Typical whataboutery of "everybody does it". Funny thing too, I said "regimes" in general and not "Israel" in particular. Why so defensive? Their oppressive policies are not "evil", y'know, like "everybody elses", are they? — 180 Proof

If we're talking about oppression in the broad sense then every regime oppresses - it's just a matter of nature and extent. Even if we remove regimes from the picture humans oppress; it's what we do - we accept some things and not others. I support others call out genuine injustice where it exists, but I will police tone and phrasing.

Every regime practices oppression. Every one of them. Apartheid is evil, but Israel is not apartheid. And if you want to condemn ethnic cleansing we can start with the Assyrians ethnically cleansing the Hebrews in 3000 BCE. The Jews have been the victims of ethnic cleansing countless times over their history, some only a generation back. It's really the Europeans who created this "whose land is whose" with their insistence on firm borders.

But lets not side track.

But, the question may be can we really eliminate evil? — Jack Cummins

No because evil is part of the human condition so the only real way to destroy evil would be to destroy humanity. The best we can do is contain and try to tame our demons; a problem arises when people consider themselves to be victims and consider their cause so just and noble that any means used to achieve it are justified via the utopian end. Certain people consider themselves outside the scope of traditional morality because they consider themselves so incredibly noble and intelligent that they can see the "big picture" and correctly do the utilitarian math so those regular, old boring rules don't apply to them.

Even if the US removed itself from foreign affairs entirely there'd still be plenty of legitimate grounds for criticism - from you and me both. My point is that the oppression doesn't stop and even if the US were to make huge concessions overseas we can still hurl any number of names at it for its domestic behavior. The US is just a troubled country, especially now, and I don't see how any politician or administration can immediately step in and solve these issues.

It's interesting how you have this conception of institutional guilt - the implication with you is that every US administration is seemingly responsible or accountable for every action taken by every previous administration and that all this guilt accumulates and seemingly never decreases (or is there a way?)

So yeah, going by that logic any established country or group is going to be more evil than whatever is newly spawned.

Ok, but presumably you don't think al-Qaeda or ISIS are the good guys. Is there a side that you support in ISIS vs the US? Is there any government or NGO that you actually like? Who are your heroes?

You keep saying that but Israel is worst on human rights from the three entities now named. Both in numbers and types of abuses. So you keep defending Israel despite it being worse than Hamas, the latter which you apparently find horrendously evil and bad since it's your go-to scapegoat. — Benkei

I don't believe Israel is objectively worse from a moral standpoint than Hamas. The US might have more human rights abuses than a smaller terrorist group -- is the US the bad guy in this case? Hamas' abuse is pervasive & ongoing towards the palestinian population and there's too many human rights abuses to count and it would be impossible to count them all. Hamas is also obviously a genocidal organization that strives for the elimination (or at least subjugation) of Israeli culture in the region, but I'm sure you know this. Hamas is a genocidal and racist organization but some of us still like to support them as they are the "under dogs."

The PA is obviously shitty, but Hamas is even worse on human rights. But yes, everyone oppresses the Palestinian people.

Finally, a place where atheists can gather and not be bothered by those stupid theists and their sky daddy. A place where science can be celebrated and ancient superstition shunned. In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any phony God's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my own intelligence.

Interesting discussion on laws and enforceability. In my home state of Massachusetts we have a number of antiquated laws that are technically on the books but are never enforced and it would take too much time and effort to remove them. Lawmakers have more important things to do.

In basic military training, wake up time is 4:45am and this rule is on the books and considered binding to recruits. However, it is an institutional norm (at least in the later weeks of basic training) for recruits to wake up before 4:45am to get a jump on the day and allow for better preparation. Drill sergeants turn a blind eye to this because it makes their lives easier (I would not mention this to them, however.) This practice was considered widespread when I went through.

So in some cases institutional norms precede rules/laws. After all humans run society, not words written on pieces of paper by people decades ago who would have likely agreed that practices can change over time and that their words are not to be considered eternal ritual.

Couple this with the fact that 'civility' is always the privilege of those who are not affected by issues - or at least are comfortable with them - it basically puts the ball in their court and keeps it there. — StreetlightX

Agree 100% and I want to re-post this for visibility.

I am rarely interested in coming to a conclusion on somebody else's intelligence or goodness. — Judaka

It's interesting you say that - I always try to gauge these things from people. I just won't engage someone in conversation seriously if I judge them to be low intelligence.

I also find goodness important to gauge and my judgment on someone's core decency will affect how I interact with them.

I think it's perfectly fine to come to that decision by yourself for yourself. What I reject is judging others for making different decisions in such situations. — Benkei

So here's where it gets interesting: Religious scripture here binds the Jewish people, and in this case the teaching is clear - one cannot deliver one's community to certain death. However, I suppose if the population in this case were not Jewish they'd be free to make that decision according to however that community decides (the choice would ideally be left to the community, not a council.) For the Jews, however, this is not a "you have your views and I have mine."

Here's the alternative view : I think you're weak that you're letting sentiment withhold you from making the decision that saves the most lives. — Benkei

Yep, this was the logic employed as Lodz i.e. saving lives is paramount, and difficult sacrifices need to be made to preserve the greater whole. I believe that to be true honest secular humanistic logic and it likely saves the most lives.

https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205375.pdf

As an analogy, if there are 100 dishes and I offer you a choice between beef tacos and veal tacos and you choose beef, who decided what we had for dinner? — Benkei

I fully understand that their decisions were not free. As unfortunate as it is, this is one of those cases where the leaders need to sacrifice themselves for their community -- that is real leadership. It would have been extremely honorable and it reminds me of the King of Denmark when he told the Nazis upon occupation that if the yellow star were made mandatory for Jews in his country he'd be the first to wear it.

I'm not aware of any explicit argument that Arendt makes but her tone is very clear in Eichmann in Jerusalem. I 100% understand that these men were in very difficult situations, and I also understand that the Holocaust was occurring regardless, but I do have to blame these men for assisting with the organization and deportation to what at the time was known to be certain death. I don't care how scared you are or how much you're trying to save the community in the long run -- there are just certain things you can't ever do, like rip a child from it's mothers arms to be shipped to its death (the fact that it was Jewish policemen often assisting with deportations is extremely disturbing.)

Even if the Nazis would have came in and done worse, you can't do evil yourself. There's an old rabbinic phrase that goes something like 'Let them kill you, but don't cross the line.'

It is possible that continuously giving in to the Devil was the "best" course of action here and maybe it extended people's survivability the longest, but I reject that world. I just can't bear it.

Then yeah, your conclusion follows from the logic: If you correctly, 100% understand the reality of the situation and all those stupid wrong people that keep insisting on civility when there's genocide and racism everywhere then they're pieces of shit and they need to shut up and get in line.

But I could do the same right back at you: Every government in the world is committing genocide against its minority populations and you need to STFU and get in line. I better not hear dissent. Burn everything down.

I feel like I could make the case for this one under your definition of genocide.

I agree with the OP I was just trying to take the discussion a little further.

If we want to address Israel then before we address that we need to address our conflicting conceptions of genocide and racism. I find your conception of genocide too broad. My objection is that, if I remember your definition correctly, it allowed for one to make the jump from 'X [assuming X is the stronger power] implements policies that undermine social institutions of Y [weaker] group' to 'X is essentially committing genocide against Y.' I find this conclusions carries absurd implications.

How so? A disagreement would normally occasion an attempt to refute the claim. Whether or not you agree or disagree is irrelevant to, well, the irrelevancy of tone policing. — StreetlightX

Refuting the claim would be very cumbersome and we wouldn't even be able to make it through the claim. For example, let's start with your first example: "Israel is an apartheid state that regularly murders Palestinians and steals their land" if I were to seriously try to engage this I would stop you at the word "apartheid" and we would begin a detail comparison of both the apartheid system in South Africa and the current state of racial affairs in Israel. You and I also just disagree on what being a racist means.

Whether or not you agree or disagree is irrelevant to, well, the irrelevancy of tone policing. — StreetlightX

I do not agree with this.

"Israel is an apartheid state that regularly murders Palestinians and steals their land"

If you are correct, this is a very important fact and you're doing good by trying to spread it. If this is incorrect then it's very defamatory.

But, if you'd rather not waste time, then thanks for your posts they have been wonderful — StreetlightX

Are you being serious right now? :chin:

well, the response has missed the point. — StreetlightX

The responses "misses the point" only if the person agrees with you in regard to your last points -- the points you made about Israel and Rumsfeld. If I fully agreed with you there I wouldn't be condemning you for incivility I'd say you were just stating a fact.

I know from a psychological standpoint that it makes no sense to engage an opponent who's not going to be civil. I'm not going to waste my time.

Sure, let's see how political or philosophical discourse occurs without civility. Mods, do we have the green light here to drop civility? Streetlight, you have an idea here - do you want to try it out?

Why? The issue effects you as well. If transwomen (whether with or without a penis) are not allowed in women's changing rooms then they'll be in men's changing rooms. And transmen (whether with or without a vagina) want to use men's changing rooms. — Michael

Then maybe a third changing room might be plausible? I can 100% understand why transwomen wouldn't want to be in men's locker rooms.

Transmen in men's changing rooms are not the same as transwomen in women's changing rooms for reasons beyond my control. Somehow you never really hear of transmen traumatizing men with their vaginas in changing rooms.

And if little girls and boys can get traumatised from just seeing genitalia maybe people need to reconsider what they are teaching kids about sex in the first place. Especially in a spa, which tend to be mixed in the Netherlands anyways, nakedness isn't sexual. I suppose if you're an upstuck Jesus freak this sort of thing will scar you for life but we can squarely blame the parents for that. — Benkei

Then the problem is Judeo-Christian morality, but good luck convincing America of that. What is the replacement value system here, by the way? Do we know of an alternative framework we should be shifting to here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWgnepX54Lg

^A real life situation where a black woman along with other women encounter a transwoman with a penis in a spa changing room and start complaining to management.

I feel really bad for that receptionist because you know it's not her who makes the rules here. In any case, the moment you pull the "we're protecting little girls" line it's no longer an argument, it's an order. Can anyone honestly watch that video and tell me that they'd do any better than the white man who tries to confront the anti-trans black woman? The message is clear: Some portion of women want trans women out of their intimate spaces, and we need to balance acceptance for trans folk against concerns like the one made in the video.

I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.

Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls."

The second sentence doesn't support the first. Jewish is an ethnicity. Judaism is an ethnic religion, as you apparently know since you tell me that: — Kenosha Kid

The semantics here are weird but yes, Jewish is an ethnicity but it's more than just an ethnicity in terms of how we normally think about ethnicity. You're considered part of the tribe and that's more than just sharing an ethnicity.

Or are you trying to say that Jewish atheists' purpose is to connect with God? — Kenosha Kid

I am generally speaking not in a position to tell others their purpose. Purposes are personal. I believe in God but that doesn't mean I try to convince everyone around me that God exists.

There's no bigger anti-smoker than an ex-smoker, and no greater evangelical than a recent convert. So you went for Judaism? Good for you. This Christianity nonsense is just a fad, it'll pass :D — Kenosha Kid

No, I didn't convert to Judaism. I've been a Jew for 30 years because I was born one and being an atheist doesn't disqualify one from being a Jew. There are plenty of Jewish atheists and they're no less Jewish than the Orthodox. I know this is different from Christianity, but it's just a matter of which lens we choose to look through; Christianity has made it all about faith, Judaism has not. For the record, all I am right now is a theist and a mostly non-practicing Jew (I will attend certain ceremonies but only if there's good food and people that I like.)

Same problem, though. If you believe that your purpose is to love God, nothing can be more important, right? But if you don't believe in God, that notion of meaning is worthless. The meaning only has value if you believe in it, which means it's basically arbitrary (insofar as one can choose to believe anything else or nothing). — Kenosha Kid

Under Judaism our purpose is to connect with God and we do this via rituals (like praying) and mitzvot (good deeds) - in other words, we do this largely through our lifestyle. Judaism prioritizes action over belief. We can't always control our beliefs, but at the end of the day we can control whether we act decently or not.

This "all or nothing" mentality you have here seems to me like it's a more of a factor in Christianity than in Judaism. There are plenty of Jewish atheists but just because one is an atheist at one point doesn't mean that that will always be the case or that God's non-existence is regarded as a certainty. Plus, plenty of our holidays just commemorate historical events which don't really need to involve God unless you want to acknowledge that factor. Judaism as a religion has strived pretty hard to avoid this "all or nothing" mindset where it's either God or no God and those who choose no God get effectively banished.

Judaism, like many other religions, is more than just a philosophical system. It's a lifestyle, it's a history, and it's a people. I believe there are other religions and belief systems like this, but for historical reasons the best spreaders like Islam and Christianity are universalistic and faith-based and they tend to spread quicker.

This concerns belief. If you believe in an afterlife, your idea of life's meaning will be with respect to that. — Kenosha Kid

I feel like you've had a bad Christian education here to some extent, is that true? I mentioned earlier how Judaism never really stresses the afterlife; sure we believe in it but we don't really know the details and I've never heard it talked about at a sermon and certainly not as a reason to be good.

Connecting with God is a good in itself; the ultimate good, really. Jewish teachings as it was taught to me has always been to not worry about the afterlife until one is near death.

No, I'm saying that something like "the meaning of life is to honour God so that he will let you into Heaven" has no value outside of religions where there's a God and a Heaven and an afterlife. — Kenosha Kid

You don't think there's an objective truth over whether God exists? Last time I checked these religions set forth hypotheses that one will come to know after death or who knows in some cases maybe even before. Islam, Christianity and Judaism assert the existence of a certain type of God and that is a proposition.

"the meaning of life is to honour God so that he will let you into Heaven"

In an interesting way, as a theist, I view your quote there as probably blasphemous - the purpose of life is to connect with God, but not because of the afterlife and but because connection with God is good in itself. Jews virtually never talk about the afterlife and if that's how Christians have pitched it to you I'd be turned off as well.

It doesn't really have anything to do with statues, sorry. — Kenosha Kid

I was glancing over an earlier response and I must have confused artefact with artifact.

It can't have much value to you since you haven't looked into it — Kenosha Kid

I did look into it a while back, but what happens is once I find that I don't agree with the core premises of a system it generally prevents me from engaging further unless I need to understand it for some reason other than personal philosophy.

The value we're talking about here is philosophical though, more than decorative. — Kenosha Kid

Can we just clarify this concept of "philosophical value" here - what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that since e.g. ancient statues from lost cultures or tribal statues don't have "philosophical value" it's either okay to destroy them or not to maintain them? Can we just simplify this discussion and replace "philosophical value" with "reason?"

Which is incompatible with the idea that the loss of a particular artefact of a particular religion or ideology that has zero value elsewhere must be protected and vouchsafed for its own sake. — Kenosha Kid

I think it's best to say that no one system has all the answers and that value can be found across many different religious/belief systems. Obviously there's a huge difference between trying to destroy the remnants of e.g. Nazi statues and Buddhist statues that are a thousands of years old.

I don't know too much about Buddhism and I wouldn't consider myself a Buddhist, but I also acknowledge that Buddhism likely has value even if I'm not too familiar with the actual teachings and practice. I'm granting an allowance here, sue me. Even if it doesn't have value to me at the moment, it might have legitimate value to someone else and I have to respect that.

I would still protect Buddhist statues to the point of using lethal force if I saw others trying to destroy them because the destroyers don't have the right to do that even if they really, thoroughly believe Buddhism to be wrong. I don't care if someone 100% believes Buddhism is wrong (and admittedly there are concepts in Buddhism that I don't agree with) -- those statues get protected because humans don't have all the answers and they can't possibly have them no matter how smart people think they are. My value system places ancient religious statues above the types of people who would actively try to destroy them so using lethal force wouldn't bother me in that instance.

So much of it just comes down to having a basic modicum of humility and understanding that maybe one's own narrow scope of knowledge and beliefs could be wrong and that there are other legitimate approaches out there. Or one could plant their foot in the ground and behave as if they have all the answers and therefore anything outside of that truth becomes falsehood and essentially valueless.

Imo, terrorism cannot be understood without at least some attempt at nuance in understanding. — tim wood

Absolutely - there's a huge difference between placing a bomb in an unoccupied government building and bombing an Elementary school. Both could be considered terrorism, but they are very different. "Terrorism" can absolutely be justified because a state can be criminal, but even within that realm there must remain lines that cannot be crossed otherwise the terrorists are no better than the oppressor. Sure, we might ally with them pragmatically but that's it. We are not friends.

True evil is never in any sense "pragmatic" or "necessary" - it is always completely unnecessary by its very nature. If something is necessary it cannot be evil.

For asymmetric warfare : terrorizing and killing civilians forces them to select a gov with different policies after a certain time. Infact, killing civilians is essential. — Wittgenstein

This doesn't make any sense to me. Had anti-Nazi resistance movements ever started wantonly murdering German civilians it would have been publicized and pushed the country more towards Hitler. What, you think by portraying yourself -- the enemy -- as monsters you're going to scare the stronger force? No, you've enabled their most brutal elements.

Terrorism against an occupying force is successful when the cost outweighs the benefits to the occupier, but traditionally this is done through targeting property or resources as opposed to just killing civilians.

No, it's just another way of saying, you can't mess with us without expecting something in return. — Wittgenstein

Maybe try targeting the person or group who actually committed the offense rather than random civilians who are uninvolved in the conflict.

One important feature of asymmetric warfare is that, civilians of enemy country are also counted as combatants. — Wittgenstein

Why? What's the reasoning behind this?

Another justification for targeting civilians lies in the fact that there will always be collateral damage on your side, your civilians are getting killed anyways, it only seems fair that you do the same in return. — Wittgenstein

So people are numbers to be added and subtracted and as brave resistance fighters you're there to do the math correctly and balance the equation.

This is of course, built into religious strategy - paint the human as a wretched, fallen creature, all the more in need of saving. It's cult mechanics, employed by abusers everywhere to foster a sense of dependency - writ large by religion. — StreetlightX

Judaism doesn't do this, and I'd be interested to hear from a Christian how pervasive this idea is and what role is plays across different forms of Christianity. I'd also be interested to hear what Muslims think of this given they don't believe in original sin.

Hindus and Buddhists welcome to chime in as well.

I just don't see what that has to do with theism or atheism; it seems like one could take that same principled stand either way. (Or fail to take that stand either way, for that matter). — Pfhorrest

Yes, one could take the same principled stand either way. When I say that I made the move to theism, I'm not saying that others are rationally obliged to follow that path. I fully acknowledged that I have made a jump here and that theism (at least my own theism) cannot be completely rationally justified or proven. I'm fine having beliefs of that character.

I really think this situation exposes an interest conundrum in morality and game theory. From a game theory standpoint it makes sense to give in your oppressor's demands because your oppressor does have all the power and if you play nice he'll play nice which means you and your people live longer. This was absolutely one of the driving forces behind Nazi terror.

(Should we perhaps be having this conversation about your conversion and the holocaust etc in a different thread? I feel bad cluttering up this thread with it, but I'm really curious to understand your thought process more, as it sounds like others are too). — Pfhorrest

Oh thanks - if you want to start another thread I'll join in, but as far as I know I don't think the mods are going to mind this. I also wouldn't call it a conversion; in Judaism one never ceases being a Jew even if they're an atheist. I only said I was a theist though I don't one particular religion in mind.

So how does being a theist help in that situation? They'd do that if you refused for religious reasons too, right?

I totally get the awfulness of totalitarianism and the ethical difficulties in dealing with it, I just don't see how believing in God makes any difference to them. — Pfhorrest

In a practical, material sense being a theist changes nothing. As it seems to you and me it doesn't really matter whether the aforementioned man signs the document or not -- but to him it might (it should) and if we were him it might matter too (I would think it would.)

Personally, it matters to me whether my own hand -- as a leader responsible for that community -- signs my community's death warrant regardless of what happens afterward.

Yeah, it's fine for other thinkers to have ideas on the government of Israel and to criticize political parties -- I don't care about that. We can all criticize, but the moment it becomes so venomous that it excuses violence against Israel's own citizens is when that thinker has gone too far. That's always been the major dividing line for me.

EDIT: It was 180 who cited Arendt.

Since this topic has been revived I'd be interested in hearing out the case -- as has been claimed earlier (or strongly implied) -- that Arendt would be okay with Hamas deliberately murdering Israeli civilians. Do we have any views from Arendt from after the '67 war on the "occupation?" She was fervently in support of Israel during the '67 war and also obviously supporting Israel in '73 so I'd like to see the case that she condones civilian murder made.

It's so hard for me to imagine a Jewish woman of that age, from that background, supporting the murder of Jewish civilians. I tried to find evidence of it but I couldn't. It would make her such an anomaly among that generation.

Bonus question: For those supporting the "by any means necessary" approach would rape be acceptable if it was found to be effective for attaining political means?

A secular moral code could just as easily say “don’t give them one single inch” (or however you would phrase the maxim against the behavior you see as detrimental) without having to believe in God. — Pfhorrest

Under this strategy, they would just kill you and replace you with someone else. That's a big part of the logic of totalitarianism - your "noble death" is made out to be meaningless.

Imagine this situation: There's a form on your desk requiring your signature that is needed to ship off 10,000 of your own people to certain death. They want your signature on it because everything needs to be done by the books.

If you refuse the 10,000 still get shipped off regardless, but in this case you get hanged and now someone else is in your position.

This was a real situation, by the way although I'm not sure about the exact number. The man responsible for signing the document, an atheist, committed suicide which I would consider honorable.

As long as you survive you are complicit, but there needs to be some point at which you make your stand otherwise you are totally lost.

One is not allowed to rip a child from its mother's arms and send that child to certain death because one is afraid of what the enemy would have done otherwise or to make the process more humane (as it is you doing it and not the brutal enemy.)

This is all I'm trying to say.

Still not clear how their moral reasoning was absolutely destroyed — praxis

Because their commitment to saving lives at all costs ("cutting off the leg to save the body") led them to collaborate and actively assist in the deportation (death) of one part of the community to save the other parts.

Does this make sense to you?

Assuming that was the case — praxis

I'm not granting your assumption here because it would sidetrack the entire discussion. We are going by Arendt's version where the Judenrat did carry moral agency and did make meaningful policy decisions, as it was in actual history.

I don’t want to make this thread all about debating your choice — Pfhorrest

Not a problem, let's keep it friendly.

but I feel the need to note that you can change ethical principles out of strategic considerations without having to change your metaphysical beliefs. A secular moral code could just as easily say “don’t give them one single inch” (or however you would phrase the maxim against the behavior you see as detrimental) without having to believe in God. — Pfhorrest

I don't even care whether these men were theists or atheists. All I'm talking about here is the type of reasoning used. This is not an "atheists are bad" post and there were plenty of atheists who acted honorably.

I'm sure strategic considerations and fear played a huge role, but ultimately, as I see things, there are lines that one cannot cross such as ordering one's community to round up members of that community and send them to certain death. I also understand that there are other types of secular ethical systems but "don't give them an inch" is just not feasible in this type of situation -- I'm talking here about reasonable secular systems that can be applied. "Cutting off the arm to save the body" makes intuitive sense and draws back on the common intuition that what ultimately matters is lives saved and preserving life, it's quite humanist.

It's just different from Christianity or Islam. It's not that hard to grasp. You're Jewish if your mother is Jewish and it doesn't really matter what you believe. Sure there's Jewish religious thought but we're not going to excommunicate you if you don't engage in it or believe it.