Is this anti-semitism?

It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.

Lots of murderers believe killing is wrong, too.

I think calling these ethical viewpoints "opinions" trivializes the amount of importance we place on them. "Opinion" also implies some sort of choice in the matter, whereas we often perceive the truth of ethical standpoints so deeply that we cannot imagine thinking they are wrong, or relative, or whatever.

1) 50 years is not such a long time, after all, is it
2) It wasn't the first time
3) Of course Europe doesn't understand Jews - they killed 'em all

and here's the official chain of events for the start of this
conflict:

1) Jews move into Palestine
2) Jews declare nation of Israel
3) Arab neighbors invade with no other provocation beside step 2
4) ALL OTHER SHIT GOES DOWN (repeat step 3 in the 60s and 70s)

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?

I reckon a lot of murderers think killing is wrong, but they do it anyway.

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3

Mmmm! If only all those Palestinians who were displaced/denied the right to a homeland by step 2 could see things so lucidly, eh?

(I'm saying nothing about the validity of the points, but just using maths style logic)

er, isn't that Step 0: Jews promise themselves this land??

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?

Relativism has it that all beliefs are, well, relative. Against this is the idea that beliefs are either right or wrong, warranted or unwarranted, universalisable or merely partisan, and so on and so forth. I was suggesting that the 'belief' that murder is wrong is not a belief in the relativist sense of the word. On my side is the argument that killing must be wrong for everyone (not just those who believe killing is wrong - the relativist's error) or else you are left with the (relativist) situation that killing is only wrong for those who have that opinion, in which case the people actually committing murders get off ethically scot-free, so to speak. Something like that.

That's a bit clearer. Ta.

I think that killing is 'wrong'. Another person may disagree and think killing is 'not-wrong'. We would both be correct.

I think I'm right, but so does the other person. Whose to say which of us is correct? And who is to say that the person who decides which of us is correct is correct. And so on.

As for the hypothetical person who disagrees, thinking that killing is right, we need to ask them to defend their position. It's not enought just to speculate that someone might disagree with us in order for us to 'relativise' our beliefs (although this is exactly what relativists do all the time.) In the absence of an argument - good reasons - in favour of killing, I think we can safely say that killing is wrong.

I couldn't honestly argue that killing is wrong or that killing is right.

I don't think the person who believes killing is right need defend their position. It's just a belief, no more or less valid than my belief that killing is wrong.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 28th, 2004.

This is where it's most clear that I'm NOT getting my point across:
YOU CANNOT ARGUE OR REASON TOWARDS A CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER SOMETHING IS 'RIGHT' OR 'WRONG'.

There is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong', the division is arbitrary.

I'm interested in this. I've never heard the term 'relativise' before. Do you think that's what I'm trying to do? Can you explain that a bit please.

As far as I know, there was no systemic displacement of
Arab-speaking natives before the war.
Here's my understanding of the refugee situation:
When Jordan, Syria and Egypt attack Israel (for no reason beside
hatred) a large number of Muslims rose up and joined the war
against their Jewish neighbors. After the invaders were defeated,
the insurgents fled Israel with their families to avoid
retribution, and convincing every Muslim they could to leave
with them, by spreading tales of impending slaughter by Israeli
troops. Again, I do not know of any systemic persecutions or
displacements of Arab-speakers.

It's worth noting that most of the "refugees" alive now were
born in the refugee camps - strange situation, no? I don't
know of any other situation where the child of refugees are
also considered.

The "refugees" are in a stasis now because they are not wanted
by Israel OR the Arab nations. Israel's enemy
neighbors will have nothing to do with the "refugees" - they would prefer to leave that thorn in Israel's
side.

The anti-semites who admit to it are impotent and
ineffective. The smart ones are more dangerous;
they keep their true agenda hidden.

Why did the peace end in the 40s? Were the Israelis
the ones committed to violence?

Also, I believe that the Arab governments were sympathetic
or perhaps even allied with Nazi Germany. Did they truly
have the moral high ground in 1967?

google these: "stern gang" and "folke bernadotte"

I mean, what are the other possible solutions? The status quo is unacceptable to everyone; Israel doesn't want to absorb the entire Palestinian territory and population as Israeli citizens; nobody else really wants to annex the territory and take responsibility for a poverty-stricken population. Moreover, the Israelis and Palestinians need each other economically, so they have plenty of incentive to cut the shit out. But clearly it's going to take new leaders to put it into effect. And as long as everyone lets the suicide bombers dictate the pace of change (i.e. all it takes to derail everything for three more months is one asshole blowing up a bus), then it's going to come very slowly.

Meanwhile, 10 more people who were alive when this thread started are now dead.

Water, when heated, tends to boil. This is true. It is true not only because it happens a lot, but because it happens as a result of the properties of water and how those properties are affected by heat. Relativism doesn't apply. It is, let us say for shorthand, objective.

Ethical statements - as far as relativists are concerned - don't work in this way. This is because relativists are aware that different cultures and different individuals have different values. The relativist concludes that all ethical (etc) values are subjective, arbitrary, relative. (This isn't always the argument used by relativists but it is historically significant - relativism emerged during the colonial encounter with 'other' cultures).

One persistent problem has plagued relativism, though. How can the relativist's argument (that these values are arbitrary) be any better (on the relativist's own terms) than the non-relativist's argument? Relativism is internally coherent for this reason. How can you be a confirmed relativist? (And Mei, you are certainly both relativist and confirmed in your relativism).

What is a belief if it has no argument behind it or can't be argued for? I think, if pressed, you would certainly come up with good reasons to be a relativist. If that's true then even a relativist can understand that other people (non-relativists) will - and have a right to! - offer their good reasons too! And if that's true, then we are not simply in the position of exchanging unfounded beliefs that can't be resolved because there is no difference between right and wrong; we are in the position of discussing the rights and wrongs of each other's arguments.

I understand how people can get into this kind of mindset, but I have now reached the point in my life where it just makes me go 'AAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHH'.

This sounds like a fantasy that 'they' keep things hidden. NB the fantasy also acts as justification for attacking 'them' despite the fact that 'they' seem to be innocent.

Go figure!

Spittle, because you KNOW the solution, you're (probably) part of the problem.

One persistent problem has plagued relativism, though. How can the relativist's argument (that these values are arbitrary) be any better (on the relativist's own terms) than the non-relativist's argument? Relativism is internally coherent for this reason.

Yes, but I don't see that as a problem. I don't mind others disagreeing with me. Both myself and them can be right.

Yes. I think one of the problems is that both sides are convinced that they're right _and_ the other side are wrong.

For every spittle there's someone as sure as him, but sure he's (or she's) wrong.

-- mei (meirion.lewi...), January 29th, 2004.

Sorry, to clarify this, I'm not talking about any particular issue, rather, I don't have a problem thinking that this whole 'relativist' position (which I apparantly hold) is wrong.

What is a belief if it has no argument behind it or can't be argued for?

That's what a lot of people would call a belief. Some mentalists would argue that the more implausible and less evidenced a belief the better it is. Most of these mentalists would be religious.

I think, if pressed, you would certainly come up with good reasons to be a relativist. If that's true then even a relativist can understand that other people (non-relativists) will - and have a right to! - offer their good reasons too!

I'm not arguing against reasoning and I think some positions (in all matters) have more to commend them than others. But they're just reasons, suggestions, hints, supporting evidence...

It's not possible to _prove_ which side of an ethical argument is correct. In fact, this is partly why I say two opposing view points can be right at the same time - because neither can be proved right or proved wrong.

And if that's true, then we are not simply in the position of exchanging unfounded beliefs that can't be resolved because there is no difference between right and wrong; we are in the position of discussing the rights and wrongs of each other's arguments.
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 29th, 2004.

This depends on the belief in question.
There are unfounded beliefs that just happen to be correct.

Discussing the rights and wrongs might change peoples minds, but often it can' prove the validity of beliefs.

I do kind of think that there is no fundamental difference between right and wrong. Can you formulate a definition of what 'right' is?

"This is a tremendous, tremendous setback. I hope this will not be accepted by Christians in this country. It is this lie, the lie that Jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus, which planted the seeds of the Holocaust, Rabbi Avi Weiss, president of Amcha, said. (http://www.nbc17.com/entertainment/2874405/detail.html)

I mean yeah, you can say that 'Jews killed Jesus' is completely missing the point of the gospel, fine, but to say that it's a 'lie' that Jews were responsible for his death is just wrong, unless you're challenging the historicity of the gospels' accounts of the crucifixion, which I don't think he's doing. Why use that word 'lie', when it just plays into your opponents' hands?

On the radio, I heard someone from the Anti-Defamation League making the much more reasonable point, that all the bad Jews in the film looked stereotypically Jewish, whilst the good ones (ie. Jesus and his disciples) didn't. Assuming that's true, then that's completely fair criticism.

It's not completely, thoroughly false that Jews were involved in the execution of Jesus; it's completely misleading to say "Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus" if you're singling them out to do so.

(In other words for "Romans" we should substitute "state" and for "Jews" we should substitute, like, "public.")