Context (for those who don't know): Israel and Palestine
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
1478 points (97.9% liked)
Memes
45884 readers
1621 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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!
Borders don’t have to be proven to be bad for the above “Borders are violence” to be true. But that doesn’t necessarily make them good either. Borders are pissing contests that result in wars, crime and ostracism. They also can help keep a national identity, a sense of stability and protection.
When a border conflict exists in the form of a line that separates us from them, it tends to highlight the pretty arbitrary and hurtful attributes of borders.
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.
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.
"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...
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.
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!
No U
That's not a common meaning, it's the morons' meaning.
As does anyone with a brain.
Are you braindead?
No. Go back to 1st grade English, your ability to derive meaning from words is simply not there. Everything following this fallacy isn't even worth talking about.
Cambridge dictionary has both definitions, the more common one first
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/animal
Wikipedia has this to say:
So your argument here is basically "But I have big brain because I use the correct word as defined in biological science as opposed to the morons that use language colloquailly on the internet". Good job.
I mean yeah sure they are in the same category in the sense that both have evolved from the same basis. But humans have evolved further than animals, which is why there is commonly a distinction made between humans and animals without having to say non-human animals.
Examples are:
Obviously none of these relate to humans, because everyone with a brain uses the term animal to mean life that is not human.
It sure feels that way when I talk to you, because you are draining my will to live.
Imagine not knowing that behaviour is a valid spelling of the word everywhere but the place that had to drop the letter U from words to feel special. Time to make a few more rounds in the spelling bee
This sentence alone tells me you don't have an inkling of a proper thought in your smooth marble of a brain. A biologist would punch you for saying that - I'm being nice, here.
Once again, your argumentation is fallacious and based on fallacious reasoning. I won't address this moronic waste of time.
I am again surprised that we apparently are supposed to be talking with rigorous scientific accuracy, here in a thread about terror attacks, between people that are, obviously, not biology scientists.
What I obviously meant was that humans have evolved to have the capacity to do things that no other species can do.
Once again, No U
The fact you think basic, school children-level science is "rigorous scientific accuracy" is once again proof that you're brainless.
Meh okay tbh you were more fun when you had more lines than one on repeat.
I guess take your fish >::<'>
The animals argument is fucking stupid.
How exactly are borders helping? In what was specifically?