3 ms·

The whole "The Muslims/Muslim countries won't do X, and therefore why should we?" argument is funny and depressing to me. Why won't they do X? Because maybe in

The whole "The Muslims/Muslim countries won't do X, and therefore why should we?" argument is funny and depressing to me. Why won't they do X? Because maybe in your mind you think they're savages/less civilized. Less, that is, compared to you/your community's (in whatever scale: nation, race, hemisphere). But if you're saying "If they don't do X, we can behave the same", isn't that a call for you/your community to abandon your civilization and embrace the "equal" savagery? How is it a winning argument? "In our eyes we're civilized and they're savages, and if they don't act civilized we're also free to abandon or civilized ways and act the way we condemn...".

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nujabe 2y ago
[flagged]
- Grimblewald 2y ago
  raising a valid and logically sound critique of an argument is not like deflection at all, in fact it doesn't even come close to being similar, they're directly addressing the core argument. I think you might benefit from some time with a dictionary.
  - nujabe 2y ago
    [flagged]
jojobas 2y ago
>Because maybe in your mind you think they're savages/less civilized. No, rather because they want to use the international law to their advantage, not to their detriment.
- Grimblewald 2y ago
  I would say that when you are being treated poorly in a way where laws exist protecting your right to demand better and realistically should be able to expect better, then using those laws is using them as intended. Sure it is to your advantage, however, the way you say it implies it is an unfair advantage, rather than simply trying to remove an unfairly applied disadvantage/detriment. Are you suggesting they should not try to use laws to protect themselves from genocide/displacement?
  - jojobas 2y ago
    This is not about genocide/displacement, this is about two attacks that have been assessed as targeting civilians or some such. Yes, I'd say a side that starts a conflict with an egregious assault on civilians should be limited in its right to use international law to stop a similarly or less illegal counterattack. In other words, if you attack someone with a knife you shouldn't be able to press charges for punches flying back. Or, at the very lease, not until the organizers and perpetrators of the initial atrocity are surrendered to that same court they are appealing to.
    - Grimblewald 2y ago
      You really think this protest exists in a vacuum, totally detached and isolated from the context of the broader Israeli led genocide against Palestinians? Ok.
      - jojobas 2y ago
        [flagged]
        netsharc 2y ago
        > Even in this campaign they've been objectively trying to reduce civilian casualties despite it's detrimental effect on their military objective. Puh-lease..! The ones wanting the genocide (yeah I say this deliberately) to end don't see it that way. At best you're delusional if you think they Israeli army benevolently cares, at worst you know this is a lie and you cynically don't care. Like you cynically just sum up overall casualty numbers as "just 1 year's worth of population growth". The official number is 40000. AFAIK that's the number of directly killed by American/European bombs dropped by the IDF, bullets or by a building collapsing on them because a bomb dropped nearby. The unofficial number (killed by lack of food, housing, sanitation) is a lot higher, e.g. 186000 up to July (1). That's 186000 seeds of future terrorists avowing revenge (hey if you, as someone of the pro-genocide camp, are "lucky", maybe entire communities get wiped out that no one is left to fester anger about their community members' unjust death. And somewhere in there is probably the genocide-doers' unsaid justification about killing babies (14 pages of the list of names and ages of victims of this war have the number "0" for their age, but hey "just 1 year's worth of population growth!") - the freshly born Palestinians "deserve" to be killed, because otherwise they are going to grow up hating the nation that killed 186000 members of their community anyway and bombed their country into the middle ages, why not kill them now?). 1) https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-186-000-dead-in-gaza-how-credible-are-the-estimates-published-on-the-lancet https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-1...
para_parolu 2y ago
I think the whole civilized/uncivilized spectrum is just “who has bigger gun” contest.
- salawat 2y ago
  The essence of civility is having the means, motive, and opportunity to delete someone/something from the calculus of life with violence, and choosing not to do so. That is to say, anyone slaughtering one another have abandoned all pretense of civility.
  - para_parolu 2y ago
    Sure. But when every country occasionally slaughter other country civility becomes just a tag. Nice to have it but better have resources and guns

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nujabe 2y ago

[flagged]

Grimblewald 2y ago
raising a valid and logically sound critique of an argument is not like deflection at all, in fact it doesn't even come close to being similar, they're directly addressing the core argument. I think you might benefit from some time with a dictionary.
- nujabe 2y ago
  [flagged]

jojobas 2y ago

>Because maybe in your mind you think they're savages/less civilized. No, rather because they want to use the international law to their advantage, not to their detriment.

Grimblewald 2y ago
I would say that when you are being treated poorly in a way where laws exist protecting your right to demand better and realistically should be able to expect better, then using those laws is using them as intended. Sure it is to your advantage, however, the way you say it implies it is an unfair advantage, rather than simply trying to remove an unfairly applied disadvantage/detriment. Are you suggesting they should not try to use laws to protect themselves from genocide/displacement?
- jojobas 2y ago
  This is not about genocide/displacement, this is about two attacks that have been assessed as targeting civilians or some such. Yes, I'd say a side that starts a conflict with an egregious assault on civilians should be limited in its right to use international law to stop a similarly or less illegal counterattack. In other words, if you attack someone with a knife you shouldn't be able to press charges for punches flying back. Or, at the very lease, not until the organizers and perpetrators of the initial atrocity are surrendered to that same court they are appealing to.
  - Grimblewald 2y ago
    You really think this protest exists in a vacuum, totally detached and isolated from the context of the broader Israeli led genocide against Palestinians? Ok.
    - jojobas 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - netsharc 2y ago
        > Even in this campaign they've been objectively trying to reduce civilian casualties despite it's detrimental effect on their military objective. Puh-lease..! The ones wanting the genocide (yeah I say this deliberately) to end don't see it that way. At best you're delusional if you think they Israeli army benevolently cares, at worst you know this is a lie and you cynically don't care. Like you cynically just sum up overall casualty numbers as "just 1 year's worth of population growth". The official number is 40000. AFAIK that's the number of directly killed by American/European bombs dropped by the IDF, bullets or by a building collapsing on them because a bomb dropped nearby. The unofficial number (killed by lack of food, housing, sanitation) is a lot higher, e.g. 186000 up to July (1). That's 186000 seeds of future terrorists avowing revenge (hey if you, as someone of the pro-genocide camp, are "lucky", maybe entire communities get wiped out that no one is left to fester anger about their community members' unjust death. And somewhere in there is probably the genocide-doers' unsaid justification about killing babies (14 pages of the list of names and ages of victims of this war have the number "0" for their age, but hey "just 1 year's worth of population growth!") - the freshly born Palestinians "deserve" to be killed, because otherwise they are going to grow up hating the nation that killed 186000 members of their community anyway and bombed their country into the middle ages, why not kill them now?). 1) https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-186-000-dead-in-gaza-how-credible-are-the-estimates-published-on-the-lancet https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-1...

para_parolu 2y ago

I think the whole civilized/uncivilized spectrum is just “who has bigger gun” contest.

salawat 2y ago
The essence of civility is having the means, motive, and opportunity to delete someone/something from the calculus of life with violence, and choosing not to do so. That is to say, anyone slaughtering one another have abandoned all pretense of civility.
- para_parolu 2y ago
  Sure. But when every country occasionally slaughter other country civility becomes just a tag. Nice to have it but better have resources and guns