to christian nutjobs' arguments.
You have no idea when a human is formed but somebody else has his opinion and you call it nuts.
If your wife is 8 and half months pregnant and I hit her tummy with the intention of killing your unborn baby and killing it, should I be tried for murder (life sentence) or for assault (a few months or fine)?

TheBigUrban2:
Butthurt Satanist is butthurt!!!!!

TheBigUrban2:
No one knows when life truly begins. Stop trying to Anonynize my arguments.
If someone claims that life begins at conception, the person is a liar. No one knows.
If a woman is 1 month pregnant sef, it is murder if a man kills the baby by injuring the woman. The woman didnt ask for an abortion.

AlfaSeltzer:
So according to you, one can be convicted of murdering a non-human.

TheBigUrban2:
A potential human.

AlfaSeltzer:
just like embryos: potential humans.

TheBigUrban2:
Yes

AlfaSeltzer:
headless chicken.
You just agreed with sricktly that killing embryos could be murder.

TheBigUrban2:
Is it always murder? No
Stricklymi says it is always murder.
I have told you to stop anonynizing my arguments.......too late!! Anony has seen your sophistry and he praises you (comment above)

AlfaSeltzer:
When, in your opinion, is killing an embryo murder?

TheBigUrban2:
When you kill a pregnant woman. double homicide/murder
If the woman chooses an abortion. Not murder
If the woman chooses to participate in artificial pregnancy. Not murder
Is it clear to you what I am saying now?

AlfaSeltzer:

You are the one talking nonsense. Striktlymi knows very well that embryos die during pregnancy. He considers those natural death and as a xtian, have no problem with natural deaths; which he considers inevitable and as act of god. Other deaths, provoked by man, is murder for him and thus very sinful. This includes death of embryos during IVF.

You are the one exhibiting high level of ignorance here. Should we start killing off old people because old people die naturally anyway? If not, why kill embryos because embryos die naturally anyway? That's what xtians are worried about.

I'm just making this comment to say that you have just gained a whole lot of respect in my eyes. It is always good to see someone who can accurately represent the position of his opponent without necessarily agreeing with them. It makes for a good conversation.

TheBigUrban2: 1) Highly advanced countries have huge/significant number of atheists in their population eg (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland)

Highly advanced countries have a Christian historical foundation and a large white population. So what's your point?

2) Analysis of scientific studies over a decade shows that intelligent people are less likely to religious
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

And studies also show that white men on average have the highest IQ. So what's your point?

3) Nigeria is a religious country with few atheists (less than 1%) of the population, yet our greatest minds have been atheists/agnostics/skeptics (Chinua Achebe, Soyinka, Seun Osewa, Tai Solarin)

Yet our greatest minds and our bravest men have been religious: Nnamdi Azikiwe, Ahmadu Bello, Obafemi Awolowo e.t.c. So what's your point?

By the way how does Seun's buttocks taste?

So the question remains- "why are intelligent people more likely to be atheists"?

Why are intelligent people more likely to be caucasian? What's your point?

My theory is that it is not atheism that makes people smarter. It is the other way around. The thing is that the things that lead people to atheism and irreligiousity make them smarter. For instance, skepticism is very important to having a reasonable outlook....skepticism is what leads many away from religion......

Actually it was skepticism that led me away from atheism. So what's your point?

What is your own say on this matter of intelligence?

A valid relationship has not been shown by you to exist between intelligence and atheism,

NB; I use "atheism" in the general sense to cover irreligious people, deists, agnostics, skeptics etc

Lol, so you use atheism to cover things that are not and even directly opposed to atheism hence effectively destroying the meaning of the word.

Kay17:

1. Pls take the time to explain how self defence and manslaughter are different from murder.

The difference between self-defence/manslaughter and murder is that murder is premeditated while self-defence/manslaughter isn't.

And cases for murder, there need not be an elaborate plan, just malice aforethought.

I never said that there needs to be an "elaborate" plan.

Simply full knowledge of the consequences of your action.

This is an oversimplistic rendering of what malice aforethought is.

Here's a much richer definition.

"malice aforethought n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought."

There is no malice aforethought in self-defence.

So if you point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger, you ought to have known the results.

Not necessarily.

Same with cases of self defence, you already know the consequences of shooting a person, but achieving a lawful purpose.

This is a misrepresentation of what self-defence is. If a person attacks you and you are fully able to stop him from harming you without killing him but you opt to kill him instead, then you have not killed in self-defence.

I'll give you a scenario, let's assume that you a a well trained marksman and someone is 100 yards away rushing at you with a knife and you are in your car and could have easily escaped him with your car or shot him in the leg to slow him down but instead you chose to shoot him in the head with the intent of killing him, you have not killed in self-defence, you have commited murder as malice aforethought/premeditation can be established here.

If on the other hand, you were walking down the street and someone jumped upon you with a knife but in the struggle, you managed to pull out your gun and shoot him dead, then you have acted in self defence as there is no evidence of premeditation or malice aforethought

Now in the case of abortion, when a mother chooses to go and kill her unborn child to further her own purposes; totally disregarding the value of another human life, this is killing with malice aforethought. She has committed murder by definition.

2. People in temporary coma don't lose memory nor cease to suffer. As long as the brain isn't dead, these capabilities still work.

Lol, seriously so you are saying that unconscious people can consciously remember things and experience suffering? In what sense then are they unconscious if they are consciously aware? Or are you saying that you can recall past events without being consciously aware of recalling them? That's like saying that you can think without thinking. It is terribly self-contradictory.

Now to try and make some sense of what you are saying and also test if you can be consistent with your argument without going too far down the rabbit hole: You hold that as long as the brain is alive, your "qualities of personhood" are in play. Well, most fetuses develop a brain at week six. Would this be the point at which it becomes a human being? i.e. any abortion before week 6 of gestation is acceptable to you while you condemn any abortion after six weeks of gestation?

Kay17: 1. But in the case of self defence, the killing is premeditated and consciously executed but for a legitimate purpose. Isn't it therefore the same with murder. A worse case is putative self defence. Same with voluntary manslaughter.

Actually you are wrong, neither of them is a premeditated killing by definition.

The moment you take the time to plan to kill someone who has done you no wrong and then go ahead and do it, it neither falls into the category of manslaughter nor can it be called killing in self-defence.

2. Amongst all the qualities, you picked only consciousness and forgot the remainder.

If you can show me memory and the capability of suffering in an unconscious human being then please go right ahead and do so. Don't neglect to explain how he/she is able to remember stuff and experience suffering while unconscious.

Kay17: @mranony1
You can't play with legal terms and throw out their actual meaning in place for yours.

Except that I have done no such thing. I have neither changed the meaning of murder nor have I changed the meaning of abortion.

There is hardly any sense in arguing abortion is murder when the law is very clear that is not.

Except that this is a strawman that has nothing to do with what I have actually said.

Same as asserting manslaughter and self defense and even putative self defence is murder whereas in law, they are not!

Except that I clearly defined what murder is and showed how abortion matched the criteria. manslaughter and self-defence do not match those criteria. Please refute my position properly and stop grasping for straws. What is the fundamental difference between murder and premeditated abortion by definition?

What I have said is similar to how one would say that Advanced fee fraud is essentially robbery. If the best counter-argument you have is that the terms "robbery" and advanced fee fraud" are addressed separately in the law books of Nigeria, and not actually how they differ by definition, then I am afraid that you really have nothing.

The idea behind protecting personhood is percisely to preserve those cherished qualities which are eventually responsible for human greatness, civilisation, etc. Now, an individual in a permanent coma can be deemed to have lost personhood. And steps taken to terminate the necessary medical support are not deemed murder.

The fundamental difference being that in the case of a "permanent" coma, killing such a person will only be permissible if it is believed that he/she will never be conscious while abortion on the other hand is purposefully killing someone who is fully expected to eventually become conscious.

Mind you, I have not in any way granted your so-called qualities of personhood. I am only showing you the problems with your position even if it were to be granted. This is because what you are arguing essentially is that people slip in and out of humanness as they slip in and out of consciousness through the duration of their lives.

frosbel:
oh well , keep supporting the butchering of innocent women and children, after all they are not Gods chosen people and besides your people aka crusaders have done it before, so nothing new, shedding blood in the name of your god , misplaced alignments and twisted logic.

The God i Know could care less about race ! Every Palestinian child and women that dies, every Jewish child or woman who dies is a loss for him to grieve.

Only hard hearted pharisaical hypocrites think otherwise.

So rather than address the fact that Hamas use their own children as human shields, you choose to bring up red herrings like the crusades which no one is talking about and spice it up with ad hominem by suggesting that I'm a hypocritical pharisee instead of refuting my statements. It just shows me how unwilling you are to hold an accurate account of the events.

If you were of God you would have sought to present the whole truth and nothing but the truth but alas you aren't for the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth and no one who is of God knowingly promotes a lie. It is the devil who is the father of all liars and when you lie, you speak his language.

DeepSight: Anony. Been a while.
A few questions.

Yes bro, been a while. How you dey?

1. Do you regard it as sinful to abort a pregnancy that arose from a father raping his daughter?

2. Or an armed robber or serial killer raping a strange woman?

While I sympathize with the unfortunate circumstances by which the baby came about, I don't think that it makes the foetus any less human and hence it is immoral to kill it.

To put it in perspective, here's a question for you. Does a child conceived via incest or rape have less right to life than one conceived legitimately?

3. Do you think that the length of the pregnancy - that is - the extent of development is relevant? In other words if conception has taken place and what exists is still a developing cell - just within a few days of conception, do you see abortion of such as the same as aborting a fully developed fetus in the third trimester?

Yes I think that the length of the pregnancy is relevant but not in any sense that makes the foetus any less or more human and this is what I mean: I hold that life starts at conception and hence if a woman finds out that she is with child, it is immoral to intentionally kill it regardless of it's stage of development however I must point out that it is true that I don't feel as much sympathy for a 1 week old as I do for a 7 month old but this is not because one is more or less human rather it is more like how I may feel more sympathy over the death of a 4 year old girl than the death of a 90 year old man.

4. Do you acknowledge that there are pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother? If so, if a choice PER FORCE must be made, do you think an abortion of the pregnancy in such a situation is immoral?

I do and in such a situation I would try as much as possible to save both but if I must choose, I would opt to save the mother and lose the baby. Bear in mind that this does not make either any more or less human. It is the same to me as how in a desperate situation, choosing save women and children and sacrificing the men does not make the men any less human

P/s: Did you get my facebook message about my submission on our trinity discourse posted on philoversity

Kay17: @mranony1

Is abortion murder in Nigeria?

No, why because the two offences are separated and punished differently. The law in Nigeria does not consider a foetus a person in the legalistic definition of murder. Most countries which prohibit abortion follow the same path.

I see, so what exactly are those who commit the offence of abortion punished for if not for the premeditated killing of another human being?

You on the other hand, have a completely different idea of how abortion apparently converges with murder, and have decided to believe that idea to be the true state of the law, whereas it is not!

The part in bold is a strawman since I have made it clear that abortion is murder because it matches what murder is by definition and not because some nation's law says it is or isn't.

So that's where you mislead the Nairaland audience that comes across your post.

I did not mislead anyone, my position was clear from the onset. It was you who chose to interprete it in the way you chose even after I pointed out to you that your interpretation wasn't the case.

A foetus is deemed a person at the stage it acquires the invaluable qualities of personhood such as consciousness, memory, capability to suffer etc.

Interesting. Now you must stay consistent.

if the invaluable qualities of personhood are consciousness, memory and capability to suffer then you must hold that if you are ever in a coma, you immediately cease to be a person and therefore, it will not be murder to kill you as you would lack the qualities - which according to you - make you a person. Do you hold this position?

P/s: I reject the view that a foetus becomes a person. I hold that personhood (by which I precisely mean human being in this case) is not the sort of thing one can become. One is either a human being or one is not there is no step by step process to becoming human i.e. there is no such thing as a half-human being or a two-third human being or a one-quarter human being e.t.c.

Kay17: Ethical issues relating to abortion revolve round the status and personhood of the foetus. The mother/woman is understandable human - a person - and her life is always deemed worthy of preservation. In cases where the mother's life is at risk, the foetus is easily forgone.
I believe abortion is always a question of personhood, when does the foetus become a person. Whenever the foetus can be considered a person, a Rubicon emerges.

So do you hold that there is never a time when the foetus can be classified as a person?

What follows is another example of a bad circular argument.

Kay17: You declàred that abortion is murder without directing your audience's mind to the entirely different context you interpreted it.

Please what contexts are you referring to?

Ordinarily, any one that comes across your misleading post.....

please how is it misleading?

....would have thought that indeed, in law, abortion was murder whereas it is not

I have explained how it is murder, please explain how it is not: In law, murder has a clear definition. You can either show that I got the definition of murder wrong or that abortion does not meet the criteria for murder as it is defined

Next time it is befitting you inform others of the exceptional circumstances in which you make such declarations.

Again what are these exceptional circumstances that you speak of?

You came here accusing me of misleading people yet when I asked you to explain what exactly this misleading is and how this misleading occurs, your answer is basically "It is misleading because it is misleading".

rationalmind:
I need not provide example of specific right and privileges. Asking me to do so only shows you're trying your best to find a way out of answering the question.

Wrong. Asking you to be more specific will leave less room to miscontrue my statements. Your reluctance to be clear and specific shows that you are not really interested in hearing my answer. It seems that you would rather your question be as vague as possible so that you can have free rein to missinterprete any answers that may be provided.

Since you already said it depends on what rights and privileges I'm referring to, you are in other words saying you agree there are certain rights and privileges one cannot be denied of on the basis of inequality (which is of no fault of the victim) with another.

This shows that you don't understand what the issue is. I do not deny that certain rights are universal irrespective of physical inequalities, in fact I actually affirm this idea of equal rights but that is not the question. The question is WHY should we affirm these so called equal rights?.
I believe that fundamentally men are created equal in essence and for this reason, even if they appear physically unequal, we are actually equal and therefore there are certain rights that we have and laws that we ought to observe which trump man-made laws therefore it is fair to give an equal right to life to both the weak and the strong and it will be a violation of God's created natural law to treat them unequally.

Now your turn: Since you don't believe that man was created equal or that man has any essence that is not physical, and you also believe that men are not physically equal, why is it fair to treat the unequal equally?

Asking me what particular rights and privileges I'm referring to seems irrelevant, no?

It is not irrelevant because making your question as clear as possible makes it less likely for you to receive a vague answer.

shdemidemi:

You and your emotional tantrums..

Lol, the guy is mostly demagoguery with little to no actual reasoning. Pay him no mind.

PastorAIO:
I cannot prove it because I was not in the meeting of the high command when they gave the order to purposely eliminate civilians. However it is in keeping with many known facts about Zionism and the agenda of it.

This is an example of loaded language. Assuming the point you want to prove. You can't say that you were not there "WHEN" they gave the order. This assumes that you know for a fact that such an order was given when actually, you don't know IF such an order was given at all.

I have been quoting david Ben-Gurion a lot lately. He is called the Father of Modern Israel. He was the first prime minister and the Leading Zionist.

Here are some of the things he had to say:


The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan: one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.
-Speech in 1937, accepting a British proposal for partition of Palestine which created a potential Jewish majority state, as quoted in New Outlook (April 1977)

What is wrong with this and how does it help you make your case that Israel would purposely target civilian children?

In Yoruba language there is a concept called Jenfidihe. Vague translation to english, let me use my yansh to balance. Imagine you are sitting on a small bench and someone comes to you and begs you that he is tired, please can you let him just sit on the edge of the bench. Being a kind hearted fellow you agree. Before you know it every two two minutes the guy is just adjusting his yansh to balance properly and 'inadvertently' he's shoving you tighter and tighter off the bench. In a small matter of time you'll find yourself on the floor as the guy adjusts another slight bit more to you total disadvantage. So it is obvious that acceptance of the original partition was just the first step in a bigger plan by the zionists. That is how they've been fi idi he- ing and continue to do so up to today.

Except that that is not an accurate representation of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It wasn't Israel trying to adjust their buttocks rather it was Palestine trying to push them off and Israel fighting back, overpowering them and gaining more land in the process. It still doesn't show that Israel deliberately attacked civilians.

More from Ben-Gurion: (please look him up when you have time, don't take my word for it)

"A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. ... I am certain that we well not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country, either by mutual agreements with our Arab neighbors or by some other means. . . [If the Arabs refuse] we shall have to speak to them in another language. But we shall only have another language if we have a state."

As quoted in Chomsky, Noam, 1999.

More Gurion:


But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand but in the political sphere they are superior. The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside. They defend bases which are theirs, which is easier than conquering new bases... let us not think that the terror is a result of Hitler's or Mussolini's propaganda — this helps but the source of opposition is there among the Arabs.
Address at the Mapai Political Committee (7 June 1938) as quoted in Flapan, Simha, 1979.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with a country wanting to gain territory off it's enemies. What you still haven't shown is how any of these proves that Israel deliberately targets Palestinian civilians and not military assets and why they should be blamed for Hamas' using it's own people as human shields. All you've been presenting so far are red herrings which have nothing to do with the question I asked.

This should give you a broader view of what is going on.

What is the spirit of the zionists. Are they capable of killing palestinian kids? Really? What is the mood of the Zionist towards those they call Goyim? Some of these videos might throw some light on it for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPxv4Aff3IA

So I watched the video, and it is shameful that some Jews are racists but this doesn't in anyway lead us to the likelihood that because they want Sudanese immigrants out of their country, therefore they will purposely fire rockets at hospitals and schools so as to kill Palestinian children. What you have presented is yet another red herring.

Here more on indoctrinating kids:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9bXEVpgyHg

[/quote]
Really? Indoctrinating kids? By asking them questions at a war museum? I wonder what Nigerian kids on an excursion to a war museum might say about what they want to do to Boko Haram if given an armored tank. Perhaps if they make the mistake of aspiring to join the army so as to fight and kill enemies of Nigeria who in some cases killed their parents. Politically Correct Pastor AIO will condemn Nigeria for "brainwashing" them against Boko Haram. How absurd can you get? By the way your video is another red herring as I can't make any logical inference that leads me from kids who want to be warriors when they grow up to "therefore Israel targets children and not that they are firing back at Hamas who have incidentally chosen to place their military assets among their children.

Since you seem to like videos, I have a few for you.

Children being actively encouraged by a TV show to hate Jews (that's what real indoctrination looks like)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ORAM-usqhQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3OYjKZ2Cu8

An Egyptian candid camera TV show where guests are tricked into believing that they are on a Jewish show and then are applauded as patriots if they act violently enough towards the Jews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN_Gk82y7e8

A Palestinian psychologist complaining that Palestinians are actively using the deaths of their own children for propaganda. Seeing that there is already a culture where kids who died by stray missiles are treated as heroes hence creating an incentive for martyrdom amongst kids, it is very easy to draw the logical link to using kids as human shields for the sake of even more propaganda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT6iKFQDEP4



To recap: You have failed to show that Israel's attacks were deliberately targeted at Palestinian civilians and not at military assets which were situated amongst civilians?
You have not even provided any evidence from which such an inference can be drawn.

On the other hand I have shown you that Hamas puts military assets among civilians hence using them as human shields even though they have unpopulated areas in which to locate their military assets.
Also Hamas uses it's child victims of war for propaganda.

So again I ask: who is the real villian? Is it the man who fires back at the position of the enemy(who shot him first) or the man who uses his own children as human shields in order to use pictures of their corpses to gain public sympathy?

PastorAIO:
I would recommend that Israel cease it's aggression. But I realise that the problem is already too intractable. Israel shouldn't have been formed there in the first place, but now it's too late.

I would recommend that Hamas cease it's aggression. But I too realize that the problem is much deeper than that. I see no reason why Israel shouldn't have been formed there. Why do you disagree with Israel's location?

Do the Palestinians control the wilderness in that map that I can't actually discern what is what?

Really? the map has a key specifically put there to help you tell the difference between built up areas and uninhabited land. Please use it and stop choosing to be willfully ignorant of what is placed directly in front of you. . . .and yes, Palestinians control the region known as the Gaza strip.

Storing rockets in a school does not prove firing rockets from the school.

True but it can easily be inferred. That's like saying that holding the smoking gun does not prove that you shot the murder victim. True but the evidence points to you as the culprit.

If the school is complaining about the storage how do you think they would react to them coming to fire the rockets from there.

Sorry what was I thinking, Of course the school officials will cane those naughty Hamas boys so that they don't do it again.

You have read too much Israeli propaganda.

I think you have read too much anti-semitic propaganda.

While I wouldn't say that they have never fired rockets from schools I would not say that it's okay to bomb school children because it is a fact that the Hamas have their bases in schools.

And again, the question I ask you is who is the greater villian? The one who fires back at the enemy or is it the one who sacrifices his own children in order to use pictures of their corpses for propaganda?

But then I think that the major difference between you and I is that I have a much darker opinion of the heart of the Zionists. Bombing schoolkids would fit in with my opinion.

This clearly shows that your opinion is influenced more by your prior dislike for Zionists than it is by the facts available to you.

Israelnationalnews.com is as good a source on this conflict as Russia Today is on the issue of Ukraine, or CNN is on the issue of the existence of Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq. They had satellite images for that one too.

But then Israelnationalnews.com is not the only source of this information. If the news was coming solely from Israel, then we may have written it off as propaganda. But when an independent UN body created for Palestinians is reporting something similar and asking Hamas to respect the lives of it's own people and not endanger them, it becomes much more likely that Israel is telling the truth in this case.

Kay17: ^^
Which is viciously misleading.

You are welcome to explain how.

Kay17: In which legal jurisdictions is it murder?

The question of whether abortion is murder is a question of definition and not one of jurisdiction. I have shown why abortion satisfies the conditions to classify it as murder here: https://www.nairaland.com/1807927/view-abortion/1#24876951.

If you disagree with what I have shown, then please specifically point out exactly what you disagree with and give your reasons for doing so.

rationalmind: Neither should I be blamed for your inability to answer simple questions

Lololol ok.....

I am always ready to answer whenever you are ready to clarify your question by citing what specific rights you are referring to. I can't read your mind to know what sort of rights you mean.

TheBigUrban2:
#ignorance+Anonyism

ad hominem fallacy

#equal pay

What about it?

#polygamy

What about it?

#women's sexual health

What about it?

PastorAIO: Where in Gaza would you recommend that they fire their rockets from?

Where in Gaza would you recommend that Israel return fire to?

Where is the unpopulated area?

In the map of the Gaza strip below, the populated settlements are clearly shown in contrast to the unpopulated areas.

http://www.poica.org/upload/Image/selectedmaps/gaza.jpg

And How do you know that Hamas are firing rockets from schools? Where is the source of your information?

The link below contains declassified military photos from the Israeli defence showing sites where missiles were fired from. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183148

The second link (below) is the The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees complaining that they found rockets stored in their schools in Gaza
http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

Let me guess the ploy here. ... Okay so he says Hamas are not specifically firing missiles from schools, and then you follow up with 'prove it'. Which everyone knows is impossible. And all the while you fail to answer the question of how you know with such certainty that Hamas is firing from schools and hospitals.

Or he says that he has not said that he knows it's a lie. and then you stretch as much mileage out of that, dipping and diving and ducking here and there .... All the while failing to answer the question of how you know with such certainty that Hamas is firing from schools and hospitals.

Lol, you assume too much.


Now your turn: Can you prove that Israel was purposely attacking Palestinian civilians and not because military assets were situated amongst civilians?
If you can't prove this, then you must ask yourself who the real villian is; Is it the man who fires back at the position of the enemy(who shot him first) or the man who uses his own children as human shields in order to use pictures of their corpses to gain public sympathy?

coogar:
i only obey the laws - whether it's just or unjust is purely an academic point.

I see, so why do you obey the laws if you don't care if they are just or unjust?

you thought the instance i cited was pulled out of the arsê of a baboon. instead of you to do your research & check if i was right, you called me a liar. i have never seen such display of lack of manners in my entire life.

Please quote where I did this.

TheBigUrban2:

Ihedinobi would just say "Feminism"

He already believes that feminism is radical

To be honest, the modern feminism of the 21st century is more or less radical. Nearly if not all aims of feminism have already been accomplished.