|
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 January 17 2024 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2024 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2024 08:19 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2024 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2024 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote:
I can't address your point because your point is based on the false premise that Israel is defending itself, which it isn't. If your premises were correct, your point would be correct. But your premises are absurd, and therefore so is your point. As I told Jimmi yesterday, if we accept the international defense of Israel, then their position is justified, and it is normal to view them as the "good guys". But their international defense is obviously bullshit, and therefore we shouldn't make arguments based on it. Israel is absolutely defending itself. + Show Spoiler +Palestinians are also defending themselves. That’s what makes this whole dumpster fire burn so intensely.
This is why I was using my psychotic murderous wife scenario to show why neither can really be blamed. Once both governments decided the other can’t be trusted, it became a matter of protecting themselves. Do you see how in my murderous wife scenario, my decision to kill the other family was to protect my daughter? Despite the other family being strictly victims from my murderous wife, it is a simple decision to kill someone’s trying to kill my daughter.
So now what if me defending my daughter just causes that other family’s extended family to target me? Well suddenly I’ve got a bigger problem on my hands. What if this family decides my house is too well fortified and they get their revenge on my parents instead? Maybe they take out my mom but not my dad. Now what? I know they still want to kill my dad, and they have killed my family before. What do I do? Is it ethical for me to kill them first?
Now that this is all set in motion in the above scenario, do you see how both families are in a position where they are defending innocents? The other family is defending innocent children. I am also defending innocent children. But since this war is so deep and we trust each other so little, there isn’t really a good path to peace. Regardless of who was right to begin with, it’s totally meaningless because both factions now have innocent, entirely morally clean children to defend.
I see no value in your pursuit of a good guy or any kind of defender or aggressor blah blah stuff because those people aren’t really even a thing at this point. Even if we agree who was originally at fault, it does nothing for the safety of this new generation of children who need to be protected.
Hamas and IDF have both killed children and both sides deeply believe the other faction needs to be defeated. They are both defending innocents. It’s totally pointless to try to frame the situation with respect to some core, knowable moral baseline. Concluding who started it or who is the most evil doesn’t matter when both are defending children.
Israel will not allow their children to be killed for the sake of appeasing their own conscience. Even if they believe it’s sad and unethical to kill Palestinians, they’ll still decide “these children of ours have no guilt, but they will be victims of murder if we don’t wipe out Hamas”
Similarly, some Palestinian 15 year old who isn’t even mentally developed is a victim by being raised in that environment and they are not morally responsible for the views they’ve been born into and the war they have witnessed. So that 15 year old is gonna go kill some Israelis and Israel is gonna go kill people too. Both feel like they are acting morally and both are defending people who can’t defend themselves. So trying to tell either of these people “hey can we chill for a bit and just accept the risk” is beyond pointless.
Ask a Palestinian why they don’t support Hamas surrendering and they’ll say “so the IDF can just kill all of us?”
Ask an Israeli why they don’t support the IDF surrendering and they’ll say “so Hamas can just kill all of us?”
There are times where diligently working to determine absolute guilt is worthwhile to resolve conflict. This is not one of those times . They really aren't. Regardless, the "international rules based order" demands on its face to step in and sanction Israel for its ongoing crimes against humanity/ethnic cleansing campaign you describe as "defending" themselves. Sorta like how you're ignoring the laws to rationalize murdering another family in your example. If Israel just stepped right out of West Bank and Gaza tomorrow, you are saying... + Show Spoiler +there is no risk of innocent children being harmed by Hamas? That’s the standard to meet. That’s what any nation in the world would require as a safe assumption before doing something. So long as Hamas is a risk to children in Israel, Israel will always defend those children.
Let’s assume you had the ability to eliminate whatever evil you are assuming Israel possesses and you eliminated any hatred or desire to kill Palestinians without any defensive purpose. Do you think you would succeed in convincing Israelis their children are safe from Hamas?
Maybe it’s worthwhile to make sure we are aligned otherwise. Is it moral for someone to kill someone to defend their children? If you disagree with me that it is moral, nothing else will be agreed on. Everything I am saying operates under the assumption it is moral to kill a victim to defend an innocent. If you don’t believe that is true, we of course will not agree on the other stuff. I'm saying what I said. What Israel is doing is not self-defense regardless of your attempts at rationalizing their ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign with your example/analogy of you being a murderous vigilante. Ok let’s use another term: protecting. Do you think Israeli children would be harmed even if Israel withdrew from Gaza and the West Bank and canceled all settlements? I think Hamas would still attack Israel. If Hamas still attacked Israel, it would mean Israeli children are in danger. Do you agree? Or are you saying if Israel withdrew, Israeli children would not be at risk of being harmed by Hamas? What I am saying is that if Israeli children would still be at risk because of all the history that created a ton of hatred on both sides, then that means there is still an incentive to kill Hamas. In that way, it becomes protecting children. Where do my assumptions disagree with yours? You’re being brief. I don’t understand where my logical diagram diverges from your. Please help me.
Israel isn't justified in murdering Palestinian children because Hamas will maybe murder more Israeli children in the future. That is called a war crime. It is also utterly senseless.
|
|
|
On January 17 2024 08:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2024 08:44 Cerebrate1 wrote:On January 17 2024 08:42 Acrofales wrote:On January 17 2024 08:35 Cerebrate1 wrote:On January 17 2024 06:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Pretty huge difference between 'my family' and 'people from my country'. I'd certainly choose 100 (or 1000, or some absurdly high number I guess) dead strangers over the death of my kid, but if you're telling me to pull a lever that kills 1000 people from x country or 1 person from norway (and I obviously have to choose one of them in this hypothetical scenario) then I'd go with the 1 person from Norway. It's not a 1:1 ratio - the probability that I know (or know of) the person from Norway is higher than that I know the person outside Norway, but I don't value the life of a Norwegian I don't know of higher than the life of a person outside Norway I don't know of. (Stuff like Breivik still ends up affecting me much more than a civil war elsewhere - but part of the reason is a tragedy in Norway ends up with me knowing of the people who perish, it's not that I consider them inherently more valuable due to their norwegianity.) It's a slightly different conversation by countries than by individuals, but the logic is similar on a grander scale. The reason countries have militaries is so they can protect the lives of their citizens at the expense of any foreign citizens who want to attack. Norway is planning to spend 90 billion NOK on their military this year so they have the ability to kill as many Russians as they need to to hopefully prevent even a single Norwegian death. If they just demilitarized and said they won't kill Russians to save Norwegians, Russia wouldn't have to fight much to conquer the place and only a token number of Norwegians might die in a subsequent takeover. Is Norway wrong for spending such a significant amount of it's money on big guns whose only use could be to kill foreigners? Last I checked, Norway was afraid Russia might invade, and was shoring up their military as a precaution, so if Russian soldiers enter Norway they can kill them. IDF is not doing that. The equivalent to Norway would be if Norway was afraid of Russia, and therefore turned St Petersburg to rubble, displacing its citizens and slaughtering 24,000 of them with the excuse that the Russian army is there somewhere. The equivalent for the IDF was spending billions of dollars on their military last year as a precaution. This year Hamas invaded them. Hamas invaded and killed civilians, so Israel is justified in counter-invading and killing over 10x more civilians (and counting). Don't worry, if Norway flattened St Petersburg in response to Russia raiding Svalbard, I'd also be up in arms about Norwegian war crimes.
Sorry, I guess my edit about Hamas currently having hostages didn't make it in in time. Points out that this is indeed about protecting citizens now as well as in the future.
If Norway flattened St Petersburg with the intent to just kill millions of civilians in their homes, I'd agree that that's a war crime. If they thought they could end future Russian aggression by removing the entire government from power and that government all sat in St Petersburg, I'd say that was a reasonable war goal. Especially if they went out of their way to spare as many local Russian civilians as possible by dropping 7.2 million leaflets, leaving 13.7 million texts, and sending 15 million recorded calls for evacuation to make it clear that only the government and army were their enemy, I'd say that they were being more careful for the civilians of their attackers than any country in history.
|
Of course, retaliation against innocent civilians is always perfectly fine. Especially as an occupying force that has stolen, encircled and deprived the territory of those civilians.
Interesting take right there.
|
|
|
On January 17 2024 08:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2024 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2024 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2024 08:19 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2024 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2024 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote:
I can't address your point because your point is based on the false premise that Israel is defending itself, which it isn't. If your premises were correct, your point would be correct. But your premises are absurd, and therefore so is your point. As I told Jimmi yesterday, if we accept the international defense of Israel, then their position is justified, and it is normal to view them as the "good guys". But their international defense is obviously bullshit, and therefore we shouldn't make arguments based on it. Israel is absolutely defending itself. + Show Spoiler +Palestinians are also defending themselves. That’s what makes this whole dumpster fire burn so intensely.
This is why I was using my psychotic murderous wife scenario to show why neither can really be blamed. Once both governments decided the other can’t be trusted, it became a matter of protecting themselves. Do you see how in my murderous wife scenario, my decision to kill the other family was to protect my daughter? Despite the other family being strictly victims from my murderous wife, it is a simple decision to kill someone’s trying to kill my daughter.
So now what if me defending my daughter just causes that other family’s extended family to target me? Well suddenly I’ve got a bigger problem on my hands. What if this family decides my house is too well fortified and they get their revenge on my parents instead? Maybe they take out my mom but not my dad. Now what? I know they still want to kill my dad, and they have killed my family before. What do I do? Is it ethical for me to kill them first?
Now that this is all set in motion in the above scenario, do you see how both families are in a position where they are defending innocents? The other family is defending innocent children. I am also defending innocent children. But since this war is so deep and we trust each other so little, there isn’t really a good path to peace. Regardless of who was right to begin with, it’s totally meaningless because both factions now have innocent, entirely morally clean children to defend.
I see no value in your pursuit of a good guy or any kind of defender or aggressor blah blah stuff because those people aren’t really even a thing at this point. Even if we agree who was originally at fault, it does nothing for the safety of this new generation of children who need to be protected.
Hamas and IDF have both killed children and both sides deeply believe the other faction needs to be defeated. They are both defending innocents. It’s totally pointless to try to frame the situation with respect to some core, knowable moral baseline. Concluding who started it or who is the most evil doesn’t matter when both are defending children.
Israel will not allow their children to be killed for the sake of appeasing their own conscience. Even if they believe it’s sad and unethical to kill Palestinians, they’ll still decide “these children of ours have no guilt, but they will be victims of murder if we don’t wipe out Hamas”
Similarly, some Palestinian 15 year old who isn’t even mentally developed is a victim by being raised in that environment and they are not morally responsible for the views they’ve been born into and the war they have witnessed. So that 15 year old is gonna go kill some Israelis and Israel is gonna go kill people too. Both feel like they are acting morally and both are defending people who can’t defend themselves. So trying to tell either of these people “hey can we chill for a bit and just accept the risk” is beyond pointless.
Ask a Palestinian why they don’t support Hamas surrendering and they’ll say “so the IDF can just kill all of us?”
Ask an Israeli why they don’t support the IDF surrendering and they’ll say “so Hamas can just kill all of us?”
There are times where diligently working to determine absolute guilt is worthwhile to resolve conflict. This is not one of those times . They really aren't. Regardless, the "international rules based order" demands on its face to step in and sanction Israel for its ongoing crimes against humanity/ethnic cleansing campaign you describe as "defending" themselves. Sorta like how you're ignoring the laws to rationalize murdering another family in your example. If Israel just stepped right out of West Bank and Gaza tomorrow, you are saying... + Show Spoiler +there is no risk of innocent children being harmed by Hamas? That’s the standard to meet. That’s what any nation in the world would require as a safe assumption before doing something. So long as Hamas is a risk to children in Israel, Israel will always defend those children.
Let’s assume you had the ability to eliminate whatever evil you are assuming Israel possesses and you eliminated any hatred or desire to kill Palestinians without any defensive purpose. Do you think you would succeed in convincing Israelis their children are safe from Hamas?
Maybe it’s worthwhile to make sure we are aligned otherwise. Is it moral for someone to kill someone to defend their children? If you disagree with me that it is moral, nothing else will be agreed on. Everything I am saying operates under the assumption it is moral to kill a victim to defend an innocent. If you don’t believe that is true, we of course will not agree on the other stuff. I'm saying what I said. What Israel is doing is not self-defense regardless of your attempts at rationalizing their ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign with your example/analogy of you being a murderous vigilante. Ok let’s use another term: protecting. Do you think Israeli children would be harmed even if Israel withdrew from Gaza and the West Bank and canceled all settlements? I think Hamas would still attack Israel. If Hamas still attacked Israel, it would mean Israeli children are in danger. Do you agree? Or are you saying if Israel withdrew, Israeli children would not be at risk of being harmed by Hamas? What I am saying is that if Israeli children would still be at risk because of all the history that created a ton of hatred on both sides, then that means there is still an incentive to kill Hamas. In that way, it becomes protecting children. Where do my assumptions disagree with yours? You’re being brief. I don’t understand where my logical diagram diverges from your. Please help me. Israel isn't justified in murdering Palestinian children because Hamas will maybe murder more Israeli children in the future. That is called a war crime. It is also utterly senseless.
I apologize if that is how my message came across. That is not what I meant to say.
I am saying if Israel believes a group of people will kill innocent Israelis, we should assume Israel will make moral concessions in pursuit of preventing those innocent Israelis from being killed.
Just in case you didn’t read earlier in the conversation: I am saying even if we assume Israel was entirely at fault and morally failed in every single way for the conflict to be in its current form, Israel’s military being immoral would not mean it is moral to kill innocent Israelis. Similarly, Hamas being immoral does not mean it is moral to kill innocent Palestinians.
So doesn’t that bring us into a weird situation? Palestinians believe their children are in danger and they need Hamas to protect them from Israel. Israelis believe their children are in danger and need the IDF to protect them from Hamas. In both cases, their concerns have historic precedent. It’s happened many times before. They both have every reason to believe their children are in danger. Furthermore, they both have historic precedent indicating even if they agree to stop killing each other, the other side will break the agreement. So now neither side trusts each other either.
So at this point, both sides have legitimate reason to believe their children are in danger and they both have legitimate reason to believe the other side can’t be trusted.
Faced with this scenario, both sides have concluded they need to simply defeat the other one. The other side will try to kill them and even they wanted peace, it’s not possible because the other side can’t be trusted to remain peaceful.
Do you see how once this cycle is set in motion, the only way for peace to be achieved is if a greater power is able to guarantee safety for both sides? Since neither Palestinians or Israelis have any reason to trust each other, they both only have 2 options for achieving safety of their children:
1: a greater power disarms both of them and guarantees both of their safety
2: they defeat the other side
Until [1] occurs, the only thing left is [2]. And just to reiterate, past moral failings do not mean children don’t need to be protected. The adults are morally bound to protect their own children because those children are not able to defend themselves and they do not have any guilt in this situation. So their only choice is to try to defeat the other side, because all nations in all of history have all always decided to prioritize their own over their enemy. So they have both made a conscious decision to allow the other side’s children die in pursuit of defending their own children.
Do you see how this is true regardless of any other nefarious intentions we attach to either side? Even if we don’t assume Hamas are lunatics and even if we assume Israel doesn’t want to conquer the whole region and expel all Palestinians, the above logic remains true. So that means even if the IDF and Hamas were glowing examples of moral integrity, they would still be at war so long as there is no greater power capable of guaranteeing their safety.
Is this more clear? Your response indicated you read my message differently than I meant it.
|
"The only way for our side to survive is to annihiliate the other side".
Literally the playbook of just about every war mongerer ever. It would be comical if it wasn't so real.
Unfortunately Western countries are allied to Israel, so we don't have the privilege of watching from the side lines without influencing the conflict. We are partly responsible for what happens over there in the ME so we can't say "well, it is what it is". We're partly responsible for the deaths.
If we weren't involved, we could say - at least to ourselves - "it's all so unfortunate, why aren't they just getting along?" We are involved. So we have to find an ethical way forward and not just accept the brutality. The side that we're allied with is the one that we can and should influence. That's Israel. We can't influence Hamas. That's the job of Iran and Qatar, Palestinians, and others.
Showing Israel that we oppose their brutality is the least we can do.
|
|
|
On January 17 2024 08:34 Magic Powers wrote:
If I have an impaired view, feel free to point it out. I'm open for discussion.
Since you are so keen to discuss bias, I'll crack that egg with you.
Your moral principles and logical stances seem to dance with the wind as they serve any given point. Sometimes you are against all violence regardless the goal, others, you support violence as an effective means to an ends. You want everyone to be impartial, yet in the next moment you say we only have to concern ourselves with restricting one particular side.
The one thing that is consistent in your posts is that every policy you push, every argument that you make, just so happens to adversely effect or reflect on Israel. Everything from minimizing the many various threats to Israeli safety, offhandedly mentioning antisemitic conspiracy theories, and pushing every policy that could hamper efforts to remove Hamas from power. Many of these points could well have been written originally by Hamas in ways they thought could sell Western audiences each of their various goals.
The one thing I can say for you is that I don't think you are consciously aware of this yet, because you still claim to not support Hamas itself. You probably just got your social media algorithms stuck on the Hamas loop and you now want to regurgitate what you saw there.
That said, none of that is really relevant if you bring up a real fact or logical premise for us to grapple with. If a clown says 1+1=2, he's still right. If Einstein says 1+1=3, he's still wrong. To make fun of the clown for being a clown and dismiss his math because of who he is is a logical fallacy (called an ad hominem). Not only is the guy making fun of the clown a jerk, he is denying himself use of the actual fact that was just placed before him because he'd rather shoot the messenger.
I am pro-Israel. I have said that before. Many of the facts and rationales I put forth do in fact support my position. That's usually how debate forums work. You have the option of
1. Attempting to disprove my fact (and in the age of Google, fact checking is usually pretty easy if a fact is indeed false).
Or 2. Revising your opinion to incorporate the new thing you learned.
You and a couple other specific posters here tend to attack me personally instead of doing one of the above rational options. I can only surmise that this occurs when you cannot disprove a fact that I bring, but are so religiously tied to your current ideology that you can't bear to revise it. You'd rather dismiss me and convince yourself that somehow that means that none of my facts are relevant.
If you are so afraid of things that challenge your current world view, there are plenty of places on the internet that you can surround yourself with exclusively like minded people. It may be easier on you emotionally if you spend time there.
|
On January 17 2024 10:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2024 08:58 Acrofales wrote:On January 17 2024 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2024 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2024 08:19 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2024 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2024 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote:
I can't address your point because your point is based on the false premise that Israel is defending itself, which it isn't. If your premises were correct, your point would be correct. But your premises are absurd, and therefore so is your point. As I told Jimmi yesterday, if we accept the international defense of Israel, then their position is justified, and it is normal to view them as the "good guys". But their international defense is obviously bullshit, and therefore we shouldn't make arguments based on it. Israel is absolutely defending itself. + Show Spoiler +Palestinians are also defending themselves. That’s what makes this whole dumpster fire burn so intensely.
This is why I was using my psychotic murderous wife scenario to show why neither can really be blamed. Once both governments decided the other can’t be trusted, it became a matter of protecting themselves. Do you see how in my murderous wife scenario, my decision to kill the other family was to protect my daughter? Despite the other family being strictly victims from my murderous wife, it is a simple decision to kill someone’s trying to kill my daughter.
So now what if me defending my daughter just causes that other family’s extended family to target me? Well suddenly I’ve got a bigger problem on my hands. What if this family decides my house is too well fortified and they get their revenge on my parents instead? Maybe they take out my mom but not my dad. Now what? I know they still want to kill my dad, and they have killed my family before. What do I do? Is it ethical for me to kill them first?
Now that this is all set in motion in the above scenario, do you see how both families are in a position where they are defending innocents? The other family is defending innocent children. I am also defending innocent children. But since this war is so deep and we trust each other so little, there isn’t really a good path to peace. Regardless of who was right to begin with, it’s totally meaningless because both factions now have innocent, entirely morally clean children to defend.
I see no value in your pursuit of a good guy or any kind of defender or aggressor blah blah stuff because those people aren’t really even a thing at this point. Even if we agree who was originally at fault, it does nothing for the safety of this new generation of children who need to be protected.
Hamas and IDF have both killed children and both sides deeply believe the other faction needs to be defeated. They are both defending innocents. It’s totally pointless to try to frame the situation with respect to some core, knowable moral baseline. Concluding who started it or who is the most evil doesn’t matter when both are defending children.
Israel will not allow their children to be killed for the sake of appeasing their own conscience. Even if they believe it’s sad and unethical to kill Palestinians, they’ll still decide “these children of ours have no guilt, but they will be victims of murder if we don’t wipe out Hamas”
Similarly, some Palestinian 15 year old who isn’t even mentally developed is a victim by being raised in that environment and they are not morally responsible for the views they’ve been born into and the war they have witnessed. So that 15 year old is gonna go kill some Israelis and Israel is gonna go kill people too. Both feel like they are acting morally and both are defending people who can’t defend themselves. So trying to tell either of these people “hey can we chill for a bit and just accept the risk” is beyond pointless.
Ask a Palestinian why they don’t support Hamas surrendering and they’ll say “so the IDF can just kill all of us?”
Ask an Israeli why they don’t support the IDF surrendering and they’ll say “so Hamas can just kill all of us?”
There are times where diligently working to determine absolute guilt is worthwhile to resolve conflict. This is not one of those times . They really aren't. Regardless, the "international rules based order" demands on its face to step in and sanction Israel for its ongoing crimes against humanity/ethnic cleansing campaign you describe as "defending" themselves. Sorta like how you're ignoring the laws to rationalize murdering another family in your example. If Israel just stepped right out of West Bank and Gaza tomorrow, you are saying... + Show Spoiler +there is no risk of innocent children being harmed by Hamas? That’s the standard to meet. That’s what any nation in the world would require as a safe assumption before doing something. So long as Hamas is a risk to children in Israel, Israel will always defend those children.
Let’s assume you had the ability to eliminate whatever evil you are assuming Israel possesses and you eliminated any hatred or desire to kill Palestinians without any defensive purpose. Do you think you would succeed in convincing Israelis their children are safe from Hamas?
Maybe it’s worthwhile to make sure we are aligned otherwise. Is it moral for someone to kill someone to defend their children? If you disagree with me that it is moral, nothing else will be agreed on. Everything I am saying operates under the assumption it is moral to kill a victim to defend an innocent. If you don’t believe that is true, we of course will not agree on the other stuff. I'm saying what I said. What Israel is doing is not self-defense regardless of your attempts at rationalizing their ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign with your example/analogy of you being a murderous vigilante. Ok let’s use another term: protecting. Do you think Israeli children would be harmed even if Israel withdrew from Gaza and the West Bank and canceled all settlements? I think Hamas would still attack Israel. If Hamas still attacked Israel, it would mean Israeli children are in danger. Do you agree? Or are you saying if Israel withdrew, Israeli children would not be at risk of being harmed by Hamas? What I am saying is that if Israeli children would still be at risk because of all the history that created a ton of hatred on both sides, then that means there is still an incentive to kill Hamas. In that way, it becomes protecting children. Where do my assumptions disagree with yours? You’re being brief. I don’t understand where my logical diagram diverges from your. Please help me. Israel isn't justified in murdering Palestinian children because Hamas will maybe murder more Israeli children in the future. That is called a war crime. It is also utterly senseless. I apologize if that is how my message came across. That is not what I meant to say. I am saying if Israel believes a group of people will kill innocent Israelis, we should assume Israel will make moral concessions in pursuit of preventing those innocent Israelis from being killed. Just in case you didn’t read earlier in the conversation: I am saying even if we assume Israel was entirely at fault and morally failed in every single way for the conflict to be in its current form, Israel’s military being immoral would not mean it is moral to kill innocent Israelis. Similarly, Hamas being immoral does not mean it is moral to kill innocent Palestinians. So doesn’t that bring us into a weird situation? Palestinians believe their children are in danger and they need Hamas to protect them from Israel. Israelis believe their children are in danger and need the IDF to protect them from Hamas. In both cases, their concerns have historic precedent. It’s happened many times before. They both have every reason to believe their children are in danger. Furthermore, they both have historic precedent indicating even if they agree to stop killing each other, the other side will break the agreement. So now neither side trusts each other either. So at this point, both sides have legitimate reason to believe their children are in danger and they both have legitimate reason to believe the other side can’t be trusted. Faced with this scenario, both sides have concluded they need to simply defeat the other one. The other side will try to kill them and even they wanted peace, it’s not possible because the other side can’t be trusted to remain peaceful. Do you see how once this cycle is set in motion, the only way for peace to be achieved is if a greater power is able to guarantee safety for both sides? Since neither Palestinians or Israelis have any reason to trust each other, they both only have 2 options for achieving safety of their children: 1: a greater power disarms both of them and guarantees both of their safety 2: they defeat the other side Until [1] occurs, the only thing left is [2]. And just to reiterate, past moral failings do not mean children don’t need to be protected. The adults are morally bound to protect their own children because those children are not able to defend themselves and they do not have any guilt in this situation. So their only choice is to try to defeat the other side, because all nations in all of history have all always decided to prioritize their own over their enemy. So they have both made a conscious decision to allow the other side’s children die in pursuit of defending their own children. Do you see how this is true regardless of any other nefarious intentions we attach to either side? Even if we don’t assume Hamas are lunatics and even if we assume Israel doesn’t want to conquer the whole region and expel all Palestinians, the above logic remains true. So that means even if the IDF and Hamas were glowing examples of moral integrity, they would still be at war so long as there is no greater power capable of guaranteeing their safety. Is this more clear? Your response indicated you read my message differently than I meant it.
I fully agree with all of this. I think we reached this conclusion around October 8. The problem I have with your posts isn't that your analysis is wrong, it's that you mix what is, and what ought to be. You have argued multiple times that because both Israel and Hamas are fully committed to wiping their opponents off the map, it is moral for Israel to do so. While there are also other solutions, and there is perhaps my one quibble with your post: an outside force will have to mediate. I don't think it's ever realistic for an outside force to "impose peace". You cannot oppress people into peace. For an example, consider how Hindus and Muslims were fully united in their hatred of the British colonizers, but despite Ghandi's intents, they instantly split into different countries upon achieving their goal of kicking out the Brits. An outside force oppressing Israel and Palestine wouldn't solve the mutual hatred, it would oppress it, and when this force left, they'd go right back to where they started. An outside force could mediate and help them in the peace process, but fundamentally both sides must want peace. Currently neither side wants peace. And then I will argue that both sides are wrong, not right.
To sum things up, yes they will require outside help to reach a peaceful agreement. And lasting peace will require many things to happen. The first of those things is a ceasefire: neither side is ever going to agree that peace is possible if they are being slaughtered while we talk. And yes, I think that outside force should be the UN, and the US is being particularly problematic in this conflict by fanning the flames instead of working towards a ceasefire. I think Iran is a problem too. But once again, two wrongs don't make a right. You cannot be part of the solution until you stop being part of the problem.
|
On January 17 2024 12:52 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2024 08:34 Magic Powers wrote:
If I have an impaired view, feel free to point it out. I'm open for discussion. Since you are so keen to discuss bias, I'll crack that egg with you. Your moral principles and logical stances seem to dance with the wind as they serve any given point. Sometimes you are against all violence regardless the goal, others, you support violence as an effective means to an ends. You want everyone to be impartial, yet in the next moment you say we only have to concern ourselves with restricting one particular side. The one thing that is consistent in your posts is that every policy you push, every argument that you make, just so happens to adversely effect or reflect on Israel. Everything from minimizing the many various threats to Israeli safety, offhandedly mentioning antisemitic conspiracy theories, and pushing every policy that could hamper efforts to remove Hamas from power. Many of these points could well have been written originally by Hamas in ways they thought could sell Western audiences each of their various goals. The one thing I can say for you is that I don't think you are consciously aware of this yet, because you still claim to not support Hamas itself. You probably just got your social media algorithms stuck on the Hamas loop and you now want to regurgitate what you saw there. That said, none of that is really relevant if you bring up a real fact or logical premise for us to grapple with. If a clown says 1+1=2, he's still right. If Einstein says 1+1=3, he's still wrong. To make fun of the clown for being a clown and dismiss his math because of who he is is a logical fallacy (called an ad hominem). Not only is the guy making fun of the clown a jerk, he is denying himself use of the actual fact that was just placed before him because he'd rather shoot the messenger. I am pro-Israel. I have said that before. Many of the facts and rationales I put forth do in fact support my position. That's usually how debate forums work. You have the option of 1. Attempting to disprove my fact (and in the age of Google, fact checking is usually pretty easy if a fact is indeed false). Or 2. Revising your opinion to incorporate the new thing you learned. You and a couple other specific posters here tend to attack me personally instead of doing one of the above rational options. I can only surmise that this occurs when you cannot disprove a fact that I bring, but are so religiously tied to your current ideology that you can't bear to revise it. You'd rather dismiss me and convince yourself that somehow that means that none of my facts are relevant. If you are so afraid of things that challenge your current world view, there are plenty of places on the internet that you can surround yourself with exclusively like minded people. It may be easier on you emotionally if you spend time there.
You didn't provide a single quote for any of your accusations. This is a very, very low effort comment on your part. You can easily search through my comment history to find examples of your accusations. It should not be too difficult, I've done it plenty of times before for numerous people.
1) When did I support violence?
2) When did I say we can only "concern" ourselves with only one side? I said we can influence Israel since we're allied or stand in support of them, but not Hamas (i.e. Palestinians). We have no influence over them, but we do have influence over Israel. However, we can concern ourselves with every element of the conflict. I said nothing to the contrary.
3) Provide a quote on me saying something that would "minimize" Israel's safety.
4) Provide a quote on me bringing up an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
5) Provide a quote on me arguing in favor of keeping Hamas in power.
6) I'm not discussing the Israel/Palestine conflict on any other social media platform except for one discord channel in which literally not one person sides with me, and neither do I discuss it in real life. I do this deliberately since I want to avoid talking about this topic in my regular life and as a side effect I prevent entering an echo chamber.
7)
"I am pro-Israel. I have said that before."
Thank you for admitting to your bias. This helps a lot in understanding why you're so often taking a firm anti-Palestinian stance.
Meanwhile you're accusing me of having a bias pro-Hamas. Not only are you a hypocrite, but you also clearly don't remember a meaningful amount of my posting history.
8)
"You have the option of
1. Attempting to disprove my fact (and in the age of Google, fact checking is usually pretty easy if a fact is indeed false).
Or 2. Revising your opinion to incorporate the new thing you learned.
You and a couple other specific posters here tend to attack me personally instead of doing one of the above rational options."
False. I can provide numerous examples of me fact-checking and disproving claims you made. Shall I?
Also, when have I attacked you personally? You just admitted that you have a pro-Israel bias. When did I go meaningfully beyond accusing you of the bias you just admitted to having?
Also, please name the "other specific posters" so we know who you're talking about.
9)
"I can only surmise that this occurs when you cannot disprove a fact that I bring, but are so religiously tied to your current ideology that you can't bear to revise it."
What ideology? Being pro-people and not just pro-one-side? Call me guilty then.
|
Northern Ireland22955 Posts
I mean it may be a trite point but if a bunch of globally diffused people can get atypically heated on an issue that largely doesn’t impact their lives in any way, I mean what’s that look like when you’re at the coalface?
It feels to me an unfortunate flaw in the coming together of our general genetic makeup, and various culturally/structurally imposed systems.
We were never built to feel kinship with millions of other people, iirc we have a cognitive cap literally in the hundreds of people we can form even basic meaningful relations with. But abstracted through various means we can.
It’s never been something I’ve really understood. There have been various campaigns over here to not prosecute British soldiers for obvious war crimes. I would personally consider myself extremely British, hell my dad was a lifer for the BBC but if our ostensible values mean anything well, the easiest tower to knock down in exemplifying that is to prosecute your own for shooting civilians in cold blood.
If you purport to be an enlightened democracy there’s nothing more patriotic than holding your own citizens to the standards you espouse right? These are our values, we don’t give a fuck if you’re one of us, indeed it makes it worse if you are.
Hey apologies it’s a bit of a ramble post but hey. GH and MP aren’t lunatics for their moral/ideological positions on the subject. Nor is Mohdoo for approaching it in a very cold, but very realpolitik sense. Nor, is someone like Cerebrate who has connections and history with said same polity.
If in a forum besides some e-reputation where we have nothing to lose but our chains ego but still continue to cherry pick and strawmsan each other (and I’m guilty here), why would we realistically expect the parties in this conflict to manage it when people dying is on the line stakes wise?
|
On January 17 2024 19:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2024 12:52 Cerebrate1 wrote:On January 17 2024 08:34 Magic Powers wrote:
If I have an impaired view, feel free to point it out. I'm open for discussion. Since you are so keen to discuss bias, I'll crack that egg with you. Your moral principles and logical stances seem to dance with the wind as they serve any given point. Sometimes you are against all violence regardless the goal, others, you support violence as an effective means to an ends. You want everyone to be impartial, yet in the next moment you say we only have to concern ourselves with restricting one particular side. The one thing that is consistent in your posts is that every policy you push, every argument that you make, just so happens to adversely effect or reflect on Israel. Everything from minimizing the many various threats to Israeli safety, offhandedly mentioning antisemitic conspiracy theories, and pushing every policy that could hamper efforts to remove Hamas from power. Many of these points could well have been written originally by Hamas in ways they thought could sell Western audiences each of their various goals. The one thing I can say for you is that I don't think you are consciously aware of this yet, because you still claim to not support Hamas itself. You probably just got your social media algorithms stuck on the Hamas loop and you now want to regurgitate what you saw there. That said, none of that is really relevant if you bring up a real fact or logical premise for us to grapple with. If a clown says 1+1=2, he's still right. If Einstein says 1+1=3, he's still wrong. To make fun of the clown for being a clown and dismiss his math because of who he is is a logical fallacy (called an ad hominem). Not only is the guy making fun of the clown a jerk, he is denying himself use of the actual fact that was just placed before him because he'd rather shoot the messenger. I am pro-Israel. I have said that before. Many of the facts and rationales I put forth do in fact support my position. That's usually how debate forums work. You have the option of 1. Attempting to disprove my fact (and in the age of Google, fact checking is usually pretty easy if a fact is indeed false). Or 2. Revising your opinion to incorporate the new thing you learned. You and a couple other specific posters here tend to attack me personally instead of doing one of the above rational options. I can only surmise that this occurs when you cannot disprove a fact that I bring, but are so religiously tied to your current ideology that you can't bear to revise it. You'd rather dismiss me and convince yourself that somehow that means that none of my facts are relevant. If you are so afraid of things that challenge your current world view, there are plenty of places on the internet that you can surround yourself with exclusively like minded people. It may be easier on you emotionally if you spend time there. You didn't provide a single quote for any of your accusations. This is a very, very low effort comment on your part. You can easily search through my comment history to find examples of your accusations. It should not be too difficult, I've done it plenty of times before for numerous people. 1) When did I support violence? 2) When did I say we can only "concern" ourselves with only one side? I said we can influence Israel since we're allied or stand in support of them, but not Hamas (i.e. Palestinians). We have no influence over them, but we do have influence over Israel. However, we can concern ourselves with every element of the conflict. I said nothing to the contrary. 3) Provide a quote on me saying something that would "minimize" Israel's safety. 4) Provide a quote on me bringing up an antisemitic conspiracy theory. 5) Provide a quote on me arguing in favor of keeping Hamas in power. 6) I'm not discussing the Israel/Palestine conflict on any other social media platform except for one discord channel in which literally not one person sides with me, and neither do I discuss it in real life. I do this deliberately since I want to avoid talking about this topic in my regular life and as a side effect I prevent entering an echo chamber. 7) "I am pro-Israel. I have said that before." Thank you for admitting to your bias. This helps a lot in understanding why you're so often taking a firm anti-Palestinian stance. Meanwhile you're accusing me of having a bias pro-Hamas. Not only are you a hypocrite, but you also clearly don't remember a meaningful amount of my posting history. 8) "You have the option of 1. Attempting to disprove my fact (and in the age of Google, fact checking is usually pretty easy if a fact is indeed false). Or 2. Revising your opinion to incorporate the new thing you learned. You and a couple other specific posters here tend to attack me personally instead of doing one of the above rational options." False. I can provide numerous examples of me fact-checking and disproving claims you made. Shall I? Also, when have I attacked you personally? You just admitted that you have a pro-Israel bias. When did I go meaningfully beyond accusing you of the bias you just admitted to having? Also, please name the "other specific posters" so we know who you're talking about. 9) "I can only surmise that this occurs when you cannot disprove a fact that I bring, but are so religiously tied to your current ideology that you can't bear to revise it." What ideology? Being pro-people and not just pro-one-side? Call me guilty then.
The fun thing is that people think we who don't support the genocide of Palestinians are pro Hamas when we are very much anti Hamas. I have no problem pointing out that most people that "support" Israel have brain rot. They think that because we are for a more peaceful solution we somehow want the genocide of Israel. It's literal brain rot. They are impossible to argue with, because they don't see Palestinians as real people, although some of the act like they do. So save yourself the hassle of arguing with people like these, they have no way of actually analyzing how their bias affect them, and it's been so for decades. I'm sorry if I'm adding nothing to the discussion, but as how I see it there is no discussion here, just banging head against a wall.
|
On January 17 2024 23:55 SamuelGreen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2024 19:17 Magic Powers wrote:On January 17 2024 12:52 Cerebrate1 wrote:On January 17 2024 08:34 Magic Powers wrote:
If I have an impaired view, feel free to point it out. I'm open for discussion. Since you are so keen to discuss bias, I'll crack that egg with you. Your moral principles and logical stances seem to dance with the wind as they serve any given point. Sometimes you are against all violence regardless the goal, others, you support violence as an effective means to an ends. You want everyone to be impartial, yet in the next moment you say we only have to concern ourselves with restricting one particular side. The one thing that is consistent in your posts is that every policy you push, every argument that you make, just so happens to adversely effect or reflect on Israel. Everything from minimizing the many various threats to Israeli safety, offhandedly mentioning antisemitic conspiracy theories, and pushing every policy that could hamper efforts to remove Hamas from power. Many of these points could well have been written originally by Hamas in ways they thought could sell Western audiences each of their various goals. The one thing I can say for you is that I don't think you are consciously aware of this yet, because you still claim to not support Hamas itself. You probably just got your social media algorithms stuck on the Hamas loop and you now want to regurgitate what you saw there. That said, none of that is really relevant if you bring up a real fact or logical premise for us to grapple with. If a clown says 1+1=2, he's still right. If Einstein says 1+1=3, he's still wrong. To make fun of the clown for being a clown and dismiss his math because of who he is is a logical fallacy (called an ad hominem). Not only is the guy making fun of the clown a jerk, he is denying himself use of the actual fact that was just placed before him because he'd rather shoot the messenger. I am pro-Israel. I have said that before. Many of the facts and rationales I put forth do in fact support my position. That's usually how debate forums work. You have the option of 1. Attempting to disprove my fact (and in the age of Google, fact checking is usually pretty easy if a fact is indeed false). Or 2. Revising your opinion to incorporate the new thing you learned. You and a couple other specific posters here tend to attack me personally instead of doing one of the above rational options. I can only surmise that this occurs when you cannot disprove a fact that I bring, but are so religiously tied to your current ideology that you can't bear to revise it. You'd rather dismiss me and convince yourself that somehow that means that none of my facts are relevant. If you are so afraid of things that challenge your current world view, there are plenty of places on the internet that you can surround yourself with exclusively like minded people. It may be easier on you emotionally if you spend time there. You didn't provide a single quote for any of your accusations. This is a very, very low effort comment on your part. You can easily search through my comment history to find examples of your accusations. It should not be too difficult, I've done it plenty of times before for numerous people. 1) When did I support violence? 2) When did I say we can only "concern" ourselves with only one side? I said we can influence Israel since we're allied or stand in support of them, but not Hamas (i.e. Palestinians). We have no influence over them, but we do have influence over Israel. However, we can concern ourselves with every element of the conflict. I said nothing to the contrary. 3) Provide a quote on me saying something that would "minimize" Israel's safety. 4) Provide a quote on me bringing up an antisemitic conspiracy theory. 5) Provide a quote on me arguing in favor of keeping Hamas in power. 6) I'm not discussing the Israel/Palestine conflict on any other social media platform except for one discord channel in which literally not one person sides with me, and neither do I discuss it in real life. I do this deliberately since I want to avoid talking about this topic in my regular life and as a side effect I prevent entering an echo chamber. 7) "I am pro-Israel. I have said that before." Thank you for admitting to your bias. This helps a lot in understanding why you're so often taking a firm anti-Palestinian stance. Meanwhile you're accusing me of having a bias pro-Hamas. Not only are you a hypocrite, but you also clearly don't remember a meaningful amount of my posting history. 8) "You have the option of 1. Attempting to disprove my fact (and in the age of Google, fact checking is usually pretty easy if a fact is indeed false). Or 2. Revising your opinion to incorporate the new thing you learned. You and a couple other specific posters here tend to attack me personally instead of doing one of the above rational options." False. I can provide numerous examples of me fact-checking and disproving claims you made. Shall I? Also, when have I attacked you personally? You just admitted that you have a pro-Israel bias. When did I go meaningfully beyond accusing you of the bias you just admitted to having? Also, please name the "other specific posters" so we know who you're talking about. 9) "I can only surmise that this occurs when you cannot disprove a fact that I bring, but are so religiously tied to your current ideology that you can't bear to revise it." What ideology? Being pro-people and not just pro-one-side? Call me guilty then. The fun thing is that people think we who don't support the genocide of Palestinians are pro Hamas when we are very much anti Hamas. I have no problem pointing out that most people that "support" Israel have brain rot. They think that because we are for a more peaceful solution we somehow want the genocide of Israel. It's literal brain rot. They are impossible to argue with, because they don't see Palestinians as real people, although some of the act like they do. So save yourself the hassle of arguing with people like these, they have no way of actually analyzing how their bias affect them, and it's been so for decades. I'm sorry if I'm adding nothing to the discussion, but as how I see it there is no discussion here, just banging head against a wall.
You have a point. Cerebrate was asked if he cares about the suffering of Palestinians, and he said yes. I asked him if he cares about their suffering as much as he cares about that of Israelis, and he hasn't answered that question. Instead he chose to throw wild accusations at myself and a few other individuals who he hasn't named in that comment. His priorities are quite telling.
Also, Nebuchad posted something incredibly important one page ago. Everyone should read this.
https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=192#3840
It easily qualifies as just as important as the CNN article JimmiC posted. Everyone should read this, too.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/16/opinions/opinion-psychology-of-israeli-palestinian-conflict-hamid/index.html
|
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude.
|
On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude.
Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually.
|
On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude.
No, I won't be polite to people such as Cerebrate who deliberately misrepresent people's arguments and lie about them and also spread lies about historic events. Why should I? Wombat has tried his best to be polite, and how did that help exactly? Did his sincere politeness help reveal some kind of truth to Cerebrate? Did it stop Cerebrate from lying? His most recent comment is full of lies. Have you noticed?
What is rudeness compared to lying? Do you actually think it's more important, in a political thread, to be nice to people than to be real with them? Civility is something for your friends, your family, your colleagues, the cashier, the homeless person, the people you appreciate and deal with in real life. In here, I have no clue how being nice should ever have priority over being truthful.
I don't see you calling out Cerebrate's lies. Why do you place greater emphasis on my demeanor than his lies? Tell us.
Edit: honestly your comment pissed me off, so I forgot to address your point about Nazis. Nebuchad though succinctly stated how I see it. Being in favor of bombing Nazis is not evidence that all lives don't matter.
Additionally, I also said before that the Allies weren't strictly "the good guys" either. They committed various war crimes during WW2. As always, two wrongs don't make a right. Ever. There is no exception. There's a gray zone regarding what we should be viewing as wrong, but if something's obviously wrong, then it's just wrong, and that's the end of it.
It was right to kill the Nazis during WW2, but it was wrong to also kill so many civilians. Many deaths could've been prevented. There were policies in place enabling the death of many German civilians and the destruction of civilian infrastructure even when it had no impact on the overall conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 18 2024 01:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude. Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually. So does that also apply to people in favour of violence against Hamas and their ilk?
That's literally everyone, so yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
