‘Justification,’ the favourite term of those riddled with guilt. Actions need not be justified they speak for themselves.

None of us are privy to the details and I cannot say I actually care much about this whole nonsense. People will kill other people and those willing and able to act will act. Many will make poor choices based on biases and conditioning.

Conflicts like with the IRA were solved most likely due to a common worldview held between the opposing positions who had the power to act. I see no such common worldview present in this particular conflict and therefore no immediate way out of it. It is for future generations to try and patch up.

If anyone mostly disagrees please state why.

Maybe an external party could enter the scene and enforce a kind of peace … but let’s be honest. No one looks likely to do that anytime soon for fear of public/media backlash. As per usual the under-the-table politicking will continue and deals will be made and broken.

People do seem a little too obsessed in the horror in far away lands. What are you distracting yourselves from at home. Nothing? Or is this external conflict a vent for an internal one maybe?

This is not a choice. Emotionalism is a fact of human life.

So I am not sure what you mean by last resort. — FreeEmotion

Subjective. My point is that committing a violent act against someone (striking first) is not what a pacifist would do. Some people cannot be negotiated with (and say so). Such positions can require someone to act violently as a preventative measure.

I do not believe in some one rule fits all. Pacifism has its limitations but sounds fluffier than it can be if taken too far.

Let me put it like this …

If I tell you to shut up and you ignore me then I break legs and threaten to break the legs of everyone you know a love you would do what. If you resist I just up the stakes and threaten murder.

War and Violence are necessary to dispose of unwanted and hostile threats. It is not really that complicated. That is my point. The pacifist will sit idle in the midst of rape and murder trying to talk the perpetrator down instead of taking them out.

It is unjustifiable to adhere to pacifism in all circumstances. It is laughable that someone even thought I wanted non-stop violence and war. It is clear to all violence and war should be viewed as last resorts, it is not so clear that pacifism can be equally as destructive if adhered to rigorously.

Are you a pacifist? You sure as hell do not sound like one ;)

Yes. We should all just beat each other into a pulp … what do you think I meant :D

It is an unlikely argument that Pacifists start wars and get millions killed. — FreeEmotion

Why? Many who openly state they hate violence are quite quick to inspire violence in others by way of their self-righteous nonsense. A world full of pacifists would be a miserable world lacking in drive, ambition and emotion.

That was not my point. Not interested in the conflict really. Was trying to point out that media/propaganda drives the agenda (if there is one?).

It is a mess and will remain so. I could not help if I wanted to other than by actively pointing how ludicrous it is to act as if we know what is going on or really care all that much.

The simple truth is we ‘feel like’ we should care but likely are just content to live distanced and remote from the realities of war and suffering. I guess we want to feel like we can have some impact somehow … truth is few to none are willing to really commit.

I have no immediate commitment to nonsense created by stupidity. I am neither proud nor ashamed of this fact.

Maybe I am just in a particularly bitter mood today? Who knows :D

It was tongue in cheek. Was just pointing out how some military assaults are paid more attention than others.

People are quick to call out Israeli assaults yet when Saudi does something similar there appears to be less of an outcry. Not really surprising given the history of the conflict … it almost bores me. It does sicken me that I am ‘bored’ by this, but hey, still bored.

Growing up with this conflict on the news every couple of yeast with the same old story does not exactly instill hope.

The ‘solution’ will almost certainly involve one state. No way can these peoples live side by side in two separate states anytime within the next couple if generations. The strange thing is the manner in which the country was created. No war, just people settling there. If it was an invasion that allowed Israel to exist I have a horrible feeling it would be more or less ‘justified’. Maybe the cultist connotations of Zionism are somehow more horrific?

Tired of it. Bored of it. Likely to cu,minate with an invasion of Iran within the next decade.

including Saudi Arabia and Qatar — Benkei

Saudi want in on the killing too? Is Yemen not enough fun for them?

@schopenhauer1 Anyway, other than the scientific and technological progression what is Western Civilisation compared to other parts of the world?

Do you think what defines the West is lived and realised mistakes? I ask this as it seems to me the success of any culture (and progression of) is directed by how it reacts to mistakes made.

I think it is more about humans dying actually. That said, idiots will side with certain elements if it makes them feel morally superior. Humans are only human.

I should probably mention that members of the Israeli government wanted some form of attack in order to make a move on Gaza. All kinds of underhanded actions take place in these situations. Just like with Ukraine the truth of the matter may see the light of day in several decades time.

All talk is irrelevant really. Actions speak louder rhetoric.

many will necessarily have to die in order to eradicate those savages — Merkwurdichliebe

This is the crux of it. Necessary use of force. It is pretty clear to me that there has been too much force used. If people wish to avoid civilian casualties dropping lots of bombs on highly populated areas is not really going to cut it.

Boots on the ground would be the non-savage response. Killing thousands of civilians to save a 100 Israeli soldiers is not justified. In war soldiers should be dying not civilians. Seems pretty obvious to me.

The theory of postcolonialism has done a more than adequate job of contrasting Western culture with non-Western culture. No need to reinvent the wheel. — Merkwurdichliebe

There has to be a wheel to start with. There are no ubiquitous terms when it comes to culture. Culture has been a contentious term in anthropology since its inception.

Jabberwocky is better

Is not to bother reading his work. :D

The best definition I have heard is someone doing the exact same thing in identical circumstances and expecting a different outcome.

This is why human stupidity has its benefits. Sometimes something different does happen.

This is also the reason why stupidity is not the opposite of intelligence, because there are very intelligent people who are also very stupid — Matias

That is a poor argument.

People can say horrible things and not be horrible people. Stupid people are not intelligent and vice versa. That is not the same as saying intelligent people cannot do stupid things nor that stupid people cannot do intelligent things.

Note: I would not call myself Left or Right. I do not think many people hold purely Left leaning or Right leaning views on every topic. I would say the same for Liberal and Conservative.

This insidious need to associate with one side or another is the biggest problem.

It is not the duty of a state to worry about that which it has no sovereignty over. Western civilization has a prerogative for seeing the victory of it's values wherever possible, but in the places where Western values are shunned and despised by the local powers that be, especially those places that are openly hostile to Western civilization, it has every right to subjugate them if necessary. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sounds a little ‘barbaric’ though. The ‘if necessary’ is not foolproof. ‘Subjugate’ how? For what reason? To force assimilation, to dislodge or to destroy?

The problem is always application of ideals (attached to national and/or religious identity) as if they are ubiquitous to all humans.

I believe the main pillar of any civilisation society is the ability to sit down with those you oppose and talk, to disagree, and then to compromise where possible. Western Civilisation does this maybe a tiny little bit more … I think mostly due to technological and scientific development.

Israel exists now. It should not of come into existence in the manner it did, but such is life. Zionism is pretty dumb idea based on religious garbage.

As things stands too many Jews are being brought up to hate Arabs and too many Arabs are being brought up to hate Jews. I believe the vast majority just want the killing to stop but that is highly unlikely for another generation or two.

I have held the belief for a long time that patriotism and religion are equally dogmatic and almost as silly as each other.

We could explore forever what Western Civilisation means … that might be a good idea? To insinuate that Israel is a Western Civilisation makes little sense to me, geographically, historically and politically. More ‘Western’ than Syria or Jordan? 100%. Might be better to start with cultural and historical distinctions. It is a complex topic in and of itself.

This is hypothetical right?

If you believe the analogy of brain to computer is literal there is nothing to discuss me thinks. Deterministic and Determinism are different. You are aware of this?

Otherwise, might be worth exploring some weird ideas.

Everyone wants a solution, and wants peace. All except the current Israeli Prime Minister. — FreeEmotion

Except Hamas and other extremists. The sad truth is there are extremist elements on both sides driven by fear and fuelled by hatred. This has been the case ever since I started breathing.

I honestly see no real peaceful solution for another generation at least.

It took a long, long time to solve the Irish issue. Even now it could still boil over as tensions still exist. The middle east is far, far, far more volatile due to drastically different cultures being thrown together (both internally and externally).

The US can impose upon Israel, but the leadership will not. Maybe once Biden has gone whoever comes in will start pushing a little. I won’t hold my breath though.

As for people on the left supporting Hamas … there are people on the right who support Nazism.

Small minorities are small minorities. I think they should be shunned and more focus paid to those peacefully demonstrating.

There will always be elements wanting to cause unrest.

Either way, the ‘left’ vs ‘right’ thing is silly. I hold some views that more liberal and others that are more conservative. I think it makes more sense to say Conservative and Liberal that some distanced term like ‘left’.

I have no real idea how to define western civilisation either. I know most people everywhere are pretty much the same. The differences accumulate with education. Education is key.

Israel is the one that respects the basic human rights and civil liberties of its citizens — Merkwurdichliebe

People in Gaza and West Bank and citizens of what nation? How are they treated by this so-called ‘Western Civilisation’?

I think western ideals reach beyond religious dogma most of the time. Needless to say this is a complex issue.

I can say one thing for certain though. I do not think of Israel when I am talking about Western Civilisation. What I do think about though is how Europe (mostly UK) made a horrible mistake in backing Zionist zealots out of some kind of collective European guilt due to the horrors committed on Jews throughout the centuries.

I think people are just bothered by indiscriminate attacks by both sides. End of story.

Hamas for the best of two bad choices given to the people well over a decade ago. Things have changed. Israelis have an obstinate leader and many Israelis want him gone.

Western? Not much to speak of here of Western civilisation as far as I can tell. Just another hate vs hate scheme orbiting religious dogmas and bigotry.

Stupidity is our main redeeming quality. Only someone utterly stupid would continually try and fix the unfixable … and by pure chance sometimes the stupid succeed ;)

Looks like this discussion has shifted focus somewhat? There is a thread dedicated to whole debacle.

It is only as good as the questions asked. Plus, I believe it has no real filter to determine what is or is not factually backed up only that which is reported by humans and posted online.

People are lazy and stupid. Once systems exist to eliminate what creates such laziness and stupidity (pedagogical reforms) we will all remain witnesses to the status quo fooling ourselves into believing things are changing when they are just stuck in the same old cycle.

A non-existent one. We are perhaps closer to this now than ever before. The signs have been present over the past few millennia. Maybe some of us will live long enough to see this come into fruitition.

In term of religion as most people use the term 100%.

Religious institutions generally struggle to reconcile facts with beliefs unless it suits their worldview. This is clearly dangerous and regressive.

Note: I would say pretty much the same thing in terms of Patriotism.

Nothing has changed in the middle east. It is in a state and will remain so.

The effect social media has is something we should all be concerned about. Propaganda has reached a new height.

“What have the Romans ever done for us?”

If all scientific facts were absolute, then there would be no possibility for scientific progress, because that requires rewriting the relationships, definitions and specifics of what came before. An update. Updating the facts. — Benj96

This is either purposeful obfuscation or ignorance.

There is a considerable difference between someone stating that they believe 1+2 = 4 against someone who knows they are wrong. Science is the art of applying abstract facts to reality to increase our precision and understanding of the world.

You can believe the Earth is made of cheese at its core if you wish but not many people will take that seriously. Dogma is more about scholarly laziness than stubbornness or misinterpretation.

Seems a bit silly to equate beliefs with facts in the public sphere.

From a semantic standpoint there is something to be said, but it makes more sense to distinguish the difference rather than gloss over any clear distinction.

How about this:

- beliefs are determined by facts.
- facts are determined by our reality.

Just because one can be mistaken by certain experiences (or misinterpret them) it does not mean that facts and beliefs are hard to distinguish between.

A pure fact is always a fact. Meaning an abstract fact is always known to be true as long as the rules put in place are followed correctly. Mistakes happening do not undermine the meaning of the term ‘fact’.

I imagine it can be argued that one can oppose a state government but not its inhabitants. Surely that is easy enough to understand?

The blur between the two is initiated both internally and externally for various silly reasons.

I am sure many citizens of many countries have been wholly opposed to the actions of the state government that is meant to represent them. There is nothing wrong with criticising a state government. Leaders of states should always be questioned and held up to scrutiny.

Is the pilot and the group of armed men morally equivalent? — BitconnectCarlos

Anything is equivalent if you have reason enough to legitimise it in your own head. Hence, the futility of adding weight to judgement from afar.

More often than not if we were in their shoes we would almost certainly behave in a similar manner. This is regardless of the comforting lie we tell ourselves about our moral superiority.

Except you a monster then you have an iota of a chance you can placate yourself to act in a less monstrous fashion when life comes to taunt, poke, prod and provoke you (which it will!).

After several decades without major wars, two have begun in the last 2 years. — Tim3003

Untrue.

Conflict in Ukraine has been going on for a long time. Same for the Israel and Palestine conflict. There has also been conflicts in Africa several times. Then there is the break up of Yugoslavia.

Any more positive views of the world's future? — Tim3003

Plenty.

It is just that positive news does not sell anywhere as well as negative news. This has been further exaggerated by AI and people living in little ‘safe’ bubbles.

You can read quotes from people like Orwell and Russel from last century that ring just as true today as then. The difference now is more people are aware than in the past. We are currently adjusting to universal media exposure so things may seem more off than they actually are.

Mind altering experiences happen without introducing foreign substances into your body. Maybe it could be argued that doing so is good preparation for the inevitable traumas life will throw at us?

There are several schools of thought in this area. I think you are confusing Hard Determinism for Determinism. Those who tend to argue against free-will are Hard Determinists or Fatalists.

Determinists can easily believe we have free-will for the very same reasons you have stated. There are a plethora of different flavours of ‘Determinism’ though.

All in all it makes sense to live as if free-will is a thing rather than not.

As a rule of thumb I am generally against any kind of institutional organisation.

Authorship seems pretty important for a sense of self.