Controversial General Political Discussion

[Herrera95]

"If you don't support those who are creating a Genocide, therefore you are on the side of terrorists"

1. That's the rethoric of fascist
2. That's extremelly manichean and completely ignorant of the situation of the conflict.

You are doing the same but the other way. Look this guy!

No. You are once again lying.

I wonder if I can report you for this type of lies @Uncle Van ?

And not long ago you said you weren't against freedom of speech. Look this guy!

No as well. I have a very clear standard:
- Cease fire
- End of genocide
- End of oppressions
- End of colonization

Funny how hostages and attacks on Israel doesn't enter in your standard. And right above you said it was a lie that you are antisemitic and want Israel to disappear. Look at this guy!

Its over because Israel entered Rafah ignorant.

Israel said they were continuing the operation in Rafah because Hamas refused to make a deal.

If Israel wanted the hostages back safely, they wouldn't have carpet bombed the entierity of gaza with the risk of killing the hostages ignorant.

And let them under Hamas control for them to be tortured? At least they already rescued many of the hostages.

Actually I did. I mentionned multiple time that Hamas did a War crime on october 7th and that those who are involved must be brought in front of international justice, the highest instance to treat those kind of crimes.

You just prefered to ignored what I said because it doesn't fit your far right agenda.

I didn't seeing you saying shit. I'm just seeing you shutting on Israel everyday. Not a word about hostage confessions of being raped and torture about them.

Also how do you plan to have those Hamas criminals to be brought into international court? Are you gonna to make a call and ask them nicely to go there?

We can't prove the inexistence of something Einstein. Critical thinking 101. Its YOUR job to prove to me that those indeed existed. And I'm not saying that there weren't rape and decapitation I was talking about specific news about decapitations of babies and babies put in hoven (which are stories that Israel took from its OWN history against Palestinians as they are the ONE who did this in the past)

If a crime wasn't committed there is ways to prove it wasn't.

Again ignorant, you should read between the line.

The international court's investigation in IN PROCESS. Which means that it takes TIME. If you'd raped your wife in front of everyone, we wouldn't wait until the trial to say that you are guilty and we would be right. But in my country, you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. That's how justice works and that how it works here. So EVEN if the crime is obvious, justice takes TIME to process the information. Therefore we need to wait. But:

- The court was clear toward the gov of Israel : refrain from doing anything that could further the evidences (and they continued the bombing)
- MULTIPLES ACTS of genocide (among which forced starvation, etnical cleansing and mass murder) are confirmed by specialist on the place as well as the UN representatives
- We can SEE and we have the DATA to prove those acts
- The Israeli gov as publicaly demonstrated rethoric of dehumanization congruent with a genocidal intent against Palestinians

So yea.. there IS a genocide, in fact there are MULTIPLE ACTS of genocide.

You better wake up sleeping beauty, the dragon of history and reality is about to EAT YOUR *SS !

There is no between the line. International Court can't be vague. They were clear about Israel not making a genocide and advised for them to keep ways of that not happening.

 

[Logiko]

History is written by the victors

Not alone. Its also written by scientists.

Yes, that is quite literally what you do when you're investigating. You refuse to say whether someone is guilty or not. Hence the ICJ is refusing to take a strong stance unlike you.

That's not a "refusal" that's just basic justice. And verdict are for justice, we are NOT justice. So we don't need verdicts to assertain the existence of a criminal, especially when they are taken red handed.

Again, same example as the previous poster: If someone is caught raping someone else, we don't have to wait to say that they are a rapist, we only need to wait for those person to be held accountable. That's all. This case is the same. We know and the experts KNOW that there is a genocide, not only that but we have been saying this for month and it has WORSEN since. So we do not have to wait to say that there is a genocide and to say that the Israeli gov are a bunch of crypto fascist murderers, we can say that RIGHT NOW.

and contrary to what you said

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919

While this is a good addundum, this doesn't negate what I said (at least not here).

The ruling will take year and the first ruling was a preventive measure meant to warn Israel to act to prevent and punish any kind of action that could lead to genocide.

the ICJ didn't make a ruling on even if a genocide was plausible. So your only "proof" for is bombing. Hence why my comment is this

No. The proof are also the documentation made by expert in the field, the fact that there is an literaly ethnical cleansing, the fact that starvation is used as a weapon and yes, also the bombing on civilians and hospital.

But those are war crimes, which Israel has done so many time since octoboer 7th. Here we are talking about Genocide.

Not my point fluffy.
German media and politicians did NOT run smear campaigns against China's president like they are doing with Putin either

Indeed, its not in their interest. Why protect muslims when they goal is to attack them in their countries ? (it works for france too)

You are doing the same but the other way. Look this guy!

No mate, look again.

And not long ago you said you weren't against freedom of speech. Look this guy!

No, I said I was against absolute freedom of speech, but since you don't understand the concept, you confused everything.

Funny how hostages and attacks on Israel doesn't enter in your standard

Actually they do. They should be released. And I condamned the attacks but you will never condamn the action of Israel.. that's why you are on the wrong side of history and I'm not.

Israel said they were continuing the operation in Rafah because Hamas refused to make a deal.

No, they want the end of hamas, that's why they went there.

And let them under Hamas control for them to be tortured? At least they already rescued many of the hostages.

In reality, those hostage were released mate. Not rescued. The Israeli gov rescued no one, they killed dozen of thousands.

I didn't seeing you saying shit. I'm just seeing you shutting on Israel everyday. Not a word about hostage confessions of being raped and torture about them.

Not "Israel", their gov. I actually care about Israli people compared to you not caring about Palestinians.

And I did condamned the attack on the first day mate. But I'm still waiting for you to have a word about the 40000 dead Palestinian you piece of work.

Also how do you plan to have those Hamas criminals to be brought into international court? Are you gonna to make a call and ask them nicely to go there?

I don't know, its not my job

If a crime wasn't committed there is ways to prove it wasn't.

No, you can't prove the inexistance of something. Think Einstein.

They were clear about Israel not making a genocide and advised for them to keep ways of that not happening.

They didn't rule about the genocide. Read the report.

 

[Natalija]

Not alone. Its also written by scientists.

Do you know historians aren't scientists?

 

[Zolo]

Do you know historians aren't scientists?

Typical carrot xD

 

[Logiko]

Do you know historians aren't scientists?

History is a discipline of social science mate. Its part of science :)
In order to keep the status co alive, you are being led to believe that social sciences are not sciences. Yet they are.

 

[Natalija]

History is a discipline of social science mate. Its part of science :)
In order to keep the status co alive, you are being led to believe that social sciences are not sciences. Yet they are.

Sociology, which is a science, is not history.

Historians use sociology often, but writing history just amounts to collecting data and/or being told what to write, and that's not really science.

 

[Logiko]

Sociology, which is a science, is not history.

Sociology is a social science, but all social sciences are not sociology.

Psychology, anthropology, sociology, history etc. are ALL social sciences.

but writing history just amounts to collecting data and/or being told what to write

Its a bit more complicated than that. But I'm not an historian so I'm not the best to talk about this subject.

 

[Natalija]

Sociology is a social science, but all social sciences are not sociology.

Psychology, anthropology, sociology, history etc. are ALL social sciences.



Its a bit more complicated than that. But I'm not an historian so I'm not the best to talk about this subject.

It's not very complex, history dabbles with using other sciences, but in itself it offers no conclusions other than noting past events. Historians are not considered scientists, and neither of them will call themselves that.

 

[Logiko]

It's not very complex, history dabbles with using other sciences

Yes, just like astrophysics dabbles with mathematics and cosmology. Sciences are connected.

but in itself it offers no conclusions other than noting past events.

But .. those ARE the conclusions....

Historians are not considered scientists, and neither of them will call themselves that.

Indeed and that's a problem. Just like sociologist are not considerered scientist, social sciences are targeted by liberals and conservatists basically because social sciences are questionning the status co and the established hegemonic narrative.

Ask a liberal if they are 100 % for science, they will say "YES".
Ask a liberal if they believe in meritocracy, they will say "YES".
Ask a liberal if they think that social science are sciences, they MIGHT say "YES".

Tell a liberal that sociology is tearing down the concept of Meritocracy and they will say "Sociology is a leftist ideology and its not a science"

The moment science starts to question the status co and the hegemony, science becomes illegitimate in the eyes of those who hold power. And yet.. Science is alive and Kings are dead.

We need to understand the scientificity of social sciences weither its history, psychology, anthropology, geography or sociology.

 

[Natalija]

Yes, just like astrophysics dabbles with mathematics and cosmology. Sciences are connected.



But .. those ARE the conclusions....





Indeed and that's a problem. Just like sociologist are not considerered scientist, social sciences are targeted by liberals and conservatists basically because social sciences are questionning the status co and the established hegemonic narrative.

Ask a liberal if they are 100 % for science, they will say "YES".
Ask a liberal if they believe in meritocracy, they will say "YES".
Ask a liberal if they think that social science are sciences, they MIGHT say "YES".

Tell a liberal that sociology is tearing down the concept of Meritocracy and they will say "Sociology is a leftist ideology and its not a science"

The moment science starts to question the status co, science becomes illegitimate in the eyes of those who hold power. And yet.. Science is alive and Kings died.

We need to understand the scientificity of social sciences weither its history, psychology, anthropology, geography or sociology.

No, it's not at all the same, astrophysics directly uses math and physics as tools and then comes to its own conclusions. History asks archeologists and sociologists wtf happened, then just write down whatever the century archeologists determined, ergo they didn't really determine anything on their own. I think these terms confuse you, but you can Google it and find that historians aren't scientists and why.

 

[Logiko]

No, it's not at all the same

Didn't say it was the same.

History asks archeologists and sociologists wtf happened

You are killing thousands of historian with that sentence... way to go to missrepresented an entire field...

Again, I'm not an historian so I can't reply to you in detail, but you obviously are not one so, be humble mate about the subject mate...

 

[Natalija]

Didn't say it was the same.



You are killing thousands of historian with that sentence... way to go to missrepresented an entire field...

Again, I'm not an historian so I can't reply to you in detail, but you obviously are not one so, be humble mate about the subject mate...

There’s no need to be humble to an objective truth which is: historians don’t make conclusions, and history is a discipline where you can’t draw any kind of “law” or conclusion from, which is something you do need for something to be labeled as science.

As I said, historians don’t consider themselves scientists, because they aren’t. It doesn’t take away from the discipline or from the hard work of compiling info, it’s just the way things are.

 

[Logiko]

There’s no need to be humble to an objective truth which is: historians don’t make conclusions, and history is a discipline where you can’t draw any kind of “law” or conclusion from

Social sciences are not about universality, that one of the thing people miss out. The fact that they are social makes it that they are contextual in time and space. So you will find very few "laws" like natural sciences.

As I said, historians don’t consider themselves scientists, because they aren’t. It doesn’t take away from the discipline or from the hard work of compiling info, it’s just the way things are.

And yet.. they are. But I would love to talk about those historian who don't consider themself scientists.

 

[Natalija]

Didn't say it was the same.

You compared history taking conclusions from sciences to astrophysics using math. The purpose of that argument can only be that they are the same, but I hope you realise astrophysicists know math and use it themselves for their own conclusions, while historians know errr history.

Social sciences are not about universality, that one of the thing people miss out. The fact that they are social makes it that they are contextual in time and space. So you will find very few "laws" like natural sciences.



And yet.. they are. But I would love to talk about those historian who don't consider themself scientists.

We’re talking about history only, don’t move the goalpost.

I think just talk to any historian

 

[Logiko]

You compared history taking conclusions from sciences to astrophysics using math.

No. I compared the fact that sciences have porosity between themself. Meaning that history can take from sociology or archeology which can take to biology which can take to physic which can take from mathematic Etc.

We’re talking about history only, don’t move the goalpost.

I AM talking about history. History like other social science needs to be studied in context through time, space and socialization.

 

[Natalija]

No. I compared the fact that sciences have porosity between themself. Meaning that history can take from sociology or archeology which can take to biology which can take to physic which can take from mathematic Etc.



I AM talking about history. History like other social science needs to be studied in context through time, space and socialization.

It's not a science, it's just a discipline

 

[TheAncientCenturion]

You can never really get true conclusions with history though. Every person who picked up a writing instrument was biased, working with incomplete information and sometimes working with specific agendas or limitations.

 

[Logiko]

It's not a science, it's just a discipline

A discipline OF science

You can never really get true conclusions with history though. Every person who picked up a writing instrument was biased, working with incomplete information and sometimes working with specific agendas or limitations.

Most scientist will actually tell you that the carcan "scientific method" is missleading.

https://www.snexplores.org/article/problems-scientific-method

Some scientists prefer to it the term "scientific practice" or "scientific thinking". Its much more in line with what they actually do.

But you highlighted one of the problematic of science: human are bias and EVEN the scientific process can be bias. That's why scientific rely on a LOT of informations, data, experiences, reproductibility etc. Indeed an historian can be bias, that's why their discipline must be done rigorously.

Just like others scientific disciplines, escaping bias can be very hard, that's why we rely on the scientific practice and good ethics.

- [SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE] - Systemic Racism's impact in science - Major scientific journal "Science"
- [VIDEO] - A crisis in Science : Psychology. The problem with scientific publications and P-Hacking
- [STUDY] - There is a Gender bias in research : How does it affect evidence based medicine
- [STUDY] - Women researchers are cited less than men
- [SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE AND STUDIES] - Women researchers are cited less than men and what can be done about it
- [STUDY] - Gender Bias in science - Women ask different questions in social sciences

 

[Natalija]

A discipline OF science

Academic discipline, but not science itself

 

[Logiko]

Academic discipline, but not science itself

A academic discipline OF science. Come on.. don't play dumb.

Time to accept social sciences as they are mate : Sciences.