Individualism really isn't a model for economics. In general individualism promotes freedom, but I think what you are not understanding is that while that is the case, it may not necessarily agree with what individuals use that freedom for. Much in the same spirit of the famous quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". — Tzeentch

What does freedom entail to the individualist? How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice?

Ah, so this whole spiel about Gandhi and whether or not truely "peaceful" protest is possible was just some cover for you soapboxing about how BLM is bad and not actually interested in equality. Gotcha.

Well there are enough threads about this already, so I'm not interested.

I see what you mean. However, the problem I have with that is that most genuinely peaceful demonstrations do not tend to use that slogan. It tends to be found more in demonstrations that have a clear potential of turning violent and are accompanied by heavier police presence, etc. — Apollodorus

So, is this about protest movements in general or about specific protests? If the latter, I think it'd be helpful to know the context, as you see it, in more detail.

In any case, despite the prima facie appearances of “peacefulness” there seems to be an underlying (veiled) threat of violence. How “peaceful” are such slogans and should they be seen as incitement to violence? — Apollodorus

One might well argue that without and underlying threat of a less peaceful alternative, a peaceful protest is not a protest at all. This does not necessarily mean that the protesters themselves might resort to violence in the narrow sense (bodily harm). It might also mean that whatever people the protest is aimed against are afraid that they will have to eventually resort to violence, which might then cause the situation to spiral out of control.

As with many things, drawing hard lines between "peaceful" and "violent" protest is fraught with peril. Apart from Gandhi, one of the most iconic "peaceful" protest movements was that in the Eastern Block (particularly the GDR) which ultimately dissolved the USSR. Is the well known chant "Wir sind das Volk" committed to peaceful resistance no matter what? Or does it contain a "veiled threat": that going against the protesters is going against "the people", and that "the people" may well react in kind? Without the backing of Russian tanks, which Gorbachev withheld, the GDR could not be certain of an eventual victory.

So to circle back to the other questions, "no justice, no peace" isn't an "incitement to violence" so much as a reminder that it's not an issue the protesters are willing to simply back away from without meaningful negotiation.

Do you consider Caitlyn to be an authority on this question. Why/not? — Edy

It's weird to use the term "authority" here, because it specifically invokes the argument from authority fallacy. Now it's only a fallacy in a deductive context, which this is not. But in the context it seems more apt to ask whether Caitlyn Jenner has relevant knowledge or experience for the topic at hand.

Depending on the way you frame the debate, being an olympic gold medalist might constitute relevant experience. The question is how fairness is resolved here. Is fairness about average muscle mass, about the experience of the athletes or about the experience of the spectators? Caitlyn Jenner has relevant experience for (at least) one of these dimensions.

P.S.: This is unrelated, but the plural of "woman" is "women".

If you claim to own part of the middle east should you be overpopulate it and stretch the limited resources and make you children live in need....NO — Andrew4Handel

But you should be allowed to pool your money to buy fighter jets and bomb some people into submission as retaliation for the past and present deeds of some other group of people, which probably overlaps, though not perfectly, with the the bombed group.

It's hard to not see a performative contradiction between you saying "it's all fictions, we're just pretentious animals" while at the same time explicitly and vehemently arguing for the right to exercise violence in the defense of a number of these fictions (the fiction of jewish religion, the fiction of a jewish people and the fiction of a state called Israel).

Why do you care to take a position in a conflict between fictions? And why take specifically the side that, as a matter of practical fact, causes more death and destruction in the pursuit of its fictions then the other?

My statement was that philosophers subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth by convention. You may be surprised to find out how popular the correspondence theory is in philosophy. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yeah that's interesting data. Thanks for posting the quote. The percentage of laypeople who (consciously or otherwise) subscribe to some form of correspondence theory is probably even higher. It seem like a very natural assumption to make.

Truth seems to necessitate existence-conditions upon statements whereby the truth of a statement is contingent upon existing; whereas facts can obtain their truth-making relations with a statement whether or not the facts exist. Facts can be a thing that exists in the world, such as an object; or, on the other hand, facts can exist in a subset of possible worlds, such as an abstract entity. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Interesting. I tend to define the two terms more or less the opposite way.

How do you propose we formulate, test, or modify a moral hypotheses? The scientific method would require systematic observations, recorded data from measurements, and drawing inferences for experimentation on an "objective moral value." I can't even to get a statement conveying an example of such. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

So, first I don't think the scientific method "requires" systematic observations. Systematic observations are required to get good evidence, but I lean towards bayesianism in the sense that anything can be evidence (if weak). In my mind, the scientific method tells us how to get evidence, and how to judge the quality of evidence, but there isn't necessarily a lower threshold to the quality.

I think an important conclusion from an analysis of the scientific method is that empirical facts are goal-oriented. The method doesn't just establish rules based on some abstract notion of truth, but on the specific goal of understanding and thereby predicting reality.

Now it may be that this is a special case, and only facts about empirical reality are determined by a goal-driven method. But there is a link here with the correspondence theory of truth in general: Because any correspondence theory needs to decide what truth should correspond to, and that decision must be made a priori. It seems the only way to convincingly make the decision is based on what the goal of the truth value is.

I’m claiming the opposite. Typically free will is assumed, but when Manson is blamed for a murder someone else committed, it implies that person did not have free will, or at least was not capable of exercising it. So in this case we make an exception, and blame Manson instead of the person who’s actions actually resulted in death. — Pinprick

Not really. Noone denies that you still have free will if I put a gun to your head and ask you to hand over your wallet. You can choose death, after all. But that doesn't mean me putting the gun to your head is somehow irrelevant to the question of responsibility / blame for the result.

I’m separating the two incidents. You would bear blame for hiring an assassin, but the assassin would be to blame for the actual murder. So, I’m fine with blaming Manson for whatever it is he actually did (which basically amounts to preaching as far as I understand it), but he isn’t a murderer. — Pinprick

Ok, but this is already what's happening in practice (the members of the Manson family who actually did the murdering were not acquitted). So it sounds like this is purely semantics. So one isn't a "murderer" but a "murderer hirer" or a "murderer preacher". Aside from the name, what's the difference? What's worse, hiring an assassin or being an assassin? Probably depends on the circumstances, right?

Yeah, that’s true, but speech alone isn’t capable of forcing someone to do something, effectively eliminating their free will. — Pinprick

Nothing outside of literally taking control of someone's body is technically capable of eliminating someone's free will. But someone else's free will isn't a barrier that somehow shields one from consequences.

It’s the difference between telling you to raise your hand, and forcibly grabbing your hand and raising it. — Pinprick

Yeah but what is that difference? How does it matter from a moral standpoint?

You are starting an argument on easily defeasible premises — Andrew4Handel

I'm not starting an argument. I'm ending yours.

But your earlier said this:

Defend your axioms and let's debate — Andrew4Handel

Why don't you tell is what your axioms are regarding countries, the morality of warfare etc.

Both sides can be accused of ethnic cleansing. They both appear to want total domination of the land. On the (re) creation of Israel it was invaded by the surrounding Arab countries trying to wipe it out.

I have raised this issue before but this conflict illustrates the problem with notions like "countries" and "ownership" Countries tend to be formed by force not reason. Europe has centuries of wars and shifting boundaries and massive colonisation. — Andrew4Handel

It's ironic to the point of hilarity (you know, if the topic wasn't dead children) that you criticize the notion of "countries" and "ownership" and use that same criticism to excuse the violent attempt of a country to establish complete ownership over a territory.

That seems like a fair enough definition. It seems to exclude certain domains such as aesthetics and ethics though. What about a Cartesian fact? Would you not say that it is a fact that you have an experience? Are there not psychological facts obtaining by virtue of the attitudes, beliefs, and feelings you have at this moment?

I think most people define facts similar to the way they define truth: that which comports with reality. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

In lieu of a definition of "fact" set out in the OP, I went with what I consider most close to a layman's understanding of the term. Fact is a common word, and when used usually denotes states of affairs, and what is a fact, as opposed to fiction, is ususally determined empirically.

It seems farily useful to reserve the word "fact" for an empirically determined state of affairs, since for everything else, like what you refer to as Cartesian fact, I feel like simply using the standard "truth" is sufficient. It would seem odd to me, for example to say "it is a fact that I have an experience" because facts are usually part of experience, and so having an experience is true, but not a fact.

That is mostly just semantics though.

I think philosophy conventionally subscribes to a correspondence theory of truth and thus takes a realist stance when speaking of facts. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Eh, maybe, I'm not versed in the sociology of philosophy. But given that this is one of the main topics of contention in philosophy, I wouldn't use it in an assumption, especially not in a discussion of "moral facts", where, by default, correspondence theory must fail / yield an unambigious "no".

The objects or entities that form a specific subject matter within an epistemic or alethic domain that are postulated to be true insofar as we can reason from them to draw valid inferences and to make accurate predictions to what else is true. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Would this definition be any different from your definition of "truth" or a "true statement"?

But ethics necessarily begins as normative theories and from there we attempt to use the practically within applied ethics. This is what we have been doing. Developing theoretical abstractions such as consequentialism and deontology and applying such principles to practical matters such as abortion or capital punishment. These is a meta ethical inquiry. I'm looking to understand the foundations morality. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Well, yes. But then empirical knowledge also begins as a descriptive theory and from there we use experience to determine whether or not the theory is true. I think the question of whether or not there are moral facts, whether there is "objective" morality benefits from a comparison with the field where we are most used to speaking about objectivity and facts: Empirical reality. How do we determine the truth of a claim about the empirical world? We apply a specific method, and if that method does not falsify our claim, it has passed said test. If it passes such tests regularly, we are justified in calling it a fact.

I think Kant was at least on the right track here when he described morality in terms of a method, a test which you could apply to a principle to see if it is falsified. But this requires morality to have a practical goal, just as empirical science has a practical goal (predicting the future).

Are there moral facts? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

What are facts? There are many theories on the subject, but put in deliberately simple language I'd say the defining characteristic of a "fact" is this:

That it reasserts itself even if you are unaware or even actively opposed to it.

For example: One may be opposed to the idea that the micro scale actually works in the way described by quantum physics. Yet such disagreement cannot escape the reality that if you actually want to predict the behaviour of a system on a micro scale, you have to use them.

Does something similar happen with morality? From a theoretical perspective, the answer seems to be: No. There is nothing about a moral philosophy which reasserts itself regardless of beliefs. You can believe more or less everything you want in the realm of morality, and your efforts to achieve any arbitrary goal will not be hindered.

This changes only if we view morality as a practical question: not an abstract theory of good and bad, but as a set of practical rules under which an end result - a moral world - is achieved. Viewed this way, there are things which reasserts themselves, and indeed have reasserted themselves throughout history and been written down in various texts. You can not believe that you can take whatever you want and keep it, for example, if such a proposition were ever a practical rule for everyone. In that sense, it'd be a moral fact, albeit a negative one.

That’s obviously true, but it’s unfair to blame McDonald’s for the obesity epidemic. We’re all influenced to greater or lesser degrees, but are expected to use good judgement when we choose to act. There’s an assumption of free will that we as a society endorse in most cases, so I don’t understand why in other cases we make exceptions. — Pinprick

It's weird to claim that responsibility for the effects of your actions is an "exception to free will". This seems to assume the "free" in "free will" means "random", i.e. unrelated to previous events. But that's not the case.

Was Manson so extraordinary that others were unable to resist his persuasions? — Pinprick

I don't see why "inability to resist" should be the criterion. If I offer 5 million for someone's death, would-be assassins aren't "unable to resist" this offer, but it'd be ludicrous to argue I had nothing to do with the eventual death of the person.

It’s concerning to think that our legal system seems to have no issue equating speech and actions. — Pinprick

Speech literally is an action.

The government can't execute the will of the population, because the population has no idea how to govern a nation. The main purpose of the government is to govern. Governing requires institutions, to perform the basic functions that we take for granted, could list some but everyone should know at least some. People have no idea what is or isn't possible for the government to do, it is really the government that does the most to keep the government in check. Even the election itself in a democracy only exists because of the strong governmental institutions which ensure it happens and happens fairly. Democracy gives people some - very limited ability, to determine what the government does but it's not much. — Judaka

All quite true. Institutions are really at the core of democracy, and not necessarily just those we usually associate with politics. Lots of agreements and rituals one does not usually think about are required for a democracy to function.

I didn't mean "will" here to refer to some specific policy decision, much less the technical details of it's implications. I was referring to something closer to "interest", but since interest is a rather nebulous concept itself I decided to default to individual will. One might perhaps say "goal" here, too. To use a metaphor, I think the government should imagine themselves in everyone's shoes at the same time, and then identify those paths that everyone disagrees with the least.

The US's Declaration of Independence was a statement of general principle. — T Clark

Sure. It's just interesting that the principles that it specifically enumerated did not include something so central to the US (not just the US of course) and it's history.

A good case can be made that the pursuit of happiness is not possible without protection of property. — T Clark

Yes, I'd agree. What's interesting though is that while the document may suggest that the goal is the pursuit of happiness, and one of the means is the protection of private property, the actual reality was rather the opposite.

Is government meant simply to execute the majority will of the populace? Or, should a governments obedience to the will of the populace be considered separate to and either more or less important than a governments obedience to an established goal for the populace? — Marigold23

Government is meant to execute the will of all members of the population. Because there wills will never overlap completely, it should find compromises that are acceptable to everyone. Where such are not possible, it should weigh the unrecomcilable views based on a common moral framework.

The majority election is to select the best individuals for the job of making these decisions, and to keep then accountable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... — T Clark

It's interesting that property is not listed, and yet at the time the document was written, property was secured by governments even where it meant that the other inalienable rights were alienated.

To this day your rights to life, liberty and especially the pursuit of happiness are sharply circumscribed by the state's protection of property.

No one's support of the Palestine seems to be unbiased and often relies on canards and lies including blood libel. — Andrew4Handel

Here's a thing to keep in mind: if everyone who disagrees with you looks biased and dishonest to you, it's exceedingly likely you are yourself biased and dishonest.

It's the asshole rule: if you meet one asshole on your way to work, you met an asshole. If you meet only assholes, then you're the asshole.

Unless it's something extremely simple, like whether Jews have a right to exist, it's very unlikely that you are so immune to bias that no-one could ever disagree with you and be right.

There's a lot of bad police behavior in the US. — fishfry

See you would be more convincing as an advocate against police brutality if you didn't feel the need to point to "circumstances" of George Floyd's arrest which are not related to the question of whether or not Derek Chauvin is guilty of intentionally killing a person.

Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization wholly dedicated to the destruction of the American way of life. — fishfry

Ahahahaha. Right. The "American way of life", whatever that is.

If saying that "All lives matter" is racist, then the word racist has been distorted beyond all meaning and is simply used as a political epithet; as has in fact happened in the present sociopolitical moment. — fishfry

Hey here is a hint: Displaying the Swastika doesn't identify you as a racist because swastikas have some kind of racist essence that rubs off on you. It's because it has been factually used by racists.

I was saying if if you're a neutral third party evaluating a regional conflict between two parties, how these two parties treat their minorities (e.g. Egyptian Jews, Israeli Arabs) is relevant in an evaluation of the conflict. If one party treated their minorities extremely poorly and the other party treats them less poorly but not in an ideal manner, then that should impact our evaluation. — BitconnectCarlos

Obviously, all facts should impact the evaluation. But then one can do good things in one area and bad things in another, and those don't cancel out. It can still be shitty for the western powers to invade Afghanistan, even if the Taliban do terrible stuff.

It would be ridiculous to spend all our time and energy as a neutral third party denigrating the more humanitarian side and completely ignoring the other especially when the other treatment is ethnic cleansing. — BitconnectCarlos

That rather depends on the circumstances. In general, you should do what is effective to stop the poor treatment from happening. There is no rule that says you must always deal with the worst people first. To stay on topic: Public condemnation of the Israeli government is probably more likely to be effective than public condemnation of Hamas, because Hamas doesn't need to win elections.

I'll happily deal with a minor issue if I can do so quickly and easily than tackle a major issue with slim chance of success. Effectiveness matters. Of course there are circumstances where it would be really important to hand out condemnation in proportion to the amount of immoral action, like if you're an editor for a news network that fills a limited attention span of viewers.

Additionally, plenty of other countries have had racial problems but these problems have been improved on. There has been progress. We didn't advocate for the immediate destruction of these states that have/had racial problems either, we just work towards improvement ideally within established, democratic channels. — BitconnectCarlos

The point is that asking e.g. the Israeli people responsible for commanding and executing airstrikes to stop is in no way equivalent to asking for the destruction of Israel. Israel is not remotely in danger of being destroyed.

What gives? — TheMadFool

These refer to different kinds of inquiry. Tertuillian was a theologian, and his position is essentially preaching.

Aristotle is more referring to an ontological idea, that even fantastic claims must be in some way real, because the human mind cannot fabricate something from nothing.

Sagan, on the other hand, is referring to empirical enquiry specifically.

I don't see how that changes the fact that these conditions are forced upon the individual. — Tzeentch

That's a bit like saying wetness is forced upon water. It is true that every individual finds themselves embedded in relations which they are not able to easily change or abrogate. But so do they find themselves subject to the laws of physics. Do we level a charge at the laws of physics for their tyrannical nature?

We can change the type and makeup of the social conditions "forced upon" the individual. But we cannot simply wish them away, because individuals cannot exist outside these conditions.

For a start; imo not enough. That is, it will take more than that. I think it will take fully embracing Palestinian self-determination and working toward its realization. But do you think, as I do, that 1) the Palestinians at least at the moment have little or no useful concept of self-realization, and 2) that their "allies" have crushed it out of them and are not interested in its return? — tim wood

I don't know what it means to have "no useful concept of self-realisation". Who has a useful concept of self-realisation and where did they get it?

And there's a potential irony in this: that to have peace, the Israelis will have to fight just as hard for the Palestinians and their interests as they now do against them - or even harder because in that event they will be dealing more directly with the real enemies. — tim wood

I don't know if I'd call that irony. Perhaps from the perspective of an intransigent nationalist it would seem ironic. To me it just seems like the way things are: Peace requires, to use a biblical term, to love your neighbor like yourself. Europe eventually managed an imperfect peace in this way, though lots of American money of course helped along the way.

Yes. If we're still around by that time... — Manuel

Well someone probably is. If not us, maybe our intelligent toasters.

They don't really care people are dying. They just want to signal their virtue. — counterpunch

Meanwhile, people really are dieing. Why do we allow that to happen?

Countries consist of millions of people interacting and consist of multiple different layers of government and in addition to those governments you have countless institutions which have their own rules and norms. To treat a country as if it were an individual person is just not a realistic description. Sure, there may be problems in certain institutions and not in others. Does that mean the entire country is just basically one person that we label as "evil?" Even powerful political leaders can't just press a button to make a certain problem go away unless it's totalitarianism. — BitconnectCarlos

I never label entire countries or people as "evil". I have opposed such views in this thread. But to say that morality doesn't properly apply in the context of international relations because states are not individuals is an evasion. Every single actor in a state has the ability to choose the moral course of action. The unwillingness of some to do so does not excuse the others. The excuse that one was "just following orders" has been thoroughly discredited by the experience of the Holocaust.

Someone has to pull the trigger, fly the plane, drop the bomb. Someone has to select the target, give the order, enforce discipline. Someone has to write the speech, make it, campaign for their view. Someone has to cast the vote, remain silent, pay their taxes.

Everyone here has a choice. Many of these are hard choices. But to claim that noone has a choice because other people are involved is a cowardly evasion.

Solutions? Anything? Anyone? — tim wood

An immediate unilateral de-escalation by the Israeli government / armed forces. A stop to further expansion of settlements.

It's a microcosm of the history of humanity in a sense. Thousand upon thousand of senseless deaths and for what? Pride? "Security"? Nationalism? And yet here we are. We're born after a very long time, live in the little blue planet we're burning up for a nano-second, and we'll return to nothing for ever. To be killed in such a brutal manner, for mere political theatre is digusting. — Manuel

Well said. An author once said something along these lines: a thousand years from now, when the children's children's children look at this in the history book, will they see anything other than a tragedy? Death and destruction over such fantasies as religion and nations, which in due time will all disappear or morph unrecognisably anyways.

Morality is a different field than international relations. Countries aren't people. — BitconnectCarlos

Countries are run and populated by people. Morality applies to their actions just fine.

Constantinople was Greek for thousands of years. It had a large Greek population until recently and was only renamed "Istanbul" in 1930 under Ataturk's national-socialist regime. Territories occupied by the Nazis were returned to their original owners. It shouldn't be a problem. — Apollodorus

If the greeks had wanted to keep it, they should have done a better job with their empire. Not the Turks fault they lost most of their empire to some arab nomads.

When you demand the absolute highest standard for one country and routinely penalize just that country for failing to meet that standard while essentially ignoring the other side that's a horribly unfair way to treat the conflict. It's not objective at all. — BitconnectCarlos

That's an absurdly transactional view of morality, imo. Morality doesn't apply based on some tit for tat where your wrongs are covered by those of some other person.

Is that your argument? — Apollodorus

No.

Nobody said anything about removing the site. I said relocate the mosque. This should be done with Muslim support. Islam is a religion of peace and I'm sure a compromise could be easily made. — Apollodorus

Because the mosque just happens to be on temple mount. No religious significance whatsoever.

Plus, the Muslims have three or more holy sites. Jews only have one and even that is controlled by Muslims. This doesn't seem just. I think justice is central to true philosophy. Therefore true philosophers should support my proposal. — Apollodorus

Is "true philosophy" the name of your stand-up-comedy routine?

So which is it? Are we agents that act of our own volition, or are we helplessly swayed to act under certain, very specific circumstances? — Pinprick

Both. That should be obvious, right? No-one seriously believes people are either 100% in control all the time, or never in control.

The basic principle here isn't very difficult. You are responsible for your own voluntary actions, and you are to blame for the foreseeable consequences of said actions. One implication of this is that blame is not a zero-sum game. More than one person can bear the blame for a result, it isn't split between actors.

Charlie got railroaded by a country hysterical about the crimes of his followers. Not unlike Derek Chauvin — fishfry

And here I was thinking it was Derek Chauvin himself who knelt on that neck, and not some "follower" of his.

This is an age-old, superstitious problem that few have spoken about: an overestimation of the power of words. One can see it everywhere once one notices it. — NOS4A2

I think the superstition is to treat words as if they were not physical phenomena like any other.

Wealth distribution maybe, but certainly not abolition of private property. — Apollodorus

Why are you bringing up the abolition of private property? I was responding to your claim that "wealth redistribution is an emotion-based knee-jerk reaction". You didn't say "wanting to abolish private property is an emotion-based knee-jerk reaction".

Both the Russian cleptocrats and the Swedish technocrats operate in close collaboration with business interests. The Swedish living standards may be higher than the Russian ones but in terms of democracy both systems are very similar. — Apollodorus

That's a weasely statement. You can always make up your own definitions in order to justify calling two "systems" "very similar" "in terms of democracy".

But anyways I was talking about economic policy. Clearly the policies in terms of wealth redistribution are very different. Russia has a proportional (!) income tax of 13%.

Well, quarantine isn't working, is it. And while I am myself sympathetic to the notion that killing in war is murder, I don't think it stands as a matter of reason. As to collateral casualties, it seems to me the first business of the Palestinians is to get the terrorists out from behind their children and from under their skirts, as noted above. If the Israelis become murderers, certainly the terrorists already are. Perhaps if the Palestinians arrested a few, tried them, and on conviction punished them. Like that's about to happen! — tim wood

Oh wow. You're literally advocating for murdering people because they aren't acting properly civilized enough for your tastes?

that having become a nation in 1948.

Since that time, 1948, a rabid anti-Semitism has infected all of "the neighbors" with a rage to annihilate Israel and drive out or kill all the Israelis — tim wood

On the one hand, you insist on a historical perspective, on the other hand you write of anti-Semitism as some disease that suddenly infected the region in 1948. This ignores the historical realities.

Just to name one thing, Israel didn't just "become" a state overnight. It was established by force of arms. And that included massacres and displacement of the muslim population.

Nor is anti-semitism simply a natural occurrence or a mere reaction to the presence of a state of Israel and the way it was founded. It's part of a variety of political agendas.

It would be nice if the Israelis could somehow win over the Palestinians, but near as I can tell, any attempts along those lines would be blown-up, literally, by the neighbors and their terrorist cells. Sometimes when the hatred runs deep into irrationality, the only course is to wait for the haters to die. And it can happen, depending on behavior, that some of them have to be helped. — tim wood

So, let me get this straight - the Muslims are unfortunately "infected" with anti-semitism, and since this is part of their nature and cannot be cured, Israel must unfortunately murder them until they are no longer a threat?

In general, 'let's redistribute wealth and get rid of oligarchs' is what leftism boils down to. It is an emotion-based knee-jerk reaction — Apollodorus

Just because it's intuitive to many doesn't mean it's wrong. From a democratic perspective, there is majority support for wealth distribution almost everywhere. And if you don't want to listen to the rabble, there are plenty economists who agree. Almost noone would argue that the cleptocratic post-soviet russian oligarchy for example represents superior economic policy to swedish social democracy.

Meanwhile, the Manchester Guardian bafflingly headlines this as "Israel air and ground forces hit targets in territory as death toll climbs".

A very revealing headline, separating the death toll from the "hitting of targets". From just the headline, one might assume Israel is firing at target dummies while somewhere else people just drop dead.

Even the BBC at least mentions in the subtitle how many people have been killed.

There are no strict content standards here. In fact most of it is laypeople arguing with varying degrees of knowledge and rhetorical ability.

Some really good content exists, though obviously the amount of work involved in creating such content means there'll be on average more rapid fire debate than thought out comments.

Yeah, real revolutionary to oppose genocide and affrimbthe rights of resistance. — StreetlightX

It's true that callous disregard for human life in pursuit of ideological purity is often a hallmark of revolutionaries (the ones that ended up in power, anyways. Ruthlessness probably plays a big role). So you're in good company, I guess. Just glad you're in front of a computer and not in any actual position of power, given how you treat disagreement.

Because I'm not an armchair shitstain. — StreetlightX

Haha, well I guess that's as close to an actual answer as we're going to get. Can't get your own self image as the glorious revolutionary get dented.

Because I would not presume to tell a genocided population how to exercise what little autonomy they have left, especially against a murderous state. I would not tell them to lay down and die, unlike some armchair shitstain. — StreetlightX

Why not? Because the optics are more important to you than lifes? Because you can't bring yourself to face the reality?

It's not out of concern for the people in question, because you have already concluded they'll die. So your concern here can only be for yourself, your ego.

I don’t need to want that. — StreetlightX

But you do want it, or else what's the implication of wanting violence, even where it is useless?

= what you want is for Palestinians to die in silence. — StreetlightX

And what you want is for people to just die. You want more people to be killed, either because you like people dieing, or because you cannot face the reality that sometimes bad people win.