In other words, if other people do evil sht, should we do evil sht in return?
Israel-Hamas war live: ‘how Israel defends itself matters,’ says US, as more than 400 children reported killed in strikes on Gaza
https://www.theguardian.com/…-displaced-palestine
I guess that depends on what your end goal is: meaningful progress or vengeance.
Yes!
No, something is either ethical or not.
Not to mention that saying is usually applied to the actual person who committed the crime, not to just anyone who belongs to their in group.
I guess that depends on what your end goal is: meaningful progress or vengeance.
Based on DSW’s posting history and current phraseology, I’d say a primary goal of this thread is pot-stirring followed by reductive, hyperbolic superlatives.
In re: the Israel/Hamas conflict, and more generally the nature of human violent conflict: no, I don’t support eye for an eye. But I understand it. Particularly when kids are involved.
Yes!
So…hypothetical. US father of 3 young kids turns out to have been a secret serial killer, who murdered at least 3 other kids. You’d support - actively and enthusiastically support - executing the killer’s 3 kids as retribution?
No
.
I guess that depends on what your end goal is: meaningful progress or vengeance.
Based on DSW’s posting history and current phraseology, I’d say a primary goal of this thread is pot-stirring followed by reductive, hyperbolic superlatives.
In re: the Israel/Hamas conflict, and more generally the nature of human violent conflict: no, I don’t support eye for an eye. But I understand it. Particularly when kids are involved.
I honestly don’t. Sure hunt down and kill every Hamas member they can find. But just kill random Palestinian civilians and kids? It just makes them no better than the people who they say are animals.
In re: the Israel/Hamas conflict, and more generally the nature of human violent conflict: no, I don’t support eye for an eye. But I understand it. Particularly when kids are involved.
Do we think militants should blend into civilian populations in close proximity to children? I get why Hamas militants do it. If they didn’t, they’d be wiped out pretty quickly.
For Gaza, I fear something like an intro scene to a Terminator movie. An endless array of rubble with surviving militants living in underground tunnels. Quadrotor drones patrol constantly with thermal imaging. As soon as movement is detected, artillery is called in.
Generally, I am not pro violence. In this situation I am ok with it. War is War, but this seems to be much worse.
In other words, if other people do evil sht, should we do evil sht in return?
Israel-Hamas war live: ‘how Israel defends itself matters,’ says US, as more than 400 children reported killed in strikes on Gaza
https://www.theguardian.com/…-displaced-palestine
Eye for eye is a philosophy of meting out justice for crimes. It doesn’t have much to do with self defense.
I guess that depends on what your end goal is: meaningful progress or vengeance.
Based on DSW’s posting history and current phraseology, I’d say a primary goal of this thread is pot-stirring followed by reductive, hyperbolic superlatives.
In re: the Israel/Hamas conflict, and more generally the nature of human violent conflict: no, I don’t support eye for an eye. But I understand it. Particularly when kids are involved.
I agree. If someone hurt my kid, I would be first in line looking to extract vengeance. Not on that person’s kid or innocent relatives, though.
Generally, I am not pro violence. In this situation I am ok with it. War is War, ** but this seems to be much worse. **
It is all so tragic and senseless. Two groups using innocent civilians as target practice to further their ideological goals. It’s sickening, and I think everyone can see there will be no winner in this conflict, yet, for some reason, blood must continually be spilled.
Generally, I am not pro violence. In this situation I am ok with it. War is War, but this seems to be much worse.
This is the argument that many Arab groups are using to defend Hamas. The claim is that Israel started this through oppression of Gaza so the war was already started.
I guess that depends on what your end goal is: meaningful progress or vengeance.
Based on DSW’s posting history and current phraseology, I’d say a primary goal of this thread is pot-stirring followed by reductive, hyperbolic superlatives.
In re: the Israel/Hamas conflict, and more generally the nature of human violent conflict: no, I don’t support eye for an eye. But I understand it. Particularly when kids are involved.
I agree. If someone hurt my kid, I would be first in line looking to extract vengeance. Not on that person’s kid or innocent relatives, though.
Yes. You make a clarification that I think is important.
I would not intentionally hurt anyone’s kids. But if someone intentionally hurt my kid, my reaction would almost certainly not be entirely rational nor proportionate. If that ended up hurting the children of the instigator, I think I would feel remorse down the road, but I am not at all sure it would temper my initial response in the moment.
This is the argument that many Arab groups are using to defend Hamas. The claim is that Israel started this through oppression of Gaza so the war was already started.
I can understand war. I cannot understand what is currently being done. There are lines, and lots of lines have been crossed.
The initial acts of terrorism (the bombings), I can understand that. The beheading of kids, I cant.
Killing children is wrong.
End of story.
I guess that depends on what your end goal is: meaningful progress or vengeance.
Based on DSW’s posting history and current phraseology, I’d say a primary goal of this thread is pot-stirring followed by reductive, hyperbolic superlatives.
In re: the Israel/Hamas conflict, and more generally the nature of human violent conflict: no, I don’t support eye for an eye. But I understand it. Particularly when kids are involved.
I agree. If someone hurt my kid, I would be first in line looking to extract vengeance. Not on that person’s kid or innocent relatives, though.
Yes. You make a clarification that I think is important.
I would not intentionally hurt anyone’s kids. But if someone intentionally hurt my kid, my reaction would almost certainly not be entirely rational nor proportionate. If that ended up hurting the children of the instigator, I think I would feel remorse down the road, but I am not at all sure it would temper my initial response in the moment.
Sure, but in this case an “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” would mean Israel intentionally going out with the goal of killing civilians and children as Hamas did.
I guess that depends on what your end goal is: meaningful progress or vengeance.Based on DSW’s posting history and current phraseology, I’d say a primary goal of this thread is pot-stirring followed by reductive, hyperbolic superlatives.
In re: the Israel/Hamas conflict, and more generally the nature of human violent conflict: no, I don’t support eye for an eye. But I understand it. Particularly when kids are involved.
Wow, you have a fascinating perspective.
… umm, not.
Because, in that light, probably 95% of the threads started on this forum are just “pot-stirring.”
If it helps, I just saw the news item and thought about the downward spiral of evil and vengeance that is started when one party does things that are unthinkably evil to another party . Then I wondered what other folks might think about this issue, and then thought it might be an interesting conversation to have. So I posted the topic here. (And that is the reasoning behind about 95% of the threads I post).
So, if that is ‘pot-stirring’, well, then I plead guilty. But maybe you should consider sending a message to management to have the LR shut down, because the vast majority of the conversations on here are just ‘pot-stirring’ in one form or another … others might call it online ‘discussion’, but clearly not you.
I guess that depends on what your end goal is: meaningful progress or vengeance.
Based on DSW’s posting history and current phraseology, I’d say a primary goal of this thread is pot-stirring followed by reductive, hyperbolic superlatives.
In re: the Israel/Hamas conflict, and more generally the nature of human violent conflict: no, I don’t support eye for an eye. But I understand it. Particularly when kids are involved.
I honestly don’t. Sure hunt down and kill every Hamas member they can find. But just kill random Palestinian civilians and kids? It just makes them no better than the people who they say are animals.
Agreed. I tried to make a similar clarification in my response to BCTri.
I would not intentionally seek out “random Palestinian civilians and kids”, even if I thought they did that to my civilians and kids. But my response in the moment would probably not be overly concerned about the safety of civilians and kids of the instigators, if the instigators had actually sought out my civilians and kids for harm.
I’m not saying it’s right. It’s one of a million reasons I should not be in a position of authority over national military responses to provocations. But I think I understand the underlying, ‘human animal’ reactions.