You do realize that the rest of us can not only read Malthus’ post, we also can realize that you cut out all of the reasons he gave why the cite was crap? That, in fact, we realize that you cut them out because you have no cogent response to them?
Fallacy of Begging the Question.
Also, irrational and inchoate. If the US government were to, say, encroach upon Canadian fishing grounds and Canada responded by indiscriminately shelling the northern states… what kind of person would argue that the US government just had to sit back and like it, and that Canada could kill as many Americans as they wanted, as long as American fishermen were still stealing Canadian fish?
Of course it can. This is morality-via-etch-a-sketch, and it’s just as wrong as the last umpteenbillion times your coterie has trotted it out. It’s just a horrible, foolish argument. Were more German civilians, or more American civilians killed during WWII? Does that mean that the Nazis held the moral high ground? No? Does the fact that Hamas deliberately uses its population as human shields enter into the equation (for you)? No?
[QUOTE=newcomer]
And you call this a debate point?
[/QUOTE]
I was going to trot out the ‘This is Sparta!’ line, but really, this is so off the irony scale as to be almost holy. Nope…this isn’t a debate. It’s you witnessing and then being all hurt when few by into your odd world view, despite your very nice opinion piece cite and article from 2008 that you felt was such a home run.
I’ve just taken my irony meter off line for the duration of this thread, as there is simply no way it would survive comic gold like this. So, pointing out that someone using an opinion piece isn’t a debate? Well, no argument there. Only one side is debating here (not me of course…just trying to add some comic relief to what is the 10,000th ridiculous thread on this tired subject).
Even offline my irony meter twitched for this one. Hell, I think several unrelated irony meters in Antarctica (that have never even been connected to the internet) were close to exploding when you tosses this one out there…
No, that’s my summation. The ‘debate points’ were all the stuff I said before that.
I thought you were against picking on a poster and not his or her arguments.
Your first two points were not made by me, but by others.
I’m honestly unsure as to what you are saying here.
Your point 1 appears to be saying that, if a party commits an illegal act (by which I again assume you mean behaves unjustly in any respect), it is forever precluded from engaging in a ‘just war’.
Your point 2 I interpret as meaning that Israel cannot kill more enemy civilians than it suffers in civilian casualties itself, if it is engaging in war in a just manner.
Assuming I understand these points correctly, I disagree with both of them.
In answer to point 1, it is not a requirement of a just war that a party wishing to engage in a just war behave perfectly justly in all respects, or it is forever precluded from being morally justified in any respect. Just war theory does not demand perfection. It is intended to be a realistic code. In real life, no parties are ever free of injustice themselves.
In answer to point 2, a more powerful nation will generally inflict greater civilian casualties on a weaker nation or non-national group with which it goes to war. The reason for this is pretty straightforward: the war is more likely to be fought on the weaker party’s territory, among its civilians, rather than on the stronger party’s territory. Where the war is fought is going to have a major impact on whose civilians end up as casualties, quite irrespective of the morality of the parties - in the case of Gaza vs. Israel, it is always going to be Israel invading Gaza, not the other way around.
That’s why just war theory does not simply prescribe a body-count as a way of judging morality. Otherwise, to give the example already mentioned upthread, the Nazis and Imperal Japanese would have to be judged more moral than the Americans in WW2.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
(Finn’s) username is a spin off one of the most racist books ever made. Period.
[/QUOTE]
What utter nonsense (exclamation point!).
Most scholars and critics view Huck Finn as an anti-racist statement, even if its language offends some in modern times.
*"As Helen Scott writes, "The book (Huckleberry Finn) does contain language that has racist connotations today, and this has been “whitewashed” or ignored by the critical establishment. However, even figures such as Frederick Douglass used the same language when attempting a “realistic” representation of life under slavery Furthermore, the story undermines the logic of slavery to such an extent that “the authorities regarded the exposure of the evils of slavery and the heroic portrayals of the Negro characters as ‘hideously subversive’.”
Perhaps the most convincing evidence of the non-racist content of the novel is in the scene where slave catchers are rowing toward Huck and Jim who is hidden on the raft. The slave catchers ask Huck, “Is your man white or black?” Huck struggles mightily with the customs of his race and then bravely blurts out, “He’s white.”
Huck’s changes during the story in his attitudes towards Jim and slavery provides a clue as to the real “mind” of Twain. Huck comes to realize Jim’s humanity and finds his own at the same time. I like to think that Mark Twain went through the same transformation."*
Yep. It didn’t feel sportsmanly to point out that not only is that not where my username is from, not only is Huck Finn blatantly anti-racist, but that the only proof he provided was an opinion piece about how a guy was still angry, years and years later, that the word “nigger” was used in the book.
This, evidently, makes it one of the most racist books. EVAR!
You are adding a time dimension to a principle that is of a static nature - you are either engaged in a war on just grounds or not. You might elaborate on time dimension by arguing conduct PRIOR to the war; i.e. did one side do everything possible to avoid it but, I guess, it would be quite a collapse arguing Israel did everything possible to avoid violent confrontation. And that’s what my argument is - Israel cannot institute occupation, steal land and perform collective punishment without expecting reaction and then when violence erupts claim you engage in a just war because you’ve been provoked. Nonsense!
In fact, one could argue that these strategies - especially land stealing that is internationally recognized as illegal - are designed to provoke Palestinians and since they can do sh!t their irrationality gives you sufficient basis for “enaging in just war”.
Time dimension after a side is engaged in war is accounted for in #2 principle which postulates conduct during the war so mixing it all up like you did is nothing but a debate fail.
I like how you describe this matter-of-factly; i.e. they are easy kill because we go to their house and since it’s full of civilians, well, they get killed - what can I say, we’re so good!
On a serious note, it is extremely preposterous argument which is related to principle #1. Palestinians are not just weaker they are absolutely overwhelmed. That is a primary reason Israel does engage in a war because they know not much can happen on their side. What Israel does is mostly for political purposes (please note I find Netanyahu to be a bloodthirsty nationalist) and they will do “this” on an ongoing basis. “This” I can describe as poking a wounded animal with a sharp stick, not deep enough to kill it but just enough to enrage it.
Oh, and BTW thanks for making Siege of Sarajevo justified. I hear Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is looking for a new lawyer and you might just fit in.
You are wholly ignorant of the topic you are expounding upon.
To begin with, not only is military occupation explicitly allowed under the 4th Geneva Convention, occupied citizens who use military force against the state can be crushed. As noted, there never was a “Palestinian state”, most of the land in question was not privately owned, some of that land that you’re claiming is being “stolen” was actually owned by Jews and ethnically cleansed by Arab forces. Besides, despite your partisan screed, property disputes do not prohibit a nation from engaging in self defense. And as collective punishment is outlawed by the 4th GC, and Israel’s measures are explicitly authorized by it, then Israel’s actions are not collective punishment. QED.
It’s funny that many who are most stridently anti-Israel are also tacitly anti-Palestinian. Here you’re infantalizing the Palestinians and claiming that if there’s a dispute about who owns what land, that they just have no response but to freak out and start indiscriminately attacking Israeli civilians. Like they’re toddlers with poor impulse control. Of course, there have been disputes between New York and New Jersey about who owns what real estate for quite some time. Remind me, how many times has Jersey launched rockets at downtown Manhatatan?
This evinces a fundamental lack of comprehension.
The side whose territory a war is fought in will have higher civilian casualties, because that’s where the war is being fought. Added to that, the fact that Hamas uses its population as human shields further adds to the civilian death toll, which is a deliberate aim of Hamas’ program in Gaza. Malthus did not claim that Israel targets “house[s] full of civilians”.
Then initiating military activity which they cannot possibly win and which will cause Israel to engage in self defense that will have significant negative consequences for Palestinians with zero territorial or military gains for Hamas is not a Just War, eh?
Here we see Religious Logic; you have a conclusion and you’re working backwards to find facts that can support it. Israel defends itself in '48, '67, etc…? Well, let’s not acknowledge that, because when its civilians are routinely being attacked by rockets, Israel defends them. And the primary reason Israel defends its civilian population is because, Snidely Whiplash style, they’re twirling their mustaches while cackling about how they can’t have any negative repercussions on their side.
At the risk of attracting selective ire of moderators I’ll go out of my way and designate this analogy of Israel-Palestine conflict as the most infantile piece of work put together that’s - even for a notorious debate-dilettante – new bottom in Israeli propagandist apologia.
So in other words, you have absolutely no answer to the fact that property disputes need not lead to violence, and you can only resort to personal insults.
Our ire isn’t that hard to avoid. Since you’re not even trying, I’m issuing a formal warning now. I think you’ve been given a handful of notes recently, and more warnings are in your future if you don’t stop insulting other posters.
Are you aware that Zionism was a secular philosophy and the vast majority of Israelis are only nominally religious? As for leaving the region to its own devices, yet again: oil.
And, sorry for the double post, but after that non-debate, I’m feeling a bit of blue brain after debatus interruptus.
The idea that property disputes are a proximate cause, let alone a justification for physical violence, is an absurdity. Even in our post-modern era, multiple European nations have territorial disputes with each other. America has multiple territorial disputes with Canada. How many wars have been fought in recent memory between those states? Hell, even if we get into the real nitty gritty, even in America there are property disputes between neighbors all the time. But if one neighbor picks up a shotgun and starts blasting away at the other’s house, we don’t condone let alone justify that behavior.
The idea that violence and property disputes are casually linked is nonsensical on all levels.
Interestingly, the New Jersey-New York Line War lasted almost exactly as long as the conflict(s) between the state of Israel and its enemies has - 64 years.
Of course, manifestations of the N.J.-N.Y. conflict have been a bit more genteel:
“The last fight broke out in 1765, when the Jerseyans attempted to capture the leaders of the New York faction. Because the fight took place on the Sabbath, neither side used weapons. The New York leaders were captured and kept briefly in the Sussex County jail.”
Damn, it felt like there was still something missing from the “excuses for why you can’t win a debate involving Israel” checklist in this thread, and there it is: the mods are biased.
