You aren’t clever, trying to say we shouldn’t kill Nazis in a war against Nazis.
This isn’t rhetorical, tell me. If someone is about to shoot a child, and the only way we could stop them is through military action, what would you do?
If a Palestinian is going to kill an Israeli child, and the only way to stop them is through military actions, would the Israelis be justified for killing them? You’re disingenuous to say that this isn’t rhetorical when you’re invoking the exact same rhetoric as justification for killing Israelis as the Israelis invoke as justification for killing Palestinians. If you have no sense that killing is absolutely wrong, then every act of killing is justifiable given a sympathetic perspective, which I simply don’t agree with. But if your morality lets you think that killing is justified, then that’s something you’ll just have to live with.
You avoided my question, I would like to know your answer, not some idealist moralizing. I am saying my question isn’t rhetorical because I want to know what you would suggest we do to stop a genocide that doesn’t entail any violence at all. I am genuinely curious! I am Buddhist, I agree killing is wrong and don’t even kill ants or flies.
Israel is commiting genocide against Palestine. They are shooting and bombing dozens of children and women every single day, while starving all of Gaza and letting them die of preventable illness. Tell me how many Israeli children have been killed in the war today? If a Palestinian is about to shoot a child whether in Israel or anywhere, someone would be justified in stopping them. But that is not the situation. Israel has pinned Gazans into a deathtrap with no food, water, and hardly any healthcare system remaining, now using ‘aid’ centers to further their indiscriminate murder.
If any killing at all is wrong, then you would suggest people sat by and watch the Nazis finish the holocaust, because it would have been wrong to fight back?
Again, I haven’t avoided your question. Your question was asked as part of a bad faith rhetorical strategy to reframe the issue. The plain fact of the matter is, you have two groups killing each other while claiming that their killing is justified as preventative. If that’s true, then any preventative killing is justifiable, because it just becomes a matter of perspective, and your entire argument against the Israelis could just be reversed to justify for them.
You haven’t answered it though, I am actually asking, why do you assume bad faith? One of my goals in life in general is to understand different viewpoints. But I see now you deny there is a genocide ongoing, so of course any action would be wrong to you because you think this is just a typical war.
It’s not a matter of perspective, there is endless footage, documentation, corpses to see, to prove the genocide, and no reputable scholar denies Israel is commiting genocide. If you believe this is all a matter of perspective then you are choosing to live in a false constructed reality.
You see, you have made a lot of claims there that are completely irrelevant to the discussion, because your disingenuous rhetorical position doesn’t allow you to actually address the real issues. I guess I will now claim that you also deny that there’s a genocide ongoing, because you’ve said nothing of the sort and apparently making wild claims without any basis in fact is part of legitimate dialogue in your mind? Please get real.
The discussion was about whether or not it’s immoral or hateful to say “Death to the IDF”. You said the guy was hateful. In light of an active genocide, I’m saying it is the moral position to take, to hope for military victory against the IDF. All the details are for the purpose of elucidating this point. Even still, “Death to the IDF” means the organization, it doesn’t have to mean killing anyone. Though that’s unlikely.
The “real issues”? What are the real issues you are referring to that I am avoiding?
Oh, wow! Look at those goalposts change again! You really don’t see the irony, do you? Suddenly the call to violence is actually just a metaphorical call to violence against an organization that definitely doesn’t consist of humans who will die because of this rhetoric. I urge you to look into the concept of cognitive dissonance; I think you’ll find that it’s quite a good fit for your perspectives.
You almost have a point but to get there you have to ignore the entire actual context of the conflict. It’s not just killing because of killing, there’s an entire ongoing expansionist colonial project making one party clearly the aggressor.
No, the personal attacks, refusing to answer questions, derailing the discussion, assuming bad faith, withholding your true viewpoint (aka bad faith argument). These are all troll behaviors, if not intentionally being an asshole you are at the least communicating very poorly. You made a comment you knew to be inflammatory and continue to berate and derail people trying to actually discuss your point.
Seeing as you were the one to start in on personal attacks, it’s just another response to your disingenuous attempt to disguise your rhetorical shifting of the goalposts. If you think that my position that killing is morally wrong is “inflammatory”, then I don’t know what to tell you except that by my standards you are a very morally corrupt person. How you live with yourself is your business, but to try to brush aside legitimate discussion because you simply can’t defend your position is just childish.
Actually you first insinuated I was insecure because my views were similar to the IDF, which was my first hint you were trolling but I humored you because I don’t like to assume anything. But dang do you know your buzzwords well while saying nothing at all.
You aren’t clever, trying to say we shouldn’t kill Nazis in a war against Nazis.
This isn’t rhetorical, tell me. If someone is about to shoot a child, and the only way we could stop them is through military action, what would you do?
If a Palestinian is going to kill an Israeli child, and the only way to stop them is through military actions, would the Israelis be justified for killing them? You’re disingenuous to say that this isn’t rhetorical when you’re invoking the exact same rhetoric as justification for killing Israelis as the Israelis invoke as justification for killing Palestinians. If you have no sense that killing is absolutely wrong, then every act of killing is justifiable given a sympathetic perspective, which I simply don’t agree with. But if your morality lets you think that killing is justified, then that’s something you’ll just have to live with.
You avoided my question, I would like to know your answer, not some idealist moralizing. I am saying my question isn’t rhetorical because I want to know what you would suggest we do to stop a genocide that doesn’t entail any violence at all. I am genuinely curious! I am Buddhist, I agree killing is wrong and don’t even kill ants or flies.
Israel is commiting genocide against Palestine. They are shooting and bombing dozens of children and women every single day, while starving all of Gaza and letting them die of preventable illness. Tell me how many Israeli children have been killed in the war today? If a Palestinian is about to shoot a child whether in Israel or anywhere, someone would be justified in stopping them. But that is not the situation. Israel has pinned Gazans into a deathtrap with no food, water, and hardly any healthcare system remaining, now using ‘aid’ centers to further their indiscriminate murder.
If any killing at all is wrong, then you would suggest people sat by and watch the Nazis finish the holocaust, because it would have been wrong to fight back?
Again, I haven’t avoided your question. Your question was asked as part of a bad faith rhetorical strategy to reframe the issue. The plain fact of the matter is, you have two groups killing each other while claiming that their killing is justified as preventative. If that’s true, then any preventative killing is justifiable, because it just becomes a matter of perspective, and your entire argument against the Israelis could just be reversed to justify for them.
You haven’t answered it though, I am actually asking, why do you assume bad faith? One of my goals in life in general is to understand different viewpoints. But I see now you deny there is a genocide ongoing, so of course any action would be wrong to you because you think this is just a typical war.
It’s not a matter of perspective, there is endless footage, documentation, corpses to see, to prove the genocide, and no reputable scholar denies Israel is commiting genocide. If you believe this is all a matter of perspective then you are choosing to live in a false constructed reality.
You see, you have made a lot of claims there that are completely irrelevant to the discussion, because your disingenuous rhetorical position doesn’t allow you to actually address the real issues. I guess I will now claim that you also deny that there’s a genocide ongoing, because you’ve said nothing of the sort and apparently making wild claims without any basis in fact is part of legitimate dialogue in your mind? Please get real.
The discussion was about whether or not it’s immoral or hateful to say “Death to the IDF”. You said the guy was hateful. In light of an active genocide, I’m saying it is the moral position to take, to hope for military victory against the IDF. All the details are for the purpose of elucidating this point. Even still, “Death to the IDF” means the organization, it doesn’t have to mean killing anyone. Though that’s unlikely.
The “real issues”? What are the real issues you are referring to that I am avoiding?
Oh, wow! Look at those goalposts change again! You really don’t see the irony, do you? Suddenly the call to violence is actually just a metaphorical call to violence against an organization that definitely doesn’t consist of humans who will die because of this rhetoric. I urge you to look into the concept of cognitive dissonance; I think you’ll find that it’s quite a good fit for your perspectives.
It’s not as catchy to chant “Kill the Genociding Soldiers!” But that would have been popular too probably. Still not hateful.
You almost have a point but to get there you have to ignore the entire actual context of the conflict. It’s not just killing because of killing, there’s an entire ongoing expansionist colonial project making one party clearly the aggressor.
You’re referring to the 1300 year colonialist occupation, presumably?
You are bad at trolling.
I guess when you’re small-minded, asking for a little consistency seems like trolling?
No, the personal attacks, refusing to answer questions, derailing the discussion, assuming bad faith, withholding your true viewpoint (aka bad faith argument). These are all troll behaviors, if not intentionally being an asshole you are at the least communicating very poorly. You made a comment you knew to be inflammatory and continue to berate and derail people trying to actually discuss your point.
Seeing as you were the one to start in on personal attacks, it’s just another response to your disingenuous attempt to disguise your rhetorical shifting of the goalposts. If you think that my position that killing is morally wrong is “inflammatory”, then I don’t know what to tell you except that by my standards you are a very morally corrupt person. How you live with yourself is your business, but to try to brush aside legitimate discussion because you simply can’t defend your position is just childish.
Actually you first insinuated I was insecure because my views were similar to the IDF, which was my first hint you were trolling but I humored you because I don’t like to assume anything. But dang do you know your buzzwords well while saying nothing at all.