History lives in the present

Context (for those who don't know): Israel and Palestine

You're viewing a single thread.

147 comments

Borders are violence.
- ~~Borders are~~ violence.
  Religion is violence
  
  Why not both?
  
  good argument. Agreed
- laughs in Australian
  
  laughs in emu
- Even animals patrol and defend their territory. Why should human be any different? If anything else, borders are an improvement over constant skirmishes and raids where two different ethnic groups meet.
  EDIT: Interesting how you completely ignored the "Borders are a solution to constant ethnic clashes" part of my comment
  
  Animals kill and eat their young. They roll or eat shit. They rape. You sure that's the argument you want to use here?
  
  That's bad. But why are borders bad?
  
  Freedom good! Borders restrict freedom. Borders bad!
  
  Freedom good! Borders allow different systems or countries to exist so you have the FREEDOM to choose the one you like the most instead of there being only one option. Borders good!
  
  I´ll assume you are just uninformed and not a hypocrite. Refugees get stuck, pushed back and even killed at borders all around the world when trying to choose the country they like the most. Borders bad!
  
  These comments read like a realism vs idealism debate
  
  Interesting how you ignore the reality of constant ethnic clashes and raids inside the borders of many african nations and also across borders e.g. Armenia vs Azerbaijan, Kosovo vs Serbia, Russia vs Ukraine or... Palestine vs Israel.
  
  "animals do it why shouldn't we" is one of the worst reasons to do something. Animals are literally dumber than us.
  
  You are an animal...
  
  The animals argument is bad. We are animals and the idea is to refrain of our bad instincts in favour of the greater good most of the time.
  That being said abolition of borders is a very bad idea, a very basic visit of human history will squash any misplaced idealism regarding that subject.
  That also being said immigration is most of the time a good idea as long as you put a consideratr effort into integration for your newly minted citizens.
  Now I realize most of those are opinions without substance, the idea is to realize where people push back and why before backing them up.
  
  What makes you think we should act just like wild animals?
  
  The reason ethnic clashes are happening in the first place, is because there was not enough intermingling between neighbors, in big part because people like you thought humans aren't smarter then animals and should be separated.
  
  Humans aren't smarter than animals because we are animals. We're also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.
  
  Easy now dont cut yourself on the edge you've got there bucko
  
  Are you a bot, or just really dumb? That phrase doesn't even apply...
  
  Comeone you are going around all "Hurr durr humans aren't smarter than animals, we are so self-destructive" that's an edgelord position if I've ever seen one
  
  Got it, it was the second option.
  
  You know what I was typing up a whole argument about how the "if you are self-destrucive you are dumb and therefore an animal" logic is flawed but then I remembered I am on the internet and get to do this fun thing instead:
  No U
  
  On top of it, you're functionally illiterate, cool.
  At no point did I state being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action – go back to school, you clearly need it.
  
  Humans aren’t smarter than animals because we are animals. We’re also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.
  Great let's dissect this then:
  Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of "animal" meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform. Yeah yeah go ahead and nitpick about mushrooms and plants if you want to. Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
  The first sentence thus becomes a tautology because you moved the goalpost to include humans in the term "animal". I bet you felt clever about that. Just to then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words "non-human animal". Because, turns out, its a useful distinction to make. I'm gonna go ahead and ignore your ignoring of this and use "animal" to refer to "non-human animals".
  You claim that humans aren't smarter than animals, which you further claim to be evidenced by the "self-destructivene behaviour" humans display. So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species. I'm now claiming that you putting animals and humans in the same catgegory stems from this false equivalence of intellects, which by your logic is dependent on the actions.
  So yes, while you never explicitly said that "being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action" your logic and phrasing make it clear that you see animals and humans in the same category, and the reason for that is the, according to you, equivalent level of intellect and actions.
  Edit: I am forgetting my nettiquette again, so sorry!
  go back to school, you clearly need it
  No U
  
  The animals argument is fucking stupid.
  How exactly are borders helping? In what was specifically?

147 comments