you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 48 points 1 year ago (34 children)

I feel like wishing people who are purposefully murdering children would die is not hateful and actually a pretty moral stance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    So 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    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"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Jesus, those are some thoroughly piss-soaked chips you've got there, petal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    I'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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 15 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [+] -2 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    As I said I'm a Buddhist, Buddhist philosophy 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not my truth, the objective reality that can easily be seen of daily massacres of Gazans. No position was abandoned, it is both the relative and objective moral position to fight against the IDF and Zionism in general. And currently that requires violence as they are in a state of war and will kill those that oppose them. "DEATH TO THE IDF" is like a warcry, it's not supposed to be a rhetorical position, it's a call to inspire and motivate the resistance against Zionism and genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    They already do say "Death to Arabs" in Israel and use all sorts of logic to justify their atrocities. And death to an ethnic group is a bit different than calling for the death of a terrorist organization.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

    Israel is committing genocide in Gaza against the Palestinians during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war.[39][40][41] The acts of genocide described by experts and human rights organisations include large-scale killing, use of starvation as a weapon of war, destruction of civilian infrastructure, attacks on healthcare workers, and forced displacement. Various observers, including United Nations experts,[42] the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese,[43] and Human Rights Watch have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy" Gaza's population in whole or in part, a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met.[42][44][45]

    As I said there is widespread agreement that Israel is commiting a genocide against the people in Gaza. There is no way for all people to agree on one objective reality or truth, but most people can see and agree that Israel is committing genocide and must be stopped.

    If you disagree with that view of reality, you may as well argue with me that there is no moon or the stars are a projection.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    It's definitely not a black and white issue for sure, every adult must serve in the IDF or face criminal prosecution in Israel, so saying "death to the IDF" and "death to every of age Israeli citizen" are basically the same statement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Seems pretty black and white. The genocide is massively popular at home, and I don't see any armed uprisings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Prospects were good during PM Rabins term, the root of this problem is with corrupt people like Netanyahu. Killing every single perso on either side is not a solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Hell no. Rabin was was also a fascist and supported ethnic cleansing. Zionism has always been a fascist ideology centered on the forced removal of the native Palestinians.

    Then-Israeli ambassador to the US Yitzhak Rabin confirmed the goal of the operation was the liquidation of Gaza’s Palestinian refugees via "a natural shifting of population to the East Bank. [...] the problem of the refugees of the Gaza Strip should not be solved in Gaza or al-Arish [Sinai] but mainly in the East Bank,” by which he meant Jordan.

    https://palestinenexus.com/articles/israels-ethnic-cleansing-of-the-palestinians-1968-1993

    Under Israel’s then-defence minister Yitzhak Rabin’s orders, Israeli army commanders were instructed to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. Today, this policy has evolved to specifically target the knees and legs of Palestinian youth to disable them.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/10/stories-from-the-first-intifada-they-broke-my-bones

    In his memoirs, which were censored by Israel but leaked to the New York Times in 1979, Rabin recalled a conversation he had with David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, regarding the fate of the Palestinians of Lydd and Ramla, writing: “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. [Commander Yigal] Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’… I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out.”

    As an officer in the army, he led “Operation Danny” to capture Ramla and Lydda. In what became known as the Lydda death march, tens of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from those Palestinian villages. The military order signed by Rabin, the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) reported, read: “The inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly, without regard to age.”

    The Oslo Accords were never about reaching a compromise, let alone a just peace. Israel entered into bilateral negotiations with the PLO in order to defuse and control Palestinian resistance, remake their public image to the world, and, most importantly, to codify and entrench the power imbalance on the ground.

    The framework of the Oslo Accords set in motion decades of failed negotiations and continued subjugation. The Palestinians formally recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.” In return, Rabin’s government neither accepted the goal of a Palestinian state, nor offered guarantees that the settlement construction would stop. The “Declaration of Principles” did not mention the word “occupation.”

    Instead of a Palestinian state, the Oslo Accords offered a limited autonomy, under the direction of a newly created Palestinian Authority. Israel maintained its control over borders, airspace, and waters. Behind the fig leaf of a “peace process,” Israel continued to expand illegal settlements, tightened curfews and closures, and debilitated the Palestinian economy.

    As the IMEU explains: “Today Palestinians live in a series of isolated ghettos in the occupied territories, surrounded by Israeli walls, military checkpoints, and bases, and settlements, under a system of racial segregation, discrimination, and apartheid, all based on the Oslo Accords.”

    https://jacobin.com/2020/09/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-yitzhak-rabin-israel-palestine

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    The first point is pretty damning, yes, mass exodus cannot be a viable strategy.

    The second point takes a lot of liberties with the word protestors, throwing rocks at militants and only getting kneecapped is a bargain compared to today's brutallity.

    Lastly, the region gained some autonomy. That was huge, and given the alternatives that current Israel under Netanyahu are pursuing, very generous.

    I think that if Rabin weren't assassinated to help Netanyahu gain control, the conflict would have claimed many less lives by today and that amicable relations would be a possibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    very generous.

    Apartheid isn't 'generous'

    Counter Insurgency and living under the occupation of violent supremacists is not 'autonomy'

    Quit apologizing for fascism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    When you have to choose between evils then one of them will be the more generous option, yeah.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not interested in how you justify your support for Zionism. Supporting fascism is no different than being fascist. The only option is to end it completely, as with other fascist projects in the past.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment