naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28966 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
I think there is a different argument. When one bombs a target, one knows there may be collateral damage. When one purposefully attempts to kill a toddler, the death of the toddler isn’t a side effect.
I don't believe you or anyone else actually believes that the aim of Hamas is to kill jewish toddlers. I think you and everyone else recognizes the goals of Hamas are a little broader in scope than that and that any dead jewish toddlers are collateral damage on the road towards those broader goals.
This guy is changing the meaning of the phrase collateral damage. It would be like saying “my goal is to obtain 10k so killing the bank employee was merely collateral damage.”
Your argument is that when your side kills civilians its collateral damage and when the other guys kill civilians its evil barbarity. The rest is sophistry.
Seriously? Words have meanings and you don’t just get to change the meaning to support your antisemitism (yes — I saw your other post where you mentioned jewish pharmacists with opioids where the status of the pharmacists as Jews was beside the point).
Collateral damage results in non-military targets being incidentally killed as a result of a military strike on a military target. That’s different compared to targeting civilian targets and killing those targets despite there being zero military objective (but a political one). One might say “what does it matter — the dead are dead alike.” True but generally outcome is not the only matter determine the morality of an act.
When you designate civilian infrastructure as a military target you are just playing with words. The existence of 'collateral damage' as a term is completely meaningless in this context. It is only invoked as a self serving defense for when the ingroup kills civilians.
when you place the military targets specifically inside civilian infrastructure to ensure your side has collateral damage collateral damage is of course an appropriate term.
So the only disagreement we have is whether Hamas using human shields.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think there is a different argument. When one bombs a target, one knows there may be collateral damage. When one purposefully attempts to kill a toddler, the death of the toddler isn’t a side effect.
This is just sophistry.
I don't believe you or anyone else actually believes that the aim of Hamas is to kill jewish toddlers. I think you and everyone else recognizes the goals of Hamas are a little broader in scope than that and that any dead jewish toddlers are collateral damage on the road towards those broader goals.
Indeed, they want all the Jews dead, not just the toddlers.
Not collateral damage, just a low-priority target.
This guy is changing the meaning of the phrase collateral damage. It would be like saying “my goal is to obtain 10k so killing the bank employee was merely collateral damage.”
No one uses collateral damage in that way.
Your argument is that when your side kills civilians its collateral damage and when the other guys kill civilians its evil barbarity. The rest is sophistry.
Seriously? Words have meanings and you don’t just get to change the meaning to support your antisemitism (yes — I saw your other post where you mentioned jewish pharmacists with opioids where the status of the pharmacists as Jews was beside the point).
Collateral damage results in non-military targets being incidentally killed as a result of a military strike on a military target. That’s different compared to targeting civilian targets and killing those targets despite there being zero military objective (but a political one). One might say “what does it matter — the dead are dead alike.” True but generally outcome is not the only matter determine the morality of an act.
When you designate civilian infrastructure as a military target you are just playing with words. The existence of 'collateral damage' as a term is completely meaningless in this context. It is only invoked as a self serving defense for when the ingroup kills civilians.
when you place the military targets specifically inside civilian infrastructure to ensure your side has collateral damage collateral damage is of course an appropriate term.
So the only disagreement we have is whether Hamas using human shields.
That's not the disagreement at all. The disagreement is the use of vocabulary that only excuses civilian fatalities for one side but not the other.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link