bebotalk

By contemporary international law, genocide is intentional. The Manifest Destiny of the 19th century, even before the advent of modern conventions on genocide, was an intentional move to kill or displace Native Americans. As this "destiny" was supposedly "manifest", the native peoples living there were just in the way. Either they were shoved into reservations, or they were killed. The extermination of the plains buffalo was a deliberate move to push off native tribes, so by modern international law, if used retrospectively, the American government was committing an actual genocide. There is no intentional push to kill or displace Palestinians. The cases in Rwanda and Bosnia were genocides by current international law, as was Darfur. Even still, you've proven my point. By taking admitted bad acts on one party, it doesn't mean that one side is more right or wrong. Individual bad acts don't or shouldn't undermine the meta-point of the conflict. If one side is "more right or wrong", then does this mean all Palestinians or Israelis should die or be forced to leave? That's not practical, nor ethical. And it just inflames further conflict. I stand by my original points, in that the elemental facet of the entire conflict has never changed. And that true peace can only be achieved if both sides can be achieved if both sides recognise the other's claims and reaching an accord. People who are "pro" each side often have agendas. There are some anti-Semitic "pro-Palestinians" and there are some anti-Arab Israelis. If either had their way, what then? Any chance for a lasting peace diminishes. Such positions are childish, reductive, and often stem from darker and deeper agendas. I look on anybody who is "pro" either side with scepticism and moral disdain.

A monarchy can exist under Islam or in an Islamist state. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are examples of this. I don't see the connection though, in honesty.

What's the point of monarchies in this time of humanity? Rule should be earned by effort. Being born in the right family isn't something that's earned.

Are you saying you're free of either?

Social media are privately owned. So freedom of speech in the strict legal sense doesn't apply. It's not different from restaurants not allowing swearing. It's their right, they're not the state. Go elsewhere if one doesn't like it. As long as Google, X, Facebook, etc. are private entities, then they hold the right to set whatever rules they see fit, and even then they cannot breach laws. They cannot say that only tall people can use their platforms, or only whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. can partake in them. Censorship therefore is moot. Maybe there should be laws stating that any social media firm should only permit speech that is within the current laws at the time. Given the pervasiveness of social media now, it seems harsh in a way that a person is banned from them all if they say things that are problematic. But it still goes to the facet of private ownership. The property owner has within reason the right to do what s/he wishes with their property. People also obfuscate what free speech means. And I feel this confuses many. Free speech in the legal sense just means that the state cannot limit speech. But even this has limits. Defamation, inciting violence, hate speech, etc. are illegal in many countries. As is blasphemy in some areas. People assume free speech means just a generic right to speak freely. In a colloquial sense, perhaps, but not in the hard legal definition.

So what's that got to do with them being monarchies? Like what you wish. But then me posting this here fits in this section, as it's political. Maybe stop assuming the world has to care about your unique tastes. They don't. And don't infringe on others' freedom merely since some impulse in your must be satisfied.

This is with respect a poor analogy. Slavery, at least in the trans-Atlantic system, was about racially based subjugation as much as it was economics. This was apparent throughout the history of the institution. Israel isn't out to subjugate Palestinians, or commit genocide on them. Genocide generally denotes an intent to kill a people or group. The issue from literally the time of the Balfour Declaration and the founding of current Israel is still pertinent.

No, i do not. What about the Israeli settlments? Not all Palestinians are pro-Hamas. And even if all Palestinians were this way as you describe, everything has a cause. The cause is Israel being there. But then why can't Israel be there? Again, this one-sidedness obfuscates the issue, imho. Escalations in a conflict don't make the base claim invalid. If two siblings are squabbling over playing with a toy, and one child punches the other in the face, it doesn't invalidate his or her claim to use the toy. It's just an unnecessary escalation in that specific point.

Well, why do pretty women assume their thoughts are what others MUST adhere to? what will or can they do if others are not responsive, nor care? It's on pretty women if they can't control their thoughts/emotions so as not to get vexed if others don't see them as the benchmark. Or be able to recognise cases of bigotry and not be comically selective. Nobody has to be selective as a default. As most pretty women behave this way, then it lends to them not being decent people and for me at least best avoided and scorned.

It's not about moral relativism. It's about realising the roots and nature of the conflict and finding a solution based on the stated goals and aims of each side. Who then should hold the right to the lands of Israel more? Who can say this? Hardline Jews would say that God gave it to them via the Torah/Talmud. Palestinians have been living there for centuries, and it's not their fault that their ancestors invaded the lands during the Arab Muslim conquests. Whilst Jews arguably hold the oldest right to live there, this doesn't mean it's an absolute or exclusive right. By this logic, Native Americans can expel all European, African, or Asian descendants from the entirety of the Americas. If an Iroquois lives in a street surrounded by white, black and Asian families, then tough shit, they have to leave back to their ancestral lands. Doesn't matter if the white family has ancestry in the USA going back to colonial times. Doesn'te matter if the black family can trace their ancestry to early 18th century slaves from Africa. Or if the Asian family's ancestors were 19th-century construction workers from China.

I for one see the entire conflict like any other conflict. I see that both sides have legitimate claims. So I don't see it as who is "more right or wrong" despite individual actions on both sides being grave. As for Western values, I believe states hold the right to have non-Western values. The West has no right to push its ideals onto other parts of the world. Even amongst Western countries, attitudes differ. Within the USA itself, some states have recently criminalised abortion. In Europe, this would not occur very readily without major shifts in public attitude. The UK is an example of this, as its political culture unlike the southern USA is way less religiously rooted.

My opinion is as stated. I believe that there is no right or wrong party as both sides hold a stake. It makes no sense to be pro either side. The solution is for somehow both sides to share the land and live in peace. Yes, Hamas was evil in its attacks. But it's a manifestation of decades of conflict that rests on the same question - as in who claims the land and who holds a right to be there. Both sides do. By being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, then it cites one side as right and the other wrong without seeing the rudiments of the conflict.

Correlation isn't causation. Yes, they are wealthy countries, but not because of their monarchies per se.

Choosing a side when there is no obvious winner or loser or aggressor or victim is foolhardy, as this can lead to more problems. The "win-win" is arguably a two-state solution, but even this is problematic. Few Israelis or Palestinians right now want to have two separate sovereign states. Hamas isn't the only Palestinian arm, and the PLA is also ruling the West Bank. Hamas did terrible acts, but they would argue that Israel has done similar, which is true. This is why imho, there is no "good or bad" party here. Hamas isn't representative of all Palestinians.

The redpill was based on various flawed principles. Yes, men and women are different. Men and women have traditionally valued different things in relationships. Men do, generally, value youth and women want security. This doesn't mean men have to be rich to get dates. This just doesn't bear out empirically or anecdotally. There are plenty of poor men who have relationships. They just date or marry other poor women in their vicinity. So by the redpill rationale, how do poor people expand? how have working-class or lower social classes always expanded? in medieval times, peasants married peasants. Nobility married nobility. People have generally dated and/or married in their geographical or socio-economic vicinity. Some points they have made are also dangerous - as in men never crying. Why can't men cry? Aren't we males human too? Don't we have a range of emotions? To say we should never cry is inane. So if one's parents, spouse, or children die, is this not reason to cry? It's good this ideology is dying. It was only ever a ploy to make money by taking weird conceptions of evolutionary psychology and selling it as the rtuth to the masses.

I can empathise in part with her being upset. But doxxing is taking things to a new level.

Onison was an alleged child-predator.

Life being hard is a seemingly innate reality, but this doesn't mean everything must be hard or we hold a right to cause or promote hardship. A good key to being happy in life is to recognise one's strengths and one's niche, and act accordingly on this.

Just realised it should be "neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestine". And I'm a native English speaker loool. for shame.

I like Destiny. Compared to most political streamers, he seems the most reasonable. Vaush speaks well but his ideology imho is too cringy (,i.e. market socialism and woke politics). Hasan is a dishonest showman with a hypocritical lifestyle (a wealthy Marxist) and advocates anti-white racism by saying the term cracker is fine to say as it's punching up. I'm biased towards Destiny over other streamers since I share his general ideology of social democracy. I don't see much wrong with his Israel/Palestine take. He has condemned both sides for being harsh at times, though acknowledges both sides' rights to the space. And that neither side will go away and will remain as they are, and in the space they occupy.

I'd never subject myself to marrying a pretty woman, ever. I know their natures. The premise is sound. Humans nay most life on Earth move to contentment over suffering. Pretty women are inherently stuck-up and are bullies, so I avoid them. Moreover, do you have the same energy for people who are racist in your midst? or sexist? or homophobic? if not, why not? they're all forms of bigotries. The principle should stand. Pretty women often like to think their thoughts or values are the benchmark. I don't believe any one person's ideals should be seen as what all others must follow. It would be reasonable to condemn all forms of bigotry, and not only ones based on one's internal whims.

Maybe. BUt that's not pertinent to my point. Religions are not inherently political systems.

I agree. One class of people shouldn't rule by virtue of birth or bloodline. I wouldn't call them fools, since monarchies are entrenched into the histories and cultures of many countries. And even in republics, there are elites. The USA definitely has elites, despite everybody in law and theory being equal.

How can integrity exist then? Why is sociopathy bad if there are no bad people? why even label them as such? I'm merely making observations.

Good for them. Doesn't mean the concept is unsuited to modern times.