IndustryStandard[Video] BBC cuts away during pro-Palestine musicians Kneecap. The followup act Bob Vylan invents a new chant on live TV
What a hateful person.
I feel like wishing people who are purposefully murdering children would die is not hateful and actually a pretty moral stance
I feel like wishing people to die at all is a pretty immoral stance, but you obviously have your own version of morality where killing people is justifiable, so you do you I guess.
tocopherolI’m sure no one here wishes that anyone HAD to die. Most ethical systems throughout history have a moral justification for killing, if the death will prevent further killing of innocent people. If it’s immoral to kill someone actively murdering children and about to murder more, are you saying it would be preferable to let the children be killed?
Sounds like the same kind of justification that all killers use to convince themselves that their actions aren’t fundamentally morally corrupt. Maybe you have more in common with the Israelis than you’d like to admit
You aren’t clever, trying to say we shouldn’t kill Nazis in a war against Nazis.
This isn’t rhetorical, tell me why, 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 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 actual 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.
I don’t think I called you insecure, but why would being insecure be a personal attack? Or is this just another weak attempt to deflect from the actual discussion at hand? Anyway, your views are similar to the IDF as you’ve amply demonstrated, because you’re justifying killing people as a preventative measure against more killing, which is exactly what the IDF does. If you don’t want to be criticized for your inconsistency, maybe try thinking your positions though all the way before you commit to them?
Anything you say is irrelevent when you ‘both-sides’ this issue. The IDF is engaged in genocide. There is no comparison that can be made from that to the arguments in favor of killing Palestinians. To fight the IDF would be an act done out of love and defense for the children and other innocent people being killed by them. Killing can be hateful, but in this instance it is necessary to stop the genocide. Even if it was hateful it would be the justified and moral action to take. The IDF is not going to stop voluntarily, just as the Nazis didn’t stop until they lost the war.
You see, there you go again. You keep trying to find ways to justify the killing, but it’s all just rooted in your subjective perspective. The Israelis can just as easily say that to fight the Palestinians is an act done out of love and defense for the children and other innocent people being killed by them. They can say that it was necessary to stop the Palestinians from committing genocide against them. They can say that it was the justified and moral action to take. It’s all just rhetoric. Your rhetoric, their rhetoric. It’s just words creating justifications out of the air. You conjure a justification for killing them out of your rhetoric, they conjure a justification for killing you out of their rhetoric, and it’s all equally legitimate because it was all based in the same morally relativizing perspective.
You are denying genocide by ignoring the objective evidence, widespread and seen by millions, of on-going atrocities and claiming I’m fabricating justification. Personally I don’t know how such a person could live with themself in light of what we know.
Another attempt to shift the goalposts by putting words in my mouth. The plain fact of the matter is that you are calling for people to be killed and endlessly trying to justify that call to killing, and in my book that makes you a hateful, violent, and most importantly evil person.
As I said I’m a Buddhist, Buddhism would agree that it creates bad karma to kill. But this figure is seen as a bodhisattva, or a form of the Buddha:
Righteous indignation, fury in the face of injustice is a form of compassion. This is distinct from hatred. Killing should be avoided, but there are costs to being calm in the face of violence. In this historical moment it would cause more death and suffering to allow the IDF to continue unopposed. Killing is not a solution, it is a pragmatic action to take if no other is available, and I agree it should be the ultimate last resort.
I’m sure the Israelis will also say that it would cause more death and suffering to allow Palestine to continued unopposed, so you’re still left in the same position as before, Buddha or Bodhisattva notwithstanding.
I’m sure they would, why should I care? They will make any justification to further their genocide. People paying attention can see the truth. That is the point, you can say anything to justify actions but there is an objective reality. And in that reality, it is an act of kindness to fight the IDF.
Ah, “the truth”, or your version of it anyway.
This is a rather surprising turn, as you know seem to be abandoning your previous claims about relative morality and now declare that their killing is objectively moral? Of course, you don’t really believe that, as you’ve made abundantly clear. It’s not really surprising that you abandon your position so easily since it was disingenuous to begin with, but you’d think that the fact that you are now directly contradicting yourself should at least alert you to the fact that you hold dissonant beliefs.
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 killing someone 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.
Right, because killing is never hateful.
RavingGrobSo in your mindset, there’s zero point where killing is “justifiable”?
I’m legitimately asking here.
In a perfect world, people would respect boundaries, not start war, or genocides to further their own beliefs.
What do you propose people facing extinction do? Parlay?
That’s a lot of words to avoid acknowledging your own moral corruption for openly calling for people to be killed. Go troll someone else, you hateful, violent prick.
Troll? You haven’t answered either of my questions? Lmao. Not everything is black and white my guy.
Again, I am legitimately curious what your opinions about this are.
You can sling insults all you want. It doesn’t further your argument in any legitimate way.
I don’t answer your questions because you’re disingenuous in asking them. Palestinians kill Israelis, giving them a justification for killing the Palestinians, which they do, giving the Palestinians a justification for killing Israelis. Either killing others because they are killing you is justified, or it’s not. But if you’re going to argue that it’s justified, then it’s justified for everyone. When you pick and choose which killers’ justifications you want to defend, you’re disguising a distinction that’s not really rooted in the act of killing, but in some other criterion (racism, maybe?).
I am not disingenuous in asking them.
I’m not even necessarily talking about the current situation here.
I’m asking you, where your line in the sand is.
If someone was in your home, threatening your life, or your loved one’s lives, and they absolutely were not empty threats, would violence to the point of killing be “justified”?
For example, should the Ukrainians not defend their sovereignty, on their own soil, because killing at all is immoral?
You came at this with a black and white statement, but there are nuances to the world that shape the decisions outside of a binary “they killed/didn’t kill”
If one side kills 100 for each one of their own killed there’s a big difference. Other factors to consider is when your land is blocked off from the outside world by land, sea and air and being routinely invaded. The Geneva convention says there is a right to resist occupation on top of that which Israel did sign.
Again, that’s all just rationalizing killing. If one side can come up with a justification for killing, any other group can come up with their own justification, and they’re equally legitimate because they’re equally subjective.
Jesus, those are some thoroughly piss-soaked chips you’ve got there, petal.
Wow, if that’s an attempt at a coherent thought, you’ve got a long way to go.
Your ability to admit you don’t understand it is a big step.
Now you just need to address your previous commenters in the same light, with the questions you’ve been asked and are too afraid to answer.
We believe in you, champ.
Nice attempt at trolling. Try not cheering for people to be killed before you get up on your high horse.
Ahhhh, I get it. No instances of me cheering at the death of others, so the other party has to fake the argument. Petty, and a pity.
Come now, you’ve started discourse with others, you really ought to answer their questions.
You’re literally in a thread about a guy cheering for the death of others and you’ve decided to troll the guy saying that killing us morally wrong. How can you say this shit with a straight face?
Saying that killing is morally wrong, or saying that an individual is hateful, is a nothing sentence. It’s not an opening of discourse or planet brained insight. When asked a follow up, to elucidate, you assume the position of actors and extol your own virtue by putting down the rest.
It’s nout but antagonism for the purpose of whysoever a troll would do anything. Getting jollies off by calling high horse, or moral corruption.
You make playing in the shit look like fun, and then feign upset when others join you.
Lol, moral judgement from the guy cheering for the murder of innocents. Please just go spend some time on yourself before you talk shit about others. Just because you’re corrupt doesn’t mean that everyone to speak to must also be as corrupt as you.
Come now. When people say strawmanning, they tend to mean that someone has taken the time to at least turn a pile of straw into the shape of a man but you can’t even be arsed to do that. Just standing next to it and calling it a man is even sadder.
You started too many chats and feel like you need to argue them all but you can’t even remember who said what.
“Anyone not fighting my corner is for the murder of innocents” Sounds a bit brain-rotty, fella. A tad corrupt.
I know you’re just trolling, but at least try to make it believable. I didn’t “start too many chats.” I made one post criticizing a man openly calling for murder, and it was all of you who “started chats.” If you don’t like being called out for your calls to violence, you have the option of not making calls to violence, but to dismiss legitimate criticism is just childish. And it doesn’t really matter which corner you want to say that you’re fighting in; at the end of the day you’re still justifying killing, which I find morally contemptible. But again, you live your corrupt, hateful, violent little life the way you want to (“brain-rotty”, to borrow your phrase)
In a hypothetical where there’s a murderer with a machine gun killing children that will not be prosecuted in court then wishing them to be dead is pretty reasonable if you want the killing to stop.
Not saying killing is moral or that people don’t have the right to live because they do but how else would you stop the murder if the government doesn’t?
The problem with this line of thinking is that both sides think that the other is the murderer with the machine gun. If the Palestinians think it’s justified to kill Israelis because they think that they have the analogical machine gun, what stops the Israelis from thinking it’s justified to kill Palestinians because they think that they have the machine gun? If killing is deemed a reasonable way to get killing to stop, then it’s just a matter of rhetoric that distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate killing, and that rhetoric can just as easily be turned against the very people who now support it.