Israel revolution
26/7/11 15:36![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
allhatnocattle.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOn July 11 Israel imposed a law banning dissent. It is illegal to boycott Israel, boycott it's state, or express anything publicly which may hurt Israel's economy.
Note; this is viewed as an economic policy. The tent city protesting the high rent, gas and food prices is allowed because it does not hinder Israel's economic progress. Yes, it's a bit confusing. Many are reporting this as the latest Arab Spring which is perhaps hopeful at this point.
I wonder how Israel gets away with it. Israel went to the UN to legitimize their new country some 60yrs ago. Now that Palestine is doing the same, Israel (and USA of course) is against it.
Note; this is viewed as an economic policy. The tent city protesting the high rent, gas and food prices is allowed because it does not hinder Israel's economic progress. Yes, it's a bit confusing. Many are reporting this as the latest Arab Spring which is perhaps hopeful at this point.
I wonder how Israel gets away with it. Israel went to the UN to legitimize their new country some 60yrs ago. Now that Palestine is doing the same, Israel (and USA of course) is against it.
(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 21:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 22:14 (UTC)The other side of restoring an independent Palestine would be whether or not say the Kingdom of Hawaii should also be restored as an independent state, and what happens to all those Russians who moved into the Baltic states after 1940, and all the Han in Tibet and Xinjiang. Seriously addressing that issue would be a nightmare for the Great Powers and this is one reason you will only see talk, not action.
(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 22:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 22:41 (UTC)But we know how Israel gets away with it. Damn Jews.
(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 23:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 23:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 23:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 23:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 23:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 23:32 (UTC)This is kinda useless dickering over semantics, though. Boycotts should be legal. Organizing them should be legal. If you want to make them illegal, then the way to do that is to make the government prove the case, not turn anyone and everyone into a personal prosecutor by creating a civil right of action. And even if you did it wholly through criminal means.
Should the government of South Africa have prosecuted anyone who supported the boycott of the apartheid government?
(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 23:56 (UTC)No one is supporting the law the Knesset passed. But words have meanings. Suggesting that the Knesset has banned dissent is just silly. Heck, the OP's link is to an article by a dissenting Israeli, published in a free press.
The article also makes reference to an upcoming case before Israel's Supreme Court challenging the Knesset's action.
Dissent is alive and well in Israel.
(no subject)
Date: 27/7/11 00:12 (UTC)I'll ask again: Should the government of South Africa have prosecuted anyone who supported the boycott of the apartheid government?
(no subject)
Date: 27/7/11 00:49 (UTC)The article, however, was clearly an expression of dissent. And it's apparently permitted. Go Jews! Nobody in all of history has ever been better than we are at dissent. Jesus, of course, is the ultimate example of this. And look where it got Him.
I have no idea what the specific case of South Africa has to do with anything. It's a telling question, though.
(no subject)
Date: 26/7/11 23:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/7/11 04:26 (UTC)So they are "banning dissent" insofar as they are only permitting particular forms of dissent.
So now that they've legitimised banning particular forms of dissent in principle and in fact, what form of dissent will be disallowed next? And how will citizens inform the governments that they disapprove of this action to ban such dissent?
(no subject)
Date: 28/7/11 17:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/7/11 23:20 (UTC)A boycott, according to the dictionary definition, can be an act of expressing opposition to the actions of a country.
Dissent, according to the dictionary definition, includes within it's definition expressing oppositions to the actions of a country.
Hence, a boycott can be a form of dissent. In this particular instance, the type of boycott being proscribed is exactly that.
(no subject)
Date: 28/7/11 23:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 00:25 (UTC)You should try it. You will find it highly instructive.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 00:31 (UTC)Really, just try it. You will learn something.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 00:44 (UTC)dissent /dɪˈsɛnt/
â–¶verb
express disagreement with a prevailing view or official decision: two members dissented from the majority.
â– disagree with the doctrine of an established or orthodox Church. (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/dissent)
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 00:46 (UTC)A href="http://www.wordreference.com/definition/boycott">boycott/ˈbɔɪkɒt/
â–¶verb
withdraw from commercial or social relations with (someone) as a punishment or protest.
â– refuse to buy or handle (goods) for this reason.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 00:55 (UTC)Now sometimes there are mild differences in UK and USA english language definitions that make a subtle difference, but I don't think it matters much in this case.
In my Conclusion; If boycott is a form of protest, then it would be a form of disagreement. So we need to define what a protest is.
protest
â–¶noun
/ˈprəʊtɛst/ 
1 a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.
â– an organized public demonstration objecting to an official policy or course of action.
2 Law a written declaration, typically by a notary public, that a bill has been presented and payment or acceptance refused.
â–¶verb
/prəˈtɛst/ 
1 express an objection to an action or remark.
â– engage in public protest.
â– N. Amer. publicly protest against.
2 make an emphatic declaration or denial in response to doubt or accusation.
3 Law write or obtain a protest in regard to (a bill).
In this regards I conclude that Dissent is a form of protest, as is a Boycott.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 01:20 (UTC)But, yes, boycotts are a form of protest.
Instead of trying to defend a falsehood with a fallacy, look at the definitions of "dissent" and "boycott."
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 01:32 (UTC)But, yes, boycotts are a form of protest.
Definition of dissent according to the Oxford Dictionaries:
dissent
the holding or expression of opinions at variance with those commonly or officially held:
Explain how you think it is possible to protest against the government, without holding or expressing opinions at variance with those officially held (i.e. dissent)?
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 01:40 (UTC)Dissent expresses disagreement with prevailing view.
A protest is statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.
Therefore dissent is a form of protest.
You've already agreed boycott is a form of protest.
So both are forms of protest.
What is the logical fallacy? Spell it out for me and I might agree.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 01:47 (UTC)That's actually not logically correct. One can certain dissent without protesting (or boycotting).
The problem for Lenny is that one cannot protest without dissenting. As a boycott against the government is a protest, a boycott against a government is an example of dissent.
Hence banning boycotts against the government is banning a form of dissent.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 02:05 (UTC)I was afraid it was a American definition... like how curiosity has a negative context (strange) in USA, but in British definitions not so much.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 03:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 04:50 (UTC)To ban all 200m backstroke events is to ban a particular form of swimming.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 13:16 (UTC)I'm not sure why you're so intent on defending falsehoods with fallacies -- and fallacies with falsehoods.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 22:58 (UTC)I don't understand why you're so fixated on defending an undefensible action by the government of Israel. I can only assume you have some personal interest in doing so.
(no subject)
Date: 30/7/11 00:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 03:08 (UTC)This is profoundly illogical.
First, one can most definitely protest without dissenting. Ask any of us who were around during the 60's and just engaged in acts of protest to get laid by hot hippie chicks.
Second, you're jumping from a verb to a noun. Can you not see that you are using the word "protest" as two entirely different parts of speech in your syllogism?
Or try this: One cannot speak without mentation. As a dipthong is speech, a dipthong is an example of mentation. Not.
Abstracted, we have:
A requires B
C is a subset of B'
Therefore C is a subset of A.
Not.
There is such a divergence from the basic principles of logic and language here it wobbles the mind.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 04:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 13:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 22:52 (UTC)When I say "protest requires dissent" I mean this in the sense that "water requires oxygen". That is, it is necessary, because a protest (against a government) is necessarily composed, in part, of dissent.
It's irrelevant if you don't actually disagree with the government and are only doing it for the chicks - regardless of motive, the "the expression of opinions at variance with those commonly or officially held" necessarily occur in any protest against the government.
So for your formalised expression, I believe you should be replacing "A requires B" with "A is a subset of B".
If you boycott the government in protest against it's actions, you cannot do so without it being a case of dissent.
(no subject)
Date: 30/7/11 00:51 (UTC)Water requires oxygen.
Rivers are a form of water.
When you dam a river, you are depriving the people downstream of oxygen!
If you boycott the government in protest against it's actions, you cannot do so without it being a case of dissent.
But it's not the dissent that's being banned. It's a specific class of actions.
Anders Behring-Breivik was protesting something, too. I guess banning mass murder is equivalent to banning dissent. Because, hey, you can't shoot up a bunch of people without it being a case of dissent.
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/11 02:48 (UTC)The meaning of "dissent" is similar to one meaning of "protest" -- the meaning of protest associated with the idea of a "statement."
The meaning of "boycott" is included in one meaning of "protest" -- the meaning associated with the idea of an "action."
Statements are not actions. Notice the "or" in the definition.
Dissent is a form of protest.
You've already agreed boycott is a form of protest.
So both are forms of protest.
A is B
C is B'
Therefore A = C. Not.