Stupidest idea of the month...so far

[JimC]

Snopes is wrong.

Claim - Sexuality educator Deanne Carson said parents should ask a baby's permission before changing their diaper.

What's false - Carson did not say infants were able to or parents were required to receive consent for diaper changes; Carson did not say infants who refused consent should remain in dirty diapers.

What they say is false is not the claim, though. She did say you should ask the baby for consent (permission) before changing the diaper, and you should ask if it's "o.k." (another version of consent or permissing is to ask if it's o.k. to do something). So that's absolutely true, and it's not mostly false.

Nobody has claimed she said babies could consent. What people claimed is that since babies absolutely cannot consent, and cannot communicate in these terms at that age, that it's absurd to ask them for their "o.k." to change a diaper.

Snopes is like this, though. This should be deemed true or "mostly true" if they want to put in a caveat that there were qualifications to the statement. But, it is absolutely true to say that the woman said you should ask for permission to change the nappy.

Snopes cites feminist and sex youtuber Laci Green as suggesting that implying that a baby can consent is a bit troubling. And, the reason she says that is that if you say "you should ask for consent before X" you are implying that the recipient can, in fact, give or withhold consent.

There is nothing "mostly false" about the claim Snopes reviewed.

[pErvinalia]

....

[Forty Two]

I'm not doing a wall of text back and forth, but the gist of what you say comes over as they care but they should't and if they cared a bit less they wouldn't be as angry and react in such an over the top manner.

Well, to summarize part of my wall of text, they care, but they shouldn't because the reason they care is based on their hatred of Jews and their objection to the existence of Israel as a Jewish, rather than a Muslim, state. If they cared because they had some other reason for caring, I think it might be more persuasive.

The simple fact is that Palestinians take the view - the majority I think it is fair to assume - that Israel is occupying their home land. Whatever the rights and wrongs or the history (which I am more than well versed in). How else do you expect them to react? How would you react I wonder if the Native Americans moved back in and claimed their 'home land' back, with the backing of some super power or other?

Yes, Israel, meaning Jews, are occupying their homeland. That would be a lot like Americans claiming Mexican immigrants are "occupying their homeland."

Your analogy between Native Americans moving back in and claiming a homeland is not an applicable analogy. An analogy would be as follows: World War 3 erupts, and the United States is among the defeated nations. Mexico and Canada occupy the United States, with the southern half being the "Mexican Mandate for the US" and the northern half being the "Canadian Mandate for the US." Starting in about 2020, the Canadians divide up the carass of the dead US into several separate, more or less arbitrarily delineated, countries, and the Mexicans do the same. South Dakota proves to be a sticking point, though, and it's the last one to be partitioned into separate countries. Since the two factions there don't want to live together, and they both want their religion to be the official religion of the country, the UN approves dividing South Dakota into two halves, and that's the end of it. One party, however, opts not ot accept that partition, and the other does. The result is that the non-accepting party still lives there, but the land is not part of the other half, or any other newly formed nation. It's stateless now. The non-accepting party starts warring against the accepting party, demanding its complete eradication, based a racial and religious hatred.

There is an easy solution to the West Bank problem, though, actually. The people in the West Bank should vote to join with Israel or Jordan, one or the other. They are not in a place that makes a viable nation, and it never has been a separate nation. The WestBankians are Arabs, ethnically. From 1920 to like the late 1950s, they were considered part of "Transjordan" (Jordan's prior name). They should join Jordan and live in peace alongside Israel.

As pissed off as they may be, they are not going to take over Israel and make it the Islamic Republic of Israelstine. It's not going to happen. They have two choices, (a) a separate and independent state on the dried up dirt they live on now, or (b) join either Israel or Jordan as a province of those countries. There is no other solution. Everybody know it, but nobody wants to say it. And, they aren't getting the borders back to 1948 partition. That's long gone. 1948 is like three wars ago, and multiple intifadas, etc. They can get what they have now, and the future of their continued resistance is just more misery. If they chose either of the options (a) or (b) and stopped with the terrorism and rocket launches and bombs of women and children in cafes, they could make a better life for themselves and their children.

[pErvinalia]

Or the US stops vetoing security council resolutions against Israel, and Israel realises it can no longer act with impunity, and then negotiates in good faith with the Palestinians.

[Forty Two]

To what end? What is going to happen? Will Israel become an Islamic Republic? What borders will the UN resolutions help achieve for a two state solution?

No matter what, the result is the same, as far as I can see. If someone wants to delineate what the fair solution is that is not on the table now, I'd love to hear it.

The basic problem does not end with UN Security Council resolutions. The reason the Palestinians do not propose and will not accept any real two state solution at this time is that the people in WestBankistan and Gazaistan do not want a separate state -- they want to end what they say is the occuption, which is the existence of Israel as a jewish state (a goal I sympathize with in principle) and replace it with an Islamic state (a goal which I vehemently oppose, and I support a Jewish state for Israel over converting it to some other religon).

Until the Palestinians are willing to agree to a separate state, or join some other state as a province, there can be no real solution, regardless of UN resolutions and condemnations, etc. The past is gone. There will not be a Muslim Israel. It will not happen. If it does, you're going to see a mass expulsion of Jews from Israel, just like the Christians from Lebanon, etc. That can't be allowed to happen.

The ideal solution, which nobody is going to accept so it's a pipe dream, would be for Israel, West Bank, Gaza, etc. to merge into one constitutionally limited republic with a separation of Mosque/Temple/Church and State, requiring all laws to be neutral on the issue of religion, and allow all citizens to practice their religions freely and have the State protect religious people from violence from other religious people, and the nonreligious from religious violence. That's not going to happen anytime soon, so what are we left with? (a) two states with borders somewhere close to present day Israel and present day Palestinian Territories, or (b) the West Bank and Gaza link up with other countries as provinces.

That's it. It's simple, but it ain't easy. It ain't easy, not because Israel won't negotiate in good faith - all they've ever asked for is peace. It ain't easy because one party actively calls for and works toward the ethnic cleansing and extermination of the other. Guess who does that.... in good faith?

[pErvinalia]

To what end?

To strive for what should be a universal goal, and that is to have a world run on the rule of law, and the powerless to be protected from the worst of the powerful. How could a good faith negotiation between Palestinians and Israelis not be a good thing?

[Forty Two]

"To what end?" was directed at what the solution would be. I'm not going to try to debate which side is or is not bargaining in "good faith." Neither is, or both are, I don't know. I don't see, certainly, any greater lack of good faith on the part of Israel than the Palestinians.

In 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed, and that set forth specific provisions for Palestinian self-governance in the West Bank and Gaza and Jericho, etc., and a pullout of Israeli forces and settlers from those areas, and Israel complied in good faith. From that point on, there should really be no need for violence, and all the Palestinians needed to do was apply for Statehood approval by the UN and admission to the UN as a nation-state.

Palestinian "good faith" included:

1. Failure to Change the PLO "eradication of Israel" covenant. They were required to do so no later than 7 May 1996 (Article XXXII (9)). They never did.
2. Incitement to Violence Against Israel The PA leadership was obligated to refrain from incitement to violence, as part of their commitment to foster mutual understanding and to combat terrorism. Article XXII. Arafat violated that almost immediately, and the PA leaders have consistently called for violence.
3. They fired at Israeli forces in 1996 - violating the agreement. Annex I Article II. And, they are required to stop Palestinian violence against Israelis. Rather than stop it, they encourage it.
4. Failure to confiscate illegal arms and disarm militia bands who shoot at Israelis. (Article XIV; and Annex I, Articles II(1) and XI)
5. Failure to extradite suspected terrorists. (Annex IV, Article II (7))
6. Opening Palestinian authority offices in Jerusalem. (Article I (7)) - they promised to only set up offices in areas under their jurisdiction, which Jerusalem was not.
7. Failure to provide Israel with listings of its police force hires to avoid the hiring of suspected terrorists. (Annex I, Article IV (4))
8. Exceeding the agreed size of palestinian forces, failing to comply with human rights law, and failing to abide by the terms of the Oslo accords relating to foreign relations.

The Palestinians never honored the Oslo Accords.

There is an agreement in place - the Palestinians should honor its terms, and should accept the boundaries as set forth in the Oslo Accords. They should then seek to be recognized as a state, and stop the efforts to destroy Israel, because Israel isn't going anywhere.

[Animavore]

Brilliant take down on the situation in Israel.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

Well, to summarize part of my wall of text, they care, but they shouldn't because the reason they care is based on their hatred of Jews and their objection to the existence of Israel as a Jewish, rather than a Muslim, state. If they cared because they had some other reason for caring, I think it might be more persuasive.

Those reasons probably exist, but they also have other valid reasons. When Israel was founded, many Palestinians became refugees from land that they had occupied for many generations. Those who remain in Israeli territory are treated as second-class citizens, with the remorseless settlement program whittling away at there remaining land.

[pErvinalia]

The idea that I could get a rational reply from Scot Dutchy...

[Scot Dutchy]

When you can control your paranoia.

[pErvinalia]

Dude, ffs, learn what words mean before you use them. You come across as an imbecile.

[Scot Dutchy]

Keep them insults coming. I willing to accept them if it helps your paranoia.

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

Brilliant take down on the situation in Israel.

Palestinians "see east Jerusalem as a future capitol." Uh... yeah, that's right, because they see Israel as rightfully a Muslim theocracy.

"There is no border." The human rights attorney says there is no border between Israel and Gaza/West Bank. And, she makes the absurd claim that Palestinians do not support Hamas. http://observer.com/2016/01/new-poll-pa ... diplomacy/

And Israel practices "apartheid?" 20.7% of the population of Israel is Arab Muslim. They live and work with full rights and citizenship in Israel, and they live peacefully. The violence is coming from the West Bank and Gaza. And, she says that the big problem is that Israel wants to maintain religious supremacy. What the fuck do the Muslim factions want? A secular government with separation of Mosque and State?