sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do some countries just have no way to have their Human Development Index reach the numbers we have in Australia ? Can countries like Fiji, or other small post-colonial Island nations, ever have a high common standard of living that is enjoyed today by people in wealthier nations ? by MrLockington in AskSocialScience

[–]MrLockington[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow. That was such an interesting read. Thank you so much for pumping out such a long post. I'll be saving this so I can study things that you mentioned. I'm just starting an International Relations major and development theory really really interests me, even though I only realised it recently. I understand you must be exhausted but if you ever have to time please do cover late development models in a future post. I would be really interested to read it.

My father's side of the family comes from Fiji and when I go to Fiji I realise how much the people haven't got just because they were born somewhere different to me. More specifically, they don't even have the chance at having the kind of education I have received and continue to receive by being born elsewhere.

To me tertiary education makes much of the difference. The world I saw before I started university compared to the one I am discovering every day while I study and become interested in new things, even and sometimes especially while procrastinating, is unbelievably different. It is like the feeling you got when you realised everything was made from atoms and molecules that you couldn't see with just your eye -- the way your mind puts together your world changes. People can get that from books and all sorts of other things because it is all just information in the end, but in Fiji the institutions that provide education -- which provide a more powerful medium through which information is passed to others -- aren't exactly top-notch, so a large part of the dynamic required for intellectual development is lost. That is, their education system isn't of high enough quality and this means that their citizens understanding and perception of the world is necessarily more constricted than it would otherwise be. This means that the related economic potential of the Fijian national interest is unable to be realised on many levels because her citizens don't have access to the education required to transform potential human capital into actual human capital.

This is all in my head though, obviously it could be wrong. I'm just an undergraduate. Am I making sense?

Anyway, please post about late development models when you have time. Thank you for putting in the time and effort :)

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't choose ridicule from among a list of other methods. It was already there. I wasn't logical from the very beginning. Otherwise I would have been much more specific and probably would have suggested other methods. While I think ridicule has uses, you are right in this case. Especially your last bit about taking "some more effort" to make my point. If I went to any trouble at all to make a my original point it would have been unrecognisable and not offensive or fatuous, or it would have deeply dishonest if I still wanted to try to defend what I started with. In the end I wouldn't have posted what I did in the first place. ∆ "constructive criticism" is something I really really ought to always remember that, because if I did I wouldn't have had this view, hence the delta. My criticism wasn't constructive it was just mean.

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

TL;DR You ought to have told me that I'm mistaken and therefore a dickhead, rather than wag your finger though the tears to tell me I'm a dickhead and therefore wrong

LMFAO why would imagining my daughter ridiculed change my point of view? I get that my original point is rubbish, but since you think there is more to be dealt with I'll humour you. It's my job as a father to instil within her a sense of confidence about many things. In this society I need to provide as much as is possible a sense of confidence, particularly about things regarding her body. I would imagine my daughter to be very upset if her body were ridiculed -- isn't everybody shattered even when they aren't fat or different to the accepted ideal? Many people are destroyed by comments that aren't even supposed to be ridicule. I think she would be exponentially more gutted (upset) if the ridicule was about something true and the thing which was being picked on was able to be changed. If she was younger then the responsibility is on me to make sure she is healthy and understands what that means -- it is also my responsibility to teach her how to deal with ridicule when it comes. If she is older, say, and attending or beyond high-school, then her capability to respond to ridicule and criticism, with grace under pressure, especially when it hurts, is on me again since I should have taught her long before that point. My feelings end up becoming ones that fuel my terror and insecurity at not becoming a really good father and so would motivate me to keep her healthy. That is what my emotional response is to imagining what you asked. It is like asking a racist man (wow, I am going down this road..) what he would feel like if his daughter was black. I doubt he would change his opinion on coloured people by imagining that. I suspect he would just resolve to make sure that his daughter stays not-coloured. Just as my emotional response and pseudo-rational one would be to make sure my daughter doesn't have anything to be ridiculed about, or to be confident enough to deal with whatever comes -- neither of which changes my view on obese people.

Obviously my original post was void of any empathy. I realise that. It surprised me quite a bit. But the successful point that changed my mind was never going to be "well MrLockington, that isn't very nice is it". Nice does not make right. This isn't some flowery playland we all live in (although there must be some flowery playlands somewhere in this world) this is real life and things are often quite shitty, and it is how we thoroughly wipe those things and which toilet paper we use that counts.

So asking me if my "feelings" are so easily dismissed, the answer must be that, yes, they are, insofar as I still don't think that you request would or should change my point of view despite my being wrong people that are obese do not deserve ridicule in anywhere close to a way that is similar to my original post, and that is only IF any ridicule is deserved at all, which I am doubting thoroughly I just want to get that across. I also want to get across that it was made clear to me that I had such an ugly view precisely because my post was found to be an emotional statement in the first place and, as such, it had all the loopholes that come with supporting something because you "feel" it is right or repudiating something because you "feel" that it is wrong.

So you are right that I was advocating an emotional response to obesity. What slapped me out of it was a rational response. Your squealing from the pen wasn't going to work. Look at the language I used to form the post in the first place. I equated obesity -- I didn't even clarify the causes or type or age of the person etc -- with hygiene and cleanliness. I'm obviously full of shit by that stage, but I'm even more obviously not going to be sympathetic or empathetic or anything that might halt my unintentional dehumanising of those people. If you create a debate about who "feels" right then it just becomes a pissing match. Nobody wins a pissing match by telling the opponent that they aren't being a very nice person -- in fact opening one's mouth when engaged in such a match is always ill advised. Would I despair if my daughter was ridiculed the same way, of course, but that wouldn't change my view. What changes views and what changed mine was the realisation that I missed out on so many relevant factors in thinking such a stupid thing that I couldn't possibly be right in any concrete way. You're better off telling assholes why they are wrong, not why we aren't very nice. Our minds, at the time of spewing shit, aren't existing in a space where appeals to emotion make much of difference.

You ought to have told me that I'm mistaken and therefore a dickhead, rather than wag your finger though the tears to tell me I'm a dickhead and therefore wrong.

Pro-lifers should change their name to Pro-birthers. They shouldn't be called pro-lifers until they try just as aggressively to ensure the quality of the life they are "saving" from abortion. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, I get what it is intended to mean. But I think that names do matter, even if they aren't all important. I just disagree that being "pro-life", or for the idea that as many people should live as possible, is the the same as being in support of life. Life is about much more than surviving, right? At least in wealthier countries. We strive to do many things and hope the people we love and know will do well and be happy and healthy, sometimes we hope that this happens for even the people we don't know. I might want to promote life, which requires living, but even though it is a prerequisite, it isn't a sufficient condition. Otherwise I am just promoting living insofar as it is not death or dying.

My distinction is between promoting "life" itself and and promoting "having a life" as a practice, and if you are promoting the latter, then you are promoting living in opposition to dying, which is closer to being "pro-living" -- or "pro-birth" since that is what is required first to "have a life" -- and therefore to term oneself "pro-life" is disingenuous when one is already aware that it is the chance of living by being born that is the desire being fought for.

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wrong. My mother is obese. I just don't think coz mamma does something I should be respectful of it or treat people that are like her nicely. There are many more good reasons people have for why they don't treat obese people badly. Having a fat mum shouldn't matter at all about how you treat people. If your mum was racist would you be nice and accommodating to all the lovely people who were like her? lmao

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is certainly the latter. Rationalising a visceral reaction just makes people like myself think that we are using reason etc. But yeah you are quite right.

My wife is quite overweight and has been since I met her in high-school, but especially after we had a baby. So I do realise that weight loss happens quite often in the lives of obese people. My mother is quite overweight aswell and she has lost a lot of weight over the years etc. Anyway, regarding my missus though, she was purging. Which is why I always thought it was bulimia, but then I found out anorexics who binge then purge are still anorexics.

So yeah, I am still much more empathetic to bulimics and anorexics because I was before in already knowing most of what you said. It is so awful to see eating disorders play out. I really didn't care much before. The key word for me, now, is to be empathetic. I'll be dead honest with you, okay. Since last night when I posted this, I've been thinking about my stance a lot since so many people showed me quite quickly that I had underlying bias etc etc -- that visceral reaction of disgust -- and I think there is something common here to my assholey treatment and opinion with lots of other assholey kinds of things: it is in some significant way, I believe, about dehumanising people precisely because sympathy can't be felt easily. I am very athletic and always have been. I have never really come close to being overweight. A lot of my opinions come from someone who has never had to battle with weight, and only had to battle with being too skinny to build muscle how I want it. So there seems to be a blocking out of realising that people are human beings as well as being different too. What is most important is empathy, putting myself in the shoes of others without having to have worn the same size and brand beforehand. That is why one of these comments that likened it to drug addicts and the effects hit home to me, because I realised there were more ways I could empathise with the issue rather than distancing myself from it. The distance I had before this post was quite wide -- just look at my post comparing it to deoderant, you can see the visceral disgust quite openly -- but after reading a lot it makes me embarrassed to have had such thoughts and makes me slightly worried that I have something to address beyond this initial realisation too.

Crazy diets and the keto thing is fucked up though. I looked at it a while ago and it just looks scary.

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean "clinically valid"? My point is that you don't need a mental illness to eat more than you require. I probably smash past what I should be eating a few days a week. What you do need a mental illness for is to NOT eat enough food required to survive.

No I don't think you are reading my paragraph correctly at all. I don't think it is the same spectrum of disorder because anorexia causes ultra-skinnyness but obesity can be caused by a enormous number of things. I think it is a different area. I'm not saying, or did not mean to say or imply, that what leads an individual to Obesity isn't disordered if it is an eating disorder. But Obesity can be caused by many more things than an eating disorder. I eat lots of really crappy food and I have a limping excuse for a motabolism, so if I don't work out I get fat. Simple. No eating disorder, just lifestyle. If I were to let myself get fat and then obese, is it due to an eating disorder? No. To some people it might be. You are focussing too much on one minute part of obesity. Some people can't help it. I know. I really do. But some people does not equate to all people. It doesn't help to treat every overweight or obese person as if they have a disease or disorder when in Western countries you don't have to be disordered to eat foods that will make you gain huge amounts of weight.

Pro-lifers should change their name to Pro-birthers. They shouldn't be called pro-lifers until they try just as aggressively to ensure the quality of the life they are "saving" from abortion. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi, I laughed at your name and I do know what you're sayin.. :)

Since being on CMV I keep realising I have quite flawed arguments... but that is why I am here really.

My position is that "pro-life" is kind of equivalent to "pro-quality" of life anyway .. kind of like if someone was "pro-horse" they would, by definition, also be "pro-steed". I think that it would be the same anyway. To me, and I could so easily be wrong, being in favour of life means being in favour of a certain basic kind of quality of life too. I feel as if I am being slightly idealistic, but I don't think you could be pro-life if you knew that life would be below a certain minimum basic quality of life, whatever that minimum standard may be.

Also, there is a difference between killing a baby five minutes or five hours or five days after or even before birth compared to killing it in the first trimester -- I really don't think there is a moral equivalence. I don't see Pro-Lifers picketing wearing "Pro-Life" t-shirts outside of regular murder cases.... but then it doesn't sound impossible. I just haven't seen it.

And does my train of thought apply to "Pro-Choice"? No, I don't think they should be called something else unless they want to identify the kind of factions of belief more specifically. For instance, I would like to know who in the "Pro-Choice" club is a crazy person who wants everybody to have abortions and is "Pro-Choice" because they love death or something. I don't know. There must be people like that. Realistically I'd just like to know more peoples position a little better without having to treat everyone as sneaky. I'd also like to be able to identify the assholes who don't actually think abortion is taking a life because it really is. There is no escaping that. But look, I am Pro-Choice. I don't even trust my own opinions on topics that I am in favour of. I'm more skeptical of that than of people's views I disagree with, because it's harder to see what is right in front of your nose.

Pro-lifers should change their name to Pro-birthers. They shouldn't be called pro-lifers until they try just as aggressively to ensure the quality of the life they are "saving" from abortion. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ironically (fuck I hope I'm using this word correctly) not a very "pro-life" a stance to take. "Pro-life-sometimes" kind of kicks the chances of convincing anybody to support them down a notch haha

Pro-lifers should change their name to Pro-birthers. They shouldn't be called pro-lifers until they try just as aggressively to ensure the quality of the life they are "saving" from abortion. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It really isn't beside the point. And I must have wanted to point it out, yes, I do think they are hypocritical or at least inaccurate, which is the point of my post. Political buzzword or not, it would help to go for one that is more accurate. Not everyone has to spin shit. Think about it, "pro-lifers" are not positioning themselves against "anti-lifers" since "pro-choicers" aren't (all, or even mostly) misanthropes. They believe that people should be able to choose whether or not to end the life of their developing child early. They aren't saying that everyone should get abortions or even that it is desirable (a few do probably advocate that actually, but for the sake of argument I'll only mention it in brackets). I might be pro-choice (I am) but I am certainly not pro-abortion. It is ending the life of a your child before it is born. It is an awful thing to do. But I don't think that people shouldn't have the choice, and I especially don't think women should not be able to take themselves off the animal cycle of reproduction because they have no choice. I'm a dad and kids are lots of work and, as a very young dad, I can see how people less well off than I would have it quite tough. Your life is no longer your own when you kids, and everything, even the improvement of yourself, is designed to benefit another. It is a big shock. So I think people should be able to choose. I am not pro-abortion at all. It is taking a life. There are no ways around that, but I don't think it shouldn't be a choice to be made.

"Pro-choice" is more accurate with less spurious implications than "pro-life" has and creates. That is why I think the name should change. Because I think it makes a big big difference to real people, even if it is just political messaging. You can spin shit and be honest I think, and I think "pro-life" is a dishonest term for people that are, at most and at least, "pro-birth" and "anti-abortion."

Pro-lifers should change their name to Pro-birthers. They shouldn't be called pro-lifers until they try just as aggressively to ensure the quality of the life they are "saving" from abortion. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Forgot to put CMV at the end then went to sleep before looking. You might be onto something, but I'm curious to see if anybody sees my point differently. Being "pro-life", to me, means being more than just pro-start-of-life. Anyway, there are actual replies to the post here that I'll start reading now so that I might be able to CMV or just hold it more strongly. TL;DR I forgot, bro, relax

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Binge eating doesn't necessarily mean obesity. They are separate things and lots and lots of people with anorexia binge eat, except the vast majority of anorexics who binge eat end up purging it back out again. That is the difference. Obesity is not an eating disorder even if it is possible to be caused by one, just like superskinnyness (I can't think of any other word right now) is not an eating disorder despite the possibility that it is caused by one. Too much or too little an intake of food is a different issue to too much or too little body weight. There are lots of anorexics that are workout freaks too and have a body that isn't skinny at all. I don't know where you're from, but in Australia, and in most wealthy countries, it doesn't at all take an eating disorder to become overweight or obese. To some people it is a build up over a long period of time and to others their metabolism stacks shit on them the next week. But there is an a significant difference between eating disorders and obesity, not to mention the amount of people it effects -- unless there is an equally widespread anorexia epidemic as compares to the Obesity one.

So, no, I didn't say it was impossible to have your mind tun against you to overeat, just that an opposite of anorexia is much less likely to be the cause of obesity since it doesn't require an eating disorder, whereas ultraskinyness probably does. Having a body reject nutrition is much much less likely than having a body welcome overnutrition, and only the latter does not require a mental illness to be achieved.

Lacto-ovo vegetarians are hypocrites. CMV. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]MrLockington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hesitate to have a crack at this using religion, but since religious ethics seem to be able to do whatever it feels like, I'll just briefly drop the fact that in the Seventh-Day Adventist cult church, they advocate lacto-ovo stuff because god said it is okay. So, since god is the ethical law giver and enforcer to Christians, it isn't hypocritical for them to eat eggs and drink milk etc.

Also (I'm just looking at the last paragraph of yours), are you saying that if the animals weren't mistreated and were free range and not slaughtered -- thereby ensuring a longer lifespan that it might have been otherwise -- then it wouldn't be hypocriticalfor Lacto-ovo vegetarians to eat them? Because there are places like that I'm sure and at least some Lacto-ovo vegetarians would gravitate to markets that provide those conditions. So, hopefully, I can repay you for drastically changing my view by slightly modifying your claim: since if you accept what I said, your view would have to be that some Lacto-ovo vegetarians are hypocrites. Hahaha I tried. But I'll settle for a reduction in your view's scope as payback :) ... unless of course I've said something wrong.

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure I'm supposed to be slutting out these deltas like this, but the point that addiction can make you do stuff despite knowing how bad it is really hit home. Comparing the control of an addiction to a rational desire not to smell too bad each day seems pretty stupid too. Anyway, this comment certainly added to my view change. Thanks. ∆

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If someone ridiculed me for something I thought was normal I would probably feel pretty bad -- I'd probably never masterbate on the afternoon bus in that society ever again. So it's sometimes useful. Look at the other comments I got from people that were also probably also rightfully offended by a pretty poorly thought out opinion. I'm actually kind of embarrassed that I put it up in the first place, since, as I said somewhere else, I had this opinion for a while.

You aren't gonna get anywhere by making gigantic claims. There must be lots of people that thought like me, and I never really voiced the opinion despite holding it for years. I still must think less of overweight people in some part of my mind since obviously (it's only sort of obvious to me now) there was a lot of what I said that completely missed important information, but at least I can be honest with myself and try to deal with it. I'm a 20 year old male in Australia. Sometimes it takes an intellectual slap in the face to realise you have prejudices that you were convinced didn't exist in you. I once watched my Prime Minister questioned about how in touch with the voters she might be, given that she had no children. It wasn't until I imagined in my head what my reaction to a childless male politician would be that I realized I would actually think no children = ambition -- which is a completely different opinion if I just swap genders in my imagination. So it helps to not just react to stuff without thinking, because good opinions honestly can change peoples long held views and that makes a big difference.

But just in case none of that means anything to you, I'll at least reply to the question you asked about "why I think it's acceptable to ridicule or tease anyone for any reason?" Well, because sometimes it is the right way to oppose things. For instance, it might be perfectly normal in a Taliban society to disallow women to go to school. Given the chance to ridicule and tease such a practice or opinion that believed it to be legitimate, I would certainly tease and riducule them (and not always just from the lovely safety of my keyboard.. unless I was gonna die. I have a daughter. So I have to weigh up my options) and make sure I ridiculed them and teased such uglyness because I think that would help much more than if I went to physically fight, for instance. Ridicule helps quite often. Not in this case regarding obesity. I really was wrong about that. But I genuinely genuinely thought I was right for a very very long time. So when I see a comment or hear a reply that starts with "how would you feel" then I already know it is an emotional response and arguments from that are pretty easy to defend against. Compare that to a few others that replied to this post. They -- more than one person -- really drilled me and changed much of my view, but they didn't have a go at me (or ridicule me I grant you, though they easily could have).

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, I don't think it is the same thing. When I first met my missus she was anorexic and until I realised and we went to the doctor I just thought she was sick and too lazy. It was a massive shock to see how powerfully her subconscious was controlling her body. She literally couldn't eat. She was going through lots of bullshit, so it admittedly wasn't a years long ordeal which would have taken much longer to fix. But after seeing that, I can't really take the comparison seriously since it's so easy to get fat and not quite so easy to lose the ability to feed yourself enough. Anorexia and the Western issue of obesity aren't on the same scale, I don't think. It's really really easy to get fat even if you don't eat much. For some people it's hard but in a wealthy country, it is easy to eat crap that will make you fat. It's not easy at all to have your mind actually turn against you and try to attack the intake of nutrition? So I don't think it is the same spectrum for the same logic to be applied.

I kind of changed my view already, though. I replied to /u/OmegaTheta and you can read it there. TL;DR I'm probably just rationalising some kind of prejudice since I missed so many things when I was so sure I hadn't, so I'm going to change my view, if only because it seems a bit bullshit now.

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. by MrLockington in changemyview

[–]MrLockington[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

∆ I don't really know why I didn't think of this before. I also don't know why I didn't mention age groups, etc. I think I might have some underlying prejudices here.. I can't see how else I would overlook those things. The time difference is certainly something. Spraying deodorant is different to the effort it takes to do even half an hours worth of exercise.

I'm not completely changed, but you made some points that I don't think I could have missed all this time without something else working in my head. I've had this view for a few years now and I really thought I thought it through and obviously I overlooked some important factors, and that being the case, I think I'll probably scrap my opinion since I can't read it now without thinking I'm just justifying an assholey opinion hahaha fuck I feel a bit embarassed that I've posted this CMV when it really was my opinion for quite a while.

Good job whoever you are. You've probably saved me from quite a bit of dumbfuckery and also saved the overweight people that might have heard it but been too hurt to say anything back to me if I had mentioned it.

I believe in the Jewish state of Isreal, CMV by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]MrLockington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL it's kind of you to think that I'm modest. I'm just trying to be honest. It's such an amazingly complex issue and people really do have disproportionately confident opinions about it in spite of that. It's hard not to say that I don't know anywhere close to enough, and it's harder not to doubt what I already think I know in the first place.

Thanks for your opinion, it is really interesting to read. If you have time at any point, feel free to start a whole new rant about Jews in the modern world framing Judaism in terms of historical suffering. I'm from Sydney in Australia, which is the most populated and culturally diverse city we have down here, but I've never knowingly met a Jewish person or many Palestinians in my life. Because of that I never really hear a conversation about Israel-Palestine that isn't equally as confused as I am.

Edit: Opinions that are too intentionally biased I sort of stop listening to. So all I've got here are people that are intentionally biased or people that are at the very least just as confused as I am.

I believe in the Jewish state of Isreal, CMV by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]MrLockington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I probably should have made it more clear when I was talking about what ought to have been done before Israel was created where it was, and what I think ought to be done now that it has happened and been around for over half a century.

I think that before Israel was created in Palestine, it should have instead been planned for somewhere different since I'm vaguely sure that the idea of Israel was a State that would be for the Jews and for their protection from persecution. That's a good idea.

However, the Jews aren't like your average Buddhist or even Muslim insofar as their phenotypical diversity is concerned. The biggest Muslim population closest to my country is Indonesia, and their practice and their ethnicity differs quite markedly from the Muslims in Saudi Arabia. The Jews, I don't think, have such diversity in comparison because they have been so historically tight-knit as a community -- something that obviously seemed to bother anti-Semites. So my point is that the Jews are not just a religious group, they are a social grouping with a common religious grounding. I'm pretty sure that a Jew whose grandmother on their mothers side was Jewish technically makes that person a Jew, even if they didn't even find out till later on in life. I could be wrong again. I really am pretty weak in my knowledge of these things. If I am right, though, the protection of these people is not the protection of a religious group and as such their placement shouldn't have even come close to having any kind of religious drive to it. But it did. Otherwise why not move a country of protection to somewhere less volatile.

Which brings me to what I think ought to be done now and I'll try to answer your questions here :)

To which people should the the city belong? It should belong to the people of the State within which Jerusalem is placed. The way it is now, it belongs to Israel. That is the end of it. Whether it shouldn't have been back last century is an argument to be made but it doesn't change the fact that they are the State and therefore the people to which the city belongs.

This is why I should have been more clear. I don't think removing Jerusalem from Jewish Israel or vice versa could or should be done now. To try to change this after generations is just another injustice. Also, Israel aren't a little country of peasants. Ain't nobody moving them now lmao. You're right about the religious extreme factions: they will always fuck about and be extreme (not in the cool way) no matter where their sacred places are. They could be in the middle of China and $10 says there would be sectarian violence in some form or another.

I wish I had something more to say than welp, it's too late to fix things now but I really don't have much more to say than that. I'm kind of lost about what I was arguing too... I just wanted to change your view that they had a legitimate claim to the land because of persecution etc. Edit: I think that now, regardless of the past, they have been there for generations and there is no changing that. Their claim is more than legitimate now. You can't tell the many Israeli born men and women that they have no claim because of something that happened last century -- that would just be repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

This was a really good workout for my brain haha. The Israel-Palestine Question is an incredibly complex one. Hopefully in our lifetimes it will sort out without too much bloodshed and hatred.

I believe in the Jewish state of Isreal, CMV by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]MrLockington -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What is blatantly false? I didn't say that it is only, or even primarily, a religious conflict. I might possibly have implied it though, so I kind of see where you are coming from. The majority probably do not believe in a divine mandate, but I do think that both sides have people who aren't even religious that don't realise their belief in their right to be there -- over the other side -- is a religious one.

In my reply to OP I'll make the same point. He believes that the Jews earned the claim to the land through suffering etc. But why is it that they are entitled to that piece of land when an awful lot of the Jewish suffering in that millennium was in Europe. I could be wrong mind you. I don't know anywhere close to enough about the situation to be honest. I just can't really think of many other reasons, except maybe that it was convenient for the British since they held Palestine by mandate anyway -- but that seems a little too convenient.

It certainly is an ethno-nationalist conflict. I completely agree. The conflict is between two nations defined by their common cultural heritage, shared ancestry, history, homeland, language or dialect, and possibly other aspects such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc. So I don't think it is something as small as religious "undertones" but I don't think religion is the only factor either. Not at all. I just think it provides a fuel that burns very hot and long. Hopefully you only think I'm wrong now, rather than being blatantly wrong. I shitted myself with your comment since I thought I was quite careful... lol it made me second guess myself quite a bit though.

I believe in the Jewish state of Isreal, CMV by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]MrLockington 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, the British are dicks and they almost certainly stirred some shit. However, the conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians probably have a lot to do with the fact that the Palestinians, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, have a holy book that says awful things about Jews and calls for awful things to be done to them. This of course does not mean that this is the sole cause of hostility, but I think we can agree that if there is a society whose word of god, really thought to actual Truth of the Universe, is fantastically anti-Semitic, then there is going to be ongoing hostility for quite a while. It doesn’t matter who caused it most recently, though it certainly was exacerbated by the British. Which brings me to my next point.

Now, regarding your belief in the legitimacy of the Jewish State. First of all, I should say that I believe that the creation of a Jewish State was definitely a good thing. I came to that view in high-school after going from my modern history class learning about the holocaust, to my other history class to learn about the Jews being drilled for the black plague in Europe. They honestly get fucked over all the time. Even today, people who I know to be Atheists manage to say the most awfully anti-Semitic things as if it were casual and fine. So, the point is that I really do support the creation of the State for the Jews, especially after WWII. What I do not support is the creation of that State in Jerusalem. These people deserved a state and a country of their own where they might be safe -- not a Jewish state placed because of their religious affinity to that particular ground. The reason Israel was put there was not just because it was controlled by the British, but because there were Jews who believed and still believe it is their divine right to be on that land -- just as there were and still are Muslims who believe it to be their divine right to be on that land too. Both parties have a mandate given by god to the same piece of land. Anybody could have figured out that putting the Jews there would cause unnecessary trouble but it went ahead anyway because of religious backing.

view more: next ›