Pretty simple. No-one can prove the intention of clearing the park for his photo op was part of Trump's input into the decision making process here. Because a) Maybe he was smart enough not to explicitly state that or b) It wasn't a consideration. We don't know. Only a clown would claim something has been proven here.

So, Trump said he didn't clear the park for X reason and we should believe him because, what? He never lies? Sure, buddy.

You can't prove the unstated intention here true or false. You can only infer one way or the other. We are engaged in speculation. The fact you don't seem to understand that is comical.

but you could imagine the moral outrage if a game depicted the killing of Palestinians by Israelis. — Hanover

What if it depicted both sides doing this to each other? How would that be different from any war game?

Maybe it's a matter of degree. Like, if there was a game called "Concentration Camp Commander", or something like that, I mean, outrage would be absolutely justified. Again though, I'd direct it at the designers mostly. It's possible your average ignorant moron could play that just by virtue of being an ignorant moron.

And the slippery slope then asks about what about a video game where the object is pedophilia, rape, domestic violence and all sorts anti-social activity. — Hanover

There are games like this. I suppose my general attitude to morality centers around the infliction of harm. In a way, the players are victims here and the virtual victims, by virtue of being virtual, cannot be.

Dude, if you think you can convince anyone here that you have special access to Donnie's soul such that you can ascertain his pristine intentions re all this, you are a seriously lost soul. It is totally reasonably to infer the intention outlined based on character and history. He doesn't have to tattoo it across his orange mug.

(Hope it's clear, you can burn that game and choke the designers with the ashes far as I'm concerned. Same for the wankers who designed GTA. Trash, all. But there is a debatable point here re the players.)

Maybe worth being nuanced even there. Take video games; they regularly involve obviously immoral activities, e.g. murder and other criminal behaviour, even torture and rape, all immoral because they involve inflicting unjustified harm on others with the degree of harm largely defining how immoral they are. This also applies to acts of racism. As fantasies though, the moral argument becomes more slippery. Surely, voluntarily placing yourself in the virtual position of someone committing a racist act does not necessarily make you a racist any more than placing yourself in the virtual position of a murderer makes you a murderer. Because racism denotes a despicable attitude as well as behaviour (covering prejudice and actual discrimination), the above distinction can seem blurry. But I reckon it holds. If it didn't, there would be some odd consequences.

it makes light of devastating event, so that would make it as immoral — Hanover

Jokes that make light of devastating events, we usually refer to as in bad taste rather than immoral though. So, this kind of segues into my original take.

EDIT: Having said that, so far as jokes propagate racism, I'd call the act of telling them immoral, just as I might condemn the designers of a racist board game or violent video game rather than the players.

Seems more a question of taste than morality.

Thanks again on behalf of us all to David! I am going to leave you with the last word of substance here and close the thread for now. Please see the original post for more detail on David's writings and internet presence. :cool:

Kudos for actually engaging. I appreciate you keeping the implicit promise that many others did not.

Cheers! — creativesoul

Second this. :clap:

Wrote this before I saw @ssu’s post. Anyway, along the same lines.

What do you do if the militants who are shooting into Israel disappear into civilian populations? I am not saying bomb indiscriminately, but just in terms of Israeli forces finding the perpetrators. I legitimately don't know as I am not very knowledgeable in terms of the range of military/police options/actions against perceived (or actual) terrorist threats in heavily disputed and populated areas. — schopenhauer1

Sometimes you need to accept that you can’t find the perpetrator or separate him/her from innocent parties and by killing the innocent along with the guilty, you simply create more perpetrators, and more fanatic ones. Sometime after Bloody Sunday where British Soldiers did open fire on and kill civilians in response to gunfire from IRA operatives in the vicinity, the British realised this and that they wouldn’t defeat the IRA this way. In fact they'd become their chief recruiting officers instead. But they actually did want a solution and eventually got one. Had they taken a more heavy handed approach, violence simply would have escalated, the IRA become stronger and more popular, and a peace process virtually impossible. Again, if you want peace you don’t use these tactics.

Trying to align it.. Correct me when you're rested.

Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified?
— schopenhauer1

Baden: No — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. I don't agree. The statement is too general.

are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X".
— schopenhauer1

Baden: Yes — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. Yes, there are some situations where other options should be used but certain acts of violence are justified in certain situations.

If this is the case, are you of the mind that Hamas/Palestinians are justified (the means) to do whatever it takes to get their ends (suicide bombing, sending missiles to civilian territories, stabbings, shootings, or whatever it is)?

Baden: No. — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. There have to be limits to what's justified even in war.

IF Israel is unjustified using violence.
IS Palestine unjustified using violence?
— schopenhauer1

Baden: Sometimes — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. It just depends on the specific scenario. For example, if the IDF invaded Gaza, Palestinian militants would be justified in resisting the invasion with force. Just as if Palestinian militants invaded Israel, the converse would be true. Sometimes one or the other may be more or less justified in using violence. The asymmetry is that Israel is the occupier. In that sense, their violence is constant.

If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,

IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends?
— schopenhauer1

Baden: No.. — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. There is an asymmetry but I covered this in my very first answer. It doesn't justify attacks on civilians. But this is what happens, tit-for-tat punishment attacks against the innocent create a spiral of hatred that prolongs conflicts. It happened in N. Ireland and it continues to happen in Israel/Palestine. It doesn't seem like an accident either, but a deliberate strategy.

I still don't really know what you're getting at here.

cheeky — schopenhauer1

Moi?

They're in order. You can click the reply link to your post and they should line up. Otherwise, I might flesh it out tomorrow. It's 1am here. Going to bed soon.

The icing on the cake :lol:

(Those are my answers to your original edited post btw).

No, yes, no, sometimes, no. Good night.

NO I just like to get my reply out without editing. I go back and edit later. — schopenhauer1

Brilliant. I get it now. I'll just go back to the start, seeing as you've edited everything now and my replies were to the unedited versions and so may not make sense any more, and we can begin again.

Edit: Having checked, it is indeed a hot mess. My sincere apologies to any poor soul who dared to read through that.

Another example:

That's how I was thinking you were getting at. — schopenhauer1

Do you mean

"That's what I was thinking you were getting at"?

Are you using your phone and getting auto-corrected or English is not your native language or what? Serious question.

Specific, — schopenhauer1

Incorrect. The correct answer is "general", which is why it was wrong in a very obvious way. The specific stuff you wrote later.

This point was brought up and dealt with earlier in the thread.

Yes, targeting civilians.. — schopenhauer1

Correct.

Now, is this conclusion, as it is phrased, general or specific in terms of the target of the violence?

Yes, Baden thinks Hamas/Palestinians are equally unjustified (even if they have fewer weapons/power). — schopenhauer1

Don't worry, you'll get there. What is that a condemnation of, specifically?

No, you're again not able to read English. Keep trying. Read the posts again and try to figure out where you went wrong.

Go on, try again.

Honestly, you are probably the least able of anyone I've ever debated here to understand basic English or logical connections.

No, I don't see a "rather" in that sentence. That alone is a strong condemnation — schopenhauer1

Correct.

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) or covertly (Israel). — Baden

I said show me the "rather" in that sentence. See that one, the one I just quoted above.

Let's start with that and slowly make progress.

Yes, "Rather not" in any use in the English language is pretty damn wishy washy. — schopenhauer1

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) — Baden

Show me the "rather" in that sentence. The one I keep repeating to you. The other sentence is a different sentence refering to something different. The sentence above refers to Hamas targeting civilians. The other sentence refers to violence as a response to occupation in general. The two sentences are distinct. The first sentence clearly refutes the idea that I support "exactly" what Hamas has been doing for the past 30 years, seeing as that, by definition, includes targeting civilians. The other sentence as it came after the first one is contextualized by the first one.

So what part is justified, exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years? — schopenhauer1

What are you trying to say? If you are trying to say:

"What part of what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the past 30 years is justified?" then you need to rephrase your question. The way it's phrased currently means "Is exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years justified?". The former (which you didn't ask) is an information question and the latter (which you did ask) a yes/no question, the answer to which, as I mentioned, can directly be inferred from my previous posts, i.e., no.

So the precise scenario is the actions of Hamas/Palestinian fighters over the last 30 years. — schopenhauer1

That's not precise.

are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". — schopenhauer1

I'm going to answer this. This time, please listen. A) The labels do not matter. Whatever I say applies equally to any party in a similar context. B) Violence is sometimes justified and sometimes not justified C) Options other than violence should always be considered first. D) If you want to know whether in a certain scenario, I think violence would be justified, give me the precise scenario.

Me: Nobody, including Hamas, is justified in targeting civilians
Small distracted fish: So, you are justifying Hamas targeting civilians
Me: Read what I wrote.
Small distracted fish: Sounds like you are OK with Hamas targeting civilians.

Again, kind of wishy washy. — schopenhauer1

No, it's as clear and unequivocal as day.

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians either overtly (Hamas) or covertly (Israel).. — Baden

Look, if you don't understand English, you don't belong in this conversation.

Make that a goldfish. This is the part that answers your question re me not justifying "exactly" what Hamas has done.

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians either overtly (Hamas)... — Baden

JFC, at least read the post that replied to you. You have the attention span of a fucking budgie.

Covered that already. Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) or covertly (Israel). But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. I'd rather see non-violent resistance, not because I have any sympathy for occupying military forces but because civilians, including children, on both sides, usually bear the brunt of these kinds of conflicts.

I'm just curious the thought process and reasoning here as I think it would reveal a lot of the beginning positions of the participants. — schopenhauer1

Maybe just read more of the thread.

Why? Haven’t you ever thought something unlikely without recourse to scientific method?

Anyway, this thread seems to have veered off course. Let's see if Amen comes up with the goods in the appropriate location.

Sorry, dude, more than likely

this is just showboating. — Baden

I have no interest in moderating the debate. You can choose your mod. Now, just go post the proposal in the debate forum and stop babbling about it.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/29/debate-proposals

Unless, of course, you have no intention of debating and this is just showboating.

Foiled again.

Upon the basis of what information would you consider it unlikely, rather than likely? — Janus

What I've read concerning the genetic make-up of the disease. I could look it up but tbh, I'm not so interested in debating this aspect of it in the absence of further evidence because a) We have, as yet, no reliable or scientific way of apportioning probability here b) it doesn't particularly matter to me, and c) it's not as if I would put anything past the Chinese government.

thanks. compliments make me choke, though. — frank

Allow me to reiterate Tiff's words of appreciation. :hearts: