Israel/Palestine thread

Yeah, I forgot that. Idk how true the narrative about campus anti Semitism is, but I have seen a lot of it online.

Of course, people who hate Jews will hate Isreal (except for some Christians who think it is necessary for the return of Jesus.) and not mind Jewish deaths.

People who hate Muslims will not mind the deaths among them.

Narrative is true but it's mostly performative.

They get told to do that and they do that, it's tribal, it's the same people who use the same energy to ask for tampons in men bathroom, they aren't actual anti semite who would go to great length to damage Jews as something that define their identity.

They are terrible people but that's because they are radical leftists, performative antisemitism is just part of the radical left package

The veil of ignorance literally removes any uniqueness from situations, so you agree it's a tool made by an idiot?

When did you notice the anti Palestinian sentiments?

Not sure what that has to do with being critical of the scope of retaliation.

People all over the world celebrated 9/11. It’s still not great that we leveled their societies to ashes in response. Do you think they hate us less now, btw?

This excuse is beyond thin by now. IDF can and should feed the Palestinians without much leakage. The food shortage is so acute the food would be consumed basially ok the spot.

No that's not the veil. This the veil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_p...

You could under the veil even come to the view that uts wrong to sacrifice 3 family members but right to sacrifice 3 random people.

Family members of person x aren't your family members

?

The veil is for the moral principle. When you apply that principle in practice you do know your situation.

The veil is a moral principles which predicates all people are random people across the population distribution.

When you are in the situation, it's 3 people you are related by blood with, vs 4 foreigners living elsewhere.

When you put the veil on, it's 3 random people vs 4.

So a rawlsian either accepts his family gets slaughtered to save 4 Indonesian people, or he is not (and he has never been) a rawlsian, as no normal people can be.

Simple as that.

Everyone has a family, the 4 people have family members as well, under Rawls their suffering is worth the same as yours so your children have to die and if you disagree you are a moral monster.

Sorry that's simply not right. It's about your moral principles not being dependent on your situation. It doesn't make people random in ther situation where you apply those principles.

That's more a simplistic utilitarian principle.

Under the veil of ignorance you can belive it always correct to favour your family. That doesn't mean thinking the suffering isn't the same for others but it does mean you can favour your children if you have them. And generally should most of us would agree,

This is correct. Luci is wrong and obviously just gets all this stuff from some reddit loony bin.

Dunno. Tools can be useful. It depends on how someone understands what they're doing and how to apply whatever they got out of it.

There are anti-Semites out there for sure, but the narrative that's being spun here is hogwash. After Oct 7 there was an outpouring of support worldwide for Israel, much of which has dried up ever since the IDF began its campaign of collective punishment and forced repatriation.

Sounds ideal to me, as long as there were things put in place to prevent physical damages from getting worse, the good thing that pain accomplishes.

It is, in fact, definitely morally wrong to do so, which is why I say nearly all parents are extremely selfish and morally suspect.

This is beyond ignorant and you obviously must not know any Jews that go to college

Lol it being morally wrong to value your family members life over another

Are you all robots?

As a teacher i would take a bullet for a student (i think i would. I'm not sure) but i would do anything at all to save my wife .. no question.

I'll do 2 posts, let's look at two areas.

Every 5 minutes, a child dies from Malaria. Swelling of your brain, seizures, kidney failure, it's atrocious. Of the 608k who died of Malaria last year, more than 75% were under the age of 5.

https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articl...

That link highlights how effective/efficient that charitable organization is. The $2 nets have an immediate impact: 50% reduction in Malaria cases, it's one of the most effective uses of your money to have an impact on this planet.

Now that you know this charity exists, how long can you willingly go without donating to it? If you can give a few hundred a month and you don't, I'm going to say that maybe you don't care about the children as much as the thread outrage indicates. I'm hoping this post just created some new donors, in a spot where immediately you CAN save children. Not just talk about it.

That's post one.

If you would sacrifice your own life to save the life of your wife, that is very noble. If you would kill several strangers to save your wife, that is morally wrong (assume those strangers aren't actually the ones threatening your wife).

Here's post two.

We know nobody swaps their family to save a family of Gazans. I didn't need to ask.

So what about your village? I grew up in one. If my family was spared but my whole village was on the line, would I have those 500 villagers die to save 2500 "others"? No. I can promise you that's an easy no. Those were my friends (and their families), town and religious leaders, neighbors, shop keepers I cared for, teachers, seniors who were kind to me. I don't trade the 500 for 2500 for any other group of people. I'm nearly sure I don't trade 20,000 randoms for those 500 people I cared about, and that wasn't my family.

So what about your tribe? Humans are after all tribal in nature. A group of villages if you will, close together. You have friends across those tribes, people who married people across them. They'll be some extended family along those lines. A shared history. What tribe EVER would trade its own 2000 lives for say 20,000 other lives? That's not a tribe in that example, that's a suicide pact. It doesn't happen. That's like you trading the lives of everyone in your county for 20,000 strangers. Note I'm still at strangers in this case, just random strangers.

Ok now consider they aren't strangers, they're part of your enemies. They've been attacking you, historically, for 100+ years. Your family has definitely lost someone in the battles of the past. You do drills to run to bomb shelters every week (often many times a week). No kid hasn't been in a bomb shelter even from the age of 3. You are a population less than New York city, in a place the size of Vancouver Island. Every single person has known someone raped, hurt, kidnapped, murdered, mobilized or dead/injured in the mobilization. You go to Shiva houses every single week. And now there's a conflict, and you're asked how many people need to die (ethically) to protect yours.

The answer that these people give is going to be drastically different than your answer, simply because of how the conflict impacts them and theirs. Your view is simple, 1:1 and anything else is too much. But you wouldn't have taken any of the trades I offered you above. For some people closer to this conflict, the "how many" passes this test differently because of how they relate to it. Post Oct 7th, Israelis viewed the death cult 3 miles off as something that just couldn't remain for the continued safe existence of life In Israel. How many lives is that worth? I think we'll only know that in 20 years. I truly hope the very long term cost was worth it for all sides (aka a rebuilt Gaza with a future for those who live there). Time will tell. It certainly doesn't feel good watching though, for either side. It's just awful.

The problem with these arguments is the false comparison. Israel isn't saving Israelis by killing Gazan citizens with the current strategy.

Protesting mass child war casualties is hypocritical if you don’t donate to world health charities is so bizarre and intellectually disorganized that it’s not worth rebutting. Just lol.