Israeli organ borrowing revisited

[Pat]

Did any of the alleged victims actually come forward, or is it just a wild speculation at this point?

The alleged victims are dead. 

How convenient. 

Sorry if I read you wrong, was in a belligerent mode and assumed you hadn't read the article.

[Neil]

Do you consider the Israelis to be civilized folks, Neil?

In general, I'd have to say yes.  They've had some Russians come in, and there are still the Arabized Jews like Siegebreaker, but they're still a civilized people at their core.

[Pat]

Do you consider the Israelis to be civilized folks, Neil?

In general, I'd have to say yes.  They've had some Russians come in, and there are still the Arabized Jews like Siegebreaker, but they're still a civilized people at their core.

OK agreed, but I'd like to add that a civilized people who unquestioningly consider the uncivilized their compatriots and allow them great influence is not wholly civilized. Civlized in general, yes, but wholly, no.

[Neil]

Do you consider the Israelis to be civilized folks, Neil?

In general, I'd have to say yes.  They've had some Russians come in, and there are still the Arabized Jews like Siegebreaker, but they're still a civilized people at their core.

OK agreed, but I'd like to add that a civilized people who unquestioningly consider the uncivilized their compatriots and allow them great influence is not wholly civilized. Civlized in general, yes, but wholly, no.

The Russians don't really have all that much influence, except in the criminal fields.

[Pat]

I was trying to give the civilized Israelis some credit by ascribing their uncivilized actions to the influence of their uncivilized compatriots.

[Neil]

I was trying to give the civilized Israelis some credit by ascribing their uncivilized actions to the influence of their uncivilized compatriots.

I'm not familiar with any uncivilized actions taken by Israel, or by Israelis that aren't Siegebreaker.

[Pat]

Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.

[Neil]

Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.

Indeed.  Your definition is weak-willed and immoral.  My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself.  Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.

[Pat]

Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.

Indeed.  Your definition is weak-willed and immoral.  My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself.  Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.

Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?

[Scipio]

Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.

Indeed.  Your definition is weak-willed and immoral.  My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself.  Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.

Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?

Considering that the Mongols didn't annihilate any societies, but rather co-opted them or were co-opted by them in turn, I think that's a retarded fucking comparison.

[jimmy olsen]

Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.

Indeed.  Your definition is weak-willed and immoral.  My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself.  Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.

Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?

Considering that the Mongols didn't annihilate any societies, but rather co-opted them or were co-opted by them in turn, I think that's a retarded fucking comparison.

Didn't the Mongols raze any city that resisted or am I thinking of a different horde?

[Pat]

It's not a comparison to anything else in the thread. I'd say the Mongols annihilated quite a few societies. Normally I'd have suggested to you that you'd start another thread if you'd want to discuss this very tangential issue with me, but I doubt I'd be able to have a very meaningful discussion with a retarded fuck as yourself, so I'm sorry to say it's not something I'd be very interested in.

[DGuller]

Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?

It's one of the exceptions that prove the rule.

[Pat]

Military might is usually a by-product of civlization, but it doesn't have anything to do with being civilized. You don't become civilized just by having military might.




edit: I think we can all think of a poignant modern example to illustrate this

[Viking]

Indeed.  Your definition is weak-willed and immoral.  My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself.  Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.

Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?

Considering that the Mongols didn't annihilate any societies, but rather co-opted them or were co-opted by them in turn, I think that's a retarded fucking comparison.

Not to mention that Neil didn't claim that the Mongols were a great civilization, he just pointed out that the civilizations that the mongols destroyed weren't worth anything.