Apple Honors Jimmy Carter With Homepage Tribute

[bgillander]

I suggest you visit Israel. You’ll notice some things, like:
1) “Huh, that’s odd… the street signs are in both Hebrew and Arabic.”
2) Arabic… “Hey, there are Muslim Arabs all over the place here!” Several million, in fact. Even in the IDF.
3) “The Jews are easy to spot because they’re the white colonizers… hey, that Jewish person with the yarmulke looks just like an Arab… hey; wait a minute, most Jews in Israel are dark-skinned, Arab-looking middle easterners! How can that be?”
4) “Huh, there’s a gay couple over there holding hands in public. Yeah, I’m sure that happens in Iran every day.”

You’ll also see modern hospitals, biotech, and high tech firms. And amazing agriculture that figured out how to farm in deserts. All in a nation built by refugees.

Next, take a look at all of Israel’s neighbors. Egypt is by far the most liberal. But from 1954 to 2005, they had only three Presidents… Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. Not quite exactly a democracy. But most of the remaining Arab nations are kingdoms, which is another word for dictatorship. In those nations, women are not free. Christians aren’t free and neither are Jews. FWIW, Jews have been forcibly expelled from. Early every Arab nation… and the UN isn’t holding votes demanding their right to return, or payment for their land, or calling those nations apartheid.

America and Israel were attacked by terrorists who plainly state that they want to globalize their intifada. They want global Muslim rule like the rule of Afghanistan and Iran, and they don’t care how many bombs it takes to get there. They do not think the same way that you do. If they are not fought, they will win and they will conquer Europe and the US. You can laugh and think it cannot happen here, but it can.

You see, your mistake is you seem to think I think the other side is right, while as I said earlier, there is lots of wrong to go around.

I'm of the opinion that the entire world is likely composed of 40-50% people that just want to live their lives in peace, 5-8% that are power hungry or fanatic, and the rest who are somewhat indifferent, but wanting more enough to be swayed.

I should probably thank you, as I tended to mainly side with Israel after Oct 7, but figured they were going too far. But your repeated assertions that absolutely none of this could be their fault made me think I needed to do more research, as I obviously was missing something. So thanks to you, I learned about the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, which makes Gaza seem like less of the anomaly I thought it was and makes it seem like there are at least some on either side that seem to think the other side shouldn't exist. It also makes me wonder why Carter's mistakes in Iran are always pointed out, but Reagan's mistakes are never mentioned:

Opinion | A Preventable Massacre (Published 2012)

In 1982, the United States failed to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Israel that could have ended a massacre of Palestinians in Lebanon.

web.archive.org

 

[cupcakes2000]

I suggest you visit Israel. You’ll notice some things, like:
1) “Huh, that’s odd… the street signs are in both Hebrew and Arabic.”
2) Arabic… “Hey, there are Muslim Arabs all over the place here!” Several million, in fact. Even in the IDF.
3) “The Jews are easy to spot because they’re the white colonizers… hey, that Jewish person with the yarmulke looks just like an Arab… hey; wait a minute, most Jews in Israel are dark-skinned, Arab-looking middle easterners! How can that be?”
4) “Huh, there’s a gay couple over there holding hands in public. Yeah, I’m sure that happens in Iran every day.”

That’s got nothing to do with anything at all.

That’s the equivalent of a racist suggesting they aren’t racist because they have black friends.

 

[Madhatter32]

You see, your mistake is you seem to think I think the other side is right, while as I said earlier, there is lots of wrong to go around.

I'm of the opinion that the entire world is likely composed of 40-50% people that just want to live their lives in peace, 5-8% that are power hungry or fanatic, and the rest who are somewhat indifferent, but wanting more enough to be swayed.

I should probably thank you, as I tended to mainly side with Israel after Oct 7, but figured they were going too far. But your repeated assertions that absolutely none of this could be their fault made me think I needed to do more research, as I obviously was missing something. So thanks to you, I learned about the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, which makes Gaza seem like less of the anomaly I thought it was and makes it seem like there are at least some on either side that seem to think the other side shouldn't exist. It also makes me wonder why Carter's mistakes in Iraq are always pointed out, but Reagan's are never mentioned:

Opinion | A Preventable Massacre (Published 2012)

In 1982, the United States failed to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Israel that could have ended a massacre of Palestinians in Lebanon.

web.archive.org

Good for you for trying but you should not rely on dubious opinion pieces (widely criticized) and logical fallacies (such as the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc or good old fashioned Cherry Picking of the historical record) to arrive at an informed conclusion. Why not start with the Hamas Charter -- the founding documents of the political leadership of Palestinians and work from there?

The Hamas Charter:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (Preamble to Hamas Charter).

The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [holy possession] consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part or abandon it or any part of it. (Hamas Charter, Article 11).

Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be. (Hamas Charter, Article 13).

The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Hamas Charter, Article 7).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. (Hamas Charter, Article 13).

Imagine the sole purpose of your government being the destruction of another country and the murder of all it's citizens -- and, in fact, people of that ethnic group everywhere in the world. Would you conclude that such a government was in the right? The correct view is that there is, in fact, good and evil in this world and Hamas is not the good one in this conflict.

 

[bgillander]

Good for you for trying but you should not rely on dubious opinion pieces (widely criticized) and logical fallacies (such as the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc or good old fashioned Cherry Picking of the historical record) to arrive at an informed conclusion. Why not start with the Hamas Charter -- the founding documents of the political leadership of Palestinians and work from there?

The Hamas Charter:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (Preamble to Hamas Charter).

The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [holy possession] consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part or abandon it or any part of it. (Hamas Charter, Article 11).

Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be. (Hamas Charter, Article 13).

The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Hamas Charter, Article 7).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. (Hamas Charter, Article 13).

Imagine the sole purpose of your government being the destruction of another country and the murder of all it's citizens -- and, in fact, people of that ethnic group everywhere in the world. Would you conclude that such a government was in the right? The correct view is that there is, in fact, good and evil in this world and Hamas is not the good one in this conflict.

As I said, I am far from thinking that is in the right. I simply find the assertion by one side that they can make no mistake and the opinion that NO critism of them is allowed are both extremely non-democratic, and it is simply infuriating to have that being passed off as pro-democracy.

 

[bgillander]

Good for you for trying but you should not rely on dubious opinion pieces (widely criticized) and logical fallacies (such as the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc or good old fashioned Cherry Picking of the historical record) to arrive at an informed conclusion. Why not start with the Hamas Charter -- the founding documents of the political leadership of Palestinians and work from there?

The Hamas Charter:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (Preamble to Hamas Charter).

The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [holy possession] consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part or abandon it or any part of it. (Hamas Charter, Article 11).

Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be. (Hamas Charter, Article 13).

The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Hamas Charter, Article 7).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. (Hamas Charter, Article 13).

Imagine the sole purpose of your government being the destruction of another country and the murder of all it's citizens -- and, in fact, people of that ethnic group everywhere in the world. Would you conclude that such a government was in the right? The correct view is that there is, in fact, good and evil in this world and Hamas is not the good one in this conflict.

Also, the cherry picking argument? Really? That would make sense if I was arguing that everything they do is wrong, but my point is that they don't do everything right. If I didn't have to find specific cases, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would simply be assuming there was no hope for them, and no point engaging at all.

 

[Madhatter32]

As I said, I am far from thinking that is in the right. I simply find the assertion by one side that they can make no mistake and the opinion that NO critism of them is allowed are both extremely non-democratic, and it is simply infuriating to have that being passed off as pro-democracy.

Who exactly is making that assertion? That is a strawman argument. Israel is constantly criticized. That is a fact. Even within Israel there is robust debate on a whole host of issues. On the other hand, good luck finding such debate in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iran, etc.

 

[gregmac19]

All those years of education couldn’t tell him what an abortion actually was?
I’m starting to question his expertise here.

“he figured out what abortion is” were my words, and don’t accurately reflect his experience. For instance, he had reservations about assisting in his first abortion while in medical school, but was afraid to decline for fear of getting on the wrong side of his instructor. I can’t do the book justice in a short post.

Do you need to be scared into torture for eternity to be compassionate to your fellow citizens?

No. I thought that that was clear from the next sentence after the one you quoted: “For this reason and others...”

I responded this way because another poster earlier accused me of thinking that I have a free pass to heaven: “All those rules in the Bible…. And you can break them all, can’t you? But abortion, which the Bible doesn’t mention, is the one moral rule you cannot break. Which is awfully convenient for you, because your body can’t even have an abortion! So all you have to do is tell other people what to do, and you get to go to heaven!”

If you need a fictional book modified over thousands of years to tell you the do/s and don’t/s then you haven’t been using your gift of thinking.

The Bible is not fictional, nor is it my sole source to tell me the does and do nots. I have to wonder what authority you are following, and why you think it is superior to what your neighbor is doing.

 

[gregmac19]

Cool. At least you aren't using the Bible to justify being a slaveholder, as was too common in the 1800s.

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

Read an excerpt from 'The Great Stain: Witnessing American Slavery' by Noel Rae

time.com

How do you feel about the death penalty or medically assisted dying? Any lines drawn there?

Both should be banned.

 

[gregmac19]

Sounds great hey. I bet you feel fabulous believing it. Off to mythical heaven you go, regardless of what that leaves behind in the world we all live. At some point, what’s actually happening right in front of your face must take precedent over some promise of how your own life might be after you, you know, die.

What is it that I am ignoring that is right in front of my face?

 

[bgillander]

Who exactly is making that assertion? That is a strawman argument. Israel is constantly criticized. That is a fact. Even within Israel there is robust debate on a whole host of issues. On the other hand, good luck finding such debate in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iran, etc.

Israel has shown more restraint than any other country in history in their reaction to Hamas mass murderers. And there is very little daylight between critiquing Israel and being a Jew hater. So don’t even go there.

If you are going to see every critism as anti-semitic, no matter the criticism, then you will of course see a lot of anti-semitism. If you want to lower the bar to compare against non-democratic states, that isn't exactly a good thing.

Just to be clear, I feel Hamas was obviously the bad guy on Oct 7. But if one spends months after an action crushing the bad guy's family, the world does start to question just how much of a good guy you are. That isn't restricted to Israel, as any democracy will get the same reaction, and Guantanamo Bay caused all sorts of criticism. But, yeah, non-democracies don't have the same problem, as their bar tends to be lower. And, sure, that isn't fair, but it doesn't absolve one of any criticism of possible excess in specific cases.

 

[bgillander]

Both should be banned.

Okay, life trumps personal rights for you. I do appreciate your consistency and candor. Having witnessed people both withering away and MAID, I am firmly in the MAID side, but do appreciate your consistency, at the very least.

 

[2761216]

The Bible is not fictional, nor is it my sole source to tell me the does and do nots. I have to wonder what authority you are following, and why you think it is superior to what your neighbor is doing.

If not entirely then at least most of it is. History doesn’t like blanks.

I got none. I know I don’t need to push my beliefs down someone else’s throat to establish my superiority. Everyone deserves the same rights and freedoms and should get to make their own choices and is responsible for consequences.
No two persons like the exact same food. Why do you think a one-rule-for-all makes sense?

If you still think you know what’s right for every woman better, when you’re not even one, than them or the actual experts then I might as well throw in my hat and say all the rapists should be forced to get a vasectomy, or better yet chemically castrated (cut it off at the source). I can think of at least one right now.
Or do you believe forcing things on bodies should only apply to women and not men?

If you’re still not convinced you don’t get to decide what a woman can or can’t do with her body then you’re not really being open to other opinions and I’m just wasting my time.

 

[Alameda]

As I said, I am far from thinking that is in the right. I simply find the assertion by one side that they can make no mistake and the opinion that NO critism of them is allowed are both extremely non-democratic, and it is simply infuriating to have that being passed off as pro-democracy.

There is certainly no way to wage a mistake-proof war. And there is plenty that Israel can be criticized for; they’re in an impossible situation.

The best explanation I can give is that Israel tried liberal governments and peace accords many, many times and the result has been terrorism. Since ceding Gaza to Palestinian self-rule twenty years ago, the Palestinians in Gaza dedicated themselves solely to building a military infrastructure to attack Israel. And in US Universities, students chant “Intifada” over and over. There is a national Palestinians for “Justice” organization which states that they believe in intifada against Israel. So if Israel’s choice is to wage war on Hamas or else let Hamas and Hezbollah continue to fire rockets and kill Israeli civilians, the choice is going to be war.

So criticize all you want. It’s easy to do from your armchair, when nobody’s bombing you and threatening to destroy your country. Nobody said you can’t criticize, but if your position is that Israel has no right to exist nor a right to defend themselves against groups who have declared war on them, then some people will certainly disagree with you.

Israel is not the cause of strife in the Mideast. Iran and Iraq were at war for 20 years. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia is fighting Yemen. Syria just had a civil war. None of these things had anything at all to do with Israel. But I think you know very well that you hear a lot of criticism of Israel and virtually no criticism of these other entities who have killed far more civilians in the Mideast.

 

[bgillander]

There is certainly no way to wage a mistake-proof war. And there is plenty that Israel can be criticized for; they’re in an impossible situation.

The best explanation I can give is that Israel tried liberal governments and peace accords many, many times and the result has been terrorism. Since ceding Gaza to Palestinian self-rule twenty years ago, the Palestinians in Gaza dedicated themselves solely to building a military infrastructure to attack Israel. And in US Universities, students chant “Intifada” over and over. There is a national Palestinians for “Justice” organization which states that they believe in intifada against Israel. So if Israel’s choice is to wage war on Hamas or else let Hamas and Hezbollah continue to fire rockets and kill Israeli civilians, the choice is going to be war.

So criticize all you want. It’s easy to do from your armchair, when nobody’s bombing you and threatening to destroy your country. Nobody said you can’t criticize, but if your position is that Israel has no right to exist nor a right to defend themselves against groups who have declared war on them, then some people will certainly disagree with you.

Israel is not the cause of strife in the Mideast. Iran and Iraq were at war for 20 years. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia is fighting Yemen. Syria just had a civil war. None of these things had anything at all to do with Israel. But I think you know very well that you hear a lot of criticism of Israel and virtually no criticism of these other entities who have killed far more civilians in the Mideast.

Again, I'm not saying the other side is the good guy, and I'm not saying Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself.

But if you think I haven't heard criticism of Iran, Iraq and Syria, I'm not sure what planet you think I am on. I seem to recall Iraq even being invaded. And I know that the 9-11 hijackers were not even from there, and where they actually were from gets mentioned as infrequently as Khashoggi. If you have no awareness that these countries are often criticized, no wonder you feel persecuted. They are criticized, traditionally far more than Israel in my personal experience, but they don't care. The hope is that Israel continues to care, because just comparing them to the groups you are comparing them to is not a good direction to go.

 

[4k78]

If you’re still not convinced you don’t get to decide what a woman can or can’t do with her body then you’re not really being open to other opinions and I’m just wasting my time.

No uterus no opinion. I’m guessing you don’t have one.

 

[2761216]

No uterus no opinion. I’m guessing you don’t have one.

But I’m not the one trying to take away their rights and tell them what they can or can’t do.

I’m starting to feel sorry here. Please don’t respond unless you have a valid argument.

 

[gregmac19]

Okay, life trumps personal rights for you. I do appreciate your consistency and candor. Having witnessed people both withering away and MAID, I am firmly in the MAID side, but do appreciate your consistency, at the very least.

Thanks for your comments and candor.

I support life from conception to natural death.

I sympathize with watching a loved one suffer. But, the problem with euthanasia is that it sometimes used to kill people who aren’t even terminally ill, and is requested by others who want to get rid of someone who they see as an inconvenience. Thus in my view, banning it protects the personal rights of the patient.

End of life issues are complex and gut-wrenching. I don’t think you have to go to extraordinary lengths to keep someone alive, but, at a minimum you need to provide the basics (e.g., food and water), and by all means keep the patient comfortable if that is what they desire.

 

[Madhatter32]

Thanks for your comments and candor.

I support life from conception to natural death.

I sympathize with watching a loved one suffer. But, the problem with euthanasia is that it sometimes used to kill people who aren’t even terminally ill, and is requested by others who want to get rid of someone who they see as an inconvenience. Thus in my view, banning it protects the personal rights of the patient.

End of life issues are complex and gut-wrenching. I don’t think you have to go to extraordinary lengths to keep someone alive, but, at a minimum you need to provide the basics (e.g., food and water), and by all means keep the patient comfortable if that is what they desire.

Give me liberty or death. A great republic was once founded on this concept.

 

[gregmac19]

Everyone deserves the same rights and freedoms and should get to make their own choices and is responsible for consequences.

What happens when people don’t agree with this? The biggest mass murderers of all time (i.e., Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong, all who were atheists) didn’t share your opinion.

If you’re still not convinced you don’t get to decide what a woman can or can’t do with her body then you’re not really being open to other opinions and I’m just wasting my time.

I’m not denying that any woman can decide what she wants to do with her body. However, when a woman is pregnant, there is another body in her, and this body should have full rights, including the basic right to life.

Every child has a father, but in your world, fathers don’t have any authority over their child until the child is born. Why is that?

 

[cupcakes2000]

What happens when people don’t agree with this? The biggest mass murderers of all time (i.e., Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong, all who were atheists) didn’t share your opinion.

I’m not denying that any woman can decide what she wants to do with her body. However, when a woman is pregnant, there is another body in her, and this body should have full rights, including the basic right to life.

Every child has a father, but in your world, fathers don’t have any authority over their child until the child is born. Why is that?

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[4k78]

But I’m not the one trying to take away their rights and tell them what they can or can’t do.

I’m starting to feel sorry here. Please don’t respond unless you have a valid argument.

I’m glad you’re the final arbiter of what a valid argument is. 👍🏼

 

[bgillander]

Thanks for your comments and candor.

I support life from conception to natural death.

I sympathize with watching a loved one suffer. But, the problem with euthanasia is that it sometimes used to kill people who aren’t even terminally ill, and is requested by others who want to get rid of someone who they see as an inconvenience. Thus in my view, banning it protects the personal rights of the patient.

End of life issues are complex and gut-wrenching. I don’t think you have to go to extraordinary lengths to keep someone alive, but, at a minimum you need to provide the basics (e.g., food and water), and by all means keep the patient comfortable if that is what they desire.

Just to clarify, in my locale MAiD has to be requested by the participant while they are still of sound mind. The process was very specific about this in my experience, and interviews were held separately to make sure no one was pressuring that decision on the applicant.

A request by others would be a completely different thing, and that sounds very much not a personal choice to me, so I would have issues with that myself.

 

[2761216]

Every child has a father, but in your world, fathers don’t have any authority over their child until the child is born. Why is that?

Are you seriously asking me that question?

Any man can be a sperm donor but a woman’s the one carrying the child to term. She’s the one putting her body through so much and even at risk of a complication during pregnancy. Like I mentioned before, no father (expectant or otherwise) has ever died during a complicated pregnancy. And it doesn’t end there for her either.

You wouldn’t expect a minimum wage worker to have the same benefits and privileges as a company president. Would you? It’s the same here. Those who contribute more in a partnership would and should obviously have more rights than the one contributing less.

Instead of trying to win an argument, try to imagine yourself in their shoes.

all who were atheists

More blood has been spilled in the name of religion than in atheism, if any at all.

I’m glad you’re the final arbiter of what a valid argument is. 👍🏼

Thank you!

 

[bgillander]

Every child has a father, but in your world, fathers don’t have any authority over their child until the child is born. Why is that?

You were including cases of rape earlier, so I would have thought at least those would have been pretty obvious why. Planting your seed in someone else's yard doesn't give you authority over their garden.

 

[2761216]

Planting your seed in someone else's yard doesn't give you authority over their garden.

That’s a damn good analogy.👌🏼
I’m gonna use this.