Crocefisso

Or Isratine, which is the name proposed by Muammar Qaddafi.

This I will agree, but it's somewhat not viable because of Hamas. Money=/= brilliance. This is where you lost me completely. First, did you name that Palestine originated from the word Falistina which was a name from the Bible that the Romans called this land to insult the Jews? It was the Arabs that could not pronounce and they pronounced it Palestine instead. So this is a hell no argument. Also, Arabs out numbering Jews in this state would not be viable at all. After all of this, do you really think peace is going to come this easy? This would end up being like what the colony of Maryland ended up being. Not realistically viable. You're completely wanting to destroy parts of the Jewish culture and replace it with Islamic. -It is true, that Israel is not showing any signs of willingness when it comes to setting up the Palestinian state. But if we look at Israel's position, it's looking increasingly shaky. The USA has debts that are at 98% of GDP (102% by 2012), it has a divided and inefficient polity that is totally incapable of sorting out its problems (Europe's politicians are only marginally better, but they don't give Israel very much at all compared with the US of A), and even at this dire stage, they're basically just trying to delay the problem indefinitely. There will come a time when the US can't support Israel anymore; when this happens, Israel might find themselves a little more willing to compromise, or risk the wrath of increasingly hostile neighbours. -I'd say that Hamas complicate the issue of incorporating Arabs into the state, but they don't make it unviable. Israel also has to realise that blockading Gaza is only going to widen and stregthen Hamas' support base; indeed, I think they know this, and are using this to their advantage. -To say that the Romans renamed it to simply humiliate the Jews would be a very imbalanced approach. The Romans renamed it, as with various other parts of their empire (Britain comes from the Roman name Britannia, Iberia is a Roman appellation, and so on), in order to fully integrate it into their empire. It's not a specifically Jewish thing. If other parts of the world have kept their Roman names, such as Great Britain, it makes no sense that Palestine should be renamed after an ancient Jewish state that was created once the Jews had managed to colonise the area for themselves. Similarly, the Jewish culture of Israel is not natural; it is a fake, pseudo-culture created because Arabs were forced out and recolonised by Jewish emigrants. If the 11 million Palestinians were to return, there'd still be 5 million Jews anyway. In Jewish areas of London, trust me the Jewish culture is strong when there are just a few thousand there. In a country of 5 million Jews, the Jewish culture would not be under threat.

Gabe, thank you. You've responded to all my post, even in places that you don't comment on. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: I'm tired right now, I'll respond to you tomorrow.

The 5k I have is being spent on a car as I said. I'll be making 100k$+ after uni too. Either you're well connected, or you're supremely arrogant.

Good luck with that - have you seen the state of the markets recently?

The statehood bid, even if successful, will be more symbolic than anything else. Anyway, it's like the UN tries to compromise for the USA's ridiculous pro-Israeli stance by being absurdly anti-Israeli, and so few people really take the UN seriously on the Israel issue.

Or Destructoid reviews when Jim Sterling gives something a score that people deem too high/low. Here are some examples from "From Dust" (which is still provoking fury):

Personally, I think that a one-state solution is the only practical one, for the following reasons: -Both states would be far too small to be viable from a defense point of view... -This being so, if a Palestinian state were to be set up, Israel would jump at the earliest possible opportunity to reconquer it. -As such, I think that Israel should give Israeli citizenship to Arabs and incorporate Gaza and the West Bank into their state. The democratic framework in Israel is already in place and works quite well. The military, thanks to America, is also brilliant. But a few things would need to be re-named: first, the name Israel is too racially charged to be an acceptable name for a secular state (which, assuming all displaced Palestinians returned, would be made up of c. 5 million Jews and 11 million Arabs). Something more appropriate would be Palestine (because it's a simple geographical, rather than racial or Biblical, name), Lower Lebanon, or something of that sort. Accordingly, institutions such as the Knesset and Mossad would need to be re-named. On the issue of supporting wars, I am not firmly anti- or pro-war. It depends on the context. Afghanistan was the most justifiable, as I see it. The US had every right to go there after 9/11, and the end of a repressive, theocratic regime is a good thing in my books. I admire the efforts of NATO in Afghanistan - because nation building is a moral duty if you invade a nation - and I sincerely hope that Karzai (a bit of a crook, but better than a religious fanatic) can survive in office post-2014. Iraq was different. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was never going to be a bad thing, but to lie about WMDs, and then execute it so poorly that it definitely helped al-Qai'da in Mesapotamia to gain a foothold there and has ended up killing more people since 2003 than Hussein killed in his entire career, that's disgraceful. The only good that came out of it was that Hussein is gone and Iraq is more free, if more dangerous. Libya is a different issue. I do not trust the rebels, with their patchy support and unscrupulous practices (systematic murder of black Africans, assassination of their military leader by other rebels), and I can't really see them being able to set up a democracy from scratch in the post-Qaddafi era if they can't even organise their own army. Qaddafi may need to go, but I don't think that the NTC are the ones to do it, and therefore I cannot support them either. (I realise I've gone a bit OT. :P)

Pretty much. Gabe and myself are both firmly entrenched in opposing camps. The only people whose opinions are going to change are the rest of you.

Land that was stolen from us many a year ago by Romans and others, and land that we gained legally is the State of Israel. I've already explained it at least once how it is legal, but you chose to ignore it. I take issue with this point, because it's a common argument that seems to be founded in a desire for vengeance. a) Unsurprisngly, the Jews were not the first inhabitants of this land. By this logic, Jews "stole" land from the Canaanites, Hittites, Egyptians and so on. b) That happened between 70 and 135 AD. It was almost 2000 years ago. Get over it. It was because of a wider Roman practice across their Empire that saw most non-Europeans sold into slavery. It's unfortunate, but it's not a solely Jewish problem. c) The Jewish people are not the only ethnic group forced into diaspora, or the only persecuted one, but they are the only one that feels that God/the world owes them a state of their own. Otherwise we could make a Native American state out of Minnesota or one of the Dakotas, or in Peru, and an Ainu state in southern Japan, a Berber state in Algeria, an Assyrian state in the middle of Iraq, and so on. Unfortunate historical injustices do not justify statehood.

I've yet to see anything statistical or objective on this thread in favour of legalising marijuana. All the arguments are quite flimsy, libertarian and a bit vague.

Though I am not going to go down the all too familar path of discussing religion, I will say this: I am a firm believer in the idea of secularism, with the exception of the mild and very appropriate Islamism of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government (which is still largely secular). I do not approve of any form of government based on religion. I am a Buddhist, but I do not approve of the way Tibet was run - by an incompetent and atavistic theocracy -, because it shows that religion and govermnent are incompatible. It also made it far easier for the Chinese to invade. Thus I disapprove of the Islamic Republic in Iran, the former Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (and why I'll always support the war there), and the State of Israel. Theocracy or theocratically charged democracy, they're all bad in my books, regardless of the accuracy of the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, etc.

And why do you think they just "got up and left"? This is probably my last post on this thread. Besides the fact you have completely ignored all of the logical reasoning behind my point of view, you go on to say all Zionists are unreasonable. That's the point where there is really nothing else I can do. I may be thick headed at times, but even I can see the truths in someone else's side. This is where all reason has been set aside and personal opinions dominate facts. Also, there's a difference between an opinion and a fact if you didn't already know. I strongly dislike religious fanaticism. Zionism is no different to Salafism from the point of view that it is a politicised, unreasonable and superstituous interpretation of religion. Zionists may be reasonable in other respects - eg, in their everyday, non-political lives - but the fact is that Zionism is an abomination from a rational perspective. The disagreement comes from the fact that some people see this as rational. I am stating the fact that I do not see it as remotely close to rational. Stealing land that is allegedly holy so as to ratify a racially charged covenant signed with God (after all, it was signed between God and the Jewish people) three millennia (or more) ago so as to make the Jewish people - not even humanity, but the Jewish people - worthy of the Messiah is absolutely nonsensical as far as I am concerned. It's so similar to the Christian attempts to conquer the Holy Land, except that they did so a few centuries beforehand and before science was more than trying to turn urine into gold. And because the Jews were successful. Many evangelical Christians who support Israel from the USA do so because they believe that only by filling the Holy Land with Jews can Armageddon begin. Virtually all political support for Zionism is fuelled by 'donations' to support Congressional and other campaigns. Come on, can anyone really believe this to be even close to rational, let alone believe it?

I am the same when it comes to bloating. Alcohol takes a while to take effect on me, and when it does I just get a bit drowsy. Drunkenness takes a lot of drinking for me, and I often get bored and/or thirsty before I reach that stage. This comes in useful at parties: I can drink as much as everyone else without getting as drunk. :mrgreen:

There's more work in the US and (northern) Europe. Most Israeli wealth is dominated by the oligarchy (who will be in no hurry to leave, regardless of ideology).

Indeed, it's not normal at all. If Cola does that to you, please never try alcohol;it'd probably make your stomach implode. ;)

Absolutely true. If a Jewish person wants to live in Palestine, for whatever reason, fine. But to live in Israel in its current incarnation is support for Zionism because you pay taxes and probably fight on behalf of a fanatical Zionist state. The only difference between Sayyid Qutb and Theodor Herzl is that our countries supported the latter, while the former was executed. Otherwise, both were religious fanatics driven to their conclusions by unfortunate circumstance. So then everyone should leave until a leader you admit is a little fanatical and probably a little insane decides to randomly see reason and go, "Hey, you know, maybe I should just tone it down a notch". You let me know how that works out. Until then, maybe you can realize that the way you're facing such a situation isn't realistic. I am speaking hypothetically. Furthermore, most people in Israel are Zionists, so of course most wouldn't leave. I am not trying to encourage some sort of mass exodus or temporary evacuation. So long as there is an Israel, it will be Zionist to whatever degree. I just think that people who see reason should have no problem emigrating back to their country of origin - for the most part, the USA. By the age of 15, an Israeli child who isn't going to be drawn into fanaticism will've seen reason, I am sure. If they were serious in their opposition to Zionist fanaticism and so on, the intelligent ones would study abroad and find it easy to make a life there. You forget that Israel was founded by millions of Jews who did just get up and go - largely from livelihoods in America and Europe - which is exactly why Christopher Hitchens calls Israel "a state of Jewish farmers on Arab land".

Cats annoy me too, even though I don't live with one.

Confession: when I was 15, I used to laugh at people like you. :-D I've always been far too cynical, I suppose.

Absolutely true. If a Jewish person wants to live in Palestine, for whatever reason, fine. But to live in Israel in its current incarnation is support for Zionism because you pay taxes and probably fight on behalf of a fanatical Zionist state. The only difference between Sayyid Qutb and Theodor Herzl is that our countries supported the latter, while the former was executed. Otherwise, both were religious fanatics driven to their conclusions by unfortunate circumstance.

Good idea. As others have said, it could be used in other skills aside from w/c. I'd like to see a Cooking one, perhaps.

You miffed the analogy. Obesity is a condition. Food is a substance. High is a condition. Narcotics is a substance. Comparing Obesity directly to Narcotics doesn't fit the analogy Ring made. Let me put it to you this way. Obesity is harmful to society in the same ways narcotic use is. Obesity or over eating in general is a personal choice, beyond the necessary requirements of health of survival. Narcotic use in non medicinal use fits the same description. Why is one a personal choice and the other something a government must regulate? Both are addictive, both will kill you, both can arguably negatively affect the society as a whole (work ethic, addiction, health costs, etc. as listed already). Regulating narcotic use is like telling your average Joe the exact calorie intake they are allowed on a daily basis and if you understand this you understand why I personally I find "the war on drugs" to be a disgusting excuse to steal your personal freedoms. Also the analogy applies. You arent against drugs your against "high" if your supporting the war on drugs. I think obesity the condition is just as bad as the condition as high therefor the government is hypocritical to regulate one and not the other. This all seems very flimsy to me. Food and diet are not comparable to drugs in any way shape or form, and the idea of regulating narcotics in a calorie-esque way is hopelessly optimistic. Food isn't as addictive to many as you make it out to be - nor as dangerous - and drugs more dangerous and addictive than you'd like to believe.

Jagex would lose all their customers, most likely, because it wouldn't run smoothly.

True. But there's a lot more hypocrisy in the Islamic Republic that he presides over. Though I agree with some of his statements, he nullifies them by being exactly what he condemns others for being.

All the news bulletins in the world don't stop some people from falling for scams.