ristlane

The end result isn’t actually up to the Palestinian people because their power is limited. They have the freedom to make choices within limits.

I recommend optimizing for prosperity in the presence of Israel. That would be a very good choice. It’s possible to thrive, as an individual and as a people, if you stay focused on that.

I love the Palestinian people and want them to thrive. The best way to accomplish that is to love God and to love your neighbor.

Broadly speaking, the Jewish people like to be lawful (according to their own conception of the law). It’s possible to work with that system and to be successful.

People often say “It’s complicated” or “It’s intractable.” I don’t believe that at all. It’s only intractable if you dig in your heels.

Perfection doesn’t exist this side of heaven, but it is possible to live and to be happy.

The West Bank settlements are illegal. It’s happening because of capitalism and the extreme power imbalance. I don’t think those settlements are a Zionist thing.

If we had a sovereign nation of Palestine, there wouldn’t be settlements in the West Bank. The world wouldn’t allow it.

The trouble is that the Palestinian leadership didn’t accept any offer of an independent Palestine. They want Israel to not exist.

If I recall correctly, unlike the formation of Israel, the West Bank settlements didn’t relocate anyone. I could be wrong?

No, it’s exactly what I’d expect. It’s not what I want to see, but it’s happening.

I don’t think you’re claiming that when MLK said “direct action”, he meant things like launching missiles, killing & raping, etc. I don’t think you believe that.

To be clear, you mean the entire nation of Israel, correct?

I don’t believe that the IDF wants to kill Gazan civilians.

If Hamas were entrenched under an Israeli school or hospital, the civilians would vacate the area so the IDF could take care of it.

In Gaza, Hamas may be preventing civilians from leaving (but I’m not there to verify). It would help to have civilian corridors into the south and into Egypt, but again that’s not in the best interests of Hamas.

I’d like the IDF to do their best. They are indeed responsible for trying not to kill civilians. There’s only so much they can do, short of a so-called “ceasefire”.

Hamas is hiding among civilians. I don’t want innocent people to be hurt, but their use of human shields is simply the standard playbook in this type of warfare. Hamas rationally wants Gazan civilians to be nearby and indistinguishable from combatants.

I’m very pro-Palestinian. That’s yet another reason why I want Hamas gone. There’s no chance for social justice while terrorists are running the show.

Please do coordinate.

Nobody wins in a conflict like this. If Hamas is defeated, and their successors don’t launch missiles at Israel, then there will be peace. Judging by past examples, those who strive peacefully for social justice have been the most successful in attaining it.

Anyone can coordinate. When the Jews coordinate, it strikes a particular nerve for a lot of people.

Holding Israel to a higher standard than all other nations is a sign of antisemitism.

If Hamas wanted peace, they could have it. They don’t. They want to kill the Jews.

For what it's worth, Genesis doesn't specifically mention eating meat until after the fall.

Genesis 1 says "I have given you every plant yielding seed ... and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." Likewise to the animals, "I have given every green plant for food."

It was a disaster for the church and for humanity.

Ireland used to be the most Catholic nation in the world; not anymore. Their faith was obliterated by the sex abuse scandal.

I can’t speak to other religions, but Jesus did not speak against the state, or against statehood as such.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world, despite all of its problems due to consisting of deeply flawed humans.

> I must express my strong disagreement and dislike towards a certain group of people who follow Judaism.

This is their launch version of supposedly 'refusing' to say "I hate Jews" in a socially-acceptable manner. But the launch version performed the user's task as requested, don't you think?

Of course, what is "socially-acceptable" is different depending on the audience. In many circles, it is socially-acceptable to say "I merely 'strongly disagree and dislike' _some_ kinds of Jews."

The article notably does not use the word 'fetus' - only 'embryo' is used. That's one technique to avoid addressing the strongest pro-life arguments.

Intellectual honesty demands that we address the strongest versions of our opponent's argument, not just the one that makes us feel the most enlightened and makes 'them' look stupid.

I like to be challenging and hopeful.

It's entirely possible to have rewarding & meaningful interactions with narcissistic people. Here's my process.

First, realize you're not so much better. Don't expect too much.

Next, don't insult them. Be aware of power games; don't get confused. Be straightforward.

Generally avoid putting yourself in a situation where you need something from them. If they offer a favor, accept it (if you want) and say "thank you".

Finally, don't try to fix them. Be simple. Offer them your time, and not much else.

You'd be surprised at how many narcissists are relieved and happy to meet someone who behaves in this way.

This is a legitimate question. Has our sexuality changed in recent decades (in aggregate), or are we just more open about our differences which were always present?

Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're right that human sexuality is nowhere near as clear cut as blonde/brown hair, or spotted fur on animals.

Still, that doesn't mean genetics do not play a role in determining human sexuality, binary or otherwise.