4 ms·

How could any empathic person not be pro-5.2 million refugees? Downvote me to death, I don't care, but have the courage to explain why you're downvoting.

insanitybit 3y ago
That's not an argument, it's an emotional appeal. Hence downvoting.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  And the other upvoted commenters saying the refugee (their intl-recognized status) population are terrorists, is that just cold facts rather than emotion?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    Who cares? I'm telling you why your low-effort, low-content emotional appeal is getting my downvote.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
  Are emotions not a valid reason for caring about things, or doing things? Why care about genocide at all if you don't consider emotion? It's just sacks of meat getting destroyed, like cows, pigs, lambs. Why should we care if any living creature is killed, oppressed, suffers? Emotion. It drives us to reason one way rather than another. Emotion drives us to make killing dogs illegal, while killing fish, birds, other mammals, etc is done by the millions every day. There's no logic to religious debate as all religion is made up superstition. There's no logic to allowing one group of people to keep some land and not others other than the rationale that whoever has the bigger gun is allowed to keep the land. There's no logic to retaliation at all, because it's circular reasoning. So, yeah, it's an appeal to emotion. Otherwise what the hell is the point of caring about any death? Logic will never stop the killing. Logic will never be able to come up with "a solution" that is acceptable to the human psyche. But emotion can.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    This isn't saying "emotions aren't valid" it's saying that this is an attempt at reducing the conversation to something emotional to distract from anything else. Your entire post is moot.
ysofunny 3y ago
[flagged]
GuardianCaveman 3y ago
If Canada surprise attacked your hometown and killed your entire family would you have empathy when the United States declared all civilians must clear out of Montreal before a retaliatory strike takes place? It’s amazing how the slaughter of innocents is justified because they were being oppressed. If the Japanese in internment camps massacred the nearby town would you have empathy for them then when they were punished or would you say well look at what the US did! It put them in camps. They had no choice.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
  > If Canada surprise attacked your hometown and killed your entire family would you have empathy when the United States declared all civilians must clear out of Montreal before a retaliatory strike takes place? ....of course I would have empathy then? How could I not? My family isn't the only family capable of suffering. If anything, my suffering would make me care more about the suffering of others. I would never want to inflict that pain on other families. It makes no sense.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
catlover76 3y ago
I had assumed initially that when you were referring to the sympathetic refugee population, you were referring to the Palestinians.

insanitybit 3y ago

That's not an argument, it's an emotional appeal. Hence downvoting.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
And the other upvoted commenters saying the refugee (their intl-recognized status) population are terrorists, is that just cold facts rather than emotion?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- insanitybit 3y ago
  Who cares? I'm telling you why your low-effort, low-content emotional appeal is getting my downvote.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
Are emotions not a valid reason for caring about things, or doing things? Why care about genocide at all if you don't consider emotion? It's just sacks of meat getting destroyed, like cows, pigs, lambs. Why should we care if any living creature is killed, oppressed, suffers? Emotion. It drives us to reason one way rather than another. Emotion drives us to make killing dogs illegal, while killing fish, birds, other mammals, etc is done by the millions every day. There's no logic to religious debate as all religion is made up superstition. There's no logic to allowing one group of people to keep some land and not others other than the rationale that whoever has the bigger gun is allowed to keep the land. There's no logic to retaliation at all, because it's circular reasoning. So, yeah, it's an appeal to emotion. Otherwise what the hell is the point of caring about any death? Logic will never stop the killing. Logic will never be able to come up with "a solution" that is acceptable to the human psyche. But emotion can.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  This isn't saying "emotions aren't valid" it's saying that this is an attempt at reducing the conversation to something emotional to distract from anything else. Your entire post is moot.

ysofunny 3y ago

[flagged]

GuardianCaveman 3y ago

If Canada surprise attacked your hometown and killed your entire family would you have empathy when the United States declared all civilians must clear out of Montreal before a retaliatory strike takes place? It’s amazing how the slaughter of innocents is justified because they were being oppressed. If the Japanese in internment camps massacred the nearby town would you have empathy for them then when they were punished or would you say well look at what the US did! It put them in camps. They had no choice.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
> If Canada surprise attacked your hometown and killed your entire family would you have empathy when the United States declared all civilians must clear out of Montreal before a retaliatory strike takes place? ....of course I would have empathy then? How could I not? My family isn't the only family capable of suffering. If anything, my suffering would make me care more about the suffering of others. I would never want to inflict that pain on other families. It makes no sense.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

catlover76 3y ago

I had assumed initially that when you were referring to the sympathetic refugee population, you were referring to the Palestinians.