|
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. |
United States43352 Posts
On May 19 2021 17:52 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 17:47 KwarK wrote:
I think you might actually be an evil person. I brought up a classic example of a war crime to show why what Israel did was wrong and you made a series of posts defending the war crime with nonsensical claims about Japan, nuclear weapons, and the prospect of Nazi Germany turning it WW2 around in mid 1945. Ok we're done then. I do not think you're evil, and I see no reason for you to claim that I'm evil. Even "might" is unacceptable. We're done.
The reason I claimed you might actually just be an evil person is because of your unconditional approval of massacres of civilians. In case that wasn’t clear. You don’t get to massacre civilians just because you can claim the other side started it. I don’t know how to explain this to you in simpler terms than “killing people is wrong”. That’s the central issue here. Your support for massacres of civilians is evil.
|
On May 19 2021 17:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 17:24 Nebuchad wrote:
There is one cool thing about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and it's that the discourse has shifted dramatically. Last time this happened we had the discussion online and there were people making solid arguments on both sides, we had a little battle on the marketplace of ideas, and the people on the side of Palestine won that battle.
Which means that this time, support for Palestine is overwhelming in leftist places online. So, what can I say, when you're dealing with honest people who have a common goal, debate works, sort of. Leftist online places are set to raise more for Palestine than they did for Mermaids when Glinner decided to direct his constant transphobia at them. Especially Vaush has had a very successful stream, 250k+ in 24 hours.
Will charity solve the occupation, no it won't obviously. But it still signals that we have a pretty large voice, and that's cool. Other cracks start to form with larger protests all over the world, less pro-Israel propaganda in the media than usual (I have no explanation for that one but 1) hey, cool, I'll take it, and 2) there is still some dumb shit going around.
Imo one of the more important rhetorical battles to fight is the battle against the idea that it's complicated. One side has almost all of the power and chooses to oppress the other, openly using terrorism and openly supporting ethnic cleansing. Don't be on that side. Some things are complicated, others are not. The continued settlements is not complicated - they're abhorrent and so is supporting them. Amusingly, I've yet to see anyone defend this practice, even guys that are solidly on the side of Israel. They seem to conveniently ignore that this is the piece of aggression and argue that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' - but I haven't actually seen anyone in this thread or the USPol thread before the discussion moved defend the continued settlement policy.
However, while people seem to be able to agree that Israel's settlement policy should end, figuring out where to revert back to is complicated. 1967 borders are two generations ago. We might agree that what happened in 1947-48 was a crime against the Palestinian people, but it's not like it's easy to revert that now. The question of 'who should live where' is complicated, even if we recognize that Israel is the main culprit in the conflict and even if we regard Hamas as freedom fighters more than as terrorists.
Yeah this is one of the worst aspects. Israel's settlement policy serves only to push the conflict further and further to the point of no return, because there's absolutely no way they would ever agree to give that territory back, no matter what the negotiation was.
That's why at this point I view Israel as wholly responsible for the entire situation as it currently stands. A theoretical compromise that would spell the end of the conflict, even though it would be pretty much impossible without the settlement policy, is made literally impossible by Israel's actions.
|
On May 19 2021 17:34 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 17:20 Broetchenholer wrote:
First, Gaza is not a souvereign state. If it was, your argument might make more sense, but it's not. As they are not a souvereign state, Israel can treat them as their territory without anybody stopping them, so they control all trade routes into Gaza, be it via land or sea. If you set up an area to not be able to support themselves, they will not be able to support themselves. If you tell someone you will free them if they just behave and then keep treating them in a way that makes it impossible for them to behave, you cannot turn around and say "see, they were not able to behave". Now they are locked up forever. And sharing the blame with Egypt does not absolve israel from this.
Gaza could easily be a sovereign state today (I actually think it is) by any standard if it had not engaged in immediate terrorism after the 2005 plan. The US could stop all trade into Cuba right now if we wanted, we did under the Kennedy regime, that didn't make Cuba not a state. The fact that other Arab states treat them equally is an indictment of their own problems outweighing whatever else is going on with respect to Israel. If Israel lifted its blockade, the only result any reasonable person would expect is more bunkers and rockets, not more schools and hospitals.
Okay. If you buy a house from me on my land and i put a wall around your house that keeps you from leaving, buying stuff, earning money, asking the police to free you, are you free? If i give you just enough food and basic commodities to survive, are you free? I mean you own the land and i don't have to grant you access to the outside world right? But you are not a prisoner because the land you live on is yours and i never enter your land. And if you try to break out of your land i shoot you. If you throw stones at me, trying to free yourself i kill your family and say, see, that guy does not deserve to be free, he clearly attacked me.
I am not saying that this is the dynamic of the conflict. All i am saying is that Gaza is not souvereign. It's not by international law, Gaza is still a weird state between being a part of Egypt and a part of Israel. Germany for example does not recognize the state of Palestina, but does recognize the PLO as a representative of the people living in the area.
Could Gaza now be a souvereign working state in it's own right if just Palestinians had not voted for Hamas? I highly doubt it. You cannot jail people and then expect them to love you when you leave the area but keep the prison up.
|
On May 19 2021 18:00 KwarK wrote:
The reason I claimed you might actually just be an evil person is because of your unconditional approval of massacres of civilians. In case that wasn’t clear.
I'll give you a chance to prove that I "unconditionally approved the massacre of civilians". If you can't do that, I demand an apology from you.
|
Read your own posts about the topic? You condensed the Boming of Dresden down to, Germany is evil and needed to be stopped, so it was okay for Britain to bomb civilians as an act of terror and retribution. You said this several times. Only in your last post you mentioned that other people might see it as a war crime. This leads us to believe that you think killing civilians for terror and retribution is okay if you have reasons.
|
The power imbalance between the parties is also quite integral to the conversation about responsibility and justifiably and whatnot. Last figures I read were that Hamas' rockets in this round of aggression have killed 10 Israeli people, all civilians afaik. Casualties of Israel's actions were at that point around 180, of which 33 were children and 55 were women, who can probably be assumed to be civilians.
Regardless of who is viewed as an aggressor and who is retaliating, the sheer number of lives lost is quite indicative. I guess my question to Magic Powers is that what's the acceptable ratio of Israeli civilians vs Palestinian civilians dying in the fighting? We're looking at 8+ Palestinian civilians for each Israeli civilian right now, is that acceptable? And what is the number of acceptable Palestinian civilian casualties as collateral damage for targeting Hamas' installation, if that's a framing you're wanting to go with?
|
On May 19 2021 18:13 Broetchenholer wrote:
Read your own posts about the topic?
No, I want him to try to prove it (he can't, obviously). I want him to realize that he was wrong and to apologize to me. He said I might be evil, and he accused me of approving massacres. That's simply unacceptable, no one just says these things about other people in a civilized debate.
|
I don't think ad hominem attacks are particularly useful. I would echo the claim that support for the killing of innocent civilians is evil, but claiming that someone is an evil person based off a few posts on a forum is a bit much tbh. People draw conclusions based on the information they pay attention to, and all kinds of things to go into that other than the person being good or evil. Shit, you could get to MP's position simply by listening to one too many Sam Harris podcasts.
I would say the rockets from Hamas and bombs from Israel are equally bad. But when you take them away by removing the state of elevated war we are at right now, you still left with Israeli aggression on a daily basis, and that is where the insidious evil lies, and there is zero justification for it.
|
On May 19 2021 18:16 Oukka wrote:
The power imbalance between the parties is also quite integral to the conversation about responsibility and justifiably and whatnot. Last figures I read were that Hamas' rockets in this round of aggression have killed 10 Israeli people, all civilians afaik. Casualties of Israel's actions were at that point around 180, of which 33 were children and 55 were women, who can probably be assumed to be civilians.
Regardless of who is viewed as an aggressor and who is retaliating, the sheer number of lives lost is quite indicative. I guess my question to Magic Powers is that what's the acceptable ratio of Israeli civilians vs Palestinian civilians dying in the fighting? We're looking at 8+ Palestinian civilians for each Israeli civilian right now, is that acceptable? And what is the number of acceptable Palestinian civilian casualties as collateral damage for targeting Hamas' installation, if that's a framing you're wanting to go with?
I'm not sure how (or even why) I should answer this question. Do you want me to find a mathematical formula that tells us the "correct" ratio of deaths on either side? I don't believe in numbers when it comes to human lives. All lives are sacred in their own right. A single life on either side is too much. That in my opinion is the only correct way to look at the problem. That's why I condemn Hamas. That's why I condemn Israel. It has nothing to do with numbers.
|
We can't prove you are evil, as we can't look into your thoughts. We can say that your posting history makes you look evil, as you repeatedly show zero nuance when talking about civilian casualties for the side you consider to be the bad. Then, when facing backlash, you backpedal and act appaled that someone read your statements and attributed the content to you.
|
Norway28727 Posts
If you're not able to stomach people considering you evil it might be best to avoid the Israel-Palestine debate, because that some people will have this opinion on you is an inevitability, regardless of the side you choose to align yourself with. I mean, some might state 'evil or ignorant' (choose one), but this isn't a topic where you're free to express your opinion without being judged for it. While I'm a strong proponent of civilized debate, I also don't feel bad about having a negative opinion of people who support cruelly oppressing a downtrodden people. I'm sure you can agree that there are political opinions people can have that would make them evil - your opinion just happens to be that your opinion on this issue isn't one.
You're obviously free to not engage with Kwark. I think whenever people realize they can't have productive discussions with someone, avoiding engaging with them is the rational choice to make. But you can't demand that people not find you morally reprehensible for holding points of view they find morally reprehensible. As a strong proponent of abortion, I accept that people who regard abortion as murder of children find my opinion on the matter morally reprehensible and that they might consider me a force of evil in this world because I support murder of children. I'm still supportive of abortion.
|
On May 19 2021 18:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't think ad hominem attacks are particularly useful. I would echo the claim that support for the killing of innocent civilians is evil, but claiming that someone is an evil person based off a few posts on a forum is a bit much tbh. People draw conclusions based on the information they pay attention to, and all kinds of things to go into that other than the person being good or evil. Shit, you could get to MP's position simply by listening to one too many Sam Harris podcasts.
I would say the rockets from Hamas and bombs from Israel are equally bad. But when you take them away by removing the state of elevated war we are at right now, you still left with Israeli aggression on a daily basis, and that is where the insidious evil lies, and there is zero justification for it.
The larger context of how you get to these positions is by dehumanizing people. A behavior that you would totally oppose if it was done to humans is done to the group that you dislike for reasons that you genuinely believe are valid (for example Germans in WW2, and I assume the nukes on Japan would get the same treatment). Since you oppose them as a group, they become a little less human, and therefore retaliatory action against the group is justified. In a group that you haven't dehumanized, the group is still composed of humans, and therefore the horror of what's happening registers.
Most of the time this isn't done consciously, which is why conversations can get difficult.
|
On May 19 2021 18:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you're not able to stomach people considering you evil it might be best to avoid the Israel-Palestine debate, because that some people will have this opinion on you is an inevitability, regardless of the side you choose to align yourself with. I mean, some might state 'evil or ignorant' (choose one), but this isn't a topic where you're free to express your opinion without being judged for it. While I'm a strong proponent of civilized debate, I also don't feel bad about having a negative opinion of people who support cruelly oppressing a downtrodden people. I'm sure you can agree that there are political opinions people can have that would make them evil - your opinion just happens to be that your opinion on this issue isn't one.
You're obviously free to not engage with Kwark. I think whenever people realize they can't have productive discussions with someone, avoiding engaging with them is the rational choice to make. But you can't demand that people not find you morally reprehensible for holding points of view they find morally reprehensible. As a strong proponent of abortion, I accept that people who regard abortion as murder of children find my opinion on the matter morally reprehensible and that they might consider me a force of evil in this world because I support murder of children. I'm still supportive of abortion.
KwarK didn't accuse me of being evil, he implied it.
What he did actually accuse me of is that I approve the massacre of civilians. Do you understand?
I do not approve of such a thing, and nothing I said indicates that I do. Not one thing. He simply made it up.
So he made a mistake (which I will forgive if he apologizes for it). I will not let his accusation stand. And if you think that he did nothing wrong, then I have to question if you may be biased towards him for some reason.
|
You did say exactly that though. You said the massacre of the civilians in Dresden by Allied forces was necessary and the British are not responsible for it because the Germans forced them to do it. This is the same as saying "i approve of the massacre of innocents if the conditions are right". After reuests for clarification, you doubled down on that rhetoric. And only then you posted "all lives matter" i am completely against all sides that take lives. This is why you are perceived by us the way you are. So, if you can explain how you get from the first statement in regards to Dresden to the last statement in regard to Dresden, i might unterstand better where you are coming from.
|
Norway28727 Posts
On May 19 2021 18:33 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 18:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you're not able to stomach people considering you evil it might be best to avoid the Israel-Palestine debate, because that some people will have this opinion on you is an inevitability, regardless of the side you choose to align yourself with. I mean, some might state 'evil or ignorant' (choose one), but this isn't a topic where you're free to express your opinion without being judged for it. While I'm a strong proponent of civilized debate, I also don't feel bad about having a negative opinion of people who support cruelly oppressing a downtrodden people. I'm sure you can agree that there are political opinions people can have that would make them evil - your opinion just happens to be that your opinion on this issue isn't one.
You're obviously free to not engage with Kwark. I think whenever people realize they can't have productive discussions with someone, avoiding engaging with them is the rational choice to make. But you can't demand that people not find you morally reprehensible for holding points of view they find morally reprehensible. As a strong proponent of abortion, I accept that people who regard abortion as murder of children find my opinion on the matter morally reprehensible and that they might consider me a force of evil in this world because I support murder of children. I'm still supportive of abortion. KwarK didn't accuse me of being evil, he implied it. What he did actually accuse me of is that I approve the massacre of civilians. Do you understand? I do not approve of such a thing, and nothing I said indicates that I do. Not one thing. He simply made it up. So he made a mistake (which I will forgive if he apologizes for it). I will not let his accusation stand. And if you think that he did nothing wrong, then I have to question if you may be biased towards him for some reason.
I would not use Kwark's phrasing, he can defend his phrasing himself. But I did see you defend the fire-bombing of Dresden under the reasoning that 'it was necessary'. I am a historian and while I'm familiar with the debate around to what degree Hiroshima/Nagasaki actually saved lives (not just american military lives, but even Japanese civilian lives, not to mention people in Japanese occupied territories), there's little question that Germany would have shortly capitulated even without some 25k inhabitants of Dresden being burned alive. There's not much distance between 'defending it because it was necessary' and 'approve of it'.
Myself, while I would not use the phrase 'evil' - primarily because I am a radical anti-free will kind of guy who doesn't really believe in concepts like 'good' or 'evil' being accurate descriptions of the human psyche, I do think it's abhorrent to defend Israel's actions when they bomb Palestinians, even if it's a reaction to Hamas launching rockets. I see Israel as the clear aggressor (step 1), I see Hamas as a desperate, counter-productive response to that aggression (step 2), and I see the aggression against Hamas as collective punishment against a desperate, oppressed population (step 3). Supporting step 3 of this equation is tacit support of step 1 of this equation, and I find that abhorrent.
I'll also argue in favor of your right to argue for whatever your political opinion is, even if I find it abhorrent. But you can't both take part in a political discussion and argue that people should not judge you over your opinion. This isn't fighting over whether tesagi is real - a discussion I agree we should be able to have without being judgmental of each other, it's fighting over whether bombing children is justified.
|
On May 19 2021 18:33 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 18:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you're not able to stomach people considering you evil it might be best to avoid the Israel-Palestine debate, because that some people will have this opinion on you is an inevitability, regardless of the side you choose to align yourself with. I mean, some might state 'evil or ignorant' (choose one), but this isn't a topic where you're free to express your opinion without being judged for it. While I'm a strong proponent of civilized debate, I also don't feel bad about having a negative opinion of people who support cruelly oppressing a downtrodden people. I'm sure you can agree that there are political opinions people can have that would make them evil - your opinion just happens to be that your opinion on this issue isn't one.
You're obviously free to not engage with Kwark. I think whenever people realize they can't have productive discussions with someone, avoiding engaging with them is the rational choice to make. But you can't demand that people not find you morally reprehensible for holding points of view they find morally reprehensible. As a strong proponent of abortion, I accept that people who regard abortion as murder of children find my opinion on the matter morally reprehensible and that they might consider me a force of evil in this world because I support murder of children. I'm still supportive of abortion. KwarK didn't accuse me of being evil, he implied it. What he did actually accuse me of is that I approve the massacre of civilians. Do you understand? I do not approve of such a thing, and nothing I said indicates that I do. Not one thing. He simply made it up. So he made a mistake (which I will forgive if he apologizes for it). I will not let his accusation stand. And if you think that he did nothing wrong, then I have to question if you may be biased towards him for some reason.
Well you approved of Dresden didn't you? I don't see how one can approve of the bombing of Dresden and at the same time not approve the massacre of civilians.
|
On May 19 2021 18:16 Oukka wrote:
The power imbalance between the parties is also quite integral to the conversation about responsibility and justifiably and whatnot. Last figures I read were that Hamas' rockets in this round of aggression have killed 10 Israeli people, all civilians afaik. Casualties of Israel's actions were at that point around 180, of which 33 were children and 55 were women, who can probably be assumed to be civilians.
Regardless of who is viewed as an aggressor and who is retaliating, the sheer number of lives lost is quite indicative. I guess my question to Magic Powers is that what's the acceptable ratio of Israeli civilians vs Palestinian civilians dying in the fighting? We're looking at 8+ Palestinian civilians for each Israeli civilian right now, is that acceptable? And what is the number of acceptable Palestinian civilian casualties as collateral damage for targeting Hamas' installation, if that's a framing you're wanting to go with?
If you attack someone stronger then yourself you should expect to have bigger wounds then the person you attacked. I feel that Hamas knows this. They want to stop further settlements, and are prepared to have civilians casualties as the price. They wont accepted as ceasefire unless Israel stops further settlements. So they used civilians as meat shield and send pictures of it to the news. So they they force the rest of the world to act against Israel and get there wished through but short and long term as they gain more sympathy.
|
On May 19 2021 18:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
You did say exactly that though. You said the massacre of the civilians in Dresden by Allied forces was necessary and the British are not responsible for it because the Germans forced them to do it.
No, I did not. The bombing of Dresden was a mission that took place over a longer period, and during one specific time frame they were bombing innocent civilians, and many historians argue that that was a war crime. However - and this seems to be something that not too many people are aware of - Britain had taken a stance on the death of civilians years prior. They were engaging in a brutal decimation of civilians, alongside the infrastructure. This wasn't a one-time thing, Britain was doing this on purpose because they wanted to completely break Germany's war machinery. This is why I explained that the German people themselves were part of the war machinery, they were treated like tools of war by the Nazis. British generals understood this, and within the military it was hardly a secret that British bombers were deliberately massacring civilians throughout the war. Not just bombers did this, but all soldiers. They rounded up POW's who were a nuisance to them and shot them, simply because they didn't want to have to deal with them.
Acknowledging that this is what was in fact happening during WW2 doesn't equate to approving of it. That's what I mean when I say KwarK messed up. He equated the fact that I acknowledge war crimes as part of the British policy in the context of WW2 to me approving it. That is a typical mistake people make and I won't stand for it, but it's a mistake that I can forgive because it's so typical and it can happen. If he apologizes I will not hesitate to accept his apology.
|
On May 19 2021 18:53 Neneu wrote:
Well you approved of Dresden didn't you? I don't see how one can approve of the bombing of Dresden and at the same time not approve the massacre of civilians.
No, I didn't. Not just that I didn't do that, I even specifically said that I would consider it a war crime. I'll quote myself, here you go:
On May 19 2021 17:43 Magic Powers wrote:
The bombing of Dresden is a hotly debated issue among historians, with some taking the stance that it was a war crime and others arguing that it had strategic relevance. I think they're both partially right, which means I think it's right to label the mission a war crime, and it's also right that - without needless attacks on civilians - it would've simply been essential to the British war efforts.
|
On May 19 2021 19:04 Magic Powers wrote:
However - and this seems to be something that not too many people are aware of - Britain had taken a stance on the death of civilians years prior. They were engaging in a brutal decimation of civilians, alongside the infrastructure.
On May 19 2021 15:27 Magic Powers wrote:
I think your use of "responsibility" is a bit too loose. No, the British weren't responsible for the death of German civilians during WW2.
Those positions are only compatible if German civilians aren't human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
