Replying to Avatar unclebobmartin

From: mikedilger at 11/03 10:17

> You said the following things that I find to be extreme:

>

> All previous history is irrelevant.

>

> Events must not be justified.

>

> (Victims were) targeted for not just murder but torture of the most barbaric heinous and intensely personal kind (I think that is extreme with the facts)

>

> All their suffering is entirely Hama's fault

>

> I find all those views to be extreme.

Firstly, I appreciate you being worried about my "benefit". But don't worry. I'm a big boy.

It is perfectly valid to say that you believe some of my stated ideas to be extreme. I'll happily disagree; and we can debate those ideas.

It is not valid to say: "I hear only one side extremism from you." That is an ad hominem attack, and a false generalization that goes well beyond the ideas that I had stated.

Now, as to my assertion that the events of Oct 7th "must not be justified". What justification can there be for putting infants into ovens and roasting them alive? What justification can there be for descending on a dance concert with a squadron of ultra-light aircraft and spraying the dancers with automatic weapon fire? I could go on. You know the atrocities that were committed. I'm sure you've seen the videos taken by the perpetrators and heard the testimony of the survivors.

There can be no justification for such actions. No matter how oppressed, subjucated, and violated you have been; you cannot roast babies alive. And since such atrocities were not isolated, but were generally executed across the entire attack; and since the perpetrators filmed and posted their attacks to the cheers of many, and since they phoned home to brag about killing jews with their bare hands, it is clear that the atrocities were the point, and not just incidental.

In a moral society, we have to draw moral lines. Without those lines there is no morality. Such lines are not extreme; they are necessary to maintain the definition of morality. Therefore we must not attempt to justifiy actions that cross those lines. If we try, we will find ourselves erasing all moral lines and justifying the horrors of Auschwitz.

CC: #[4]

If you ignore all history your moral lines will shift markedly. Capital punishment appears as murder. A retaliation becomes an attack. In fact it is possible to view Hamas's attacks as slow motion retaliations that happened much later because it takes a very long time to prepare in their condition.

Some people have different moral rules. An eye for an eye combined with collective guilt (or just the belief that all adult Israelis serve in the IDF thus they are all guilty and legit targets) would insist that Palestine is owed tens of thousands of eyes from any Israeli they can get them from. This is NOT my view. I am highlighting a deep flaw in the very idea of being guided by morals outside of a population that shares the same morals.

Having said that, should I abandon sympathy for Palestinian children because their society runs on different moral codes,? Is it okay to treat them as animals and exterminate them because by following their moral guidelines they threaten my society?

I think not but I don't have the answers.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

From: mikedilger at 11/03 18:59

> If you ignore all history your moral lines will shift markedly.

I don't think that's true. There are some moral absolutes.

>Capital punishment appears as murder.

No, it appears as killing, but not as murder. One can question the morality of capital punishment without calling it murder. The same is true of abortion.

>A retaliation becomes an attack. In fact it is possible to view Hamas's attacks as slow motion retaliations that happened much later because it takes a very long time to prepare in their condition.

Retaliations are provoked attacks. Whether they are moral depends on the conditions. If two parties agree to stop fighting, and then one suddenly "retaliates" then that party has crossed the moral line.

> Some people have different moral rules.

I don't fully agree. There are certain absolutes that some people rationalize away. Or, perhaps a better way to say this is that some people's morals are not valid because they cross the absolute moral lines. A sociopath, like Hitler, may consider themself to be moral; but their morality is not valid. Who defines the line of validity? We do. We organize our societies around those lines. When two societies disagree on those lines there is likely to be war.

> Having said that, should I abandon sympathy for Palestinian children because their society runs on different moral codes,?

No, because you (and I, and all moral people) have certain absolute morals the demand that sympathy.

> Is it okay to treat them as animals and exterminate them because by following their moral guidelines they threaten my society?

Animals? No, for the same reason. But that doesn't mean you won't fight them if they come for you and your family.

CC: #[4]

You missed my point, but also I now see that we are much further separated ideologically than I had thought. This issue is not between us, but we are just opining on it, Yet I get the sense to no benefit. So I wish you well and I will voice my opinions on this matter in a nostr community I setup after I do the prerequisite coding. Thanks for engaging with me and being civil.

I regret this post. I misunderstood the note it was in reply to. I don't think we are so far separated. I did not wish to fire off posts and refuse replies as some dabate tactic. I'm sad I have so few replies from the good Uncle now and fear I have made a mistake.

Fear not. You are a programmer and my brother. I spend an hour or so per day on nostr and then I do other work. So If I don't respond immediately it is often because I'm busy. I also took your last message to mean you wanted a pause. I tried to zap you in response but getalby was apparently down or something.

From: mikedilger at 11/04 20:11

> I regret this post. I misunderstood the note it was in reply to. I don't think we are so far separated. I did not wish to fire off posts and refuse replies as some dabate tactic. I'm sad I have so few replies from the good Uncle now and fear I have made a mistake.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

Ok this point needs clarification. Twice now you've presumed any expression of weariness from me means that I want you to stop posting. Never have I meant that. I respect more speech, in more ways than one ;-). What I am signalling is that I may become less engaged. I am not asking for you to hold back your opinion, rather I'm letting you know that I may be holding back mine, that I may back away for a bit. But there are watchers who will see your reply, and they should hear it if you have something more to tell. When I mentioned that I get knots in my stomach, this is not in response to your posts, it is in response to my own posts.

OK. Understood.

From: mikedilger at 11/06 02:10

> Ok this point needs clarification. Twice now you've presumed any expression of weariness from me means that I want you to stop posting. Never have I meant that. I respect more speech, in more ways than one ;-). What I am signalling is that I may become less engaged. I am not asking for you to hold back your opinion, rather I'm letting you know that I may be holding back mine, that I may back away for a bit. But there are watchers who will see your reply, and they should hear it if you have something more to tell. When I mentioned that I get knots in my stomach, this is not in response to your posts, it is in response to my own posts.

CC: #[4]

...and finally the zap worked.

And thanks

In this note I am saying morality is stateful, not that it is relative. If I could murder and then wipe the state, I would get away with it.