|
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 22 2025 01:19 Byo wrote:
So, if Palestine isn't a state, does it mean the conflict was internal and the options available were limited? If so what are the options that are available now that wasn't available before? I'm sure there is big significant differences, but I'm honestly not seeing it.
Anyone actually going to have some boots on the ground there or is it just gonna be more yelling "please stop". Even with the maximum sanctions, Israel could probably just sit there and continue the starvation tbh.
Purely symbolic political gesture.
|
On September 22 2025 01:19 Byo wrote:
So, if Palestine isn't a state, does it mean the conflict was internal and the options available were limited? If so what are the options that are available now that wasn't available before? I'm sure there is big significant differences, but I'm honestly not seeing it.
Anyone actually going to have some boots on the ground there or is it just gonna be more yelling "please stop". Even with the maximum sanctions, Israel could probably just sit there and continue the starvation tbh.
Presumably it at least makes "Palestine has a right to defend itself" something that should enter the vernacular of the related countries.
|
United States42989 Posts
On September 22 2025 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 01:19 Byo wrote:
So, if Palestine isn't a state, does it mean the conflict was internal and the options available were limited? If so what are the options that are available now that wasn't available before? I'm sure there is big significant differences, but I'm honestly not seeing it.
Anyone actually going to have some boots on the ground there or is it just gonna be more yelling "please stop". Even with the maximum sanctions, Israel could probably just sit there and continue the starvation tbh. Presumably it at least makes "Palestine has a right to defend itself" something that should enter the vernacular of the related countries.
But not an ability to defend itself. The right to shoot down Israeli jets violating Palestinian airspace doesn’t do much. Nobody ever doubted the right to self defence.
In practice this recognition amounts to acknowledging their status to negotiate their own surrender. To formalize this as a war between two states so that one of the two states may officially throw in the towel. There are protections that a defeated state is entitled to under international law that don’t apply until the government of that state surrenders.
|
On September 20 2025 02:25 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2025 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2025 14:32 PremoBeats wrote:On September 13 2025 04:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2025 04:37 PremoBeats wrote:
Of course you don't care if I answer your questions or are interested in answering mine. It is clear that you are not here to actually engage but are simply trying to set traps and "show my true colors". Yeah, I know. I'm glad it worked. Funny how you think you achieved something, while in reality you publicly deconstructed your own argument perfectly. As KwarK and I explained, absolute/categorical judgements and relative judgements are different things with different meanings - a distinction you still don’t seem to grasp. If you want to come back to the conversation, answer why you think that having good food and being hospitable, when you also want to oppress women and kill infidels and minorities, makes you morally "good but not as good as the West", as opposed to, you know, "evil". No, I don't want to come back to this conversation, as I explained everything I had to say to you in the post you circumcised once again. As others understand my POV, I am content with that post and if you are still not able to grasp what I am saying, there is nothing I can do. Plus, as you already admitted to only accepting Islamophobia as my motive and are only discussing with me to set traps as you wrote before, I don't see much sense in talking to you. Show nested quote +On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:On September 13 2025 18:48 PremoBeats wrote:
Looking at the circumstances can add a layer. But I wouldn't want some kind of moral relativism (not that you are arguing for it) to stand in my way to stop the Aztec shaman from performing a human sacrifice, from helping little girls that are about to get their clitorises cut off or a battle against homophobia/legal inequality (or even the things you mentioned about the West). I don't want context to become a shield against criticism.
At that moment I don't care if the rationalization is a voice someone heard in their head, a century old traditional, cultural practice or a principle a human supposedly got from god a couple of hundred years ago.
These circumstances also wouldn't change the actual result. But it would give us more room for understanding and how to deal with the situation.
Because if we'd do an IQ test with the billionaire and the McDonald's worker, the context explains the disparity but the present result would be a reality; the same is true for a culture that has more inhuman or immoral traits incorporated than another at this point in time.
Thus, context should be not about excuses but about understanding why practices exist and deciding the best course of action to stop them. Simple condemnation wouldn't work most probably.
If that is what you are proposing I can agree wholeheartedly. I'm arguing the inverse. I'm not trying to justify Palestinian terrorism such as that of Hamas. I am trying to show that the alleged "superior morality" is more of a myth, because I think it's a consequence of the circumstances (or the lack of certain circumstances). The immoral fraction of a population is revealed under certain pressures. Sometimes the pressure is real and tangible, other times it's propaganda that causes radicalism. Sometimes both. When we don't observe the immorality of a population, that's what I consider the true oddity. Many people are immoral, and the chance of a person developing immoral values is equal given that the circumstances are also equal. So why don't we see equal immorality in every population? It is an oddity, not a normality. It could be that people are well fed when growing up in a wealthier region and thus have less reason to act out. It could be that they're less exposed to lies and misinformation of a propaganda campaign. Or sometimes we don't notice their immorality because we're blind to it (e.g. it remains unreported or we close our eyes to it), but the people exist nonetheless. I believe in something akin to the tabula rasa. The realization that a population doesn't show the same immorality as some other populations makes me understand that immorality is created, not born. I get what you’re saying, though I’m still not sure about calling the outcome a “myth” even if it’s shaped by circumstances. The same as in your IQ example, the manager’s higher score may be due to upbringing or environment, but the difference is still a real outcome we have to deal with. I feel the same with morality - even if context explains it, the results aren’t just an illusion. On non-immorality being an “oddity,” I tend to be a bit more optimistic. We see plenty of cooperation and kindness in everyday life, so I’d consider that the norm rather than the exception. That said, I really agree with you that context is crucial for understanding why practices exist and how to change them. Since you’re not using it as an excuse, I don’t see a conflict. I’d just be curious how you see the role of individual responsibility if immorality is mainly circumstance-driven. Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 17:21 Jankisa wrote:
You can, as you often do, insult people who disagree with you
Although not directed at me, this is pretty rich coming from someone who equated me to a holocaust denier a couple of pages ago, don't you think? Show nested quote +Jankisa wrote:
There was a 3 phase ceasefire in which phase 3 was the end of war and release of all hostages.
Israel signed it, 2 phases were done, people were being fed and not bombed until Israel unilaterally broke that. So, you are, once again, lying to play defense for Israel.
There was no consensus or completed agreement to move into phase 2. Hamas and Israel rejected proposals each side viewed as deviations and phase 1 expired without phase 2 being actually agreed upon. I think it would be more accurate to say that Israel made decisions after phasr 1 ended when Hamas did not agree to some terms or where Israel saw no agreed phase 2 under its conditions. Both side accuse the other of violations, but the agreement was conditional from the start and was not put on paper completely until phase 3. It was a process in stages, but each step was build on the other. Phase 2 should include a permanent ceasefire... as that was never agreed upon, I don't understand how phase 2 should have ended successfully. And to simply give you a glimpse of the "fairness" of this agreement: 33 Israeli hostages (25 alive, 8 dead) were released in return for 2k - in part life long - prisoners. Mind you, the faction who got a much better deal is the massively losing side in this war, that they started.
As usual, you are allowed to lie and obfuscate, facts, however, show that Israel broke the ceasefire as the phases were continuing.
On March 1st, Nethyanahu unilaterally declared that they will accept Witkoff's plan which was not negotiated, but decided between US and Israel, even tho Phase 2 called for continuation of negotiations. Then:
Following Hamas's refusal to accept the US ceasefire extension proposal, Israel ceased the entry of aid to Gaza the next day, 2 March. The humanitarian aid blockade was condemned by mediators Egypt and Qatar, as well as the United Nations, as a violation of the ceasefire, which stipulated that phase one would automatically be extended as long as phase two negotiations were in progress. On 9 March, Israeli energy minister Eli Cohen ordered to halt supply of Israeli electricity to Gaza. On 14 March, Hamas said that it agreed to a proposal from mediators to release Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander and the bodies of four dual national hostages. Israel and the United States rejected the offer.
On 18 March 2025, Israel launched surprise airstrikes on Gaza, breaking the ceasefire with Hamas.
Your "fairness" comments are completely meaningless, Israel agreed to them, US helped negotiate them.
The facts are that the deal was negotiated, it would have, if Israel didn't refuse to go along with it and broke the ceasefire explicitly have ended the war, the plan also stated "that Hamas would agree not to rebuild its military arsenal."
This is the preferred outcome for anyone who wants the suffering to end. This doesn't include the Israeli regime and obviously doesn't include you.
Also, if you feel insulted by being compared to a holocaust denier, perhaps you should try to stop denying a genocide.
|
On September 21 2025 22:37 Magic Powers wrote:Fantastic news! Show nested quote +On September 21 2025 20:28 PremoBeats wrote:On September 21 2025 17:19 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2025 14:30 PremoBeats wrote:On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:
Individual responsibility, well. Of course, it's very important. But when collective experience is ignored, then individual responsibility is an unusual concept, sometimes to the point of absurdity. For example we can wag fingers at homeless people all we want, it changes nothing about the fact that they exist for reasons we can't comprehend. They have a collective experience that isn't the same as ours.
So I ask myself: what if I was part of the homeless collective? Should I face the same repercussions for my actions as if I was a rich person? Some people would say: yes, much bigger repercussions. Others would say: no, there are mitigating factors that may not apply to rich people. Say a rich person and a homeless person break into a bank. Who should face the harsher sentence? Should it be equal? Who requires rehabilitation? Both, perhaps? Things can get fairly unusual when we view responsibility and justice from such an angle.
Justice is not blind. I think the justice system is quite clear here. That is why repeated offenders tend to get harsher sentences than first-timers and mitigating circumstances (like not having something to eat or being psychologically impaired) exist. Even the way of rehabilitation is based on these individual qualities if you compare psychological facilities with prisons. In theory, both the homeless person and the rich guy should face the same legal consequences, but their circumstances may lead to different mitigating/aggravating factors, so the law allows for that without resorting to collective categories. An issue of course is that in practice socio-economic status does influence sentencing through various factors and as everything, the law is thus not perfect. And I guess most of these mitigating or aggravating factors are individually assessed, as collective responsibility/guilt/punishment is a pretty huge marker for a shit ton of bad decisions historically. How would you treat cultural upbringing in light of the law from your POV about collective experience? If a society has failed a group of people, then I think that group is less deserving of a sentence (or the severity of a sentence) for a crime. Should someone in a developed country with a regular income doing package theft face a harsher sentence or a milder one than an aid stealing Gazan? PS: I don't believe in punishment to begin with. I believe in defense, protection and rehabilitation. Prison should be for protection and lead to rehabilitation. There should never be any punishment. I see your point about societal failure but aren't you changing the dimension? Cultural influence versus collective responsibility? I also don't understand the need for collective application as both cases can be treated on an individual basis. "Why did they steal and are there individual mitigating or aggravating circumstances?" Individual circumstances have been tried and largely failed. The justice system isn't equipped for that. Court cases drag on and on, get super costly, and then real justice is rare. Punishment is the norm, rehabilitation the exception, things only get worse for criminals. This is not a good system. If we want to make progress, we have to view people as part of a group that has distinct challenges from other groups. Individual justice such as that in courts has to incorporate various social justices, or else it'll continue to stagnate and nothing will improve from this point forward. Basically I think criminals from various backgrounds should be viewed as its own group facing distinct challenges within each distinct background. It's time that we move our whole approach to criminality from punishment to rehabilitation.
I see what you’re getting at, but I’m not convinced how your approach would actually make things easier in practice.
Cause if we start segmenting people into groups, we immediately run into the problem of misclassification. People rarely fit neatly into one background and with intersectional factors (class, culture, trauma, health, etc.), the number of possible “groups” is almost endless. Doesn’t that make things even more complicated than an individual assessment?
And even if you could put people into the “right” groups, you’d still need psychologists or social workers to look at each case to see whether the classification makes sense. At that point, aren’t we back at individualized analysis anyway?
That’s why I struggle to see the added value of group-based justice over the current model. To me it seems you just shift the same difficulties around without actually solving them.
Also, you didn’t really touch on the original question of cultural upbringing. If a person comes from a cultural environment that discourages responsibility or encourages harmful, immoral or inhumane behavior, should that count as a mitigating factor, or not?
On September 22 2025 00:15 WombaT wrote:
From me own perspective as a Brit, the mere fact Starmer’s Labour are willing to do something that pisses off Israel, and the Israel-supporting cohort in the UK is almost a positive thing in and of itself. Although, as Jock points out, there’s almost a sense of trying to have it both ways on this topic rather than having a firm, principled stance.
Isn't it about nuance? You can believe in animal welfare but still condemn people who burn down slaughterhouses or attack researchers. Or someone being for urgent action in regards to climate change but opposing people who vandalize art. You as a government can be against the methods (breaking into arms factories, vandalism, targeting executive's homes, arson and sabotages), but not against the goal itself (helping the Palestinian population)
On September 22 2025 02:20 KwarK wrote:
In practice this recognition amounts to acknowledging their status to negotiate their own surrender. To formalize this as a war between two states so that one of the two states may officially throw in the towel. There are protections that a defeated state is entitled to under international law that don’t apply until the government of that state surrenders.
But here the issue also is about the surrendering party. Starmer made it clear that this announcement is not including Hamas who are at war. The PA can't really surrender on behalf of the Hamas, as Hamas won't give two shits about the PA's opinion anyhow.
On September 22 2025 23:06 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2025 02:25 PremoBeats wrote:On September 14 2025 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2025 14:32 PremoBeats wrote:On September 13 2025 04:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2025 04:37 PremoBeats wrote:
Of course you don't care if I answer your questions or are interested in answering mine. It is clear that you are not here to actually engage but are simply trying to set traps and "show my true colors". Yeah, I know. I'm glad it worked. Funny how you think you achieved something, while in reality you publicly deconstructed your own argument perfectly. As KwarK and I explained, absolute/categorical judgements and relative judgements are different things with different meanings - a distinction you still don’t seem to grasp. If you want to come back to the conversation, answer why you think that having good food and being hospitable, when you also want to oppress women and kill infidels and minorities, makes you morally "good but not as good as the West", as opposed to, you know, "evil". No, I don't want to come back to this conversation, as I explained everything I had to say to you in the post you circumcised once again. As others understand my POV, I am content with that post and if you are still not able to grasp what I am saying, there is nothing I can do. Plus, as you already admitted to only accepting Islamophobia as my motive and are only discussing with me to set traps as you wrote before, I don't see much sense in talking to you. On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:On September 13 2025 18:48 PremoBeats wrote:
Looking at the circumstances can add a layer. But I wouldn't want some kind of moral relativism (not that you are arguing for it) to stand in my way to stop the Aztec shaman from performing a human sacrifice, from helping little girls that are about to get their clitorises cut off or a battle against homophobia/legal inequality (or even the things you mentioned about the West). I don't want context to become a shield against criticism.
At that moment I don't care if the rationalization is a voice someone heard in their head, a century old traditional, cultural practice or a principle a human supposedly got from god a couple of hundred years ago.
These circumstances also wouldn't change the actual result. But it would give us more room for understanding and how to deal with the situation.
Because if we'd do an IQ test with the billionaire and the McDonald's worker, the context explains the disparity but the present result would be a reality; the same is true for a culture that has more inhuman or immoral traits incorporated than another at this point in time.
Thus, context should be not about excuses but about understanding why practices exist and deciding the best course of action to stop them. Simple condemnation wouldn't work most probably.
If that is what you are proposing I can agree wholeheartedly. I'm arguing the inverse. I'm not trying to justify Palestinian terrorism such as that of Hamas. I am trying to show that the alleged "superior morality" is more of a myth, because I think it's a consequence of the circumstances (or the lack of certain circumstances). The immoral fraction of a population is revealed under certain pressures. Sometimes the pressure is real and tangible, other times it's propaganda that causes radicalism. Sometimes both. When we don't observe the immorality of a population, that's what I consider the true oddity. Many people are immoral, and the chance of a person developing immoral values is equal given that the circumstances are also equal. So why don't we see equal immorality in every population? It is an oddity, not a normality. It could be that people are well fed when growing up in a wealthier region and thus have less reason to act out. It could be that they're less exposed to lies and misinformation of a propaganda campaign. Or sometimes we don't notice their immorality because we're blind to it (e.g. it remains unreported or we close our eyes to it), but the people exist nonetheless. I believe in something akin to the tabula rasa. The realization that a population doesn't show the same immorality as some other populations makes me understand that immorality is created, not born. I get what you’re saying, though I’m still not sure about calling the outcome a “myth” even if it’s shaped by circumstances. The same as in your IQ example, the manager’s higher score may be due to upbringing or environment, but the difference is still a real outcome we have to deal with. I feel the same with morality - even if context explains it, the results aren’t just an illusion. On non-immorality being an “oddity,” I tend to be a bit more optimistic. We see plenty of cooperation and kindness in everyday life, so I’d consider that the norm rather than the exception. That said, I really agree with you that context is crucial for understanding why practices exist and how to change them. Since you’re not using it as an excuse, I don’t see a conflict. I’d just be curious how you see the role of individual responsibility if immorality is mainly circumstance-driven. On September 17 2025 17:21 Jankisa wrote:
You can, as you often do, insult people who disagree with you
Although not directed at me, this is pretty rich coming from someone who equated me to a holocaust denier a couple of pages ago, don't you think? Jankisa wrote:
There was a 3 phase ceasefire in which phase 3 was the end of war and release of all hostages.
Israel signed it, 2 phases were done, people were being fed and not bombed until Israel unilaterally broke that. So, you are, once again, lying to play defense for Israel.
There was no consensus or completed agreement to move into phase 2. Hamas and Israel rejected proposals each side viewed as deviations and phase 1 expired without phase 2 being actually agreed upon. I think it would be more accurate to say that Israel made decisions after phasr 1 ended when Hamas did not agree to some terms or where Israel saw no agreed phase 2 under its conditions. Both side accuse the other of violations, but the agreement was conditional from the start and was not put on paper completely until phase 3. It was a process in stages, but each step was build on the other. Phase 2 should include a permanent ceasefire... as that was never agreed upon, I don't understand how phase 2 should have ended successfully. And to simply give you a glimpse of the "fairness" of this agreement: 33 Israeli hostages (25 alive, 8 dead) were released in return for 2k - in part life long - prisoners. Mind you, the faction who got a much better deal is the massively losing side in this war, that they started. As usual, you are allowed to lie and obfuscate, facts, however, show that Israel broke the ceasefire as the phases were continuing. On March 1st, Nethyanahu unilaterally declared that they will accept Witkoff's plan which was not negotiated, but decided between US and Israel, even tho Phase 2 called for continuation of negotiations. Then: Show nested quote +Following Hamas's refusal to accept the US ceasefire extension proposal, Israel ceased the entry of aid to Gaza the next day, 2 March. The humanitarian aid blockade was condemned by mediators Egypt and Qatar, as well as the United Nations, as a violation of the ceasefire, which stipulated that phase one would automatically be extended as long as phase two negotiations were in progress. On 9 March, Israeli energy minister Eli Cohen ordered to halt supply of Israeli electricity to Gaza. On 14 March, Hamas said that it agreed to a proposal from mediators to release Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander and the bodies of four dual national hostages. Israel and the United States rejected the offer.
On 18 March 2025, Israel launched surprise airstrikes on Gaza, breaking the ceasefire with Hamas. Your "fairness" comments are completely meaningless, Israel agreed to them, US helped negotiate them. The facts are that the deal was negotiated, it would have, if Israel didn't refuse to go along with it and broke the ceasefire explicitly have ended the war, the plan also stated "that Hamas would agree not to rebuild its military arsenal."This is the preferred outcome for anyone who wants the suffering to end. This doesn't include the Israeli regime and obviously doesn't include you. Also, if you feel insulted by being compared to a holocaust denier, perhaps you should try to stop denying a genocide.
None of these technicalities change the fact of the horrific humanitarian situation, but phase 2 never came into full effect as per the original plan and was never successfully agreed upon or implemented in a binding manner. Breaking the agreement does not necessarily have to involve bombing. Both sides accused each other of breaking the agreement.
But as you said before that "2 phases were done": Please explain how, if phase 2 should include the release of all remaining living hostages?
My take: Phase 1 ended on March 2nd, negotiations for phase 2 never produced a binding agreement. That is why it is undeniable that phase 2 never "finished" (among the fact that there are still living hostages with Hamas).
And if you want to keep conflating that denying the legal application of the genocide label when the civilian-to-soldier casualty rates are comparable to similar conflicts is the same as denying the actual Holocaust, be my guest. I am not insulted by that as I know that this comparison is a false equivalence. I simply pointed out that it is quite ironic how you lament about another user being insulting when you throw out such accusations, without discussing the context.
|
On September 23 2025 03:31 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2025 22:37 Magic Powers wrote:Fantastic news! On September 21 2025 20:28 PremoBeats wrote:On September 21 2025 17:19 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2025 14:30 PremoBeats wrote:On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:
Individual responsibility, well. Of course, it's very important. But when collective experience is ignored, then individual responsibility is an unusual concept, sometimes to the point of absurdity. For example we can wag fingers at homeless people all we want, it changes nothing about the fact that they exist for reasons we can't comprehend. They have a collective experience that isn't the same as ours.
So I ask myself: what if I was part of the homeless collective? Should I face the same repercussions for my actions as if I was a rich person? Some people would say: yes, much bigger repercussions. Others would say: no, there are mitigating factors that may not apply to rich people. Say a rich person and a homeless person break into a bank. Who should face the harsher sentence? Should it be equal? Who requires rehabilitation? Both, perhaps? Things can get fairly unusual when we view responsibility and justice from such an angle.
Justice is not blind. I think the justice system is quite clear here. That is why repeated offenders tend to get harsher sentences than first-timers and mitigating circumstances (like not having something to eat or being psychologically impaired) exist. Even the way of rehabilitation is based on these individual qualities if you compare psychological facilities with prisons. In theory, both the homeless person and the rich guy should face the same legal consequences, but their circumstances may lead to different mitigating/aggravating factors, so the law allows for that without resorting to collective categories. An issue of course is that in practice socio-economic status does influence sentencing through various factors and as everything, the law is thus not perfect. And I guess most of these mitigating or aggravating factors are individually assessed, as collective responsibility/guilt/punishment is a pretty huge marker for a shit ton of bad decisions historically. How would you treat cultural upbringing in light of the law from your POV about collective experience? If a society has failed a group of people, then I think that group is less deserving of a sentence (or the severity of a sentence) for a crime. Should someone in a developed country with a regular income doing package theft face a harsher sentence or a milder one than an aid stealing Gazan? PS: I don't believe in punishment to begin with. I believe in defense, protection and rehabilitation. Prison should be for protection and lead to rehabilitation. There should never be any punishment. I see your point about societal failure but aren't you changing the dimension? Cultural influence versus collective responsibility? I also don't understand the need for collective application as both cases can be treated on an individual basis. "Why did they steal and are there individual mitigating or aggravating circumstances?" Individual circumstances have been tried and largely failed. The justice system isn't equipped for that. Court cases drag on and on, get super costly, and then real justice is rare. Punishment is the norm, rehabilitation the exception, things only get worse for criminals. This is not a good system. If we want to make progress, we have to view people as part of a group that has distinct challenges from other groups. Individual justice such as that in courts has to incorporate various social justices, or else it'll continue to stagnate and nothing will improve from this point forward. Basically I think criminals from various backgrounds should be viewed as its own group facing distinct challenges within each distinct background. It's time that we move our whole approach to criminality from punishment to rehabilitation. I see what you’re getting at, but I’m not convinced how your approach would actually make things easier in practice. Cause if we start segmenting people into groups, we immediately run into the problem of misclassification. People rarely fit neatly into one background and with intersectional factors (class, culture, trauma, health, etc.), the number of possible “groups” is almost endless. Doesn’t that make things even more complicated than an individual assessment? And even if you could put people into the “right” groups, you’d still need psychologists or social workers to look at each case to see whether the classification makes sense. At that point, aren’t we back at individualized analysis anyway? That’s why I struggle to see the added value of group-based justice over the current model. To me it seems you just shift the same difficulties around without actually solving them. Also, you didn’t really touch on the original question of cultural upbringing. If a person comes from a cultural environment that discourages responsibility or encourages harmful, immoral or inhumane behavior, should that count as a mitigating factor, or not? Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 00:15 WombaT wrote:
From me own perspective as a Brit, the mere fact Starmer’s Labour are willing to do something that pisses off Israel, and the Israel-supporting cohort in the UK is almost a positive thing in and of itself. Although, as Jock points out, there’s almost a sense of trying to have it both ways on this topic rather than having a firm, principled stance. Isn't it about nuance? You can believe in animal welfare but still condemn people who burn down slaughterhouses or attack researchers. Or someone being for urgent action in regards to climate change but opposing people who vandalize art. You as a government can be against the methods (breaking into arms factories, vandalism, targeting executive's homes, arson and sabotages), but not against the goal itself (helping the Palestinian population) Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 02:20 KwarK wrote:
In practice this recognition amounts to acknowledging their status to negotiate their own surrender. To formalize this as a war between two states so that one of the two states may officially throw in the towel. There are protections that a defeated state is entitled to under international law that don’t apply until the government of that state surrenders. But here the issue also is about the surrendering party. Starmer made it clear that this announcement is not including Hamas who are at war. The PA can't really surrender on behalf of the Hamas, as Hamas won't give two shits about the PA's opinion anyhow. Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 23:06 Jankisa wrote:On September 20 2025 02:25 PremoBeats wrote:On September 14 2025 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2025 14:32 PremoBeats wrote:On September 13 2025 04:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2025 04:37 PremoBeats wrote:
Of course you don't care if I answer your questions or are interested in answering mine. It is clear that you are not here to actually engage but are simply trying to set traps and "show my true colors". Yeah, I know. I'm glad it worked. Funny how you think you achieved something, while in reality you publicly deconstructed your own argument perfectly. As KwarK and I explained, absolute/categorical judgements and relative judgements are different things with different meanings - a distinction you still don’t seem to grasp. If you want to come back to the conversation, answer why you think that having good food and being hospitable, when you also want to oppress women and kill infidels and minorities, makes you morally "good but not as good as the West", as opposed to, you know, "evil". No, I don't want to come back to this conversation, as I explained everything I had to say to you in the post you circumcised once again. As others understand my POV, I am content with that post and if you are still not able to grasp what I am saying, there is nothing I can do. Plus, as you already admitted to only accepting Islamophobia as my motive and are only discussing with me to set traps as you wrote before, I don't see much sense in talking to you. On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:On September 13 2025 18:48 PremoBeats wrote:
Looking at the circumstances can add a layer. But I wouldn't want some kind of moral relativism (not that you are arguing for it) to stand in my way to stop the Aztec shaman from performing a human sacrifice, from helping little girls that are about to get their clitorises cut off or a battle against homophobia/legal inequality (or even the things you mentioned about the West). I don't want context to become a shield against criticism.
At that moment I don't care if the rationalization is a voice someone heard in their head, a century old traditional, cultural practice or a principle a human supposedly got from god a couple of hundred years ago.
These circumstances also wouldn't change the actual result. But it would give us more room for understanding and how to deal with the situation.
Because if we'd do an IQ test with the billionaire and the McDonald's worker, the context explains the disparity but the present result would be a reality; the same is true for a culture that has more inhuman or immoral traits incorporated than another at this point in time.
Thus, context should be not about excuses but about understanding why practices exist and deciding the best course of action to stop them. Simple condemnation wouldn't work most probably.
If that is what you are proposing I can agree wholeheartedly. I'm arguing the inverse. I'm not trying to justify Palestinian terrorism such as that of Hamas. I am trying to show that the alleged "superior morality" is more of a myth, because I think it's a consequence of the circumstances (or the lack of certain circumstances). The immoral fraction of a population is revealed under certain pressures. Sometimes the pressure is real and tangible, other times it's propaganda that causes radicalism. Sometimes both. When we don't observe the immorality of a population, that's what I consider the true oddity. Many people are immoral, and the chance of a person developing immoral values is equal given that the circumstances are also equal. So why don't we see equal immorality in every population? It is an oddity, not a normality. It could be that people are well fed when growing up in a wealthier region and thus have less reason to act out. It could be that they're less exposed to lies and misinformation of a propaganda campaign. Or sometimes we don't notice their immorality because we're blind to it (e.g. it remains unreported or we close our eyes to it), but the people exist nonetheless. I believe in something akin to the tabula rasa. The realization that a population doesn't show the same immorality as some other populations makes me understand that immorality is created, not born. I get what you’re saying, though I’m still not sure about calling the outcome a “myth” even if it’s shaped by circumstances. The same as in your IQ example, the manager’s higher score may be due to upbringing or environment, but the difference is still a real outcome we have to deal with. I feel the same with morality - even if context explains it, the results aren’t just an illusion. On non-immorality being an “oddity,” I tend to be a bit more optimistic. We see plenty of cooperation and kindness in everyday life, so I’d consider that the norm rather than the exception. That said, I really agree with you that context is crucial for understanding why practices exist and how to change them. Since you’re not using it as an excuse, I don’t see a conflict. I’d just be curious how you see the role of individual responsibility if immorality is mainly circumstance-driven. On September 17 2025 17:21 Jankisa wrote:
You can, as you often do, insult people who disagree with you
Although not directed at me, this is pretty rich coming from someone who equated me to a holocaust denier a couple of pages ago, don't you think? Jankisa wrote:
There was a 3 phase ceasefire in which phase 3 was the end of war and release of all hostages.
Israel signed it, 2 phases were done, people were being fed and not bombed until Israel unilaterally broke that. So, you are, once again, lying to play defense for Israel.
There was no consensus or completed agreement to move into phase 2. Hamas and Israel rejected proposals each side viewed as deviations and phase 1 expired without phase 2 being actually agreed upon. I think it would be more accurate to say that Israel made decisions after phasr 1 ended when Hamas did not agree to some terms or where Israel saw no agreed phase 2 under its conditions. Both side accuse the other of violations, but the agreement was conditional from the start and was not put on paper completely until phase 3. It was a process in stages, but each step was build on the other. Phase 2 should include a permanent ceasefire... as that was never agreed upon, I don't understand how phase 2 should have ended successfully. And to simply give you a glimpse of the "fairness" of this agreement: 33 Israeli hostages (25 alive, 8 dead) were released in return for 2k - in part life long - prisoners. Mind you, the faction who got a much better deal is the massively losing side in this war, that they started. As usual, you are allowed to lie and obfuscate, facts, however, show that Israel broke the ceasefire as the phases were continuing. On March 1st, Nethyanahu unilaterally declared that they will accept Witkoff's plan which was not negotiated, but decided between US and Israel, even tho Phase 2 called for continuation of negotiations. Then: Following Hamas's refusal to accept the US ceasefire extension proposal, Israel ceased the entry of aid to Gaza the next day, 2 March. The humanitarian aid blockade was condemned by mediators Egypt and Qatar, as well as the United Nations, as a violation of the ceasefire, which stipulated that phase one would automatically be extended as long as phase two negotiations were in progress. On 9 March, Israeli energy minister Eli Cohen ordered to halt supply of Israeli electricity to Gaza. On 14 March, Hamas said that it agreed to a proposal from mediators to release Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander and the bodies of four dual national hostages. Israel and the United States rejected the offer.
On 18 March 2025, Israel launched surprise airstrikes on Gaza, breaking the ceasefire with Hamas. Your "fairness" comments are completely meaningless, Israel agreed to them, US helped negotiate them. The facts are that the deal was negotiated, it would have, if Israel didn't refuse to go along with it and broke the ceasefire explicitly have ended the war, the plan also stated "that Hamas would agree not to rebuild its military arsenal."This is the preferred outcome for anyone who wants the suffering to end. This doesn't include the Israeli regime and obviously doesn't include you. Also, if you feel insulted by being compared to a holocaust denier, perhaps you should try to stop denying a genocide. None of these technicalities change the fact of the horrific humanitarian situation, but phase 2 never came into full effect as per the original plan and was never successfully agreed upon or implemented in a binding manner. Breaking the agreement does not necessarily have to involve bombing. Both sides accused each other of breaking the agreement. But as you said before that "2 phases were done": Please explain how, if phase 2 should include the release of all remaining living hostages? My take: Phase 1 ended on March 2nd, negotiations for phase 2 never produced a binding agreement. That is why it is undeniable that phase 2 never "finished" (among the fact that there are still living hostages with Hamas). And if you want to keep conflating that denying the legal application of the genocide label when the civilian-to-soldier casualty rates are comparable to similar conflicts is the same as denying the actual Holocaust, be my guest. I am not insulted by that as I know that this comparison is a false equivalence. I simply pointed out that it is quite ironic how you lament about another user being insulting when you throw out such accusations, without discussing the context.
Social justice aids rehabilitation. Individual justice is better designed for the protective element, i.e. locking people up for the safety of others. Basically prison in and of itself is the individual justice. But rehabilitation is the part that must incorporate/lead to social justice (uniquely individual circumstances created environmentally) so that people can rehabilitate faster and more effectively. Programs such as games like chess, contact with cats, outdoor activities, a library for education and entertainment, humane living spaces, perhaps even cooking (if possible without increased risks), attention from psychiatrists and therapists, etc. are examples of rehabilitation using social justice. They weren't given all these things in their life before, which is why they acted out and turned to criminality. Through such programs inmates are improving mentally in healthy environments and therefore also improving socially and as individuals. They're basically learning to be more complete humans by receiving privileges that were previously denied to them. Not by "re-educating" them, but by offering respect, dignity and the necessary time to go through the changes until a complete rehabilitation. Psychological evaluation by a panel of independently operating experts should be the step required for a release.
Almost exactly the same fundamental mechanism can be applied to Gaza.
|
I don't mind being insulted, I do mind when people engage in bad faith and then go on insulting people for calling them out.
Regarding the Phase 1 Phase 2, that was a mix-up on the timeline on my end, my bad, apologies.
The rest of the stuff, as you apparently agree is factual and to me it's very hard to read as anything other than "Israel wants to continue the war and that's why they broke the ceasefire".
The genocide denying talking points, not really interested, as I said many times before I didn't think it was a genocide and was even supportive of Israel's efforts in Gaza for a while after October 7th, I wasn't on board up until about a year ago when it became very apparent that this is not about hostages or even October 7th anymore, as the situation progressed and got worse and worse, adding more genocide defining developments, I changed my mind.
You, on the other hand don't seem interested in updating your view on the situation at al.
|
Israel has been pretty clear that they won't stop until Hamas give up power. Hamas has made it clear there is no amount of destruction that will make them give up power. One of those things needs to change for peace, and I really do not think either will.
You can frame it as one side is the one who wants war, which both have. But I'm in the camp of both the powers that be do and all the civilians are getting fucked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
