Daniel

Tani
‎‎‎‎
So you want people over the world to forget that it was Hamas who made a sudden attack on Israel first?

Israel was overzealous in their response to it, but the mentality that they had going forward with the retaliation as a way to eliminate Hamas terrorists that were hiding are to put it frank, understandable.

Here is to hoping nothing gets further instigated by both sides any further.
 
So you want people over the world to forget that it was Hamas who made a sudden attack on Israel first?
First, wrong. The first attack was made by Israel when they started their appartheid regime.

You can rethink this data however you want in your head. The oppressor is Israel and has always been Israel (at least after 48). The attack was no sudden, it was the result of 70 years of oppression.

Second, I think he meant forgive* as in we must forgive people who invisibilized the genocide. While I agree with him. I won't stop people in the future from being angry at those who - like some guys here - are legitimizing and invisibilizing a genocide once the it is recognize as such by international comitees.

There is nothing justifiable in a genocide.
 
You seem to believe that history is guided by some sort of moral entity.
Interesting remark.

Let's be clear first, there is no moral entity and I do not believe in moral but in ethics.

Now.. There are people who think that we tend toward progress. And to those people, people like me are saying "no, don't be so sure". Technological Progress and social progress are not a given, we could very well end up in a void of darkness for millenias if we are not careful or even regress back to the stone age.

This is something rightist often tend to struggle with. As they think fascism is just a thing of the past.. while they are reproducing the exact principle that brought it to life in the first place..

This is for the rationnal part of my mind, when we take a bigger look at history and our potential.

Now... If we look even bigger, to a specie level scale.. things - in my opinion - will tend to smooth up. There is indeed a part of me who believe that conscious and organized social civilizations over hundreds of millenias, tends, by essence, toward positive behavior relative to said conscious life. Which also mean that two different civilizationnal life forms could very well have different form of "positivity" that could be contradictory which would prevent them from interaction on a physical level.

The reason why I think life progress toward more "relative social and technological positivity" is simply because organized social life form tend to avoid what make it suffers. So, at the end of the end of the day, I think this principle is a strong enough pressure to push any civilization toward a relative self social and technological progress.

The universe allows an almost infinite number of combinaison.. So, no matter how many times a civilization fail. As long as it is alive, there should be one moment where darkness will not be strong enough to hold on in front of light.

This is why, while arguing a lot here because I don't want anyone to suffer, I have faith in our specie. Utopia is coming.
 
Interesting remark.

Let's be clear first, there is no moral entity and I do not believe in moral but in ethics.

Now.. There are people who think that we tend toward progress. And to those people, people like me are saying "no, don't be so sure". Technological Progress and social progress are not a given, we could very well end up in a void of darkness for millenias if we are not careful or even regress back to the stone age.

This is something rightist often tend to struggle with. As they think fascism is just a thing of the past.. while they are reproducing the exact principle that brought it to life in the first place..

This is for the rationnal part of my mind, when we take a bigger look at history and our potential.

Now... If we look even bigger, to a specie level scale.. things - in my opinion - will tend to smooth up. There is indeed a part of me who believe that conscious and organized social civilizations over hundreds of millenias, tends, by essence, toward positive behavior relative to said conscious life. Which also mean that two different civilizationnal life forms could very well have different form of "positivity" that could be contradictory which would prevent them from interaction on a physical level.

The reason why I think life progress toward more "relative social and technological positivity" is simply because organized social life form tend to avoid what make it suffers. So, at the end of the end of the day, I think this principle is a strong enough pressure to push any civilization toward a relative self social and technological progress.

The universe allows an almost infinite number of combinaison.. So, no matter how many times a civilization fail. As long as it is alive, there should be one moment where darkness will not be strong enough to hold on in front of light.

This is why, while arguing a lot here because I don't want anyone to suffer, I have faith in our specie. Utopia is coming.
Such civilizations never really existed, it's just some individuals for the most part. Look at this thread, at least half the people here cheer for genocide, and perhaps even those who are genocided would cheer for it had it been another group of people suffering.
And you probably know all this, seems like you are trying to substitute God with something else so that you can still feel this world is not doomed and all that pain is not in vain after all.
 
Such civilizations never really existed, it's just some individuals for the most part. Look at this thread, at least half the people here cheer for genocide, and perhaps even those who are genocided would cheer for it had it been another group of people suffering.
And you probably know all this, seems like you are trying to substitute God with something else so that you can still feel this world is not doomed and all that pain is not in vain after all.
It's not a feeling. More like a trusting. I have the same faith in humanity Luffy has in his crewmates..

It's not a faith based on a belief, but a faith based on the recurring wonders that Humanity was able to create, guide, construct, compose, think of etc.

I see the dark. In fact I think I'm the one in this thread who see how REALLY dark the world is and can eventually become. But, I was raised in hope, love and sharpness. Oda gave me immense hope, my family gave me immense love and the world gave me my intense sharpness.

Even at the edge of suicide in the eye of depression, I was still hopefull for the rest of us. I will never be pessimistic for the future of humanity. It's against my nature.

:kayneshrug:
 
It's not a feeling. More like a trusting. I have the same faith in humanity Luffy has in his crewmates..

It's not a faith based on a belief, but a faith based on the recurring wonders that Humanity was able to create, guide, construct, compose, think of etc.

I see the dark. In fact I think I'm the one in this thread who see how REALLY dark the world is and can eventually become. But, I was raised in hope, love and sharpness. Oda gave me immense hope, my family gave me immense love and the world gave me my intense sharpness.

Even at the edge of suicide in the eye of depression, I was still hopefull for the rest of us. I will never be pessimistic for the future of humanity. It's against my nature.

:kayneshrug:
Luffy's crewmates are handpicked and all mostly good people, humanity isn't.
 
Luffy's crewmates are handpicked and all mostly good people, humanity isn't.
In absolute, there are no good or bad people, there are only people who do good or bad ethical things. Social relationships are contextual. Depending on who is watching, those things will be seen either as good or as bad.

For example, Nameless thinks that poor people do not deserve any help from society, only through charities. This is a fundamental bad ethical thing to think and act upon. But not for him. Does this make Nameless a bad person tho ?

No, as I'm sure that if he sees a person in distress, he will help them as we pretty much all would.
 
So you want people over the world to forget that it was Hamas who made a sudden attack on Israel first?

Israel was overzealous in their response to it, but the mentality that they had going forward with the retaliation as a way to eliminate Hamas terrorists that were hiding are to put it frank, understandable.

Here is to hoping nothing gets further instigated by both sides any further.
First?

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...targeted-children-health-workers-journalists/
https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/...e-than-250-children-shot-with-live-ammunition
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...-in-gaza/0000017f-f02b-d497-a1ff-f2ab3be90000
 
It doesn’t matter how you try to justify October 7th, that event objectively kicked off the Israel Hamas war

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Hamas_war

It’s right there.
[automerge]1737071247[/automerge]
You can say this war is part of a larger conflict that was started decades ago by people long dead. Blame the Zionists or whatever.

but this specifuc war was started by Hamas
Who is justifying anything?
Why can't you guys talk about something without labelling whoever talks with you? This looks extremely disingenuous and makes you look like you arguen in bad faith.
Simply, saying that "hamas started a war" is a lie. First, because Israel already had troops and occupied Palestine BEFORE then.
Second, I brought tangible evidence of occupation/apartheid/homicides and other practices BEFORE then.
Third, the thing you refer as "Israeli hamas war" is a smaller part of a bigger problem, but you won't be so dishonest to cancel 50 years of history just to isolate one event.
If we actually want to be technical, Israel doesn't even recognize Palestins, so they cannot be at war with something that doesn't exist.
 
Who is justifying anything?
Why can't you guys talk about something without labelling whoever talks with you? This looks extremely disingenuous and makes you look like you arguen in bad faith.
Simply, saying that "hamas started a war" is a lie. First, because Israel already had troops and occupied Palestine BEFORE then.
Second, I brought tangible evidence of occupation/apartheid/homicides and other practices BEFORE then.
Sure you can use those events to understand the motives of October 7th.

but the facts are very simple.

The 2023 Israel Hamas war started due to the October 7th attacks.


Third, the thing you refer as "Israeli hamas war" is a smaller part of a bigger problem, but you won't be so dishonest to cancel 50 years of history just to isolate one event.
.
Sure but the Israel Hamas war didn’t go on for 50 years straight. It started with Hamas’s October 7th attacks.
[automerge]1737076213[/automerge]
I’m well aware of the history of the conflict

The only reason I’m bringing up October 7th is because of stuff like this:
You can praise fascists all you want for ceasefires. The reality is that, despite its loses, Gaza WON.

This is the power of resistance:



And next are the end of the apartheid and the arrestation of Netanyahou.
 
That guy was schizophrenic

in the US, a schizophrenic has the right to refuse treatment until they actually hurt someone.

However the nature of schizophrenia makes it to where many people with the illness cannot comprehend the fact they are sick.

Furthermore if schizophrenia isn’t treated, it gets worst over time. Meaning that if an individual lacks insight into their condition and refuses treatment, they often spiral downward until they become homeless, end up in prison, or die.
[automerge]1737077172[/automerge]
i do occasionally hatewatch nazi content on the internet.

there is this peculiar phenomenon of Indians and other brown people trying to enter white supremacist spaces and position themselves as “one of the good ones” for validation.

But nazis still hate those people and probably respect them less than normal browns because their world view is that the only “good ones” are the ones that stay in “their countries” and work to make it better.
 
Last edited:
communism, which the US spent half a decade trying to destroy
The US focus on destroying anyone who gets in their way of world dominance. Political ideological are of tertiary importance and are used to manipulate and role up the citizens at best.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/donal...ens-coming-to-earthand-elon-musk-should-look/

Who had the Trump administration revealing Aliens (I like to call them "Space Neighbors") on their Bingo sheet for 2025?

Shout out to Jimmy Carter for trying to do this decades ago. Freaking government.
Humans gotta stay on earth. Period.
[automerge]1737078617[/automerge]
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-j...inauguration-9a237f43bce71640bcda279e76b32fd5
Brazil's wannabe dollar store Trump getting what he had been coming. If only the original had followed his lead 😂
 
Sure you can use those events to understand the motives of October 7th.

but the facts are very simple.

The 2023 Israel Hamas war started due to the October 7th attacks.




Sure but the Israel Hamas war didn’t go on for 50 years straight. It started with Hamas’s October 7th attacks.
[automerge]1737076213[/automerge]
I’m well aware of the history of the conflict

The only reason I’m bringing up October 7th is because of stuff like this:
So we are using mental gymnastics to say that Hamas attacked FIRST ignoring the context because hamas caused the latest development of a 50 year conflict.
Saying that Hamas attacked first is False.
Just blatantly.
You can say that it sparked the latest development, whatever, it's irrelevant. Because you cannot say that Hamas attacked first when there are tangible proof of the opposite. Because the conflict itself started BEFORE the creation of Hamas.
 
Top