hundreth

It's better for Israelis to drop their loved ones into a dense urban warzone with Hamas rather than clear the area?

What are you even saying? If it was literal reality that they are already living together the problem would have already been solved. Mainland Israel is a majority Jewish state with many peaceful Muslim minority groups living within, but that is not the same as a radicalized Gazan population who has been raised under Hamas rule their entire lives.

I never claimed Israel is so kind. The one state solution is an unrealistic utopian concept which will never happen. The fact is that Israel was formed as a colonial Jewish state with the intention of being a safe haven for Jews after centuries of persecution in both Europe and the Arab-Muslim world. Whether you agree with the premise or not, the nation of Israel isn't going to self destruct by forming a one state solution. To make matters worse, it would be almost impossible to integrate both people's effectively in the short term. The Palestinians do not want a one state solution either. Both sides hate each other.

When you're a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

This whole trauma angle is corny. This is just human nature. Things happen, many times horrific. The entire planet's geographical lines are predicated on colonialism and war. After centuries of war and displacement, be it the Israeli kingdom, the romans, the ottomans, the British, etc... now we want to choose 1947 as our arbitrary year where history should reverse itself and a nation state should be undone. We don't hold any other nation on the planet to such a wild standard. War happened. The palestinians lost their land, just as the Jews before them had multiple times. My family is Iraqi Jewish, ancestrally there for hundreds of years. The entire Jewish population of Iraq was expelled, our land and properties violently stolen. The same thing occurred in almost every Arab nation in the 20th century. Is my family ever going to get their home back? NO. We have to move on and look forward. The West likes to dangle this resistance carrot in front of the Palestinians as if they'll ever fully take their lands back. This is immoral. It isn't going to happen. They like to demonize Israel for doing everything their nations have done for millenia. The path to peace is to look forward, not backwards. Sit down at the negotiation table, and find the best deal for the Palestinian people which improves their livelihoods.

A real problem is that the more surgical Israel is, the more Israeli casualties there will be. Given the significant loss of life in the country as of late, the relative experience of 30 9/11s... they are obviously hesitant. I don't think anyone expects this to eliminate Hamas, only significantly cripple them.

I explained this in a previous post. Israel doesn't actually expect Hamas militants to stay and for the entire northern region to be clear of all civilians. They'd like for as many civilians as possible to leave the area before a ground invasion. If Hamas leaves too, so be it. The major objective is to destroy Hamas infrastructure / weapon stockpiles without a dense urban ground war and many casualties on both sides.

Fair enough. There’s a lot of misunderstanding about Israel’s motives. Of course they don’t expect to 100% eliminate Hamas. That is impossible. The lines between Hamas militants and civilians are very blurred. What Israel is actually trying to do is avoid a dense urban ground war with hundreds of thousands of civilians. If enough Gazans move south, Israel will come in and destroy Hamas infrastructure, weapon stockpiles, etc. without as much risk to their soldiers and civilians alike. No one actually expects this to solve the Middle East crisis or defeat Hamas completely. Israel has been resigned to doing this sort of maintenance work every decade or so to greatly reduce the risk of attack on their populace.

You do realize that Israel has made huge concessions in the past including land, ceasefires, peace offers, etc. and none of them mattered? What do you hope to achieve placating a group who doesn't recognize your existence and wants you 100% annihilated? What you're saying makes sense in a vacuum, but reality paints a different story. After decades of attempts, the Israelis no longer believe in a peaceful solution. The Palestinians NEVER believed in a peaceful solution. That's where we are now. Of course Israel is going to grab what they can when politics are at play and the alternative has no incentive except for outside criticisms like yours.

Yes, if only the Israelis gave up the settlements... then there would peace. Of course! Why didn't we think of the settlements??

Yes, it's all the Jews fault they are under attack again. Comparing Jews to concentration camp guards is about as brain dead a take as you can have. Israel could have wiped Gaza off the map for decades, but have shown restraint. If the tables were turned, they would kill every single Jew.

Do you really believe this is all about settlement expansion? Seems very reductionist to me. Over decades it was made obvious that it doesn't matter what good will or good faith gestures Israel makes, the response from Palestinians will be the same: violence, murder, terrorism. You can give up land, make concessions, offer peace deals, etc etc. The end result is the same. So of course over time the powers that be stop caving in to international pressure and give in to shadow instincts and internal politics. This conflict is framed incorrectly from the get go. It's presented like Jews are white colonial settlers violently taking over native land... when it's actually more like Navahos and Cherokees on the same land in different numbers, being presented with a land offer. You can argue whether the offer was fair or not, but we're so far beyond that. One side wants 100% complete annihilation of the other. The two state solution is dead. The one state solution is dead. What is the upside to playing nice with the Palestinians?

This isn't meant to be a rebuttal or anything like that, just some thoughts on what was written and how we can express some of these ideas with less confusion and pain. https://actualized.org/insights/the-genius-of-tracie-harris Unclear what is meant by "scientific evidence" here. Science says nothing about morality - but science can tell you about the suffering inflicted on the child, their psychology, and their outcomes as adults. Why the duality between us and God here? A form of the absolute does care about this issue. The distinction is confusing. Atheism, and valuing science is just one aspect of a person's life. Some atheists believe morality is objectively based on some set criteria like "well being" or "reducing suffering". Other atheists believe morality is relative, and that we can come to the same subjective ideas about morality without a divine authority. What is the problem here? We are humans having a human experience. We effect change in our relative human domain by having opinions and fighting for whatever cause we find ourselves in. It is reminiscent of Krishna reminding Arjuna of his duties as a warrior in the Bhagavad Gita: I guess your overall point is that there's more to the world than our relative human concerns which is of course true. I do agree with morals being subjective. I guess my issue is with reducing all human concerns to pettiness as opposed to being an important and integral part of the absolute which is doing as we should @Leo Gura feel free to clarify.

Agreed. There's no point in self harm either.

Right, so why don't you just jump off a bridge now? Because we want to enjoy our hallucinogenic experience of reality. You experience life with some degree of caution because you value the game. So don't give me this bullshit.

This is great advice. The rest of you who are suggesting he do more 5 MeO. You are suggesting someone with PTSD symptoms and a sensitized nervous system take more of the most powerful hallucinogen known, which got him in this situation in the first place. What's wrong with you?

How much of a mystical experience is primed by cultural reference? During a near death experience, a Christian sees christian theological memes, whereas someone from a different culture will see completely different imagery and themes. They aren't even pointing in the same direction. You mention how psychedelic use won't bring you to a full awakening without studying and having a framework beforehand. How do you address this chicken and egg situation? You can't reach the truth without direct experience, but you also can't reach the truth without a theoretical framework. Is our perception of awakening completely dependent upon our pre-existing neural networks? Even If our cognitive filter is off (ego), what's left is still what was already there. I'm not saying I completely stand behind this objection, but it's something I wrestle with from time to time.

It's not always the case where women know what's best for a man to do in the dating world, but this is REALLY good advice. Listen to her. Go do other things and build your confidence. Your neediness will naturally go way down.

He's already in a fearful mind state, if you couldn't tell. I wasn't suggesting it was wise to do what he did, I was only pointing out there's no reason to add more fear on top of his existing anxiety. Obviously, you're playing with fire doing such strong psychedelics within a short time frame. It's not because it stays in your system some arbitrary number of days, it's because you're likely already more sensitized physically and emotionally.

Don't fall into this trap of worrying about permanent damage. Just because something stays in your system, doesn't mean it's actively affecting you. Marijuana stays in your system for a month. So what? You're just feeding anxiety with this.

Another issue to consider with minimum wage is, how will this scale with the future? As automation becomes more prominent and other job markets are cleared out, where will minimum wage come into play? Minimum wage will only accelerate large corporations investing in automation. You sign it now, and then in a few years the rate is obsolete, and you have a long winded battle to once again establish a new minimum wage as pay lags behind for years. It's a bad idea now, and it's even a worse idea going forward.

If this were true across the board, every employee in the U.S. would feel their pay is not "fair." Yet, in many lucrative fields there are employees who are very happy with their salaries. They feel fairly compensated. What is "fair"? The reason someone living in poverty feels their wage isn't "fair" is because they're living in poverty and having a hard time keeping up with their expenses. That doesn't mean the wage isn't fair, it means there is a bigger societal issue at play here. Not everyone can earn a livable wage through the job market alone. To me this points to other social welfare programs needing to be expanded. If people weren't so reliant on these minimum wage jobs, what happens to all of that leverage you point to? It starts to shift and wages will rise for those jobs as there are less inclined to take those positions. What makes a wage fair is simply that someone else is willing to do the same work for the same compensation. You've created a new definition of fair to mean "living wage" - but what you've done is put a monkey wrench in a system not designed to handle social issues at large. As you say, there are many ways to improve minimum wage - though it doesn't negate there are better solutions. You've countered the small business argument with theoretical models of minimum wage which no one in your political party is talking about. They just unanimously parrot $15 / hr. In the proposed solution, small businesses WOULD be hurt. We both agree large corporations should bear a larger burden, but disagree about how to get there. As I said in my previous post, I'm for raising corporate taxes at the highest levels and expanding other social welfare programs. You make the valid point that businesses are designed to maximize profit. Yes! That's what they do. Minimum wage is like trying to remove the stripes from a Zebra. Let businesses do what they do best, and find other avenues.

I agree with most of your points. Yeah, the effects of UBI would be fairly complex - though I'm a proponent for trying it. It could definitely help. Much of the UBI funds are going to go right back into the economy, which would stimulate business. The downside is a sort of inflationary reaction. With rising prices as well as rising wages because of the dynamic you've described. I think above all we need smarter corporate tax systems in place. If your annual revenue is in the billions, you simply CAN'T be allowed to pay nothing. We need to force multi billion dollar corporations to pay taxes.

That libertarian was pretty dumb. I'm not libertarian but I don't think raising the minimum wage is how you deal with this problem. The problem with politics and these binary political parties is that you have "consensus" solutions like raising the minimum wage. It's not even controversial at all among progressives. It's just assumed this is the correct solution. What you have is a societal problem, and you're offloading it onto ALL businesses. This means small businesses are highly impacted from raising minimum wage. Leftists seem to only think about some evil rich billionaire with big box stores like Walmart. If you wanted a more nuanced way to handle this inequality, you could raise corporate taxes at the highest level and close some of these loopholes, then feed it back into the social safety net programs out there. What you shouldn't do is just arbitrarily set someone's value as an employee regardless of location or context. This is so lazy.

It's not going to make anything worse, necessarily. If it's causing you fear, maybe work your way back into it slowly.