@lzg They coordinated the route with the IDF, pretty sure there wasn't any misidentification or mistake. And, well, the purpose of a system is what it does.
@lzg An enemy (Hamas) that cares less about civilians than the IDF does (hijacks and diverts aid away from women and children to soldiers; hides among civilian populations; disguises as civilians and disguises as aid workers). And for such a destitute and pitiable enemy, Hamas seems to continue to put up a significant amount of resistance, continuing not to agree to a ceasefire and continuing to shoot at Israel.
@lzg Yes, they started it. I'm not talking to mom. It is salient who started it. Prior to Oct 7, Israel was not bombing Gaza while Hamas was firing rockets at Israel. Hamas started this. All the loss of life is their responsibility and they can stop it any time they choose.
@lzg Hamas are not terrible, Israel are not monsters. Hamas simply attacked Israel and neglected their population, despite knowing Israel would retaliate. Israel retaliated as promised. Those are the actions and reactions.
@lzg Morality does not exist. There is no objective metric of right and wrong. The United States is not a party to The Hague because it does not consent to the Hague's jurisdiction.
@lzg It is immoral not to wear a hijab in Iran. It is immoral to have an abortion in Texas. I'm over "morality"- it's a self-serving cover for whatever opinions people hold.
@lzg This is simply the mainstream philosophical school of moral anti-realism. Most people can't stomach it but it's an inconvenient observation from philosophy.
@lzg I'm not always a moral anti-realist. I'm open to different philosophical schools. But lately I find moral anti-realism compelling because it best explains situations like this and others. I find most people are selectively moral anti-realist, e.g. "drug addiction is not a moral failing" or "food is neutral".
@lzg Because killing them has the consequence of inflaming further anger at Israel, and the defense is necessary to counteract that consequence. The consequence is another reason to try one's best to avoid doing it in the first place.
@lzg Killing whoever you want has the consequence of further isolating you and risking further retaliation. This dynamic "rhymes" with morality but isn't quite the same. Instead, I'm just thinking in terms of actions and reactions or consequences of those actions.
@lzg Nothing is justified. There is no justice or justification. There are just actions and reactions. Cycles of violence exist. If they did not, we would not have this conversation. We are aligned that we subjectively prefer them not to exist. But so far, both of us (and many others) have failed to stop this cycle of violence.
@lzg Things matter subjectively. Jewish people matter subjectively to me. I have many Israeli friends. Israelis align with my values. I'm not fine with killing personally- I detest it subjectively.
@lzg Moral anti-realism is not the same thing as sadism or immorality. This is another common mistake. It's just the observation that "killing is objectively neither right nor wrong, but tends to carry with it consequences, which people subjectively care about to different degrees depending on their proximity."
@lzg Sam Bankman-Fried stealing money from crypto investors is morally neutral, but carried with it the consequence of 25 years in prison, reflecting the subjective outrage of the United States government on behalf of its citizens who were victimized.
@lzg Call it insufferable. I'm simply trying to understand the world. I too am shocked and outraged by violence, especially when I have never personally been violent or been the victim of violence. I live in peace. But violence seems to exist and moral shaming does nothing to lower the amount of violence.
Add comment