So no matter how much you want to dance around it, you're advocating for pure pragmatism combined with an amoral utilitarianism. At best you can say you think the holocaust was counterproductive to human flourishing in Germany, but you have no platform to say it was actually wrong.
The innocent Palestinians we should weap for.
17,899 Views |
275 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by BonfireNerd04
…you're the one that brought up legal rights as an objection to, or a limit on, the idea of natural rights.
Superficial peons indeed.
Superficial peons indeed.
Zobel said:
So no matter how much you want to dance around it, you're advocating for pure pragmatism combined with an amoral utilitarianism. At best you can say you think the holocaust was counterproductive to human flourishing in Germany, but you have no platform to say it was actually wrong.
I'm not dancing around anything, I'm answering your questions and you're shifting the goalposts because you don't like them. You want me to take an emotional position superficial apologetics can deconstruct as opposed to one that it has no answer for. You want me to be fearful of telling you that on some level there is no universal right and wrong.
Yes, I'm saying there is no universal moral code by which any action is fundamentally always wrong. I'm also saying that for all functional, practical purposes within the reality we inhabit plenty of actions are functionally wrong in any real world scenario.
Your fundamental claim is true but it has no real world application. Your arguments assume that without any universal moral code we all just lie down and die and that's the end of the species. As if tomorrow everyone immediately determined there was no god we'd all just kill ourselves. It's nonsense. You'd keep on living essentially as you currently do because you live in reality and not some theoretical moral conception of reality.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
No one has been emotional, other than the feeling of pleasure at watching someone show their ass with zero provocation. And I've never gotten around to making a fundamental claim other than the stuff coming out of your mouth is your opinion.
I don't really care if you think that humans have an inalienable right to life in a cosmic sense. Even in the very limited local-to-earth-where-we-all-live sense I'm pretty sure most people are down with the idea that it is wrong to kill people, leaving aside all moral and theological claims.
Keep in mind the entire point you objected to was the idea that "Palestinians are human beings with inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
So - for all functional, practical purposes within the reality we inhabit, what is "functionally wrong" in any real world scenario with that statement? You can't have it both ways. Either humans by nature of being human at the simplest level have worth such that it is "functionally wrong" to deny or they don't. Legal rights - which again, you were the one to bring up - aren't relevant.
I don't really care if you think that humans have an inalienable right to life in a cosmic sense. Even in the very limited local-to-earth-where-we-all-live sense I'm pretty sure most people are down with the idea that it is wrong to kill people, leaving aside all moral and theological claims.
Keep in mind the entire point you objected to was the idea that "Palestinians are human beings with inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
So - for all functional, practical purposes within the reality we inhabit, what is "functionally wrong" in any real world scenario with that statement? You can't have it both ways. Either humans by nature of being human at the simplest level have worth such that it is "functionally wrong" to deny or they don't. Legal rights - which again, you were the one to bring up - aren't relevant.
Zobel said:
…you're the one that brought up legal rights as an objection to, or a limit on, the idea of natural rights.
Superficial peons indeed.
That's not true at all, I brought up the relative rights of Israeli Arabs granted them by Israel compared to the rights of Arabs granted throughout the Muslim world. The point about inalienable rights was only to say that this is an irrelevant frame of reference by which one should be judging the state of Israel.
And I'll highlight the fact that, for all of your screeching, your position fundamentally puts you on the side of a terrorist state because an opposition state doesn't grant a perfect iteration of inalienable rights to its population that you approve of. You his was the point being attacked by my post and the one you continue to unintentionally reinforce.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
No one is screeching, what you're hearing is scorn, derision, and outright mockery.
You brought up the relative legal rights of Arabs in your objection to the idea that Palestinians have inalienable rights. Go back and read it, mi hijo.
I'm much more comfortable with being on the side of "humans have a fundamental right to life" - which somehow makes the terrorists win?? - than the side that can't quite decide why the holocaust was actually wrong.
You brought up the relative legal rights of Arabs in your objection to the idea that Palestinians have inalienable rights. Go back and read it, mi hijo.
I'm much more comfortable with being on the side of "humans have a fundamental right to life" - which somehow makes the terrorists win?? - than the side that can't quite decide why the holocaust was actually wrong.
Quote:
for all functional, practical purposes within the reality we inhabit, what is "functionally wrong" in any real world scenario with that statement?
It's an attempt to side step the relative real world superiority of one system of rights over another.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
You didn't answer the question. Don't be scared.
You are also the only one who keeps bringing up religion. (Ironically, you are doing this while giving governments godhood)
The nihilistic worldview that you are spouting isn't a universal atheist philosophy, so it is silly of you to use this tactic to attack people who disagree with you.
The nihilistic worldview that you are spouting isn't a universal atheist philosophy, so it is silly of you to use this tactic to attack people who disagree with you.
Zobel said:
No one is screeching, what you're hearing is scorn, derision, and outright mockery.
You brought up the relative legal rights of Arabs in your objection to the idea that Palestinians have inalienable rights. Go back and read it, mi hijo.
I'm much more comfortable with being on the side of "humans have a fundamental right to life" - which somehow makes the terrorists win?? - than the side that can't quite decide why the holocaust was actually wrong.
The Holocaust was wrong by all objective metrics that exist in the reality in which we inhabit. It resulted in incredible amounts of needless suffering and cost humanity untold productive/innovative potential, and it was propagated by an ideology that objectively was inferior in terms of human success/happiness than the one held by those being killed. That is true regardless of how you feel about universal moral codes or rights. It was objectively a massive net negative for all humanity.
My only point with the post in question was to call out the attempt to obscure Israel's superiority as society by claiming Palestinians have some inalienable right to life. As if nothing their society could ever do to Israel would justify any response that resulted in any of their "innocent" citizens being killed. If preserving their society and system of rights required Israel to kill every Palestinian tomorrow on the basis that their continued existence pose a thread to Israel's, they would be justified in doing so because by all real world metrics humanity would be better off. And that's because systems of rights and morals can still be superior/inferior to one another in the reality in which we inhabit regardless of any divine set of moral precepts. And the fact that Israel would never actually do that just further reinforces this point.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Ah, well good! Fortunately, no one was even addressing the relative superiority of societies, and no one ever said there was nothing could be done to justify any response that resulted in any innocent citizens being killed. So you can safely ignore the strawman you're beating up on.Quote:
My only point with the post in question was to call out the attempt to obscure Israel's superiority as society by claiming Palestinians have some inalienable right to life. As if nothing their society could ever do to Israel would justify any response that resulted in any of their "innocent" citizens being killed.
I note that you can't even fathom the idea that there are, in fact, innocent people in Gaza. How terribly enlightened of you.
This, however, is very revealing. By denying the possibility of innocents on the Palestinian side, and arbitrarily assigning superior worth based on your so-called "real world metrics" (probably includes stuff like GDP, amirite?) you're totally fine with genocide on a theoretical level, even if you immediately backpedal from the idea.Quote:
If preserving their society and system of rights required Israel to kill every Palestinian tomorrow on the basis that their continued existence pose a thread to Israel's, they would be justified in doing so because by all real world metrics humanity would be better off.
If these "real world metrics" say that humanity would have been better off without the Jews, you would have argued just as strongly for that. I'm pretty sure there's some tracts and books that were published in the 1930s that made that case.
The only difference between the Nazi argument against the Jews and your argument against the Palestinians is about a century and a few thousand miles of geographic separation.
In no way would humanity be better off with the ending out of millions of lives to end an ethnic conflict - regardless of any divine set of moral precepts.
Zobel said:
You didn't answer the question. Don't be scared.
I guess I have to write it out in crayon: Israel's society and system of morals/rights is superior both to that found in Palestinian controlled areas as well as the entire rest of the Arab/Muslim world. The supposed "inalienable rights" of those in those respective societies has no bearing on this fact. And to claim Israel has no right to do certain things to defend against an existential threat on that basis puts one on the side of the terrorist state trying to destroy them. That sort of Sunday school navet is what groups like Hamas and societies like many seen in the muslim world rely on. They expect that we will refuse to blow up a hospital in order to kill terrorists and protect our civilization.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
That's not the argument ramblin made, it's just the jumping-off point you used to form an argument that justifies genocide. Congrats, I guess?
In crayon. Are Palestinians human? Do they, as humans, have a right to life and liberty?
In crayon. Are Palestinians human? Do they, as humans, have a right to life and liberty?
Zobel said:Ah, well good! Fortunately, no one was even addressing the relative superiority of societies, and no one ever said there was nothing could be done to justify any response that resulted in any innocent citizens being killed. So you can safely ignore the strawman you're beating up on.Quote:
My only point with the post in question was to call out the attempt to obscure Israel's superiority as society by claiming Palestinians have some inalienable right to life. As if nothing their society could ever do to Israel would justify any response that resulted in any of their "innocent" citizens being killed.
I note that you can't even fathom the idea that there are, in fact, innocent people in Gaza. How terribly enlightened of you.This, however, is very revealing. By denying the possibility of innocents on the Palestinian side, and arbitrarily assigning superior worth based on your so-called "real world metrics" (probably includes stuff like GDP, amirite?) you're totally fine with genocide on a theoretical level, even if you immediately backpedal from the idea.Quote:
If preserving their society and system of rights required Israel to kill every Palestinian tomorrow on the basis that their continued existence pose a thread to Israel's, they would be justified in doing so because by all real world metrics humanity would be better off.
If these "real world metrics" say that humanity would have been better off without the Jews, you would have argued just as strongly for that. I'm pretty sure there's some tracts and books that were published in the 1930s that made that case.
The only difference between the Nazi argument against the Jews and your argument against the Palestinians is about a century and a few thousand miles of geographic separation.
In no way would humanity be better off with the ending out of millions of lives to end an ethnic conflict - regardless of any divine set of moral precepts.
I'm not speaking on an individual level, I'm speaking to a society as whole so overtaken with hatred of Jews, Christians and the west in general that they voted Hamas into power and indoctrinate their children into the belief from berth that killing those people is the pinnacle of existence. That society, as a whole, cannot be allowed to hide behind claims of innocent's clinging to inalienable rights if that is being done in an attempt achieve those ends. Which it absolutely is.
I'm not advocating for a senseless genocide of Palestinians. I'm advocating for whatever is ultimately necessary to eliminate the threat that an objectively inferior system poses to a superior one. If Palestinian Territories accepted a dual state solution tomorrow, there would be immediate peace in the region. If Israel laid down their arms and promised not to fight anymore tomorrow, every Jew would be murdered the next day. That's the difference. And that's why Israel is justified in doing. whatever they need to to survive.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Whatever is ultimately necessary? Could we maybe call it "the final solution"? Seems catchier.
Quote:
Are Palestinians human?
Yes
Quote:
Do they, as humans, have a right to life and liberty?
Not intrinsically, not.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel said:
Whatever is ultimately necessary? Could we maybe call it "the final solution"? Seems catchier.
This sort of childish nonsense is the sort of thing that would cause sane humans to abandon a discussion on principle. Unfortunately for you, that's not me.
Did the Jews of Europe have an official, public position that their goal was the eradication of all Germans? Had the Jews carried out thousands of terrorist attacks on German soil leading up to the Holocaust? And even if they had, was the full extent of the Holocaust necessary to stop such threats?
I appreciate your dedication to Godwin's law here, but it's just too absurd to even begin to pass muster.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I've only said it about 5 different ways, not sure what "gotcha" you think you've arrived at.
And again I'll reiterate, the absolute pinnacle of your point here has been to highlight the fact that I believe something you find too horrifying to accept and are relying on others being similarly horrified in order to win the discussion. There's nothing fundamentally sound about your entire argument. It again boils down to "what you say can't be true because enough people are scared by the thought of it".
And again I'll reiterate, the absolute pinnacle of your point here has been to highlight the fact that I believe something you find too horrifying to accept and are relying on others being similarly horrified in order to win the discussion. There's nothing fundamentally sound about your entire argument. It again boils down to "what you say can't be true because enough people are scared by the thought of it".
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
My point is that nothing justifies genocide. Kind of weird that we have to argue about that, but as you say, here we are.
If you disagree with the premise that humans have an intrinsic right to life, Godwin's law is not some fatal flaw - the comparison is apt.
Once you become the arbiter of who has value as human beings, there is no daylight between you and anyone advocating for any kind of genocide. The only distinction is how you're justifying it.
The stupid thing about all of this is that you got all wound up to how the world would be better off if all the Palestinians were dead in opposition to a strawman argument. Literally no one is defending Hamas or justifying them. No one in this thread has objected to the present military action or said it was unjustified.
Nevermind getting up to such lofty levels as minimizing civilian casualties. Somehow the argument has become - bizarrely - over first principles that humans have an intrinsic right to life. This is actually where people can and should end the discussion on principle.
If you disagree with the premise that humans have an intrinsic right to life, Godwin's law is not some fatal flaw - the comparison is apt.
Once you become the arbiter of who has value as human beings, there is no daylight between you and anyone advocating for any kind of genocide. The only distinction is how you're justifying it.
The stupid thing about all of this is that you got all wound up to how the world would be better off if all the Palestinians were dead in opposition to a strawman argument. Literally no one is defending Hamas or justifying them. No one in this thread has objected to the present military action or said it was unjustified.
Nevermind getting up to such lofty levels as minimizing civilian casualties. Somehow the argument has become - bizarrely - over first principles that humans have an intrinsic right to life. This is actually where people can and should end the discussion on principle.
There is a reason Palestinians have to be treated so harshly by our standards. Their values as a society are disgusting.
Normal kids played Smear the Queer growing up. Maybe let's not throw too many stones.
Is there any reason to think that the picture you shared isn't just a generic picture of brown kids playing with a propaganda caption meant to inspire people to hate Palestinians?
Is there any reason to think that the picture you shared isn't just a generic picture of brown kids playing with a propaganda caption meant to inspire people to hate Palestinians?
swimmerbabe11 said:
Normal kids played Smear the Queer growing up. Maybe let's not throw too many stones.
Is there any reason to think that the picture you shared isn't just a generic picture of brown kids playing with a propaganda caption meant to inspire people to hate Palestinians?
Palestinians stabbing and terror attacks do much more than a picture could do.
swimmerbabe11 said:
Normal kids played Smear the Queer growing up. Maybe let's not throw too many stones.
Is there any reason to think that the picture you shared isn't just a generic picture of brown kids playing with a propaganda caption meant to inspire people to hate Palestinians?
There is a problem with violence towards Israelis and Jews in general being glorified in a lot of Palestinian communities. That said, there's an equivalent problem in a lot of Haredi and settler communities in Israel which have made up a big part of Netanyahu's coalition and certainly contributed to the violence.
no doubt. I'm not pro-either side.
I think the whole thing is tragic and awful and there are plentiful victims and villains on both teams.
I think the whole thing is tragic and awful and there are plentiful victims and villains on both teams.
I posted this on another thread, but it is worth a listen to: (8 min., NPR) - a conversation between a Rabbi and an Imam on what they are saying to their religious congregations.
Excerpt on what they want to say to each other:
For me, this is closer to the truth than anything I have heard so far.
Excerpt on what they want to say to each other:
Quote:
Rabbi Brous: I will say to you, Imam Herbert, I'm holding you and your community, your beloveds in your mosque and their families in Gaza in my heart and in my prayers. And I know that there is a better way for humanity that we can walk together toward peace, dignity and justice for all people. And I really appreciate you as a partner in that work. Thank you.
Imam Herbert: I share the same sentiment. For me, I think one of the most profound things that I heard you say that really, really stuck out to me, rabbi, was you mentioned that the real enemies of this war are not the Jews or the Israelis or the Palestinians. It's those people who have decided that violence is the only answer. And that really, really stuck with me. That this shows that there actually is a way to have a conversation.
For me, this is closer to the truth than anything I have heard so far.
I didn't think the internet could surprise me anymore, and then I found an Aggie medical doctor that doesn't believe in human rights. That's a new one for sure.
Now I would agree that the people's ability to exercise their inherent rights can be limited by circumstance or government authority, but they doesn't mean that human rights don't exist. In fact, it gives us a metric to judge societies and governments. If they protect and uphold human rights, then the society and government are good. If they do not, then they are tyrannical and illegitimate. BTW, this has been the exact logic used by every revolution since the American one, and even obviously tyrannical governments like North Korea still use the rhetoric. It's the only standard we have when it comes to judging the legitimacy of governments aside from their military might.
The idea that societies and governments grant human rights, instead of just upholding and defending them, is horrific. It's basically the same as saying that all people without legal status have no rights whatsoever, including no right to exist. Then we get into the tricky mess of governments that don't get along. If the US doesn't recognize the North Korean government as legitimate, does that mean that those people don't have a right to exist in the eyes of Americans as no legitimate government has granted them rights? Ugh, what a horrible worldview.
If doing whatever it takes to defend your political position and avoid cognitive dissonance leads you to the conclusion that maybe human rights aren't really a thing, then you should probably take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and consider that maybe your politics are evil.
Now I would agree that the people's ability to exercise their inherent rights can be limited by circumstance or government authority, but they doesn't mean that human rights don't exist. In fact, it gives us a metric to judge societies and governments. If they protect and uphold human rights, then the society and government are good. If they do not, then they are tyrannical and illegitimate. BTW, this has been the exact logic used by every revolution since the American one, and even obviously tyrannical governments like North Korea still use the rhetoric. It's the only standard we have when it comes to judging the legitimacy of governments aside from their military might.
The idea that societies and governments grant human rights, instead of just upholding and defending them, is horrific. It's basically the same as saying that all people without legal status have no rights whatsoever, including no right to exist. Then we get into the tricky mess of governments that don't get along. If the US doesn't recognize the North Korean government as legitimate, does that mean that those people don't have a right to exist in the eyes of Americans as no legitimate government has granted them rights? Ugh, what a horrible worldview.
If doing whatever it takes to defend your political position and avoid cognitive dissonance leads you to the conclusion that maybe human rights aren't really a thing, then you should probably take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and consider that maybe your politics are evil.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
swimmerbabe11 said:
Normal kids played Smear the Queer growing up. Maybe let's not throw too many stones.
Is there any reason to think that the picture you shared isn't just a generic picture of brown kids playing with a propaganda caption meant to inspire people to hate Palestinians?
In this case, it's not propaganda.
This is the full video:
While normal Kids play Hide and seek, Palestinian kids Play a game called "Stab the Jew." This Hatred is filled in them right from a young age. This is how they are radicalized & taught that its ok to K!ll #Isreal #HamasTerrorists #Gaza #IsraelPalestineWar #IsraelUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/M2Rrhc2bLQ
— Rosy (@rose_k01) October 9, 2023
And to be clear, this is why I hold Hamas guilty as the oppressor. These kids didn't simply just learn this, but have been taught and brainwashed to believe this is acceptable behavior.
The last two posts are it.
Thank you two.
Seriously. I really appreciate both of those posts a whole lot.
edit: Dangit livingag. not that one.
Thank you two.
Seriously. I really appreciate both of those posts a whole lot.
edit: Dangit livingag. not that one.
Quote:
I didn't think the internet could surprise me anymore, and then I found an Aggie medical doctor that doesn't believe in human rights. That's a new one for sure.
Now I would agree that the people's ability to exercise their inherent rights can be limited by circumstance or government authority, but they doesn't mean that human rights don't exist. In fact, it gives us a metric to judge societies and governments. If they protect and uphold human rights, then the society and government are good. If they do not, then they are tyrannical and illegitimate. BTW, this has been the exact logic used by every revolution since the American one, and even obviously tyrannical governments like North Korea still use the rhetoric. It's the only standard we have when it comes to judging the legitimacy of governments aside from their military might.
The idea that societies and governments grant human rights, instead of just upholding and defending them, is horrific. It's basically the same as saying that all people without legal status have no rights whatsoever, including no right to exist. Then we get into the tricky mess of governments that don't get along. If the US doesn't recognize the North Korean government as legitimate, does that mean that those people don't have a right to exist in the eyes of Americans as no legitimate government has granted them rights? Ugh, what a horrible worldview.
If doing whatever it takes to defend your political position and avoid cognitive dissonance leads you to the conclusion that maybe human rights aren't really a thing, then you should probably take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and consider that maybe your politics are evil.
No material on this site is intended to be a s
Quote:
I posted this on another thread, but it is worth a listen to: (8 min., NPR) - a conversation between a Rabbi and an Imam on what they are saying to their religious congregations.
Excerpt on what they want to say to each other:Quote:
Rabbi Brous: I will say to you, Imam Herbert, I'm holding you and your community, your beloveds in your mosque and their families in Gaza in my heart and in my prayers. And I know that there is a better way for humanity that we can walk together toward peace, dignity and justice for all people. And I really appreciate you as a partner in that work. Thank you.
Imam Herbert: I share the same sentiment. For me, I think one of the most profound things that I heard you say that really, really stuck out to me, rabbi, was you mentioned that the real enemies of this war are not the Jews or the Israelis or the Palestinians. It's those people who have decided that violence is the only answer. And that really, really stuck with me. That this shows that there actually is a way to have a conversation.
For me, this is closer to the truth than anything I have heard so far.
swimmerbabe11 said:
no doubt. I'm not pro-either side.
I think the whole thing is tragic and awful and there are plentiful victims and villains on both teams.
Show me the videos of naked Palestinian women dead and naked in the back of a truck with Jews cheering and spitting on her.
Trying to say there is blame on both sides is pathetic. There is vast disproportionate blame on the Palestinians. The very Palestinians that elected Hamas are now somehow the victim.
Everything evil will be dismissed by some because one imam says a few reasonable things. Looks like the good imams have not done a very good job.
Let's just have one big group hug with the smiling Palestinians while they hold a big knife.
They also have children's TV shows in which Jews are the villains.Quote:
And to be clear, this is why I hold Hamas guilty as the oppressor. These kids didn't simply just learn this, but have been taught and brainwashed to believe this is acceptable behavior.
Featured Stories
See All
51:38
1h ago
1.8k
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Olin Buchanan
12 Key Statistics: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Luke Evangelist
10:42
13m ago
215
TexAgs' TXHSFB Recap: Reviewing our coverage from the area round
by TexAgs Recruiting