Another example of right wing evil

Really? When did this back-bending occur? Was it when they blocked the importation of chocolate and newspapers into the Gaza strip, ostensibly to "prevent rocket attacks"? (I had no idea that chocolate and newspapers were so crucial to the construction of rockets.)Or was it when they created second-class citizen status for Palestinians, including separate sidewalks so that Israelis wouldn't be forced to sully themselves by sharing a sidewalk with one of those people?Or was it all the Palestinian homes bulldozed to make way for Israeli settlers?Is that the kind of bending over backwards you were talking about? Or maybe isn't it at least possible that Israel's continuing security overreactions to Palestinian violence (and their utter lack of action on the illegal settlements issue) are at least partially responsible for the violent reaction of Palestine? If alien invaders were killing your family and bulldozing your town to make way for a steady tide of alien settlers, would their patient explanation that they had, decades ago, suffered their own genocide obviate the legitimacy of your own violent resistance? Or is that just a special rule for Jews?

When on earth did this happen? I've tried to find some mention of it in the great, wide interwebs, but the only stories you get about seperate sidewalks were an attempt by some ultra-orthodox community to introduce gender-segregated sidewalks (struck down as illegal in court). Is it possible you've drastically misremembered this story?Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Or how about the times they removed settlers from areas? I don't claim that israel has never done anything wrong. They've done plenty. But they have also offered truce and negotiation.Let me sk you this. What do you want israel to do?Added by edit.You seem to think I want to play this immature game of you not recognizing anything good about israel and me not recognizing anything bad. Tell me when you want to stop this silly game then we can talk.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

No, it's absolutely true as reported by Jewish-Cuban blogger Matthew Yglesias:

quote:

---

On the roads, however, SG is completely correct. There are no Jews-only roads in the West Bank and, indeed, when I visited the area I drove on the roads in a van that included both Jewish and non-Jewish Americans. What would be more correct (and, frankly, stranger) would be to say that these are roads accessible to everyone except Palestinians. In terms of the apartheid question, however, this is obviously a distinction without a difference. There are highways through the West Bank that Palestinians can’t use. There’s a section of Hebron where Palestinians carry goods on donkeys because they’re not allowed to use cars. It’s true that the exclusion of Palestinians from this infrastructure is done for security reasons, but the infrastructure is being built in order to colonize Palestinian territory. This is a street where Palestinians are only allowed to walk on one side (the smaller side) and non-Palestinians are only allowed to walk on the other[.]

---

http://thinkprogress.org/...llowed-roads-not-jews-only-roads

Stop settlements, end the illegal collective punishment of Palestinians (including the blockade of the Gaza strip), negotiate with their duly-elected democratic government, and return to a modified version of the 1967 border.Stop being the aggressor in the name of "security measures" that simply exacerbate the problem they're supposed to be "securing" against. I really don't want Israel to do anything but stop committing decades-long suicide. Do you really think their current path is sustainable? How could you possibly be that stupid? When have I not "recognized anything good about Israel"? Isn't it possible to have a critique of right-wing Israeli political extremism without it being an existential threat to the Israeli state? Does affirming the legitimacy of Israel have to mean agreeing with literally everything they do?

So, you exagerrated a bit. Sidewalks are not divided up so people don't have to walk alongside Palestinians. Some streets in occupied cites like Hebron are off limits to Palestinians as part of security measures to protect the illegal settlers from a hostile population.What is it about Israel/Palestine that seems to leave most people only capable of hyperbolic exagerrations?

I don't see where I exaggerated at all, and I gave a photographic example reported as being a walking-only street (or "sidewalk", if you will) where Palestinians have to walk on side and everybody else gets to walk on the bigger, better side. I'm sorry but you don't get to simply elide collective punishment of Palestinians under the rubric of "security." You can always call it "security measures". Sundown laws in the American south were "security measures", too. What is it about the Israeli occupation of Palestine that seems to leave people like you unable to face reality?

What is evil about it?Looks like states rights in action to me.

Surely you comprehend the difference between legality and morality, the difference between whether an act is legally permissible and whether an act is morally acceptable.This thread is about morality, not about legality.

what is morally evil about it then?

Well, just to quote a bit from the OP: Barring suicide counseling for gay kids on the sole basis of their sexual orientation is absolutely evil. Imagine an identical situation where race or religion replaced homosexuality; would it be ethical to provide counseling for whites or Christians, but refuse those same services to blacks or Jews on the sole basis of their race or religion, simply because the counselor was barred from mentioning nonwhite races or non-Christian religions?Of course not. And so this, too, is morally reprehensible. You can't provide a service and then deny it to a single subset of the population just because their sexual orientation is different. It's exactly the same as providing a drinking fountain and denying its use only to blacks because their skin color is different, and it's morally wrong for the same reasons. Imagine if all literature having any mention of Christianity or Hispanics were to be thrown out.As it is, the Bible mentions homosexuality. There goes the Bible. Imagine if teachers were forbidden to mention Jews. That would make every History class a de facto class supporting the denial of the Holocaust. Forbidding teachers from mentioning that, along with the Jews, the Nazis also murdered homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other "undesirables" during the Holocaust denies the crimes committed against those victims; it implies that their murders were not really wrong, or somehow counted less.That is absolutely morally wrong.Just think about it for five minutes, Artemis, and insert some other class of citizens in place of "homosexuality." Would a law banning all mention of the female gender (not the male, but only the female gender) in public schools be morally acceptable to you? What about a law that banned only mention of blacks? Jews? Christians? Native Americans?Gays have been fighting a civil rights war for decades, every bit as important and deserving of recognition as the racial civil rights movement. Gay people are every bit as much people as any other subset of the population. Mandating by law that teachers must pretend that they simply don't exist, have never struggled, etc is nothing at all more than a giant "fuck you, fags" on the part of the despicable representatives who authored and supported this bill.

all 3 of those are strawmen made up by the OP. They are not mentioned in the article that was linked in the OP. The bill is for middle school and younger children. I didn't have sex ed until junior high, so even if this already existed in my home state, it would not have mattered. This is nonsense partisan rage over an non-issue, but I guess I am on EvC, so silly threads like this are to be expected. ethically its wrong, but its hard to say that it is morally wrong. apple meet orange.

here it is: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0049.pdf

They're not strawmen. They're the inevitable consequence of such a law.It's like banning electricity but then deny that you're banning computers.Or here's another one. If you keep to the news as much as I do, then you should have heard about the TSA agents forcing a 95 yr old woman to remove her adult diaper. According to the TSA official press release, they didn't "force" her to remove the diaper. They did, however, give her an ultimatum to either remove the diaper or get the hell out of the airport.It's like me pointing a gun to your head and say "either lower your pants so I can rape you or I shoot you in the head" and then I turn around and say "I never forced him to take down his pants... he did all that by himself".Are you really going to play this childish game of semantics with us like the TSA?

I'll call a spade a spade, this bills sucks.Of course any bill that would cause the following: no matter what group one puts in the blanks, such a bill sucks.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008