Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[Swara]

You didn't clarify anything, are you saying that only 2% of the drone attacks hit the higher ups while the rest hit combatants? That is what your link says.

BTW I have repeatedly voiced my opinion against drones on this site.

Basically yes.

I am on your side, I do not like drones, hence why I used the 2%.

 

[arora]

👍 But the 2% is misleading. I'm going to drop this on here from another thread I started...

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is "envy" which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is "intolerance" which leads to bigoted and judgemental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected

 

[Skuh]

You seem to have missed your own original point now, which was to deny that Palestine stopping aggression was the only moral solution...
that wasn't my point. I asked who decided the only moral answer was for Palestine to give up. I have been quite clear on this.



No opinion is correct unless it is also correct.





Nope. Legality is though. Even the universe runs on basic rules.
Explain to me the universal law on morals?
If humans didn't make these morals, who did?


There's plenty of it. Just no legality to it.



This means you do not deny that rape, paedophilia, murder, ethnic cleansing and theft are moral - if someone considers them to be.

Which is, once again, an argument that rape is moral. You deny this yet argue for it...

Tell me, who decided rape was immoral?

I keep asking who decides what is moral, and you keep avoiding the question. You say Logic. What does that mean. I have provided evidence that people think differently on what is morally correct. you and someone on your side of the argument cannot decide what is morally correct. So stop avoidng the issue and tell me why what one person believes is moral is more valid than what another person says is immoral. Stop hiding behind rape.
Why would the universe care if someone was raped? Why would it matter to the galaxy if someone was raped. As far as the galaxy and the wider universe is concerned, why is rape immoral? Is it immoral for an animal to rape another? is there even such a thing as rape in the wider animal kingdom.
Morality is a human construct. It is the only logical answer,



Legality is what makes it law. Right is what makes it moral.

No Legality is what makes it right. you may not like it and leagilty does indeed differ on a whim. Just like morality.
Legality is what puts the rapist in prison, not morality.
It some catholic countries in is illegal for a woman to have an abortion no matter what.
In some other countries abortion is legal.
Morality is argued vigorously on both sides and as yet I have yet to see this magical governing body of morality decide which side is right.

What someone considers to be moral is irrelevant to whether it is moral - just as what someone considers to be truth is irrelevant to what is true.
Again, if it isn't humans who have decided it is immoral/moral who did?
we have firmly established humans have different opinions on this.



Either morality is absolute or it is subjective - there isn't a middle ground because each denies the other. If morality is not absolute, might makes right and rape is intrinsically a moral act.

Yes, it is subjective.


I suspect you're fusing together the notion of a person's morals and morality.

I think you need to re read what the definition of 'morals' is.

Yes, I have dismissed anything else you wrote as you are trying to get out of the fact that you say morals are an absolute and yet cannot tell me who decides what is morally correct.

It is now time to stop trying to get out of it and tell me who decided this is the only moral solution.

When you have answered this basic premise we can move on.

"I have decided" just doesn't cut it.

The definition is very clear.


Step up and answer.................

or leave it alone.

 

[arora]

It is now time to stop trying to get out of it and tell me who decided this is the only moral solution.

Morality is absolute.

 

[Skuh]

Morality is absolute.

Which ones?
Who decides which persons morals are absolute?

 

[arora]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I explained my thought process on that within an argument sorta thing with Dannoff, for the life of me I cannot think of the thread.

TL;DR I believe there is always an absolute right, no need for anyone to decide, it just is and we all know it. I hate the notion of nuance.

 

[Famine]

That wasn't my point. I asked who decided the only moral answer was for Palestine to give up. I have been quite clear on this.

Morality. Itself derived from logic. We've been quite clear on this too.

Explain to me the universal law on morals?
If humans didn't make these morals, who did?

We merely observe morality.

We invented "one". That doesn't mean "one" is a human creation and doesn't exist universally. "One" is just how we observe that concept.

Tell me, who decided rape was immoral?

Morality.

I keep asking who decides what is moral, and you keep avoiding the question. You say Logic. What does that mean.

That means that logic determines morality. That's the answer to the question, not an avoidance of it.

I have provided evidence that people think differently on what is morally correct.

Which shows nothing.

You and someone on your side of the argument cannot decide what is morally correct.

Yet we both disagreed with your conclusion on that one. And which shows nothing even if it were the case, which it isn't.

So stop avoidng the issue and tell me why what one person believes is moral is more valid than what another person says is immoral.

It isn't. That's the whole point why morality is not subjective.

Why would the universe care if someone was raped?

If morality is subjective, what any individual cares would be relevant. Since it isn't, it isn't. Thus that argument is in favour of the objective morality you reject.

Is it immoral for an animal to rape another? is there even such a thing as rape in the wider animal kingdom.

Now you're at a point where you're trying to extrapolate the non-existance of objectivity from the lack of observance of it.

The morality/rights thread would be good for you.

Morality is a human construct. It is the only logical answer

It's an answer, but it isn't logical - especially since many of your own arguments are in favour of objective morality...

No Legality is what makes it right. you may not like it and leagilty does indeed differ on a whim. Just like morality.
Legality is what puts the rapist in prison, not morality.
It some catholic countries in is illegal for a woman to have an abortion no matter what.
In some other countries abortion is legal.

Legality thus not being an arbiter of morality. QED.

Morality is argued vigorously on both sides and as yet I have yet to see this magical governing body of morality decide which side is right.

That's because, as we keep patiently telling you, what anyone thinks or decides of morality is irrelevant to morality.

Again, if it isn't humans who have decided it is immoral/moral who did?
we have firmly established humans have different opinions on this.

You don't get to "decide" on truth. It is, whatever your opinion is on it.

Yes, it is subjective.

Then rape, paedophilia, slavery, theft and murder are all moral. Something you don't accept.

I think you need to re read what the definition of 'morals' is.

What one definition, that suits you and is accepted to the exclusion of all others, is.

Yes, I have dismissed anything else you wrote as you are trying to get out of the fact that you say morals are an absolute and yet cannot tell me who decides what is morally correct.

You steadfastly miss the point that no-one can decide it because it is not subjective.

It is now time to stop trying to get out of it and tell me who decided this is the only moral solution.

You steadfastly miss the point that no-one can decide it because it is not subjective.

"I have decided" just doesn't cut it.

You steadfastly miss the point that no-one can decide it because it is not subjective.

Which ones?

Morality.

Who decides which persons morals are absolute?

Morals != Morality

What an individual decides is moral is their decision. This is subjective.

What is moral is independent of anyone's decision. This is objective. No-one can decide it because it is not subjective.


The morality/rights thread would be a valuable read for you and it would still reserve this thread for Israel and Gaza rather than musings over morality and rights that have already been written elsewhere.

 

[Skuh]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I explained my thought process on that within an argument sorta thing with Dannoff, for the life of me I cannot think of the thread.

TL;DR I believe there is always an absolute right, no need for anyone to decide, it just is and we all know it. I hate the notion of nuance.

Is homosexuality ok or morally wrong?

 

[Dennisch]

Back ontopic..

Israel closed the 3 main roads going into Gaza. Also the Minister of Defense Ehud Barak has asked for approval of calling in 75000 reserves. Ground war is imminent, one would think.

 

[arora]

Homosexuality has very little to do with this thread but whatever. I consider it wrong, you must have known that lol. If you understand anything about me or what I post on this site you would realize that I have tolerance of any activity another does, as long as it is not a direct trespass upon me 👍

 

[Skuh]

Tell me, how did this one come out on the absolute front?
I'll give you a clue. Whichever answer you give, the other side will insist vehemently that you are wrong

Back ontopic

Exactly
A massively contentious issue where both sides are adamant they are morally correct.

Homosexuality has very little to do with this thread but whatever. I consider it wrong, you must have known that lol. If you understand anything about me or what I post on this site you would realize that I have tolerance of any activity another does, as long as it is not a direct trespass upon me 👍

.
Actually no, I didn't know that at all. I chose that subject for the reasons above. I am not going to get into the actual topic (that is for another thread). Just raising it as an example. I would be willing to bet that a lot of the mods on this site would disagree with you strongly, and that is my point.
Who decides?

 

[arora]

They are both morally wrong, it's not that hard to see.

 

[Dennisch]

Tell me, how did this one come out on the absolute front?
I'll give you a clue. Whichever answer you give, the other side will insist vehemently that you are wrong

Back ontopic

Exactly
A massively contentious issue where both sides are adamant they are morally correct.

Well, I don't see any moral in this story, as I don't care what happens to one side or the other. Let them kill each other, I don't care, it will never end. As I said before, let's just turn around and walk away.

This isn't the thread for discussing moral etc etc. btw.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Back ontopic..

Israel closed the 3 main roads going into Gaza. Also the Minister of Defense Ehud Barak has asked for approval of calling in 75000 reserves. Ground war is imminent, one would think.

When do we expect the declaration of war ? The last large scale ground warfare back in the cold war days, Israel kicked the aggressors butt and claimed a chunk of land.

 

[Skuh]

Well, I don't see any moral in this story, as I don't care what happens to one side or the other. Let them kill each other, I don't care, it will never end. As I said before, let's just turn around and walk away.

This isn't the thread for discussing moral etc etc. btw.

Pun intended ?

The point of all this is that I dared to question the notion that Palestine giving up its claim is the only moral outcome.

It isn't, I am happy to move on.
I keep getting people ask me questions though.

 

[Dennisch]

When do we expect the declaration of war ? The last large scale ground warfare back in the cold war days, Israel kicked the aggressors butt and claimed a chunk of land.

Let me rephrase that.

Israel invading the Gaza to clean up some of those pesky rocket scientists, who's rockets seem to have a taste for Israeli turf, instead of space.

 

[sumbrownkid]

75,000 troops in reserve Dennisch?

That sounds a bit overkill for the task they have to do, but it's probably a power play to dissuade outsiders to come in and fight for the Hamas cause.

 

[arora]

I keep getting people ask me questions though.

What is your favorite color?

 

[Skuh]

What is your favorite color?

Tartan

 

[Dennisch]

75,000 troops in reserve Dennisch?

That sounds a bit overkill for the task they have to do, but it's probably a power play to dissuade outsiders to come in and fight for the Hamas cause.

Got it from a Dutch news site.

Massive overkill, no doubt, unless they are getting ready for a full blown invasion.

 

[sumbrownkid]

There's much more to this situation than the Israelis are letting us know if they are calling up that many people into reserve.

 

[Dennisch]

I think we will be receiving the news about villages being closed off for the press soon.

 

[arora]

.
Actually no, I didn't know that at all. I chose that subject for the reasons above. I am not going to get into the actual topic (that is for another thread). Just raising it as an example. I would be willing to bet that a lot of the mods on this site would disagree with you strongly, and that is my point.
Who decides?

Wait wut? I missed this part before Who cares what this or that mod might think of my opinion? That is your point? So to you an insignificant moderator of a gaming forum decides? Damn, I'm glad I followed up and found this post.

 

[Skuh]

Morality. Itself derived from logic. We've been quite clear on this too.
What does this mean? Explain the difference in your logic to Arora's as you both believe that morals are absolute? Or do you also believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. He has said it is morally wrong. If you do not say it is morally wrong, how can you both say that morals are an absolute and both have a differing opinion. Unless one of you is wrong, in which case who decided? Provide the evidence that this is accepted as a universal absolute morality.


We merely observe morality.

We invented "one". That doesn't mean "one" is a human creation and doesn't exist universally. "One" is just how we observe that concept.

No we decide morality. If not, provide the absolute law of morailty that this logic is based upon.


Morality.

This is illogical


That means that logic determines morality. That's the answer to the question, not an avoidance of it.

Provide said law of of moralityif it is an absolute of nature it has a law. Provide it.

Which shows nothing.
It shows other people disagree with you and you have not provided evidence that you are right.



Yet we both disagreed with your conclusion on that one. And which shows nothing even if it were the case, which it isn't.



It isn't. That's the whole point why morality is not subjective.
This is nonsensical.


If morality is subjective, what any individual cares would be relevant. Since it isn't, it isn't. Thus that argument is in favour of the objective morality you reject.

This is rubbish, please reconstruct your argument in a coherent manner.



Now you're at a point where you're trying to extrapolate the non-existance of objectivity from the lack of observance of it.

The morality/rights thread would be good for you.

No, I am demonstrating that this is not a universal law of nature but a human construct.
Darwin may be a good place to start your education on this matter.


It's an answer, but it isn't logical - especially since many of your own arguments are in favour of objective morality...

If it isn't a law of nature of or the universe at large it must be a human construct.
Logic dictates, when you have eliminated every other possibliity, whatever is left, however illogical you find it, must be the answer.


Legality thus not being an arbiter of morality. QED.

Morality thus not being the arbiter of what is right



That's because, as we keep patiently telling you, what anyone thinks or decides of morality is irrelevant to morality.
no you keep avoiding the issue. Who gets to decide what is right. Logic? Who is this logic? Never heard of him. Is he in the Israeli government?
I have been very patient in waiting to hear why you know what the absolute morals are, but not say, Arora, who says he is absolutely right in that homesexuality is morally wrong.



You don't get to "decide" on truth. It is, whatever your opinion is on it.


Morality isn't truth. Morality is judgement.


Then rape, paedophilia, slavery, theft and murder are all moral. Something you don't accept.
I as a human do not find this morally acceptable, you are correct.
Tell me why it is morally unacceptable, when not on a human level. For the law of the universe?



What one definition, that suits you and is accepted to the exclusion of all others, is.
No.
This is the definition of the word. This is an absolute. You are categorically incorrect on this matter. It is not for debate.



You steadfastly miss the point that no-one can decide it because it is not subjective.
So you transcribe to the notion that homsexuality is morally wrong. If not how do I decide who is correct. you or Arora?



You steadfastly miss the point that no-one can decide it because it is not subjective.



Morality.
What is this law of morality so I can decide which one of the differing responses is correct? I cannot take your word for it. There must be a law/equation



Morals != Morality

What an individual decides is moral is their decision. This is subjective.

What is moral is independent of anyone's decision. This is objective. No-one can decide it because it is not subjective.


The morality/rights thread would be a valuable read for you and it would still reserve this thread for Israel and Gaza rather than musings over morality and rights that have already been written elsewhere.

Morals is morals is morals.
Utter gibberish.

Wait wut? I missed this part before Who cares what this or that mod might think of my opinion? That is your point? So to you an insignificant moderator of a gaming forum decides? Damn, I'm glad I followed up and found this post.

I could have used the word people, but I didn't because the mods are a constant in discussions that usually have a lot of input on contraversial topics i though people may be able to relate to. The fact that if any one person disagrees with what you are saying mod or otherwise is my point. You have decided that Homosexuality is an absolute moral wrong, many other people will believe that it is an absolute fact that it is not morally wrong.
Tell me why it is logical that it is morally wrong. As I keep getting told that morals are logical.

 

[arora]

The only thing that is morally wrong with homosexuality is to persecute someone for it, something I would never do. I'm not sure where you are going tbh.

 

[Famine]

He's trying to prove that someone thinking homosexuality is wrong while someone else thinks it isn't shows that morality is subjective.

In fact he's proving exactly what I've been saying since he started. An individual's morals are subjective - but utterly unrelated to morality.

What does this mean? Explain the difference in your logic to Arora's as you both believe that morals are absolute?

Belief is irrelevant.

Or do you also believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. He has said it is morally wrong. If you do not say it is morally wrong, how can you both say that morals are an absolute and both have a differing opinion.

I didn't. I said morality is absolute - objective, independent of the observer - while an individual's morals are their own choices and unrelated to morality.

Unless one of you is wrong, in which case who decided?

Morality is only determined by logic. An individual's morals are derived from whatever they see fit.

No we decide morality. If not, provide the absolute law of morailty that this logic is based upon.

Logic. Still the only foundation of morality.

This is illogical

It is, in fact, entirely logical and objective.

Provide said law of of morality.

Logic.

If it is an absolute of nature it has a law. Provide it.

Logic.

It shows other people disagree with you and you have not provided evidence that you are right.

You're still resolutely missing the point that what people agree or disagree on is irrelevant to what is right.

This is nonsensical.

Only because you believe it to be so.

We've patiently explained that something that is objective is unaffected by what people believe or why. It remains objective.

This is rubbish, please reconstruct your argument in a coherent manner.

You continue to argue as if something objective can be decided upon - as if what people think of it, what organisations think of it, the act of observing it affects it in some way.

They do not. Objective things remain objective, whether the universe cares about them or not. Subjective things mutate according to whimsy - what the universe cares affects them. Thus your argument that the universe doesn't care about morality is a de facto argument that morality is objective not subjective.

No, I am demonstrating that this is not a universal law of nature but a human construct.

You're demonstrating nothing. At all. In fact you keep arguing that morality is objective while arguing that it's subjective.

Darwin may be a good place to start your education on this matter.

If you're actually interested in this topic, the rights/morality thread would be a good read for you.

If not, you could try patronising people some more. Still, got to laugh at the suggestion someone with an ordinary and a graduate degree in genetics should start their education with Darwin

If it isn't a law of nature of or the universe at large it must be a human construct.

As Danoff points out, mathematics is a human construct - but it's simply how we observe the concept that mathematics describes.

Logic dictates, when you have eliminated every other possibliity, whatever is left, however illogical you find it, must be the answer.

No, it doesn't. Logic never calls for the illogical to be an answer, or it would be abandoning all principles of logic...

Morality thus not being the arbiter of what is right

"Thus" requires an point before it to prove what comes after.

That aside, you have it the wrong way around what is right is the arbiter of morality.

No you keep avoiding the issue. Who gets to decide what is right.

No-one. It is independent of the observer. How many times must you ask this question and get the same answer?

Objectivity is independent of the observer. It doesn't matter what anyone or anything decides, determines, believes, opines, suggests or posits. It remains.

Logic? Who is this logic? Never heard of him.

That's the first thing I've seen in 8 hours from you I can nod my head at.

I have been very patient in waiting to hear why you know what the absolute morals are, but not say, Arora, who says he is absolutely right in that homesexuality is morally wrong.

No, he says he considers homosexuality to be wrong.

Morality isn't truth. Morality is judgement.

Truth begets rights beget morality. Objectivity.

Judgement is subjectivity.

I as a human do not find this morally acceptable, you are correct.

Yet you argue that they are moral.

Tell me why it is morally unacceptable, when not on a human level. For the law of the universe?

They are against morality.

No.
This is the definition of the word.

It is a definition of the word. One you have chosen because it suits you. You have ignored all of the other definitions because they do not suit.

This is the innate weakness of the "dictionary definition" argument - all it requires is a definition that doesn't suit and it falls apart, because exactly the same points can be made for the opposite outcome. Or new discussions spring up infinitely dissecting the definition to redefine the words in it to show it means something else.

So you transcribe to the notion that homsexuality is morally wrong. If not how do I decide who is correct. you or Arora?

Neither. Morality is correct. It is objective. Anyone's opinions are subjective and can only be correct if they are also correct.

What is this law of morality so I can decide which one of the differing responses is correct? I cannot take your word for it. There must be a law/equation

Logic.

Morals is morals is morals.

It's like you're not reading. You even quoted it.

Morals != Morality

What an individual decides is moral is their decision. This is subjective.

What is moral is independent of anyone's decision. This is objective. No-one can decide it because it is not subjective.

 

[arora]

Neither. Morality is correct. It is objective. Anyone's opinions are subjective and can only be correct if they are also correct.

It only happens in a black day of heaven I agree with Famine, this is it

Joking aside, I want to keep showing some Paul stuff, so I will.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?

And of course my signature you are all surely tired of

 

[XoravaX]

It only happens in a black day of heaven I agree with Famine, this is it

Oddly enough I also completely agree with him.

IMO, the only way out would be a federal state of Israel and Palestine, so that there would be an Israeli chamber and a Palestinian chamber in a two-chamber parliament so neither ethnic group can rule over the other. Those who are of Israeli descent could choose the MP's for the Israeli chamber and Palestinians for theirs. When the situation settles down over time and the extremist groups and religion cease to direct politics the system could be revised. Improving the Palestinians standard of living would undermine the extremists' (Hamas and Hizbollah') support which would go far in bringing peace to the religion. If the Palestinians don't complain, the other Israel-hating groups would also lose their reasons for the hate (provided they really care for the Palestinians which I doubt, they hate Israel just to abuse power through the masses in the Muslim countries).

The problem with a single government is that there are more Palestinians than Israeli Jews thus Israel would never accept such a solution.

The solution with two independent states has problems as well, as that way the standard of living of the Palestinians stays far worse than that of the Israeli which would be seen as a big injustice by the Palestinians and would continue to fuel the hate and extremism.

Or then one side could wipe the other out, but that would surely trigger a backlash, a Middle-East wide war at least and most probably even worse. And it would be immoral.

However as long as Hamas continues bombing Israel and their citizens a retaliation by Israel is justified (by my logic). Can you name any country that doesn't respond to continuous attacks against their citizens and civilian property? Also, targeting civilians by purpose (not collateral damage, but purposeful attacks on civilians) is a war crime, be it done by terrorists or "freedom fighters".

 

[arora]

Does anyone actually think that if the Jew left, there would be peace in the region?

 

[Danoff]

Morals is morals is morals.

I want you to imagine, for just a moment, that we were arguing about science.

What does this mean? Explain the difference in your science to Arora's as you both believe that science is absolute? Or do you also believe that his hypothesis is scientifically wrong.

Belief is irrelevant.

He has said it is scientifically right. If you do not say it is scientifically right, how can you both say that science is an absolute and both have a differing opinion.

I said science is absolute - objective, independent of the observer - while an individual's hypotheses are their own choices and unrelated to scientific truth.

Unless one of you is wrong, in which case who decided? Provide the evidence that this is accepted as a universal absolute science.

Science is only determined by evidence. An individual's hypotheses are derived from whatever they see fit.

See how two scientists can disagree about truth and yet that has no bearing on whether or not truth exists?


Key:
Individual morals = hypotheses
Morality = Science