To DanielD

It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
Locked
User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by QuartzGooner »

I have responded to Cu's comments in bold type within his latest post, for all but my last comment.
Cus Geezer wrote:
QuartzGooner wrote:CUS

G-D's existence is proven to me. It is just that you do not believe the theory/reasons for this existence, that I believe in.


The basis of which isn't logic though is it, it is faith.

Give me imperical evidence for the proof of the existence of G-D, cast iron facts that are put to test and it's results can be clearly observable in the same way that science is.

There isn't any is there, it's as credible as saying 'Arsenal will win the treble this season, I can put no solid reasoning for their winning the treble, I have no proof that their squad is big enough or good enough, I have no proof they have a team spirit strong enough, I have no proof their players want to put in the extra effort for the shirt, I have no proof that they have the mental strength to deal with the run in for all 3 trophies, I just believe it cause I'm a fan. You're just wrong because you don't believe in my reasoning'

Would you consider the above a credible argument or opinion on football?

If not why do you accept this style of argument from religion as the explanation to life, the Universe and everything in it?


QUARTZ RESPONDS:

You misunderstand me.

I said that G-D's existence cannot be proven or disproven, but to me it is proven.

I was born in and live in London.....You are right, the UK is not my nation in a long term historical one, though my family have contributed as much as anyone else's to this country's identity and wealth for the time they have been here as most others have.


You seem to have missed my point completely and got it arse about face.

My assertion is that the UK is your homeland and not Israel.

QUARTZ RESPONDS:
Did not miss your point, it is just that I do not believe the UK is my homeland, though I am a citizen of the UK.

When I refer to this country as an Anglo-Saxon nation, I mean so primarily in cultural terms and linguistic terms, in that there are certain shared elements we have in common with the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
Depends on what you define as 'cultural', after all we don't play Aussie Rules and 'soccer' gets much less coverage over there, akin to say what the NFL or NBA gets here.

Australia also hasn't produced a national music scene with such a diverse range of musical styles as we have had here over the last 50 years, neither has New Zealand. Neither share our modern musical culture.

QUARTZ Responds:

I disagree.

Though there are cultural differences due to cultural evolution, we do share a musical culture with other English speaking countries.
The emergence of mutiple sub genres of music is a very British phenomenon, but it does not obscure the fact that an American or an Australian you might meet on train, will have a decent chance of understanding a conversation you could both have about music.

If you met an Ecuadorian, and if you could speak Spanish, there is no certainty that you would have any idea of his musical universe.

Though there are sports differences, we share things in common too.

Cricket, the Rugby codes, soccer (though soccer is one anomaly as regards the USA and Canada.

We also share a common body of film and TV shows.

We do not share that to the same extent with Francophone nations.


Does then an Australian or New Zealander have legal rights to this country?

Some, in that Commonwealth passport holders can work here with beneficial tax arrangements, and share a Monarch.
There is no right of abode though for old commonwealth countries that are mainly Anglo-Saxon and Anglophonic like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, though there is for EU countries none of whom are 'Anglo-Saxon', have been part of the empire, or speak English as their official language.

QUARTZ Responds:

There is of course right of work and abode for citizens from EU countries.
Who are culturally more distinct from us than Commonwealth citizens.
Socccer aside, what do I have in common with a Hungarian?



They also very much have a cultural homeland here, though as time progresses their own nation states evolve their own identities, based on subsequent non British immigrations (i.e. the recent Balkan immigrations to Australia)......I clearly said that nation states change in the process of history.
British identity is a very real identity, even if in current form it is only 300 - 400 years old.
You are literally confirming my argument for me, the British and Australian national identity is therefore a social construct then is it not?

QUARTZ Responds:

No, it is an evolved response to the diffuse settlement of a British population in the Australian territory.
It is not so much a social construct as a natural growth.
It is not manipulated in the way you feel it is, beyond superficial ideas such as a composed national anthem and flag


Its just that the imagined community is changing it's view of how it imagines itself.
It is why we fight for the land, and why the modern Zionist movement is but the final push in a 1800 year struggle to return home, to and that was a Jewish state for a 1000 years prior to 200 AD.

It is not the be all and end of the Jewish return to Israel, not a movement in itself, but the politicisation of an existing struggle to return.
To ignore that is to misunderstand the Jewish outlook on the land.....

The emergence of German and Italian nationhood may well have been with a final push from the likes of Bismark and Cavour, but despite being separate and sometimes warring states before hand, they still represented various parts of a wider national cultural identity, and were not artificial constructs as you suggest.
Interesting that you mention final pushes in creating the German nation state as there wasn't much final about the push in 1870 was there?

Hitler was still pushing in the 1940s making claims on places throughout Europe that had Germanic peoples and for living space for the German nation.

There never seemed to be a final push with German nationalism, though as you well know being Jewish there was a 'final solution' with regard to those deemed to be obstructing this nationalist dream.

It seems to me the most painful of all ironies that Jews are regurgitating this kind of piffal over half a century later.

It's an irony that is certainly not lost on Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman, a man who's own sick grandmother was murdered in her bed by the Nazis.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

QUARTZ Responds:

Gerald Kaufman does not speak for me or most Jews in the world. He is a very assimilated Jew, and not a public supporter of Israel.

I did not say that G-D assigns each nation a nation state. I said that G-D has definitely created nations, who are broadly aligned to nation states.

The Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation being spread out amongst the English speaking Commonwealth countries I mentioned earlier, the French nation spread out over France, plus parts of Belgium, Switzerland and Canada etc.
Again this is tosh, the borders of the British Nation State are set in Ulster not because G-D drew lines on the earth, but because we placed British people in settlements in Ireland. The British government drew the border there to define where it ended, God had nothing to do with it.


QUARTZ Responds:

G-D had everything to do with where the borders of each state lie.

You think that the creator of the universe does not manipulate such major events?

The whole Northern Ireland troubles were a physical manifestation of the fault line between the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Culture, and the Gaelic, and more Celtic, Catholic one.



Of course if G-D created these nations wouldn't the very thing the makes these nations to be 'nations' be in existence from creation, such as say language?

However in Ancient Rome the language is Latin, in modern Italy it is Italian.

QUARTZ responds:

The essence of these nation is in existence from Biblical times (There were sacrifices for the 70 Nations of the world in the Temple in Jerusalem, to repent for their sins. Those nations still exist, though can be spread out over several nation states as I have explained earlier).
Though Latin is different from Latin, it is very much at the centre of the Latin branch of languages, and contains the same essence of expression as Latin.

It is incorrect to compare the settlement of Australia with the return of Jews to Israel.

There was no programme of, or evidence of, forced murder of Arab populations by Jewish populations in Israel in the past or today.

You are simply wrong to suggest that.
Er....I don't think I did suggest it though did I Quartz.

QUARTZ Responds:

Your post suggested that you did suggest that, though if I misinterpreted you then I reserve the right to withdraw my statement on that.


I stated that Australia is a settler colony, as is Israel.

QUARTZ Responds:

For Jews, the first Jewish settlement in Israel was by Abraham.
He paid for all the land that he lived on, bought it off the inhabitants.

Since then, every Jews that has returned is returning to land that was paid for.

Australia was settled on by the Dutch and British, who did not compensate the inhabitants at the time.


The vast amount of land compared with Israel and the overwhelming size of the migrant population filling it compared with a dwindling indigineous population is the reason why Australia exists today as an Anglo-Saxon European/Western style nation.

Israel has the 'luxury' of neither, therefore has a much, much slimmer chance of being the Jewish equivalent of an Australia 200 years after it's foundation.

QUARTZ Responds:

Israel's fate is in the hands of the moral conduct of the Jews, and G-D's will.
Bridge building between ethnic groupings might be useful to bring peace, but secularisation is not the way to do that.

We have had 60 years of a secularist majority in Israel, without peace.

Only be awareness of G-D can peace happen.
Yeah because religion and G-D has never caused a war has it?

The Reformation?

The Crusades?

QUARTZ Responds:

Of course religion has caused war.
I never said it had not caused wars.

Does not mean that all those wars were fought with G-D's blessing though.

The Crusades were an appalling wave of massacres of civilians and looting.

Secular causes have caused many wars too though.

Cus Geezer
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:09 pm

Post by Cus Geezer »

QuartzGooner wrote:
QUARTZ RESPONDS:

You misunderstand me.

I said that G-D's existence cannot be proven or disproven, but to me it is proven.
yeah....but it's not proven through logic (as is defined in my earlier post) is it?

I disagree.

Though there are cultural differences due to cultural evolution, we do share a musical culture with other English speaking countries.
The emergence of mutiple sub genres of music is a very British phenomenon, but it does not obscure the fact that an American or an Australian you might meet on train, will have a decent chance of understanding a conversation you could both have about music.

If you met an Ecuadorian, and if you could speak Spanish, there is no certainty that you would have any idea of his musical universe.
I disagree.

Firstly there isn't much about the roots of our music culture you could call 'Anglo-Saxon' - influences on the Beatles/Stones came from black musicians - not Anglo-Saxons.

Also an Ecudorian would have as much chance of holding a conversation about British music as an America/Australian.

There are several bands big in UK music history that people of those countries know nothing of - Madness, The Specials, The Jam, The Smiths, T.Rex, Kinks, Small Faces, Oasis, Blur were not as big there as here.

An Ecuadorian would know about big bands like the Stones, Zeppelin or Coldplay because they were big in the States and hence big global.

Also Australia would never have come up with genres like 2-Tone or Speed Garage, even Canada wouldn't despite having as much of a cultural advantage as we had with Jamaican migrants, having a big Jamaican ex-pat community.

Our musical scene shares more in common with, and been more influenced by Jamaica than Australia, and Jamaica isn't an Anglo-Saxon country.

Though there are sports differences, we share things in common too.
....the Rugby codes
Rugby is also big in France, Romania and Argentina.

None of whom are Anglo-Saxon or Anglophonic.

None of our sports are big in the USA also - which is a predominantly Anglo-Saxon nation.
QUARTZ Responds:

There is of course right of work and abode for citizens from EU countries.
Who are culturally more distinct from us than Commonwealth citizens.
Socccer aside, what do I have in common with a Hungarian?
What hat are you wearing on this one?

If it's your Jewish hat then there is a large Jewish population in Hungary, which Australia doesn't have.

We also have a Hungarian diasporia of asylum seekers from the cold war (think Mike Pejic, Imre Varadi, Joe Bugner), many of the UK's Jews also descend from asylum seekers in the 19th century.

If it's your Anglo-Saxon hat....well why do you have one seeing that Israel is supposed to be your homeland and England not?

You did say 'I do not believe the UK is my homeland, though I am a citizen of the UK'.
QUARTZ Responds:

No, it is an evolved response to the diffuse settlement of a British population in the Australian territory.
It is not so much a social construct as a natural growth.
It is not manipulated in the way you feel it is, beyond superficial ideas such as a composed national anthem and flag
Yeah but it is constructed by society, hence of social construction. I didn't say it had to necessarily be manipulated, just not a part of natural biology and certainly not 'god given'.

However the Australian example is not without a top down imposition, it's government officially adopted multicultural as opposed to assimilationist policies over the last 30 years.
QUARTZ Responds:

Gerald Kaufman does not speak for me or most Jews in the world. He is a very assimilated Jew, and not a public supporter of Israel.
Maybe he just decided to take the stance of common humanity rather than a narrow 'Jewish only' perspective.

After all why as a Jewish MP should he speak only for Jews, Quartz?

G-D had everything to do with where the borders of each state lie.

You think that the creator of the universe does not manipulate such major events?

The whole Northern Ireland troubles were a physical manifestation of the fault line between the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Culture, and the Gaelic, and more Celtic, Catholic one.[/b]
What so the Protestant settlements in Ireland were G-D's decision, not the British government's, for someone who comes across as a rational and articulate guy on most discussions this one is certainly veering in an odd direction.
QUARTZ Responds:

Of course religion has caused war.
I never said it had not caused wars.

Does not mean that all those wars were fought with G-D's blessing though.
You stated earlier 'You think that the creator of the universe does not manipulate such major events?'

Though the creator is suddenly impotent with influencing such major events

Make you mind up Quartz.
The Crusades were an appalling wave of massacres of civilians and looting.

Secular causes have caused many wars too though.[/b]


Though a secular cause has more room for rationality and compromise, religious war such as this are revolving around land that is supposedly promised to races of people in the bible, despite having lived elsewhere for two millenia and at the expense of others who have lived there for two millenia.[/quote]

User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Post by QuartzGooner »

MY LATEST COMMENTS IN BOLD AND ITALICS.
Cus Geezer wrote:
QuartzGooner wrote:
QUARTZ RESPONDS:

You misunderstand my point.

I said that G-D's existence cannot be proven or disproven, but to me it is proven.
yeah....but it's not proven through logic (as is defined in my earlier post) is it?

QUARTZ RESPONDS:
To me, and other people who believe in G-D, it is very logical.
I find it illogical that you can believe such a complex and creative entity as the universe just happened to appear by chance




I disagree.

Though there are cultural differences due to cultural evolution, we do share a musical culture with other English speaking countries.
The emergence of mutiple sub genres of music is a very British phenomenon, but it does not obscure the fact that an American or an Australian you might meet on train, will have a decent chance of understanding a conversation you could both have about music.

If you met an Ecuadorian, and if you could speak Spanish, there is no certainty that you would have any idea of his musical universe.
I disagree.

Firstly there isn't much about the roots of our music culture you could call 'Anglo-Saxon' - influences on the Beatles/Stones came from black musicians - not Anglo-Saxons.

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

Those musical roots, though originally from Africa, are not especially relevant to this argument. The fact is that through African_American musicians, those styles have passed into the scope of the common and popular music forms of the Anglo-Saxon world.


Also an Ecudorian would have as much chance of holding a conversation about British music as an America/Australian.

There are several bands big in UK music history that people of those countries know nothing of - Madness, The Specials, The Jam, The Smiths, T.Rex, Kinks, Small Faces, Oasis, Blur were not as big there as here.

An Ecuadorian would know about big bands like the Stones, Zeppelin or Coldplay because they were big in the States and hence big global.


QUARTZ RESPONDS:

An Ecuadorian might know about some big bands, so might someone from any country in the world. But An Ecuadorian would listen to a fair chunk of Spanish language music, whereas the Australian and the Brit would have common cultural currency ..to use a commercial example..Kylie Minogue/Neighbours.


Also Australia would never have come up with genres like 2-Tone or Speed Garage, even Canada wouldn't despite having as much of a cultural advantage as we had with Jamaican migrants, having a big Jamaican ex-pat community.

Our musical scene shares more in common with, and been more influenced by Jamaica than Australia, and Jamaica isn't an Anglo-Saxon country.

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

You missed my point here. It is not relevant whether Australia comes up with the latest sub genre of dance music. What is relevant here is that these genres are popular both in the UK and in Australia, and are well known in both countries. They are a shared musical currency, with lyrics in English or dialects of English.


Though there are sports differences, we share things in common too.
....the Rugby codes
Rugby is also big in France, Romania and Argentina.

None of whom are Anglo-Saxon or Anglophonic.

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

Rugby arrived in Argentina through British economic colonialism in the nineteen and early twentieth century...an Anglo-Saxon cultural influence.

There will always be some cultural effects of one culture popping up in another country that is not part of the broader scope of that cultural population, I mean there are peopel here who practice Karate, but I would never argue the UK is part of the Japanese cultural heritage.



None of our sports are big in the USA also - which is a predominantly Anglo-Saxon nation.

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

The USA is a sporting oddity. In sporting terms it has evolved quite differently to the UK, despite having been part of the British Empire and had a large amount of British immigration.
Soccer was very popular in the USA though into the 1930's, and Baseball is believed by many to have evolved from the British game of Rounders.
Boxing is a British sport that was hugely popular in the USA and remains a major sport for the large fights.

QUARTZ Responds:

There is of course right of work and abode for citizens from EU countries.
Who are culturally more distinct from us than Commonwealth citizens.
Socccer aside, what do I have in common with a Hungarian?
What hat are you wearing on this one?

If it's your Jewish hat then there is a large Jewish population in Hungary, which Australia doesn't have.

We also have a Hungarian diasporia of asylum seekers from the cold war (think Mike Pejic, Imre Varadi, Joe Bugner), many of the UK's Jews also descend from asylum seekers in the 19th century.

If it's your Anglo-Saxon hat....well why do you have one seeing that Israel is supposed to be your homeland and England not?

You did say 'I do not believe the UK is my homeland, though I am a citizen of the UK'.

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

There is no longer such a large Hungarian Jewish population, most were either killed in the war or emigrated.
There have been a few Hungarian emigres to the UK, but what cultural impact have they had? Has it been huge? Could I go to Hungary with a common cultural currency?
I think not?
The Rubik's cube. A bit of classical music, a few athletes.
Not much else.

Israel is my homeland.
But the UK has been my home.
There is a difference.

In terms of popular culture I am a product of the Anglo-Saxon UK-USA cultural heritage.
In terms if religious and philosophical heritage and identity I am one of the Jewish heritage..which is the part that I have in common with the Israeli Jews and Jew the world over.

QUARTZ Responds:

No, it is an evolved response to the diffuse settlement of a British population in the Australian territory.
It is not so much a social construct as a natural growth.
It is not manipulated in the way you feel it is, beyond superficial ideas such as a composed national anthem and flag
Yeah but it is constructed by society, hence of social construction. I didn't say it had to necessarily be manipulated, just not a part of natural biology and certainly not 'god given'.

However the Australian example is not without a top down imposition, it's government officially adopted multicultural as opposed to assimilationist policies over the last 30 years.

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

There would of course be government policies in Australia, just like any country in the world.
But the Australian cultural heritage has evolved largely from it's parent country, the UK.

QUARTZ Responds:

Gerald Kaufman does not speak for me or most Jews in the world. He is a very assimilated Jew, and not a public supporter of Israel.
Maybe he just decided to take the stance of common humanity rather than a narrow 'Jewish only' perspective.

After all why as a Jewish MP should he speak only for Jews, Quartz?

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

I never said Gerald Kaufman should only speak for Jews.
He speaks for himself, but not for the majority of Jews in the UK.
You can always dig up an example of a Jew who will say what you want him to say...and then claim that somehow all Jews shoudl follow that person, but you quote from the fringe.
Would you say that William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) represented the British point of view in World War Two?


G-D had everything to do with where the borders of each state lie.

You think that the creator of the universe does not manipulate such major events?

The whole Northern Ireland troubles were a physical manifestation of the fault line between the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Culture, and the Gaelic, and more Celtic, Catholic one.[/b]
What so the Protestant settlements in Ireland were G-D's decision, not the British government's, for someone who comes across as a rational and articulate guy on most discussions this one is certainly veering in an odd direction.

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

The Protestant settlement in Northern Ireland was as far as I know, a result of the policy of the UK monarch and government. But G-D can and does manipulate the minds of men..that is a key lesson of the Torah.
The most well known one being that in the face of many plagues, and with pauses for consideration between the plagues, the Pharoah of Egypt continued to not let the Israelites leave.

QUARTZ Responds:

Of course religion has caused war.
I never said it had not caused wars.

Does not mean that all those wars were fought with G-D's blessing though.
You stated earlier 'You think that the creator of the universe does not manipulate such major events?'

Though the creator is suddenly impotent with influencing such major events

Make you mind up Quartz.

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

There is no conflict in my mind Cus.
Obviously the Creator of the Universe has not intervened to stop every war.
It does not mean that HE approves of each war, but for reasons beyond our immediate knowledge he lets the wars happen.

The Crusades were an appalling wave of massacres of civilians and looting.

Secular causes have caused many wars too though.[/b]


Though a secular cause has more room for rationality and compromise,

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

In your opinion, not mine.


religious war such as this are revolving around land that is supposedly promised to races of people in the bible, despite having lived elsewhere for two millenia and at the expense of others who have lived there for two millenia.
[/quote]

QUARTZ RESPONDS:

As stated earlier, many Jews have lived outside Israel from about 200 AD to
the late nineteen century.
The immigration of Jews to the land of Israel from 1880's onwards was NOT at the expense of people who had lived there for 2000 years.
Land was purchased, and most land was derelict malarial swampland.
The Palestinians were not a homogenous nation living in the land of Israel.
Most immigrated into the land, from other parts of the Middle East and the Balkans, when the Jews started coming, in order to seek economic opportunity.
[/i]

User avatar
skipper
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Hackney

Post by skipper »

Just to let everyone know that in 8 years of Hamas 'terrorising' Jewish settlers in stolen Palestinian land, 20 (YES!!! TWENTY!!!!!!) Jews died...

20 JEWS in 8 YEARS...

It took 'courageous' IDF about 8 minutes to kill 20 Palestinian children...



Fucking Zionist Scum!

User avatar
SPUDMASHER
Posts: 10739
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:07 am
Location: London Euston
Contact:

Post by SPUDMASHER »

And on that note........thread locked :roll:

Locked