Hamas Launches Offensive Against Southern Israel

LordsFire said:

No, now you're making an assertion.

We can reasonably test and see which worldviews, and their ideology, better reflect reality, and come to rational conclusions about which more closely cohere with the underlying philosophical truths of life.

Given that Christian societies have been the best for human flourishing, and atheist societies have been the worst, this has some clear suggestions about which has a better handle on truth.

Secular Libertarianism has never built a culture or society, so it literally is not even in the running.

Click to expand...

What's the assertion? That all morality systems rest on assumptions? They do. Your 'underlying philosophical truths of life'? Whatever those are, those are assumptions. There's nothing wrong with assumptions as the basis from which to build a logic system. In fact they are necessary, otherwise you are building in the sky, because all logic and philosophy is abstract without real world assumptions (other than Decartes I think therefore I am, which is really cool because of that). But to even get out of being a mind in a jar where nothing you do morally matters, you need to make a logical assumption, or have it rest on other logical assumptions (God exists, it's my god, god is good, & God is Omnipotent will get you out of the mind jar, for example).

Look, I quite simply don't think that a secular system can realistically work at scale, because I don't have much faith in the average human, and think a god serves as a very useful tool to improve morality (though sometimes the opposite happens, see Jihadis like Hamas for an example). I still believe the NAP is the correct moral system, if a person will actually follow a moral system without the (IMO) imaginary threat of postmortem punishment/reward.

But I wasn't asked for a system that would work at scale. I was asked for an objective morality, and provided one. Your system (and choice of system) is built on a bunch of assumptions, and that's okay, so is everyone's.

S'task said:

This is a point so many people so many people cannot seem to fathom in regards to Hamas. They are not acting based on economic or materialistic motives. There isn't a compromise position that Israel can agree to that will satisfy Hamas, yet for some reason so many in the western academics and elites seem to think there is...

Click to expand...

Exactly. I was hammering that home in the SB thread before I got banned off of it. But yeah. You cannot reason with Hamas. They want more civilian casualties, of both their own and Israeli.

I'm about as antiwar as it gets on the board. I'm anti-interventionist. I think conscription is literal slavery. But Hamas is now at the North Korean government level for me: I literally don't care who kills them off or invades them, just that they die off. For example, I'd advocate military aid to China if they would invade and annex North Korea., and be happy to do so, knowing the world became a much better place for North Koreans. A similar thing goes here.

Abhorsen said:

But I wasn't asked for a system that would work at scale. I was asked for an objective morality, and provided one. Your system (and choice of system) is built on a bunch of assumptions, and that's okay, so is everyone's.

Click to expand...

You need some starting assumptions in order to begin to think rationally, but once you do so, you can develop an ideological framework that then allows you to test those assumptions.

And find out if those assumptions are actually true or not.

This is the critical step that so many modern philosophers fail to take, and that post-modernists explicitly reject, because they want to immunize their ideology from criticism.

Marduk said:

At least into parts of Europe idiotic enough to even volunteer to take them. But who cares about protecting such idiots from themselves?

Click to expand...

I feel sorry for all the normal people who want nothing to do with this but are having it forced on them. You know, like all the victims of those rape gangs the British government has been calling racist for reporting what's been done to them.

Captain X said:

I fell sorry for all the normal people who want nothing to do with this but are having it forced on them. You know, like all the victims of those rape gangs the British government has been calling racist for reporting what's been done to them.

Click to expand...

Feeling sorry for people is an emotional response, by definition. It does not require you to intervene to protect them from the consequences of their actions. Note, that by definition, such an intervention must subordinate their freedom and sovereignty as independent entities to your preferences. Doing that to other nations usually requires warfare on some level, which I thought most folk preferred to avoid.

SoliFortissimi said:

Insanity requires one to be deviating from rationality. Only one of us is imagining genocides here.

Click to expand...

Terthna said:

That's just one of the five methods of genocide listed within the United Nation's 1948 Genocide Convention; the other four being "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group", and "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group".

Click to expand...

Yep. 3 out of those are in full swing.
Additionally the first one, that of outright killing, is also slowly practiced via tiger teams. propaganda is made to kill members of those groups and then the police does not persecute the murderers. there are countless examples of racists murdering white people because the color of their skin and no other reason, and getting off scots free. corporate media just doesn't mention it ever, but its there.

It is also worth noting that the UN and all liberal sources insist that colonization is intrinsically genocidal. Thus the mass replacement of indigenous white people in their ancestral homes is genocidal by that definition too.

LordsFire said:

You need some starting assumptions in order to begin to think rationally, but once you do so, you can develop an ideological framework that then allows you to test those assumptions.

And find out if those assumptions are actually true or not.

This is the critical step that so many modern philosophers fail to take, and that post-modernists explicitly reject, because they want to immunize their ideology from criticism

Click to expand...

Literal circular reasoning. You cannot do this logically. Take the mind in a jar. You go, assume you aren't a mind in a jar, observe the world, and then assume because you can observe the world, you aren't a mind in a jar.

The testing of assumptions works scientifically, because it's based, way back at the beginning, on untestable assumptions (called axioms): a common reality exists, and things in reality have a reality based explanation (the no supernatural assumption), and those explanations are consistent and constant (no sudden change in the speed of light come 0 AD, for example).

Future assumptions aren't actually assumed, or at least aren't intended to stay as assumptions. They are tested against what is known and if they predict what will happen in experiments, then are accepted or rejected. In science, this becomes a 'law' like gravity, or a 'theory' like relativity (A law describes what is happening, a theory usually includes an explanation of why it is happening, IIRC). In math, we have theorems, which are logical conclusions from the axioms. Now if we keep doing Math and Science, and keep finding out that the assumptions are holding, that's nice, but it isn't proof. You've still relied on assumptions. All it's shown is that so far, the axioms are self consistent with each other.

Same with all philosophy: at it's core, it's a question of what axioms you accept. You can, if you want to, look at the application of a philosophy on the world, and see if it's useful. But that doesn't prove the philosophy, just says whether or not it is of practical use. At best, you might be able to show that the assumptions of a philosophy contradict one another, but you cannot prove it true.

I can provide good reasons for why the NAP is a good thing to follow. But none of them are really proof for it, just feelings. Like that it feels inherently wrong to take a person's stuff without permission, or that capitalism promotes human welfare. This tells me that the NAP is right, but it isn't proof. It's still ultimately at its core, an assumption.

You've based your philosophy, whatever that is, on unproveable assumptions. That's okay, literally everyone ever has done the same. But don't pretend that you can somehow escape this through logic or even worse, experimental evidence.

S'task said:

This is a point so many people so many people cannot seem to fathom in regards to Hamas. They are not acting based on economic or materialistic motives. There isn't a compromise position that Israel can agree to that will satisfy Hamas, yet for some reason so many in the western academics and elites seem to think there is...

Click to expand...

Sorry I've quoted you twice here, but I had something else to add: One thing people who recognize that they are a deathcult don't seem to realize is that being in a deathcult does not mean they are dumb. They will very rationally do very smart things, just using a completely awful calculation that rates things like dead babies as a positive.

Hamas' brutal murder of civilians and babies? Entirely rational once you realize what they want. They want Israel to invade, and butcher Gazans (including themselves) in response, so a huge number of Martyrs are created, and Israel looks as bad as possible.

King Arts said:

Do you think @SoliFortissimi is a leftist? Again he seemed to have argued for standard capitalist policies including bringing in migrants to lower wages because it would be good for bussiness. That's not a leftist/socialist position thats closer to libertarian. I tagged him because I don't know well enough if he is libertarian or not so if he wants to clarify or say I'm wrong he can do that.

Click to expand...

There is a simple test to tell capitalists from leftists.
What should the migrant workers do if, for whatever reason, they stop working, or don't begin in the first place?
a)Go home.
b)Go on welfare.
That's regarding the leftist migration argument. If they answer b, they clearly mean the migrants to settle, with all the long term implications of it, rather than being mere guest workers, so we're going beyond mere business arguments and anyone trying to deny that is pulling a fast one.
But regarding the shitlib argument for migration, good for *whose* business? The sellers of labor don't have to be retarded socialists who don't understand the most basic laws of supply and demand, so that's down to politics and balancing of various interests within the country.

Shipmaster Sane said:

Someone could be "behind it" but unintentionally, that's what you're suggesting?

Click to expand...

Sure.

Shipmaster Sane said:

That's bizarre,

Click to expand...

Not really if you think about it for more than two seconds. Cultures interact with each other in unpredictable ways all the time.

For a completely hypothetical example: drug smugglers and pushers may encourage the consumption of a drug that causes a potent high but with a side effect of decreased fertility over time. They may not know and not care about this side effect, all they care about is money, yet they may trigger a population decrease nonetheless. That's not genocide. Especially if the problem becomes widely known yet people don't care enough to stop consuming the drug, genocide can't be willingly self-inflicted.

Another potential example (which should feel closer to home), a country becomes so rich and prosperous, and so hedonistic as a result, that people just stop caring about having kids anymore, all they want is to indulge their base desires for their entire lives. The population will decline, but there's nobody in particular behind it (or rather, the people are doing this willingly and unknowingly to themselves), and it's not genocide.

Shipmaster Sane said:

but then how could there be a situation where #2 was true but #1 was not? How can an action be done on purpose with an "explicit goal" by no one?

Click to expand...

The opposite can't be true. But since 1 can be true without 2, it still had to be broken up into 2 parts. That's why 1 comes before 2 in my list and not the other way around.

King Arts said:

It depends on the moral standard we are using. Under traditional Judaism and Islam killing someone for their name is usually considered murder and wrong. Now you can kill someone for other reasons like blasphemy or idol worship under those religions which I may or may not fall under. But I was responding to someone who I thought was an atheist. So under atheism no there is nothing wrong with gay sex, there is nothing wrong with criminalizing gay sex, there is nothing wrong with killing King Arts because he is King Arts, there is nothing wrong with grooming. Nihlism is the logical end point. You run into the Is Ought fallacy.

Click to expand...

Have you ever actually met an Atheist who believed that killing a person just for being that person is fine? And I mean, not in your head but in real life? Because at the moment you're debating against fantasies that you've created in your head (or a strawman, as they call it).

Spoiler: Atheists (generally speaking of course, can't account for the occasional psycho) don't believe that in the slightest.

GoldRanger said:

Have you ever actually met an Atheist who believed that killing a person just for being that person is fine?

Click to expand...

Yes.
I met countless atheists who promoted killing people for being born white, being Christian, being capitalist, being bourgeoise, eating meat, driving a car, being conservative, and more.

You do know communism exists? critical race theory exists? green terrorists exist? militant anti-theists exist?
Did you not see all those people posting what they want to do to MAGA children?

Your idea that atheists cannot be racist is just bizzare and idiotic.

I also personally know a bunch of atheists israelies who believe we should genocide all the palestinians so that "we will finally know peace".

mrttao said:

Yes.
I met countless atheists who promoted killing people for being born white, being Christian, being capitalist, being bourgeoise, eating meat, driving a car, being conservative, and more.

Click to expand...

And that's different from religious people how exactly? There were whole wars over similar things, and in some places still are, without atheist involvement.

Marduk said:

And that's different from religious people how exactly?

Click to expand...

It isn't.
Where did I say it is different?

He is the one making the claim that atheists and atheists ALONE are exempt from human nature.
He claims that there is no such thing as a genocidal atheist.
He claims that any racist person who wants to genocide everyone not of their group is religious and his desire for genocide stems entirely from religion.

I called him out over his stupidity and you are twisting it into me saying "only atheists can be genocidal, no religious person ever was genocidal" which is just equally as fucking stupid.

A person can be genocidal whether they are religious or atheist.

Marduk said:

Everyone: We don't want refugees from Gaza, do you think we are retarded and don't know what they are like or what?
Scotland:

Scotland offers to become 1st UK country to accept Gazan refugees, faces online backlash amid Israel-Hamas war

Scotland's First Minister Humza Yousaf advocated for a United Kingdom refugees resettlement program to bring in Gazans amid Israel-Hamas war.

news.yahoo.com

Click to expand...

WHAT ???????????
WHAT BECOME WITH COUNTRY OF OLD HEROES,LIKE ROB ROY?


I Excepted anybody but Scotland doing something like that.They need Stuart Restoration.

GoldRanger said:

It could be an unintentional effect of some agent (individual, group, culture etc) on another.

Click to expand...

Sight.Klaus Schwalb and friends did it by accident? TRULY ?

Shipmaster Sane said:

Someone could be "behind it" but unintentionally, that's what you're suggesting? That's bizarre, but then how could there be a situation where #2 was true but #1 was not? How can an action be done on purpose with an "explicit goal" by no one?

Click to expand...

Indeed.It is not possible.

mrttao said:

Yes.
I met countless atheists who promoted killing people for being born white, being Christian, being capitalist, being bourgeoise, eating meat, driving a car, being conservative, and more.

Click to expand...

And yet you're the one saying straight-up murder is perfectly moral, and I, the atheist, and the one calling it straight-up murder.

Captain X said:

And yet you're the one saying straight-up murder is perfectly moral, and I, the atheist, and the one calling it straight-up murder.

Click to expand...

pedantic point: Murder is defined as unlawful killing. An act being promoted, ignored, or prohibited by local legal structures is entirely unrelated to whether or not that act meets any given moral standard.

IE: Whether or not killing someone is moral or immoral is unrelated to whether it is legal or illegal, however much local judicial organizations may attempt to conflate the two criteria.

It comes from a pro-Turkish government site aka Erdoganist so this has to be taken with fistful of salt. If it has any validity , it would be surprising because Turkey is kind of the (or maybe was) the best ally of Israel in the region, demonstrated how they helped Azerbaijan against Armenia (but there were other reasons as well) and how despite their nation was born because of a genocide committed against the Jewish people, Israel never recognized the genocide (note : though I do remember OTHER organizations doing so in Israel, but not any government itself).

TheRejectionist said:

It comes from a pro-Turkish government site aka Erdoganist so this has to be taken with fistful of salt. If it has any validity , it would be surprising because Turkey is kind of the (or maybe was) the best ally of Israel in the region, demonstrated how they helped Azerbaijan against Armenia (but there were other reasons as well) and how despite their nation was born because of a genocide committed against the Jewish people, Israel never recognized the genocide (note : though I do remember OTHER organizations doing so in Israel, but not any government itself).

Click to expand...

Is it still 2003 in your calendar?
Lemme explain. The Kemalist side of Turkey was Israel's ally and still probably would be.
Erdogan's company, on the other hand, never liked Israel and always sympathized with the "Palestinian cause".
Hence this not so old mess:

Cherico said:

Depends on weather its a sin between man and god and men and men.

Some think that conversion gives you a clean slate, some state that good works are a way to deal with it, most agree that Yom Kippur lets you atone just like any other jew.

When it comes of sins between men things get messier, like migraine inducingly so. Some say that like I said clean slate others that you have to make things right with the people you sinned against once again its a mess because Rabbis have been bickering about the subject for centuries and as a Layman I'm not really qualified to say which is which.

Click to expand...

This is very interesting so would sodomy be a sin between men and men or man and God? I can see arguments for both sides on one hand against God because it's a "victimless crime" assuming you aren't raping the other guy. But on the other hand it could also be one between men because it deals with two people and if you are seducing someone into sin you are hurting them and will make them suffer because of your actions.

Abhorsen said:

You've combined/hidden assumptions. You need that 1) A god exists, 2) that it is your God, and 3) that the God has moral authority. You make an argument that God's opinion is what matters, but what if I say it doesn't? How do you prove it? It's obvious, but sorta unproveable. Hence it's an assumption.

Click to expand...

I don't think you are getting it. I'm not making an argument for my God specefically, but any God. I'll try to go step by step. Look you believe that the laws of physics are real yes? Things fall down, things with a large enough mass draw in smaller things? If you accept that a God exists(the specefic theology does not matter just has to be omnipotent all knowing all powerfull God who made our world) then you'd have to agree that that God created the laws of the universe he can add, delete, or modify. So he could change gravity, or make a new physical law. Or a nonphysical law like morality..

So let's compare the universe to a computer program, God is the programmer and the various laws of the material world we perceive he can manipulate at will he programmed in gravity, the speed of light, etc. So this being could also write into the universe absolute objective morality where it is right to do something or wrong to do something.

Note: We don't need to go over what actions are good or bad just that there is good and bad if God writes it into the universe.

So to your last thing I only need 1 A god exists. 2 That it's mine would be nice but not neccesary, again if Islam is true then Allah and his prophets would be morally good. Our debate is not that deep. As for 3 God has moral authority for the same reason he has physical authority. The bolded section above explains God has sysadmin access and thus he can create and manipulate the physical and moral laws of the universe. As long as he is truly omnipotent of course.

Abhorsen said:

... That's the thing. Instead of assuming that God exists, I assume the NAP is just. You assume God exists, and that provides meaning, morality, etc. I assume the NAP is a moral truth and follow it. I guess there's a hidden assumption there that one should want to be moral, so that's 2 assumptions.


But in short, all morality lays on human assumptions. The NAP is my assumption. You've made different assumptions. The request was for an objective morality, I provided one.

Click to expand...

I said above that God solves the Is Ought dillema. Like above if God exists he can make moral laws as "real" as physical laws for example without God "It is true that apples will fall if you drop it." "We ought to not steal from others" With God "It is true that apples will fall if you drop it." "It is wrong to steal from others"

Without God you have to directly assume a moral truth, with God you just have to assume a God exists. But moral truths are not assumed.

Marduk said:

There is a simple test to tell capitalists from leftists.
What should the migrant workers do if, for whatever reason, they stop working, or don't begin in the first place?
a)Go home.
b)Go on welfare.
That's regarding the leftist migration argument. If they answer b, they clearly mean the migrants to settle, with all the long term implications of it, rather than being mere guest workers, so we're going beyond mere business arguments and anyone trying to deny that is pulling a fast one.
But regarding the shitlib argument for migration, good for *whose* business? The sellers of labor don't have to be retarded socialists who don't understand the most basic laws of supply and demand, so that's down to politics and balancing of various interests within the country.

Click to expand...

What if they are true libertarians and pick C no one gets wellfare and they have to find another job or starve?

GoldRanger said:

Have you ever actually met an Atheist who believed that killing a person just for being that person is fine? And I mean, not in your head but in real life? Because at the moment you're debating against fantasies that you've created in your head (or a strawman, as they call it).

Spoiler: Atheists (generally speaking of course, can't account for the occasional psycho) don't believe that in the slightest.

Click to expand...

That's because atheists don't take their beliefs to the logical conclusion. Atheism if taken to it's logical conclusion would lead to nihilism. I believe that if your code can't be taken to it's logical endpoint it is a false ideology. If you take it to the logical endpoint and the situation sucks you should look for another code or philosophy. Few people though do take their beliefs to their logical endpoints That's why even if I heavily disagree with Islamists and Libertarians I still heavily respect them because they take their beliefs seriously and don't half ass it they go all the way.

King Arts said:

What if they are true libertarians and pick C no one gets wellfare and they have to find another job or starve?

Click to expand...

Then they are ancaps, not libertarians, random starving foreigners on the streets are not good for business (ask Paris, San Francisco or others if in doubt, they did that experiment for us) and so have to be dealt with one way or another.

King Arts said:

That's because atheists don't take their beliefs to the logical conclusion. Atheism if taken to it's logical conclusion would lead to nihilism. I believe that if your code can't be taken to it's logical endpoint it is a false ideology. If you take it to the logical endpoint and the situation sucks you should look for another code or philosophy. Few people though do take their beliefs to their logical endpoints That's why even if I heavily disagree with Islamists and Libertarians I still heavily respect them because they take their beliefs seriously and don't half ass it they go all the way.

Click to expand...

Newsflash, not a single group in the world takes their ideology to "its logical conclusion". Not Muslims, whether moderate or Hamas/ISIS/Taliban. Not Jews. Not Communists or extreme leftists. Sure as fuck not Christians. Since we live in the real world and not in some abstraction inside the tiny head of one King Arts, I fail to see the relevance of this whole "logical conclusion" digression.