|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 12 2025 03:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil. Not the person you asked but surely the difference is evident based on the meanings of the words used. They're different words with different meanings and so the difference between their meanings is the difference between their meanings.
I can't imagine that I found your posting attractive when you had good politics, that's one of my biggest regrets.
|
United States44386 Posts
On September 12 2025 03:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 03:37 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil. Not the person you asked but surely the difference is evident based on the meanings of the words used. They're different words with different meanings and so the difference between their meanings is the difference between their meanings. I can't imagine that I found your posting attractive when you had good politics, that's one of my biggest regrets.
Assume a person imagines Palestine to be good and the West to be even gooder. They would imagine the West as superior without Palestine being evil.
Superior is a relative judgement, it places A above B in a subjective ranking. Evil is a categorical judgement. It places B in a box, absent any need for A.
The difference between the two is that they're different words which describe different kinds of judgements. They're just different. They’re simply not synonyms. The difference between them is evident from the different meanings.
Is there perhaps another meaning to your question that I'm not understanding? It feels like you're asking someone to explain the difference between 2pm and "later". One is categorical, one is relative.
|
On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil.
This is an interesting question and is likely a good avenue to explain the differences in wording some people use. Consider how a child who is raped is more likely to commit sexual crimes or other crimes later in life. Many other situations can mold someone into being a worse person. People are deeply molded by their world and their lives.
I think the only way Palestinians could remain morally equivalent to "the west" would be if they were vastly genetically superior to "the west". To be able to overcome the various forms of trauma and other tragedy, without deteriorating as a society would be extraordinary. And it would be the only time in history it has ever happened. They are not recovered yet. They are still suffering. Its been 80 years. 80 freaking years. Multiple generations of the same general flavor of deep and tragic suffering, and they somehow end up mentally/psychologically equivalent to people living a life of relative wealth and peace? Its not possible. It would be like chopping someone's leg off and they are still just as fast of a runner as they were before. It just can't happen. You can't harm someone, or a group of people, to that extent without fundamentally changing them.
|
On September 12 2025 07:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 03:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:37 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil. Not the person you asked but surely the difference is evident based on the meanings of the words used. They're different words with different meanings and so the difference between their meanings is the difference between their meanings. I can't imagine that I found your posting attractive when you had good politics, that's one of my biggest regrets. Assume a person imagines Palestine to be good and the West to be even gooder. They would imagine the West as superior without Palestine being evil. Superior is a relative judgement, it places A above B in a subjective ranking. Evil is a categorical judgement. It places B in a box, absent any need for A. The difference between the two is that they're different words which describe different kinds of judgements. They're just different. They’re simply not synonyms. The difference between them is evident from the different meanings. Is there perhaps another meaning to your question that I'm not understanding? It feels like you're asking someone to explain the difference between 2pm and "later". One is categorical, one is relative.
As a person with (presumably) the capacity to assert the probability of different propositions, do you reckon that it's likely that someone who is talking about the level of morality of Palestinians, in the context of defending Israel's actions in Palestine, is trying to say that Palestinians are good people, but not as good as people in the West?
|
On September 12 2025 08:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil. This is an interesting question and is likely a good avenue to explain the differences in wording some people use. Consider how a child who is raped is more likely to commit sexual crimes or other crimes later in life. Many other situations can mold someone into being a worse person. People are deeply molded by their world and their lives. I think the only way Palestinians could remain morally equivalent to "the west" would be if they were vastly genetically superior to "the west". To be able to overcome the various forms of trauma and other tragedy, without deteriorating as a society would be extraordinary. And it would be the only time in history it has ever happened. They are not recovered yet. They are still suffering. Its been 80 years. 80 freaking years. Multiple generations of the same general flavor of deep and tragic suffering, and they somehow end up mentally/psychologically equivalent to people living a life of relative wealth and peace? Its not possible. It would be like chopping someone's leg off and they are still just as fast of a runner as they were before. It just can't happen. You can't harm someone, or a group of people, to that extent without fundamentally changing them.
I don't think that you can assign a morality to an ethnicity of people, I think that's a monumentally stupid thing to do that only people with an agenda would try and do, so that would be another avenue to talk about this if we were to have this extremely uninteresting conversation.
|
United States44386 Posts
On September 12 2025 08:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 07:29 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 03:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:37 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil. Not the person you asked but surely the difference is evident based on the meanings of the words used. They're different words with different meanings and so the difference between their meanings is the difference between their meanings. I can't imagine that I found your posting attractive when you had good politics, that's one of my biggest regrets. Assume a person imagines Palestine to be good and the West to be even gooder. They would imagine the West as superior without Palestine being evil. Superior is a relative judgement, it places A above B in a subjective ranking. Evil is a categorical judgement. It places B in a box, absent any need for A. The difference between the two is that they're different words which describe different kinds of judgements. They're just different. They’re simply not synonyms. The difference between them is evident from the different meanings. Is there perhaps another meaning to your question that I'm not understanding? It feels like you're asking someone to explain the difference between 2pm and "later". One is categorical, one is relative. As a person with (presumably) the capacity to assert the probability of different propositions, do you reckon that it's likely that someone who is talking about the level of morality of Palestinians, in the context of defending Israel's actions in Palestine, is trying to say that Palestinians are good people, but not as good as people in the West?
It depends on the individual and their outlook and level of misanthropy. I think most people think most people are fundamentally good, or at least capable of being good. It’s quite unusual to go full Gregory House hating people. Palestinians deserve an awful lot of grace given what has been done to them.
|
On September 12 2025 08:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 08:27 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 07:29 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 03:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:37 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil. Not the person you asked but surely the difference is evident based on the meanings of the words used. They're different words with different meanings and so the difference between their meanings is the difference between their meanings. I can't imagine that I found your posting attractive when you had good politics, that's one of my biggest regrets. Assume a person imagines Palestine to be good and the West to be even gooder. They would imagine the West as superior without Palestine being evil. Superior is a relative judgement, it places A above B in a subjective ranking. Evil is a categorical judgement. It places B in a box, absent any need for A. The difference between the two is that they're different words which describe different kinds of judgements. They're just different. They’re simply not synonyms. The difference between them is evident from the different meanings. Is there perhaps another meaning to your question that I'm not understanding? It feels like you're asking someone to explain the difference between 2pm and "later". One is categorical, one is relative. As a person with (presumably) the capacity to assert the probability of different propositions, do you reckon that it's likely that someone who is talking about the level of morality of Palestinians, in the context of defending Israel's actions in Palestine, is trying to say that Palestinians are good people, but not as good as people in the West? It depends on the individual and their outlook and level of misanthropy. I think most people think most people are fundamentally good, or at least capable of being good. It’s quite unusual to go full Gregory House hating people. Palestinians deserve an awful lot of grace given what has been done to them.
Allow me to add some context then, when our subject in this conversation was saying this, it was in the middle of discussing how Palestinians are a problem wherever they go (using the example of what they did in Jordan) and how, based on them being a problematic people, it might be justified that Israel has to deal with them. Does that sound like something you would say about a group that is good, but not as good as the West?
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
If Israel is ostensibly meant to have good old Western values, surely their failure to live by them is more contemptible?
How have an estimated 1100 people died at aid points since May?
|
On September 12 2025 08:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 08:08 Mohdoo wrote:On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil. This is an interesting question and is likely a good avenue to explain the differences in wording some people use. Consider how a child who is raped is more likely to commit sexual crimes or other crimes later in life. Many other situations can mold someone into being a worse person. People are deeply molded by their world and their lives. I think the only way Palestinians could remain morally equivalent to "the west" would be if they were vastly genetically superior to "the west". To be able to overcome the various forms of trauma and other tragedy, without deteriorating as a society would be extraordinary. And it would be the only time in history it has ever happened. They are not recovered yet. They are still suffering. Its been 80 years. 80 freaking years. Multiple generations of the same general flavor of deep and tragic suffering, and they somehow end up mentally/psychologically equivalent to people living a life of relative wealth and peace? Its not possible. It would be like chopping someone's leg off and they are still just as fast of a runner as they were before. It just can't happen. You can't harm someone, or a group of people, to that extent without fundamentally changing them. I don't think that you can assign a morality to an ethnicity of people, I think that's a monumentally stupid thing to do that only people with an agenda would try and do, so that would be another avenue to talk about this if we were to have this extremely uninteresting conversation.
This will sound like bad faith whataboutism, but hopefully you know I don't care about weird agenda arguments. But I genuinely don't know how to get to the root of my misunderstanding without this question below:
Can you clarify through what means we can assess the morality of Israel? Or the IDF? I am sure you will agree you have made moral judgments regarding Israel or some entity Israel-adjacent at some point. Can you clarify when we can or when we can't?
Do you understand the gist of what I was trying to do when I broadly assessed Palestinian culture's morality? If so, can you correct the nuance of my wording and respond to that instead? Or use the Israel/IDF example above to highlight the right mechanism for assessing morality
|
On September 12 2025 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 08:33 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 08:08 Mohdoo wrote:On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil. This is an interesting question and is likely a good avenue to explain the differences in wording some people use. Consider how a child who is raped is more likely to commit sexual crimes or other crimes later in life. Many other situations can mold someone into being a worse person. People are deeply molded by their world and their lives. I think the only way Palestinians could remain morally equivalent to "the west" would be if they were vastly genetically superior to "the west". To be able to overcome the various forms of trauma and other tragedy, without deteriorating as a society would be extraordinary. And it would be the only time in history it has ever happened. They are not recovered yet. They are still suffering. Its been 80 years. 80 freaking years. Multiple generations of the same general flavor of deep and tragic suffering, and they somehow end up mentally/psychologically equivalent to people living a life of relative wealth and peace? Its not possible. It would be like chopping someone's leg off and they are still just as fast of a runner as they were before. It just can't happen. You can't harm someone, or a group of people, to that extent without fundamentally changing them. I don't think that you can assign a morality to an ethnicity of people, I think that's a monumentally stupid thing to do that only people with an agenda would try and do, so that would be another avenue to talk about this if we were to have this extremely uninteresting conversation. Can you clarify through what means we can assess the morality of Israel? Or the IDF? I am sure you will agree you have made moral judgments regarding Israel or some entity Israel-adjacent at some point. Can you clarify when we can or when we can't?
Generally I do not think that morality is a useful way of analyzing situations. Everyone has different morals, and there is no objective way to demonstrate whose is superior. What we can do with morality is point out when someone asserts that they are following some type of moral principle, and in truth they aren't, as that has an objective answer (either they are lying about believing in this moral principle or there is something else going on).
In our specific context there, we have the claim that the government of Israel follows western humanist values, which they clearly don't; they're much closer to the colonial mindset of the last century, which was many things and none of them humanist, you can see similar mindsets in the last remnants of that time, for example in Caldoches talk about and treatment of Kanaks in New Caledonia. That's an avenue where we can bring morality into the conversation and say something interesting, but typically this is not what happens, typically people come in and assert that we have a shared view of morality, and then develop obviously incorrect facts to justify why they come to different conclusions despite us having a shared morality. And then we would have to parse through whether it happens a) because they were propagandized to, b) because they're very silly, c) because I'm wrong, or d) because they're lying about us having the same morals.
Addendum that I'm not trying to pretend that I don't use moral principles to form my conclusions, obviously I do, I have humanist moral principles. I also think that objective truth and the real world should matter in forming one's own conclusions, which I've come to find out is not a moral principle that is shared by the majority of people. But anyway, I try and not make those principles the center of my arguments cause they don't matter; I'm sure they come out sometimes regardless.
|
On September 12 2025 08:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 08:38 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 08:27 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 07:29 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 03:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:37 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 12 2025 03:05 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't. The post you quoted portrays my view. And I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't type it out.
On top - as a separate issue-, you misrepresented/paraphrased my view (which I hold and think is correct) as me saying that Palestinians are evil people with evil values (which I don't think). I don't hold that view, that you project onto me, hence I reject it. Explain the difference between saying the West is morally superior to Palestine and saying Palestinians are evil. Not the person you asked but surely the difference is evident based on the meanings of the words used. They're different words with different meanings and so the difference between their meanings is the difference between their meanings. I can't imagine that I found your posting attractive when you had good politics, that's one of my biggest regrets. Assume a person imagines Palestine to be good and the West to be even gooder. They would imagine the West as superior without Palestine being evil. Superior is a relative judgement, it places A above B in a subjective ranking. Evil is a categorical judgement. It places B in a box, absent any need for A. The difference between the two is that they're different words which describe different kinds of judgements. They're just different. They’re simply not synonyms. The difference between them is evident from the different meanings. Is there perhaps another meaning to your question that I'm not understanding? It feels like you're asking someone to explain the difference between 2pm and "later". One is categorical, one is relative. As a person with (presumably) the capacity to assert the probability of different propositions, do you reckon that it's likely that someone who is talking about the level of morality of Palestinians, in the context of defending Israel's actions in Palestine, is trying to say that Palestinians are good people, but not as good as people in the West? It depends on the individual and their outlook and level of misanthropy. I think most people think most people are fundamentally good, or at least capable of being good. It’s quite unusual to go full Gregory House hating people. Palestinians deserve an awful lot of grace given what has been done to them. Allow me to add some context then, when our subject in this conversation was saying this, it was in the middle of discussing how Palestinians are a problem wherever they go (using the example of what they did in Jordan) and how, based on them being a problematic people, it might be justified that Israel has to deal with them. Does that sound like something you would say about a group that is good, but not as good as the West?
KwarK explained it perfectly.
You of course add even more mischaracterizigin context. I pointed out Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt as examples as to why other countries have security concerns regarding Palestinian refugees.
You also forgot to mention that I repeated ad nauseam that I don't think Palestinians are evil and you are mischaracterizing my words.
Dude, I even wrote page long replies to just explain that and all the logical fallacies involved which you used to keep up these accusation, despite me telling you over and over that I don't think Palestinians are evil.
I further replied that Israel somehow has to deal with a neighbor that is constantly throwing bombs at them and is having a organization in charge which has it written in its charter that it literally wants to eradicate Israel. So yeah, if you don't want to get annihilated, you somehow have to deal with that neighbor, be it through an Iron Dome or counterattacking after a self proclaimed genocidal massacre. You have to think about and deal with this situation, there is no way around it.
Here are outtakes of my responses.
+ Show Spoiler +
"Why would I hate someone based on their religion? That's quite the accusation you throw out there..."
"What kind of insane straw man is that? Where did I ever say I think that it is good to kill Palestinians? Are you for real?"
"I didn't convince you? That I never implied or stated that it is good to kill Palestinians? Although I said so several times? Although I pointed out on multiple occassions that Israel should be held responsible and accountable?"
"It is pretty telling that in your very first reply to me in this thread, you already came in with a pre-conclusion about my motives when you accused me of Islamophobia. And even back then, although I directly stated that religion doesn't have anything to do with it, you kept pushing me into this corner although I not once made any statement towards Islam or Muslims in general."
"You accuse me of thinking that it is good to kill Palestinians without any proof or evidence and this is not ok. Accusing others of racism or Islamophobia without concrete evidence or even knowing another person speaks volumes about your point of view and the ability to differentiate."
To my question:
"I am literally asking it, because I don't understand. Does my position of having a slightly Israeli favored stance seem so unreasonable to you that it can only be explained by Islamophobia?"
You simply replied with "Yes".
Interestingly enough, this was the very first thing you wrote to me: "I don't believe you."
I mean... you made it clear a number of times, that you don't want to accept other explanations besides Islamophobia. So why the shift? Why do we need to explain to you like one would to a pre-schooler, the difference between relative and categorical statements over and over?
I say it one more time: Palestinians are not evil. I think their culture incorporates more inhuman/unmoral principles which were prevalent in Western culture as well in the past. They can grow out of them as they are - like any culture - not inherently evil, and the numbers regarding these issues point in the right direction. BUT: They still far worse than the West if we analyze both cultures in a relative grading.
As you said that you have humanist/moral principles: Do you think homophobia is humanist/moral? Or that same-sex relations carry severe punishments? Or that often the word of a woman counts less? That there is legal inequality in terms of marriage, divorce and inheritance?
|
I'd like to interject, there's one bit in particular that I disagree with, and for an important reason.
"I say it one more time: Palestinians are not evil. I think their culture incorporates more inhuman/unmoral principles which were prevalent in Western culture as well in the past."
In my view "Western culture" is still inhumane and immoral. We've only learned to cope with it because we've partly progressed towards (both real and perceived) civility. The perceived part is the one that I want to highlight: Western countries have actually truly progressed, but at the same time they've also fooled themselves into thinking they've progressed much further than they truly have. To this day we use barbaric practices and harbor backwards morals. But we don't like to look at our own stink. It's much easier to point it out when it happens in so-called "backwards" countries.
"Uncivilized" for example is a strange word. It's a word that I occasionally use, but also heavily dislike at times. Civility has a specific purpose, and sometimes it loses that purpose. Behaving in a civilized manner can lead to good outcomes depending on context, but in other context it's completely inappropriate to remain civil. When people's rights are being trampled on and civility has failed to change anything about it, then civility has to break down. It can't survive, and it should not survive.
Gaza is such a region in question. I've said it before: Palestinians have tried every avenue, and every avenue has failed. Hamas exists for that reason. Hamas wasn't a thing until the point when Palestinians had rightfully given up on civility. That is not an excuse for the murders Hamas has committed.
Furthermore, even after the existence of Hamas, efforts were made (Oslo Accords) to move the conflict towards a peaceful resolution. These were really good, really solid efforts. I don't know what Hamas thought of it, but they were definitely not the ones who broke off and decided to restart the hostilities. That was Netanyahu. And thus civility broke down yet again. And that means it's not possible to blame Palestinians alone for what Hamas did in the aftermath. I always say: give people not a single out and they will act accordingly. Don't be surprised if you get punched in the face really really hard if you corner the wrong person.
Mohdoo is right. If you put people into that situation, you can't have the same expectation for them as you would for a liberated people. Insofar I think the argument that the Gaza region has worse morals is quite dubious.
|
I don't want to respond without hearing your full take. Can you elaborate on "In my view "Western culture" is still inhumane and immoral" and "To this day we use barbaric practices and harbor backwards morals."?
To add to my previous comment: I meant that many things that are prevalent in modern-Palestine are not anymore prevalent in the West. I don't think the West is perfect now and that it reached perfect humanist conditions. "More in Palestine than in the West", not "the West is free of them entirely".
|
On September 12 2025 16:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't want to respond without hearing your full take. Can you elaborate on "In my view "Western culture" is still inhumane and immoral" and "To this day we use barbaric practices and harbor backwards morals."?
To add to my previous comment: I meant that many things that are prevalent in modern-Palestine are not anymore prevalent in the West. I don't think the West is perfect now and that it reached perfect humanist conditions. "More in Palestine than in the West", not "the West is free of them entirely".
- Women are now no longer universally allowed to abort. In plenty of states they're forced to carry even after rape or incest.
- Cages in schools where (generally black) kids are being held for misbehaving.
- Prisons practically designed to cause devastating mental harm to inmates.
- American boys are being circumcised as a standard practice. This is evidently barbaric and serves no purpose (it really doesn't, the medical research is quite clear on there being no general upside to it).
etc.
Like, I actually mean the "etc." I could write a very long list of things. But I've already spent an hour reading/writing this morning and I'm done.
From mild to severe barbarism, the US is still incredibly backwards. The EU - prior to the US's new abortion ruling - used to be more backwards than America regarding abortion. Now we're less backwards, but still backwards. I'm sure I can find plenty of examples of barbaric practices in the EU as well. It's just not been in the spotlight so much in recent years so I have more insight into the US at the moment.
|
On September 12 2025 16:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 16:31 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't want to respond without hearing your full take. Can you elaborate on "In my view "Western culture" is still inhumane and immoral" and "To this day we use barbaric practices and harbor backwards morals."?
To add to my previous comment: I meant that many things that are prevalent in modern-Palestine are not anymore prevalent in the West. I don't think the West is perfect now and that it reached perfect humanist conditions. "More in Palestine than in the West", not "the West is free of them entirely". - Women are now no longer universally allowed to abort. In plenty of states they're forced to carry even after rape or incest. - Cages in schools where (generally black) kids are being held for misbehaving. - Prisons practically designed to cause devastating mental harm to inmates. - American boys are being circumcised as a standard practice. This is evidently barbaric and serves no purpose (it really doesn't, the medical research is quite clear on there being no general upside to it). etc. Like, I actually mean the "etc." I could write a very long list of things. But I've already spent an hour reading/writing this morning and I'm done. From mild to severe barbarism, the US is still incredibly backwards. The EU - prior to the US's new abortion ruling - used to be more backwards than America regarding abortion. Now we're less backwards, but still backwards. I'm sure I can find plenty of examples of barbaric practices in the EU as well. It's just not been in the spotlight so much in recent years so I have more insight into the US at the moment.
Overall I agree with most of your examples.
But I'd add some nuance to your post or my take on it in regards to Palestine.
My point was that the things I consider inhumane or not moral are prevalent as a standard in a given culture, meaning it is a rule or practice that is applied at least in 80-90% of the cases.
Now comparing that with the West as a congregate:
- Abortion is commonly allowed, except for ultra-catholic counties like Poland - if it is included in the West - and some states of the USA. I agree that this regression is indefensible though and catastrophically wrong.
- I am not aware that - except for some singular instances-, cages are a common practice in Western society to deal with misbehaving children.
- Agree on prisons, although a growing number of countries put more and more emphasis on rehabilitation, rather than lock them away and forget about them
- Yup, already said that the bris is bad... "medical" circumcisions carry the same flavor for me. I wouldn't say standard practice though... but that depends on the definition of standard and at which percentage one calls something a standard. Maybe in the US, but definitely not in the West overall, although I don't know the exact numbers and am too lazy to google.
I think one will always find bad examples in every society. My take was more broadly looking at the general culture of Palestine versus the West. But yeah.. mostly in agreement with these examples... they are inhumane and should be addressed.
|
On September 12 2025 15:14 PremoBeats wrote:
I say it one more time: Palestinians are not evil. I think their culture incorporates more inhuman/unmoral principles which were prevalent in Western culture as well in the past. They can grow out of them as they are - like any culture - not inherently evil, and the numbers regarding these issues point in the right direction. BUT: They still far worse than the West if we analyze both cultures in a relative grading.
This is a paragraph that opens with the statement that Palestinians are not evil and then continues with the description of why they are evil. That isn't insightful commentary. If you operate in any kind of framework in which people can be evil, they are evil because they hold inhuman/unmoral principles, that's what being evil means.
You know that, I know that, KwarK knows that. You're not talking about radical islam because you think homophobia and terrorism are "good but not as good as the West", you're talking about it because you're trying to make people empathize with Palestinians less due to them being evil. It's silly. It won't work on anyone who hasn't already reached your conclusions.
|
On September 12 2025 23:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 15:14 PremoBeats wrote:
I say it one more time: Palestinians are not evil. I think their culture incorporates more inhuman/unmoral principles which were prevalent in Western culture as well in the past. They can grow out of them as they are - like any culture - not inherently evil, and the numbers regarding these issues point in the right direction. BUT: They still far worse than the West if we analyze both cultures in a relative grading. This is a paragraph that opens with the statement that Palestinians are not evil and then continues with the description of why they are evil. That isn't insightful commentary. If you operate in any kind of framework in which people can be evil, they are evil because they hold inhuman/unmoral principles, that's what being evil means. You know that, I know that, KwarK knows that. You're not talking about radical islam because you think homophobia and terrorism are "good but not as good as the West", you're talking about it because you're trying to make people empathize with Palestinians less due to them being evil. It's silly. It won't work on anyone who hasn't already reached your conclusions.
If I'd say that Palestinians only hold inhumane/moral views, I'd even agree with you. But all I ever said was that their culture has MORE inhumane/immoral principles THAN the West (relative). That is why OVERALL, Palestinians and their culture are not evil (absolute).
Thus, I am still confused... You made it clear a number of times, that you don't want to accept other explanations besides Islamophobia. So why the shift? Why do we need to explain to you like one would to a pre-schooler, the difference between relative and absolute/categorical statements over and over? Don't you understand that difference or don't you want to understand it?
Or perhaps we can solve this by understanding more about your values.
And as you said that you have humanist/moral principles: Do you think homophobia is humanist/moral? Or legal inequality in terms of marriage, divorce and inheritance?
|
Do you think that there's someone out there who "only holds inhumane/moral views"? Silly.
On September 13 2025 01:46 PremoBeats wrote:
And as you said that you have humanist/moral principles: Do you think homophobia is humanist/moral? Or legal inequality in terms of marriage, divorce and inheritance?
No homophobia and legal inequality are obviously evil in my framework.
|
On September 13 2025 01:52 Nebuchad wrote:Do you think that there's someone out there who "only holds inhumane/moral views"? Silly. Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 01:46 PremoBeats wrote:
And as you said that you have humanist/moral principles: Do you think homophobia is humanist/moral? Or legal inequality in terms of marriage, divorce and inheritance?
No homophobia and legal inequality are obviously evil in my framework.
So would it make a culture that has homophobia and legal inequality incorporated, more evil or less evil overall than the same culture not having these tenets (you used the word "evil", hence I am going with it... I would have said less humane/moral)?
|
On September 13 2025 01:59 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 01:52 Nebuchad wrote:Do you think that there's someone out there who "only holds inhumane/moral views"? Silly. On September 13 2025 01:46 PremoBeats wrote:
And as you said that you have humanist/moral principles: Do you think homophobia is humanist/moral? Or legal inequality in terms of marriage, divorce and inheritance?
No homophobia and legal inequality are obviously evil in my framework. So would it make a culture that has homophobia and legal inequality incorporated, more evil or less evil overall than the same culture not having these tenets (you used the word "evil", hence I am going with it... I would have said less humane/moral)?
It would make it more evil, yeah. You would be talking about an evil culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
