Israel versus hamas

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Yep we are doing this

So I’m sure that whatever personality quirk makes someone spend time on forums and/or makes them feel the need to post on boards and social sites, correlates with a kind of dichotomous thinking, a kind of egomania and insecurity, which lends itself to a kind of tendency toward certain kinds of fallacies.

This place should in theory be different, but just as likely you get your ardent left and right, your drug casualties, your paranoids, etc. So we get a lot of “lack of subtlety” when it comes to the more urgent or highly charged issues, the social/economic/gov issues.

When I hear about the recent conflict in the Middle East, I don’t throw in with either side, per se. I find myself sad at how quickly people will rush to judgement based on reading this or that article from a thousand miles away.

I could if I wanted to, be indignant over the idea that missiles are being hurled at civilians in Israel. But I know that there might be a kind of desperation involved that I don’t understand. Might being the key word. I could get angry at disproportionate violence and the bloody heavy handed response in gaza, but again, there might be reasons why this has to happen, such as, getting the scary Russian roulette missiles (poor as they may be ) to stop, takes a surprising amount of bloodshed, which by hiding among civilians, Hamas are bringing upon their own people. Again, might is the key word.

Yes my position is wishy washy, but it’s intellectually honest based on the data I have. Sorry if you don’t like it.

I realize there are problems in gaza that are caused by a tough Israeli policy, but I also know the policy is there because of past aggressions.

I’m not mad at the Israelis or Hamas or Palestinians in gaza. Not mad at the cooks braying on social media left or right.

I’m mad at you. The philosophers, the scientists.

The philosophers actually have the skills to put name and category to every fallacy written or said in mainstream and social media. And the ability to follow a greater calling of truth and not be swayed by bias. The media can’t do this, the politicians can’t, the religious can’t. It will be up to the philosophers. Get off your Kant gazing asses and get busy. Unbiasedphilosophers.org or fallacywatch.org

And the scientists. Mazel Tov on all your technology for intercepting weapons and targeting cleverly around civilians to get to the bad guys. News flash, you need to do better. Skip the spinning rims Jarvis, we need smarter shit that won’t kill babies and moms unless they’re the ones pushing the buttons. Don’t know how you’re going to do it, but the fighting is a reality, it’s up to you to make it less bloody. Send little microdrones up the noses of bad guys who you verified with micro cameras. Figure it out.

2

I take much the same position.

Regarding any major conflict, I suggest live televised peace talks.

“Gentlemen, off you go. The world is watching and listening. Let’s see if we can clear this misunderstanding up.”
“Well let me just say, I was not alive when the trouble began so I’m not really qualified to speak on the subject.”
“Whoa, whoa, whoa! This had nothing to do with me.”
“Gentlemen, gentlemen! No one is blaming either one of you.”
“Look, I gotta be honest, I just follow orders. I’m not the man you should be talking to.”
“Where’s he going?”

Is one scenario!

3

It’s a good idea in theory, but in the end it’s not different than one of our televised presidential debates. Rehearsed party lines designed to keep everyone neatly in their place except for a few swingers. But even that’s better than news.

In the end you have two peoples that essentially think they belong in Israel for religious reasons, that it is heir duty to be there and fight and die for it. The secular zionists are joined at the hip with religious zionists so you have to look at them as one big two headed monster that is in the end fighting for religious reasons. Anyone can become a Jew and therefore in some ways Judaism is not an ethnicity or a race. And yet there was the holocaust which says that whatever we jews pretend to call Judaism, the world calls it a gene, period. It’s a huge living breathing contradiction. You can’t have a religion country. And you don’t need an ethnic country, or a Black Country so why need a Jew country?

Hamas is also pegging missiles for religious reasons, out of duty, martyrdom. It will never stop unless their radical interpretation of Islam changes. They feel god wants them to do it, so they are actually being loyal and steadfast when they do it.

Ah I hate to see people suffer, but in a way these two warring groups kinda sorta deserve each other.

If religion is a drug, war is the painful payback of withdrawal, it is the rotten liver, the drug that was fun until payment due exceeds accounts received.

Someone should take an op ed piece and redline the logical fallacies, which are diff from factual disputes; they would fallacies that would be evident to an alien from another planet, post hoc ergo shit, stuff like that. Will someone pls start doin that?

4

There is only one logical fallacy, and it is the belief in logical fallacy.

Your asking me to rewrite the tactical synthesis by introducing new technology while setting up a filter that auto-targets media compositions to fit the expectations of some logical set of axiomatic assumptions a handful of professors with anti-authoritarian tendencies to promote.

How is this actually going to reduce the frequency or intensity of warfare, stabilize populations, and establish a more progressively peaceful scheme to the use of force, that will be accepted and preferred by real world, realistic commanders who don’t especially care for that wishy washy stuff in the first place?

If we do this wrong, very bad shit happens. Look at how deeply uneffective Bertrand Russell was in his anti war stance?

I’m not interested in a Neo-Mohist approach to war. I’m more interested in a asymmetric collapse in the appeal of warfare that increases faster and faster by leaps and bounds.

Your local news stations have reporters who are minimally trained in military strategy and statecraft… the report to larger news services, who’s editors have a concept of what warfare is, what is news in it, and what is sensational. Its easy to reverse engineer this, if you yourself rely on a overwhelming array of sources, and know the process, and have a better background yourself… you essentially know what to look for.

Im not longer in the weapons business, the appeal died in me when debating to transfer to Virginia while in the army. You can fumble around with that yourself. You want a method for tracking down slave traders, cartel runners, bomb makers, etc… fine… any moral government can ask, and I’ll write a custom prescription that comprehends their tactics and tech, and training level. I’m not exactly the only one who can do this though.