Baloney.
From: (migs) at 11/20 12:53
> Their only reason for violence is and always has been resistance the illegal occupation of European settlers on their land. We must not romanticize their resistance as unprovoked violence because it's not. Have more compassion for orphan youth.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
'Tidy First?' by Kent Beck is a very quick read. I finished it in under three hours. Its 92 pages are only a bit more than half filled.
Part 1: Tidyings (~30 pages) is quick and easy and could tempt you to put the book down before finishing -- Don't.
Part 2: Managing (~20 pages) is also quick but not quite so easy. In this part the ? is brought to the fore.
Part 3: Theory (~35 pages) is quite profound and worth serious contemplation.
Disciplines, standards, and ethics are the three components of a profession. The three parts correspond well.
I look forward to book 2.
Good Morning Nostrides! Yesterday I flew a dog rescue mission. I was one of three pilots transporting rescued dogs from Texas to Wisconsin. My leg of the flight was the last. It was a gorgeous day to fly. I left KUGN (Waukegan IL) at 13:11 and landed at KIRK (Kirkville, MO) at 14:51.
I was back in the air at 15:31 with my two passengers secured in 30" dog crates. Racing away from the Sun I landed at KBUU (Burlington, WI) just after sunset at 17:02. The pictures below show the two dogs leaving the plane.
Then I was back in the air at 17:29 in full dark. The short flight back to KUGN took less than half an hour. The KUGN tower cleared me to land on runway 23, which I was just able to pick out of the clutter of lights on the ground. I swung around for my approach and overshot a bit; but corrected and landed safely at 17:43.
That was one hell of a good day in the air.
The reason they have is the reason they had, and it is what they have promised to do.
From: (migs) at 11/16 21:27
> Hamas might not and what reason would they have to do so? These are all the orphans Netanyahu and the Israeli regime have created over the span of their illegal occupation of Palestine. Rampant sexual abuse is prevelant in all militaries, even the United States. All violence sucks. Join the anti-war movement.
CC: #[4]
Create a Custom Lisp Tutor with GPT. nostr:npub19mun7qwdyjf7qs3456u8kyxncjn5u2n7klpu4utgy68k4aenzj6synjnft
Cool!
From: BITKARROT at 11/17 02:21
> Create a Custom Lisp Tutor with GPT. nostr:npub19mun7qwdyjf7qs3456u8kyxncjn5u2n7klpu4utgy68k4aenzj6synjnft
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjtboPHrsJI
CC: #[3]
Those who want a cease fire simply want to enable Hamas to come boiling out of Gaza to rape and kill some more. It's not like Hamas is going to honor that cease fire.
I stand with Israel. No cease fire.
If you are on Damus and cannot zap β‘οΈ
Click this link and enable zaps back on!
https://nostrscript.suhailsaqan.com
Click βonβ then opens damus click βrunβ then close the app and start it again nostr:note1ys7dgnu2mf85rgj2t35q9rp9k8uats3sm2kjqe2dc3a708nsfv2s6x7m82
Tried it. No joy.
From: SerSleepy<-cameri at 11/14 14:22
> If you are on Damus and cannot zap β‘οΈ
>
> Click this link and enable zaps back on!
>
> https://nostrscript.suhailsaqan.com
>
> Click βonβ then opens damus click βrunβ then close the app and start it again nostr:note1ys7dgnu2mf85rgj2t35q9rp9k8uats3sm2kjqe2dc3a708nsfv2s6x7m82
CC: #[3]
Some things I believe because of multiple good sources:
1. A high up IDF leader wanted Hamas to win so that he could deal with Gaza militarily rather than diplomatically. That was in a Wikileaks cable. I don't see that as a damning indictment beause he was an IDF leader and would of course prefer his own tools. But cynics see it as a desire to kill all the Palestinians.
2. Israel was dead-set against a Palestinian state well before 2005. By 2005 they unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in order to freeze the peace process. Dov Weissglass said "When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state." You can look that up. The word "formaldhyde" is part of it so easier to search on.
3. Israel funded Hamas. That is rather damning, but again it was a strategy to scuttle the formation of a Palestinian state. Cynics can say it was so they would have an excuse to kill all the Palestinians. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up
BTW, the 21% of Israelis who are Arabs were accidents. Israel thought they removed all the non-Jewish Arabs in 1948. But because Jewishness isn't a race but rather a set of lineages among multiple races, some of which are Arab, you can't just look at someone to know if they are Jewish or not. And so many Arabs just claimed that they were Jews so that their land wouldn't be taken from them. They kept this fact hidden for decades, and as they slowly tested the waters it was apparent that Israel was okay with them being there as they had integrated into their society well. A very few of them married in, but those allowances are rare. Now they have come out of the closet and claim to be Palestinian-Israelis.
Now I don't understand your point "Given that 20% of the citizens of Israel are Palestinian arabs, I think you might want to reconsider that assertion." my assertion being "Israel is far more an existential threat to Palestine than Palestine is to Israel." I have reconsidered my statement and I stand by it. Perhaps I should clarify that I am talking about the possible future existence of a legal entity called the State of Palestine. Israel threatens that possibility far more than Palestine (a non-state, but that has representation) threatens the existence of the legal entity called the State of Israel.
I'm again lost by your next statements the two paragraphs starting with "Who is in exile?" The part of my statement you quoted was regarding the undisputed (except maybe by you) fact that there are Palestinians in exile on land called Gaza and the West Bank, who were removed from their homes, those homes being on land outside of Gaza/WestBank of which they are not allowed to go to, some of whom still keep the keys to the front door in hopes that one day they can go home, who are NOT Israeli citizens, who are in fact stateless, and who Israel is dealing with illegally according to international laws. Now, given that extended statement, what was your point?
In the paragraph where you say "In fact, mostly untrue", you don't make a statement that invalidates the veracity of my statement. I agree with your statement though, except that I recognize that in at least one of those wars the question of who started it remains disputed.
As to Hamas misjudging, I entirely agree. Their actions make little strategic sense. I can only assume they are trying to enrage the neighboring Arabs as I stated previously. The UN has recognized the right of Palestinians to fight for their freedom by force if necessary, and as this is their land that was taken from them illegally without recompense, and they are kept in a blockaded region without statehood against international laws, I agree that they have this right. That is because I am a libertarian. I believe in all people's right to liberty and to use violence against an authoritarian agressor that controls many aspects of their lives and denies them their liberty. Yet to my point, it is utterly dumb of them to assert that right because they cannot possibly achieve anything. They are too weak against even Israel alone, and especially against Israel and the USA combined. I urge them to fold.
I still don't understand why you would take the side of the agressor that did this to the Palestinians, with your defense being only that Palestinians really really hate Israel and lash out in violence from time to time, some of it being unjustifiably immoral. Of course they do, they are human beings with human emotions and they hate the people who turned their lives into shit. I take the side of justice. I believe in freedom, of liberty, of equality of all people, equal rights under the law. I agree justice must be had against Hamas' crimes too. But justice must be had against IDF solider's actions, against settlers stealing houses and killing the small children who try to fight back, for bombing indiscriminately and claiming everything is a Hamas stronghold (when the evidence is more and more clear that they are bombing rather indiscriminately based on the statistics of the dead being similar to the overall statisitcs of Gaza), for apparently intentionally targetting journalists, for not recognizing that the one who kills has the responsibliity to not kill innocents in the process (no FBI agent would blow up a builing because a hostage taker took hostages and then say "well he was using them for human shields, what can I do?" They would wait for a clear shot). Justice for all the violations of international law that Israel repeatedly and continually violates with the help of the US veto power, for refusing to give back the land they stole in the West Bank, for stealing more and more of it (do you believe in property rights?). Clearly Israel just wants to eliminate these people who are in it's way and take the entire land that they believe that Jehovah promised them thousands of years ago regardless of what kinds of atrocities they must commit to take it back. And that is entirely unjust and inhuman. And so I'm having this discussion with you to try to understand how you can take their side. And it seems to me so far that it is through a web of fictions that Israel has developed and spread to convince Americans to see the situation in a rather perverse way, but from the only angle where Israel looks like a good actor, as long as you don't dig too deeply.
From: mikedilger at 11/07 19:13
> Some things I believe because of multiple good sources:
>
> 1. A high up IDF leader
...irrelevant...
>
> 2. Israel was dead-set against a Palestinian state well before 2005.
...irrelevant...and certainly not a universal truth. Israel is a democracy with many factions.
> 3. Israel funded Hamas.
...irrelevant...and I'm sure Hamas was duly grateful.
> BTW, the 21% of Israelis who are Arabs were accidents.
...Whether the "accident" hypothesis is true or not is irrelevant and is demeaning to the Israeli Arabs. The fact remains that one fifth of the Israeli population is Arab.
> Israel threatens the [possible future existence of a legal entity called the State of Palestine] far more than Palestine (a non-state, but that has representation) threatens the existence of the legal entity called the State of Israel.
I think that's true today. It was not always true; but the past is irrelevant.
> I'm again lost by your next statements the two paragraphs starting with "Who is in exile?" [...] what was your point?
My point was that the word "exile" can be applied in many different ways. It is not a boolean. Jews were exiled from Gaza. Jews were exiled from most Arab states and fled to Isreal where they were accepted as citizens. Palestinians were exiled during the wars. They were not accepted as citizens by neighboring Arab states and so were, in a sense, exiled by those states.
>
> I still don't understand why you would take the side of the agressor that did this to the Palestinians...
I don't accept the premise.
...And it seems to me so far that it is through a web of fictions that Israel has developed and spread to convince Americans to see the situation in a rather perverse way, but from the only angle where Israel looks like a good actor, as long as you don't dig too deeply.
There are a plethora of webs of fictions. Isreal is a self interested nation. Every self interested nation, and every faction with self interest, constructs webs of fictions to make themselves look better than their adversaries. That's the nature of human societies. Has Isreal lied more than Hamas? Doubtful since Israel is an open democracy with many factions and a relatively free press and is under intense international scrutiny; while Hamas is a closed society that controls all information in and out.
But that's not relevant at this point. The only relevant thing at this point is that there was a cease fire that Hamas broke in a manner so heinous that Israel is left with no choice but to destroy them and then to occupy and pacify Gaza for the foreseeable puture.
CC: #[4]
From: mikedilger at 11/06 17:49
> AS TO FACT DETERMINATION: Where Hamas and Israel agree as to what happened, and where I am not certain as to what happened, I would be keen to know. I would need sources. Best to just PM me if you wanted to go down that route. I don't have any expectations that you do, and that you are making a general point which I take and accept.
In this hypercharged environment I think individual citings are irrelevant. Note how many have been added to this thread by the onlookers. I do not read them because there is far too much FUD to take any particular citing seriously. The determination of FACT must be accomplished by throwing a very wide net and trying (hoping against hope) to weed out reality from the noise.
> AS TO THE STRENGTH OF HAMAS: The belief that survival is at stake, that this is extential, presupposes that Hamas has the ability to execute it's intentions. You suggested in a prior post that Hamas is strong when I called them the "little guy". But I see Hamas as very weak compared to Israel, even with external funding, even with many people in the world wishing them well, even as they have focused the entire economy of Gaza on war, sacrificing even their own people's drinking water distribution for this effort, being starved of imports... in this state they can barely make functional rockets, these rockets have zero targetting ability, very small explosion radii, they have nothing resembling an iron dome to protect them, they have no tanks, they have no airplanes, their airport was destroyed, they have no port on the sea. They live in squalor, having to spend much of their effort just to survive with food and water and a bit of shelter, and having not much left to dedicate to military purposes. Occasionally a small amount of weapons get through. Israel has mostly effectively blockaded them for a long time, but as we have now seen this has not been totally effective. So they are weak, and Israel is not under any real existential threat from them via military force. It is under a threat of terrorism though.
All true. Hamas is weak and Isreal is strong. My only quibble with the above is that I never said that Hamas was militarily strong. The fact that Hamas is weak does not mean that they are not an existential threat. Terrorism is an asymmetric approach. A few terrorists can exact a huge price on a strong nation. Allowed to continue they could utterly disrupt the society they are attacking. A few dozen terrorists brought down the World Trade Center killing thousands, and spurring twenty years of a war of annihilation in which two coutries were blown into the stone age. The stronger side has no choice other than to remove the terrorist threat by applying their greater strength and overwhelming the assymetry. The punches of "the little guy" cannot be absorbed forever. At some point "the little guy" has to be forced to stop.
> AS TO EXISTENTIAL THREATS: Israel is far more an existential threat to Palestine than Palestine is to Israel.
Given that 20% of the citizens of Isreal are Palestinian arabs, I think you might want to reconsider that assertion.
>Palestine is not even a recognized state at this point,
True, which is another reason to reconsider your assertion. You cannot be an existential threat to something that does not exist. There is no state of Palestine. There never has been a state of Palestine. And at this point I think it unlikely that there ever will be a state of Palestine.
>although there are currently a stateless people in exile on land claimed by Israel.
Who is in exile? Again, 20% of the citizens of Isreal are Palestinian arabs. Exactly 0% of the residents of Gaza are Jews. And, indeed, the Jews that used to live in Gaza were exiled from Gaza in 2005 by Israel.
Claimed? No, developed and defended. Israel lives there. This isn't a claim that can be adjudicated by some higher authority.
>The territories of the refugees have shrunk multiple times, each time as the result of actions by the state of Israel.
Not completely true. In fact, mostly untrue. The territories occupied by Palestinians dedicated to the destruction of Israel have shrunk several times in wars that were started by the surrounding Arab nations.
>I find the argument that Israel should defend itself against an existential threat completely ridiculous in the face of the actual history.
Israel does not find this to be ridiculous. Indeed, it's hard to imagine what other options Israel has.
>If that were a good course of action, then Palestinians should also defend themselves against an existential threat, one that has been 90% successful already.
What one "should" do must somehow be correlated with what is possible. I think Hamas misjudged that rather badly.
>But that way just leads to the endless war we currently have. It is in everybody's best interest to seek an alternative.
Should we have sought an alternative against the Third Reich? Or was total obliteration of that regime the only real solution. Sometimes the only solution is absolute victory.
> AS TO ISRAEL WOULD HAVE LET THEM LIVE IN PEACE: The evidence is strong that Israel would never let them live in peace. Claims like they could have been an economic powerhouse alongside Israel are complete fabrications of what Israel made or didn't make possible.
I can understand that factions like Hamas found the existing situation unacceptable. But they they have always found the very existence of Israel unacceptable. So there's not a lot of room for negotiation there. However, the governing power of Gaza did not need to divert their resources to war. They could have used those resources, and all the aid that was given to them, to build and better the lives of their citizens. They chose war instead.
> Look at the Oslo accords. They make legal the Israeli settlement of the West Bank (something the PA should not concede),
This is too far into the weeds to be relevant in this particular situation. Given what happened in Gaza it is not likely that Isreal will ever tolerate an autonomous Palestine.
> Fatah and the PA have tried going down this path of being peaceful. It has not worked....If Israel were just peaceful people respecting property rights and the right to life of Palestinians, maybe Gazan's wouldn't feel the need to defend their brothers in the West Bank.
Hamas killed the PA folks in Gaza when they took over. Threw them out of upper floor windows. That's how much brotherhood means to them. In any case I think the first step in "being peaceful" would have been to recognize the state of Israel and removed the demand for its removal from their charter.
> AS TO WWIII AND HAMAS STRATEGY: I don't think they want WW3, but I do think they want other Arab nations to come help them.
Then they misjudged. And they shouldn't have. Not one of those Arab nations accepted any refugees. The Arab nations have used the Palestinians as political pawns and proxies for decades.
> AS TO THE RIVER AND SEA THING: I don't take a position as to whether Israel should or should not exist, so this section is about what Hamas is looking to achieve, not what I think is reasonable or just. Yes, Hamas wants Israel to no longer exist. All the people, current Israelis and current Gazans and current West Bankers... would all be living in a single secular nation together called Palestine. Nothing about that desire requires killing anybody, or destroying any economic property, buldings, businesses, or otherwise.
All of Europe could be living in a single country called The Third Reich. Yeah, no, it doesn't work that way.
>Nothing about it requires Israelis to leave.
Hmmm. How many Jews live in Gaza? Zero. How many Jews live in Jordan? Zero. Egypt? 3. Iran?... I could go on. If I were a Jew I would not find the idea of living in a Palestinian state particularly appealing.
But again, we are in the weeds. The argument about Zionism is just more weeds at this point. Whether anybody likes it or not the Zionists have won. They are there, they aren't leaving, and they are not going to surrender their government to anyone, especially entities that have sworn their destruction.
> I don't accept claims that Hamas (and most Palestinians) just want to kill all the Jews if they got a chance
I agree with respect to "most Palestinians", or at least I'd be willing to entertain the doubt. As to Hamas, I think they have made their intention quite clear. Kill all the Jews? Maybe, or maybe not; but they certainly seem to want them all to be gone.
CC: #[4]
From: mikedilger at 11/06 03:03
> Interesting. So I think we are getting closer to the crux of the things I want to notice.
>
> On a moral basis I find rape and torture and roasting babies alive to be very wrong, I find it inexcusable despite any history, and I find it inexcusable even if they might have some alternate moral code that excuses it, because we are the actors here and we choose not to excuse it (you may see this point differently and instead call something "absolute", but functionally we end up in the same place). So on these points I think we agree.
Agreed. "Absolute", in this context, is a choice. I choose to draw the absolute line.
> As to what Hamas did on that day I think there is a lot of misinformation and I don't just reflexively believe a claim until I see stronger evidence. For example, if one side says Hamas roasted babies alive, and the other side denies it, and there is no video or photo evidence, I'm leaning towards "it didn't happen." Where both sides agree, I lean towards "it did happen". And where there is strong video/photo evidence, I lean towards what that implies. With AI this is going to get much much messier. The roasted-baby picture was tagged as AI generated, then untagged as such - we don't really know if it was AI generated or not. Nonetheless it doesn't prove Hamas did the roasting or even that that picture came from a recent event. I don't take any offense to being corrected on the facts, but I also don't just accept what someone tells me happened actually happened. But it is ok - I can work with a superposition of possibilities in my head, and we can debate as though it did happen, without me being sure.
Agreed again. Belief in evidence is also a choice. I choose to believe most of the evidence of the horrors because that evidence has come from a variety of different sources who are ideologically opposed to each other. For example, when FOX and MSNBC agree on something, that says a lot about the veracity. In this case we have Israel and Hamas agreeing on much of the evidence. There are some voices of FUD, but there is far more agreement than disagreement regarding the 10-7 attacks.
> What you have laid out is an argument that 'extential threats require extential responses' and that this is 'rational'. You didn't couch that in morality but you could have, but I'm glad you didn't because it simplifies the discussion.
Agreed. Though I would quibble about whether fighting for survival is a moral question or not. Self defense is a moral imperative. It would be immoral to allow you and your family to be killed if you had the means to stop the attack by killing the attacker.
> I see it as moral versus strategic. Sometimes groups of people discard morals and act instead in their strategic interest. It is in Israel's strategic interest to eliminate a threat to them, despite the moral issue that innocent people are going to die as a consequence.
Agreed. Though again, there is a morality behind self defense. So, yes it is strategic, but also it is moral.
> So my point is that Hamas engaging in terrorism does that same thing. All the moral opprobrum brought about in accusation against Hamas may be justified, but it misses the point that strategically Hamas has no other card to play.
Before 10-7 Hamas had several options other than attacking Israel, any of which would have prevented the current horror.
1. They could have shut down their plans for terror.
2. They could have removed the destruction of Israel from their charter.
3. They could have recognized Israel's right to exist, and sued for peace.
4. They could have stopped launching rockets into Israel.
5. They could have dismantled their rocket launchers, stopped the production of rockets, stopped accepting weaponry from Iran, and stopped diverting international aid to the production of weapons against Israel.
So, I disagree that terrorism was the only card that Hamas had to play.
> Strategically their hope is to enrage Israel to such a degree that they react disproportionately and perhaps even invade Gaza, triggering a wider war that engages Islamic Arabs in neighboring states who otherwise have not been getting involved. And under a "trolley problem" ethos, one can perversely twist this into being moral in the long term if it leads to the Palestinians becoming free, even though it involved moral violations.
Nobody (else) wants world war three. Not even the Iranians. Even if the fighting expands it will not lead to WWIII, nor to the destruction of Isreal, nor to a Palestinian state "between the river and the sea". So if that was Hamas' plan it was not well conceived.
We have to talk about the word disporportionate. We've already agreed that there is no proportion in an existential battle. You either win or die. That is the stance of Israel, the US, most of the liberal West, and (so it would appear) the Saudis. There are lots of crowds and mobs screeching about proportionality; but they aren't changing the facts on the ground.
We also have to talk about the use of the word "free". The Palestinians in Gaza were free. There were no Jews in Gaza; and Israel did not rule Gaza in any sense. The Palestinians elected their own government, Hamas. And that government was in a declared state of war against Israel before they were elected.
Gaza could have been a much nicer place to live if Hamas had used the international aid, and the efforts of their own citizens, to build power plants, water plants, and a functioning economy, instead of thousands of missiles and a network of terror tunnels to hide and protect their terrorist militants.
> I do not claim it is moral. [...] The problem is that such a twisting can be made out of anything.
And that is the way to insanity. We either draw lines or we allow the growth and dominance of every horrible thing by refusing to name them as immoral.
> Long-term strategy often is the primary motivator, and moral explanations are usually the tool for influencing people after the fact.
If you treat this whole thing as a chess game, then Israel has won it. Hamas made some very foolish moves and now the remaining moves on the board are a foregone conclusion. But this is not a chess game. Innocent lives are at stake. And Hamas, the elected government in Gaza, who should have been protecting their citizens and helping them to better their lives, decided instead to put their citizens in harms way, and if you are right about the "trolley" scenario, to put the whole world into harms way. And that is immoral in a very absolute sense.
CC: #[4]
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]
From: ursuscamp<-DerekRoss at 11/05 11:13
> That terror attack likely took them a year or two to plan and execute, and required Israel being historically negligent on their border security (to protect West Bank settlers). Hamas could not repeat it again if they wanted to.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
Were Hamas allowed to continue raids such as occurred on 10-7 (as they have promised to do a million times if necessary) they would certainly be an existential threat. No state can tolerate the existence of a neighboring faction dedicated to such actions.
From: ursuscamp<-DerekRoss at 11/05 09:15
> Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel. This campaign is about revenge, pure and simple.
>
> What is existential to Israel is bombing the population of Gaza to oblivion, committing non-stop terror and violence against the citizens of the West Bank, and uniting the entire Muslim world against them. THAT is an existential threat to Israel, and they have brought it on themselves.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
...and finally the zap worked.
The actions of Israel are certainly horrible. I believe that everyone in Israel thinks this is true, including the leaders and the military. War is horror. But I ask you, what other choice do they have?
A cease fire was in effect on 10-7. It was broken by Hamas. If Hamas can break a cease fire at any time then the term "cease fire" only applies to Isreal. If Isreal agrees to a cease file then Hamas will simply regroup and, as they have promised, commit more and more 10-7 atrocities. Does anyone doubt that?
Are there moral positions that are dependent upon history? Yes, because injustice is immoral. But there are actions that are so severe that justice is impossible and irrelevant. There is no just punishment for roasting babies alive. There is no just punishment for shooting up a dance concert. In such cases justice becomes irrelevant, and the only course of action is permanent prevention.
Existential threats require existential responses. The 10-7 atrocities were an existential action. Israel could not survive as a nation if it allowed such actions to continue. The only rational response, therefore, is the elimination of the actors: Hamas.
From: mikedilger at 11/04 20:02
> On which point do you wish to change my mind? I see the horrors committed by Israel and I post about this topic in support of International efforts for a cease fire
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
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]
...for a price... ;-)
From: crypt0cranium<-se... at 11/04 12:13
> Can watchers please vote on who is winning the debate?
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
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]