Is Sheikh Nasrallah done and buried?

[Cosmic Yak]

One cannot support the brutal murderous regime of netanyahu and also claim to love God.

Why not?

 

[jt512]

One cannot support the brutal murderous regime of netanyahu and also claim to love God.

Why not?

It seems that loving God helps to understand the seemingly obvious fact of which side the brutal murderous regime is.

 

[Ziggurat]

No sane decent person can fail to have complete goodwill for the Jewish people. But nor can any sane decent person fail to have goodwill for the Palestinian people either. It is not an either-or situation, not from any sane perspective, not as far as the people themselves. The butchery of a few thousand innocents is condemnable, certainly, and in the strongest terms; but how can the butchery of tens of times that number of innocents, and the utter destruction of the lives of hundreds of times that number of innocents, not be just as condemnable, and indeed more so given the larger numbers?

The problem is not that more deaths isn't worse than less deaths. The problem is who you are condemning for it.

Innocent people get killed in war. It's basically inevitable, and why war is generally to be avoided when possible. But when it's not possible, which side usually has the most civilian casualties? The losing side. Does that make the winning side more guilty? No, it does not. And that's just in normal war, when neither side is deliberately endangering their own population. But in this war, Hamas and Hezbollah have deliberately endangered their own populations. They have used their own civilian deaths as a weapon. They should be blamed for that, not Israel. And they should be blamed for starting this war in the first place, not Israel.

tl;dr: your simplistic and unthinking assignment of who to blame for those deaths is a moral farce.

 

[Chanakya]

The problem is not that more deaths isn't worse than less deaths. The problem is who you are condemning for it.

Innocent people get killed in war. It's basically inevitable, and why war is generally to be avoided when possible. But when it's not possible, which side usually has the most civilian casualties? The losing side. Does that make the winning side more guilty? No, it does not. And that's just in normal war, when neither side is deliberately endangering their own population. But in this war, Hamas and Hezbollah have deliberately endangered their own populations. They have used their own civilian deaths as a weapon. They should be blamed for that, not Israel. And they should be blamed for starting this war in the first place, not Israel.

tl;dr: your simplistic and unthinking assignment of who to blame for those deaths is a moral farce.

In the unlikely event you're sincerely confused about this, and sincerely seek resolution of your confusion:

Both. Not either-or, but both. It's the either-or thinking that's simplistic.

And no, not winner-or-loser either. That's a non sequitur. (Hamas's killing of civilians was evil, despite the fact that it's losing, regardless of the fact that it's losing. Likewise here as well.)

If you want more on this, return to my two analogies. With sincere intent this time, if you can bring yourself to do that. Not to pick nits, not to throw out snide insults, not with the intention to keep on with the defense of evil no matter what, but in good faith. You'll find your confusion's already been resolved, way back in the thread.



eta: I know it will be very difficult for you to do this, but for a change try to do this honestly, okay? Don't deliberately try to mislead by talking of inevitable deaths in war. That isn't what this is about. The killing of this many numbers of civilians, relative to the number of targets, is what is the issue. Had it been ten civilians, or even 100, to get at the Hamas lot, then that might have been different. Had it been these many innocent civilians, but to get at a Hamas army of millions maybe, or even many hundreds of thousands of Hamas fighters, then again, maybe what you're suggesting here might be appropriate. But to kill so many civilians to get at just these many fighters, and to uproot so many Palestinians to protect these many Israelis, that's ...plain racist, that equation, that's what is evil.

It isn't difficult. All you need to do is think about it honestly, and without dissembling as you've done all through, including in this very post, by talking about "inevitable civilian deaths". This isn't simply "inevitable civilian deaths" at all.

Nor do you need me to hand-hold you through this process. You don't need to keep turning to me at every step to guide you. Just think this through honestly, and you'll be able to recognize your moral incoherence yourself, and to correct yourself, without needing to cross-check it with me any more.

 

[Ziggurat]

Both. Not either-or, but both.

Both what? Write with clarity, please. This isn't even remotely clear.

And no, not winner-or-loser either. That's a non sequitur. (Hamas's killing of civilians was evil, despite the fact that it's losing, regardless of the fact that it's losing. Likewise here as well.)

You have missed my point entirely. First off, it's not a non sequitor. It's a simple fact that more Gazan civilians are dying than Israeli civilians because Hamas is losing, just like more Japanese civilians died in WW2 than American civilians. It is not because Israel is more evil than Hamas, and it is not because the US was more evil than Imperial Japan. You wanted to assign more moral weight to more deaths, but where you put that weight is simply wrong. You have accused me of being simplistic, but your own moral calculus is the simplistic one.

Now, that's not the only factor at play, but it needs consideration, and you haven't given it any.

If you want more on this, return to my two analogies.

I will not return to your analogies. I have detailed why previously, but in case you forgot, you are arguing analogies because you cannot win on the merits of the actual problem we are discussing. you are trying to substitute a different problem you think you can win on for the actual one, and you think you can win on that one despite losing on the actual one because the substitute argument (the analogy) is substantially different from the real one. If it wasn't different, then you wouldn't even need to appeal to the analogy, you could use the exact same argument on the original problem. But you can't, because they are different.

So stop trying to use analogies, argue the actual problem. That is what honest argumentation looks like.

With sincere intent this time, if you can bring yourself to do that.

With sincere intent, argue the actual problem, not your substitution, if you can bring yourself to do that.

eta: I know it will be very difficult for you to do this, but for a change try to do this honestly, okay?

Cut the ********. You aren't asking for honesty. You are asking me to concede your own positions to you, because you can't successfully argue your positions on their merits.

The killing of this many numbers of civilians, relative to the number of targets, is what is the issue.

How are you measuring the number of civilians killed? How are you measuring the number of targets? These are not actually trivial questions. And I don't think you actually know the answer.

And as before, I see you make no consideration at all for the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah are deliberately positioning civilians between themselves and their enemies. Again, you accuse me of being simplistic, but to ignore that is the height of moral oversimplification.

It isn't difficult. All you need to do is think about it honestly

"You would agree with me if you were honest."

That's a bull **** argument. Do better.

 

[Hercules56]

Why not?

Because people who love God also love and respect human life. They see intrinsic value in every human being. They understand that even during a war against evil people you must do your very best to protect innocent life.

This is a very opposite of Netanyahu.

 

[Steve]

Because people who love God also love and respect human life. They see intrinsic value in every human being. They understand that even during a war against evil people you must do your very best to protect innocent life.

This is a very opposite of Netanyahu.

You poor naive man! You know so little of the world.

 

[Chanakya]

Both what? Write with clarity, please. This isn't even remotely clear.



You have missed my point entirely. First off, it's not a non sequitor. It's a simple fact that more Gazan civilians are dying than Israeli civilians because Hamas is losing, just like more Japanese civilians died in WW2 than American civilians. It is not because Israel is more evil than Hamas, and it is not because the US was more evil than Imperial Japan. You wanted to assign more moral weight to more deaths, but where you put that weight is simply wrong. You have accused me of being simplistic, but your own moral calculus is the simplistic one.

Now, that's not the only factor at play, but it needs consideration, and you haven't given it any.



I will not return to your analogies. I have detailed why previously, but in case you forgot, you are arguing analogies because you cannot win on the merits of the actual problem we are discussing. you are trying to substitute a different problem you think you can win on for the actual one, and you think you can win on that one despite losing on the actual one because the substitute argument (the analogy) is substantially different from the real one. If it wasn't different, then you wouldn't even need to appeal to the analogy, you could use the exact same argument on the original problem. But you can't, because they are different.

So stop trying to use analogies, argue the actual problem. That is what honest argumentation looks like.



With sincere intent, argue the actual problem, not your substitution, if you can bring yourself to do that.



Cut the ********. You aren't asking for honesty. You are asking me to concede your own positions to you, because you can't successfully argue your positions on their merits.



How are you measuring the number of civilians killed? How are you measuring the number of targets? These are not actually trivial questions. And I don't think you actually know the answer.

And as before, I see you make no consideration at all for the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah are deliberately positioning civilians between themselves and their enemies. Again, you accuse me of being simplistic, but to ignore that is the height of moral oversimplification.



"You would agree with me if you were honest."

That's a bull **** argument. Do better.

Haha, you're utterly hilarious. Your desperate twisting and turning are entertaining to watch, thanks for the laughs. And they're so transparent, I'm embarrassed I was so autistically oblivious of the nature of your posts here for so very long.

 

[jt512]

Haha, you're utterly hilarious. Your desperate twisting and turning are entertaining to watch, thanks for the laughs. And they're so transparent, I'm embarrassed I was so autistically oblivious of the nature of your posts here for so very long.

*plonk*

 

[Ziggurat]

Haha, you're utterly hilarious. Your desperate twisting and turning are entertaining to watch

That's a very odd take on our conversation, seeing as how I'm trying to discuss the actual subject and you keep trying to change the subject.

 

[Chanakya]

*plonk*

Oh, yours too. Likewise, I'm embarrassed I took so long to catch on to the nature of your accusations of racism.

Neither of these two posts --- this one, and my laughing (somewhat sadly) at Zig's post --- are arguments, nor even me declaring myself winner. They're me withdrawing from engaging with this kind of transparently disingenuous argumentation, and, yes, asshattery. While continuing to watch on, fascinated, for other contortions that might follow. (And also for further facts being reported here. That as well, of course.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, yours too. Likewise, I'm embarrassed I took so long to catch on to the nature of your accusations of racism.

Neither of these two posts --- this one, and my laughing (somewhat sadly) at Zig's post --- are arguments, nor even me declaring myself winner. They're me withdrawing from engaging with this kind of transparently disingenuous argumentation, and, yes, asshattery.

There was nothing about my post to you which was disingenuous. You can call it asshattery all you like, but again, I was arguing the facts at issue, you were the one trying to take rhetorical cover behind something other than the actual facts at issue with your analogies. If you want to look for contortions, look in the mirror.

 

[Roboramma]

Oh, yours too. Likewise, I'm embarrassed I took so long to catch on to the nature of your accusations of racism.

Neither of these two posts --- this one, and my laughing (somewhat sadly) at Zig's post --- are arguments, nor even me declaring myself winner. They're me withdrawing from engaging with this kind of transparently disingenuous argumentation, and, yes, asshattery. While continuing to watch on, fascinated, for other contortions that might follow. (And also for further facts being reported here. That as well, of course.)

I find it unpleasant when you make these sorts of accusations without actually backing them up. You call Zig dishonest, but don't show where or how he's being dishonest, you say he's "twisting and turning" but don't show where or how he's doing that.

I found Myriad's defense of your post about the Babylon Bee to be reasonable, though I don't really understand why you didn't state it straightforwardly yourself. Nevertheless I agree with him that, at least based on that particular post there's no reason to impute racism or antisemitism. But regarding your discussion here with Ziggurat you seem to me to be making baseless accusations. If you can support these accusations you should and if you can't you shouldn't make them.

 

[Chanakya]

I find it unpleasant when you make these sorts of accusations without actually backing them up. You call Zig dishonest, but don't show where or how he's being dishonest, you say he's "twisting and turning" but don't show where or how he's doing that.

I found Myriad's defense of your post about the Babylon Bee to be reasonable, though I don't really understand why you didn't state it straightforwardly yourself. Nevertheless I agree with him that, at least based on that particular post there's no reason to impute racism or antisemitism. But regarding your discussion here with Ziggurat you seem to me to be making baseless accusations. If you can support these accusations you should and if you can't you shouldn't make them.

What you say is perfectly fair. After my post# 324, I should have had the self-control to directly withdraw, without giving in to the impulse to type out the two next responses. And left it to others to read that post, and entire longer exchange, if they cared to, and come to that same conclusion. Or not.

You're right, if I cared at that point about reaching out to others, even if not to Zig per se (and jt512 as well, to be fair) --- and only as far as this thread, and this discussion, let me emphasize --- then I should have done what you suggest. And if I did not want to do that, or have the stomach to wade into this again to further dissect my #324, as well as past posts, then I should have just kept my thoughts to myself, and just quietly withdrawn without those comments. Agree 100℅ with you there.


eta: As for why I did not defend those accusations of racism against me (and it's cool that you took the trouble to read all of that, and to have arrived at that [obvious] conclusion), well:

1. I did kind of explain, as it happens, if you read my posts carefully. But that's incidental.

2. I did not think jt512's accusations sincere, given he wouldn't clearly answer what I directly asked him, repeatedly; and I did not think he had that right, to level that offensive accusation on those terms, and I had no intention of giving in to his assumption that I owed him an explanation, not unless he clearly explained what I'd asked him.


and, mostly this:
3. I actually did there what I wish I'd done now. Withdrawn without further comment, once fully convinced myself of his insincerity.


...But absolutely, cool that you should have taken the trouble to read all of that, and to have concluded what you did.

 

[Ziggurat]

As for why I did not defend those accusations of racism against me (and it's cool that you took the trouble to read all of that, and to have arrived at that [obvious] conclusion), well:

1. I did kind of explain, as it happens, if you read my posts carefully. But that's incidental.

2. I did not think jt512's accusations sincere

But *I* didn't accuse you of racism. And yet you still called me insincere. Did you simply confuse me with jt512? If so, you should say that. If not, on what basis are you accusing me of being insincere?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Because people who love God also love and respect human life. They see intrinsic value in every human being. They understand that even during a war against evil people you must do your very best to protect innocent life.

Nonsense.
Since religion began, people have been slaughtering others in the name of the god they say they love.
This has continued throughout history, and still happens today. Your friends in Hamas justify killing Jews because they love their god. Muslim-Christian, Sunni-Shia, Protestant-Catholic, Hindu-Muslim...All at each other's throats. All over the word, people are using their love of god to encourage and justify the most horrible atrocities.

 

[webfusion]

After you establish the new state of Palestine in Gaza and North Sinai, what happens to the millions of Palestinians that continue to live in the West Bank? Do they continue to have Palestinian autonomous areas (A & B)?

Israel is not 'establishing' anything -- it's up to the Palestinians themselves to fix their own mess.
The NewState can be developed as a magnet for immigration and investments, as a refuge for the millions of Palestinians worldwide who want to have their own nation.
This task was assigned to Yassir Arafat as he entered Gaza as a 'returning hero' from exile in Tunisia.
It almost worked.
Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Arafat was not truly seeking a State, he was only aiming for a way to renew the armed struggle. Which he did.

To answer your direct question, all one would have to do is actually read the program details, which I've offered multple time across multiple threads.
If you are not interested in understanding the outline of what can be done to create a functioning and viable NewState, that's on you.
https://www.facebook.com/TheNewStateSolution
(Links to their website -- that was created in 2019 -- are broken, as the 'working group' of ex-Israeli generals and officers has decided to cease promoting their well-considered and practical program at this time, for obvious reasons).

 

[Trausti]

Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Arafat was not truly seeking a State, he was only aiming for a way to renew the armed struggle. Which he did.

No Palestianian leader can make a deal. That's an assured assassination.

 

[dudalb]

You poor naive man! You know so little of the world.

"Men never do evil so cheerfully and willingly as when they do it n the name of God:.
Descartes.

 

[dudalb]

Nonsense.
Since religion began, people have been slaughtering others in the name of the god they say they love.
This has continued throughout history, and still happens today. Your friends in Hamas justify killing Jews because they love their god. Muslim-Christian, Sunni-Shia, Protestant-Catholic, Hindu-Muslim...All at each other's throats. All over the word, people are using their love of god to encourage and justify the most horrible atrocities.

Methinis Hercules does not know much history.