The fact that you base your argument on your personal opinion of what is enough time to 'moralize' a peoples ownership of a land should illustrate your overall weakness in this argument. You say 'I believe there is no moral justification for claiming any property after 2,000 years', and 'I personally put the line at 100 years.' Yes, you personally put it at 100 years. Who the heck cares what you personally would put the number of years at? I personally would put the number of minutes of driving a car that is not ones own that it would take to become yours at 30 minutes, so that I could claim this nice car that I am borrowing is simply mine because I have used it for the amount of minutes that I personal think is enough to claim its mine. But just because I personally think that 30 minutes is enough time, does not mean that the car is morally mine. Is it? I mean I believe that 30 minutes is enough for that car to be mine, just as much as you believe that 100 years is enough to erase any prior claim to a peice land. So really, this car, that I just borrowed, is mine! Because I had it for 30 minutes and my opinion is that 30 minutes is all that it takes! Give me a break. That is pathetic.Well then, you and I simply differ in our opinion of rightful ownership. I believe that there is "stature of limitation" on claiming property that was not claimed for a long time. I personally put the line at 100 years.
I believe there is no moral justification for claiming any property after 2,000 years, conviniently ignoring generations upon generations of residents. I also believe that there is no legal justification as well: If a Jew would present an ancient legal note from his ancestors that describes a piece of land as the family property, it will not be accepted by the court and will not be sufficient cause for evicting the current residents. The reason will be stature of limitation.
You say 100 years is enough eh? 100 years is nothing. I say it needs to be 5000 years. Does that make me right? Does that make you wrong? But you say its 100. Does that make me wrong? No, it is neither, simply because this is not the determining factor, not an individuals opinion of what is enough time. The determining factor is the descendents of the Jews who were expelled did not have a home, were in foreign lands being persecuted, all the while a bunch of Arabs decided they wanted a change of scene and took land that was not theirs, and was still someone elses. This is immoral, wether or not the Arabs thought it was. What they thought does not matter, the act was still immoral. All the subjectivness in the world can not change that it was immoral. And no, 100 years is not enough to erase the Jews claim to the land, as they were/are still around.
What am I wrong about concerning this? Are you trying to say that Abortion is one single definition, that there are not, first, second, and third trimister abortions? Are you trying to say that a first trimister abortion is not different than a third trimister abortion, enough that it can be considered a different situation? Answer the question. Are you trying to say, that just because a country's laws have one law for all abortion, that a first trimister abortion is not different than a third trimister abortion? No I am not wrong. You are.You are wrong about the Death penalty and abortions. The death penalty is either legal or illegal in some countries, meaning the legistlative made an overall decision regardong the issue, without getting into specific cases. Same goes for abortions. It is either legal or not.
Who is to say if the death penalty should be used or forbidden? At least someone who understands everthing about it, and knows what is truethfully right or wrong. And by the way, if the death penalty were to be legal, it would have to be administered on a case by case bases, so as to be as fair as possible.Who is to say if the death penalty should be used or forbidden? Who is to say if abortions should be used or not? Who is the authority on moral issues? the court? the government? Different judges and Parliament members hold different opinions on moral issues. Of course they do, they're human beings.
So tell me, because some people think murdering an innocent with no good reason is morally right, and a good thing to do, that means you can't say "That was wrong to kill that person, that was immoral", and be right? You mean you are aren't right in saying that? You mean that killing of an innocent without reason isn't really 'wrong', it wasn't unjust, just because a few wackos think that it was a good thing to do? So you someone can kill a member of a family you for no good reason at all, yet they haven't actually done a bad thing, and I couldn't say "Hey, that was wrong", and be right? You mean what that person did wasn't wrong at all?Its very easy to take a concensus issue, murder, and present it as a case of moral absolutism. Yes, murder is a moral issue and a subjective one. Most probably, more than 95% of the human population believe murder to be immoral. That does not make the answer objective.
Your argument becomes more ridiculous with every paragraph you write.
You are again simplifiying. I never said that in all moral situations there was a definite right or wrong. In some cases either option could be morally equal, or one a 'little bit' more moral than the other. But it doesn't mean the morality of those options is subjective based on any person who takes 1 minute to voice his poorly thought out opinion on the matter.How about a more controversial issue? How about a teenage girl who slept with her boyfriend and got pregnant. He wants to marry her and keep the baby. His parents want her to marry and keep the baby. Her parents want her to marry and keep the baby. But she doesn't want to keep it because she says she's too young, she doesn't want to marry and doesn't want the responsibility. Is she morally "allowed" to abort the child? Do you seriously believe there is a right and wrong answers here??
I understand the implications of some moral issues, but not all. Others understand the ones I don't. Just because there is not a single person who understand everything does not mean its somehow subjective.who does understand the true implications? You?