Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Posts

    7059
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

Eiuol last won the day on December 22 2023

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
    NJ
  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewJersey
  • Country
    United States
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

28824 profile views

Eiuol's Achievements

Senior Partner

Senior Partner (7/7)

586

Reputation

  1. I find that many people think anything short of absolute war (ie flatten and delete the entire area) is self sacrificial, or is giving into terrorists. But that is a very shortsighted way of thinking, ignoring that this can in fact create more violence, or fail to secure individual rights. The US has improved in this regard since Vietnam, so even though I said killing no innocents is possible, my idea was that military actions can be more efficient over time. I get what you are saying about indiscriminate killing, but it usually refers to a policy of killing without an attempt to distinguish who you kill. Anyway, the more important point is that Israel can and should do better. It's better overall to destroy less things, people included, it creates opportunity for growth and trade. Distinguishing who you kill is a good thing in war. If you just want to nitpick that overall it is the government and not merely the military, fine. In that case, the Israeli government is completely incompetent, military included. I should have said those making military decisions are incompetent.
  2. I'm assuming you're saying this because you know something more than me. Rather than a cryptic message that simply implies facts that are out there, just tell me the facts that you are thinking of. Obviously not being an expert doesn't mean I know nothing. But by comparison to other countries, how is it that, by your own number, Israel has not been able to shape up in 50 years? Then the Israeli military is incompetent because generals and commanders are not able to make any decision without first asking for permission. (Or worse yet, people within the government without military expertise are telling military commanders to flatten Gaza when perhaps the intelligent military decision is something far more nuanced and calculated). I don't really think this is the case but going by your reasoning, this is what I would conclude.
  3. 6 million is perfect. Not just an ideal solution, but a final solution.
  4. The point is indiscriminate killing as a policy, I think that's what he's getting at. Not a failure of discrimination, but no attempt at it. This follows from the premise of "all actions in self-defense are justified, any bad consequence is purely in the hands of the initiator" makes it so that making any discrimination is going to get in the way of self-defense. Therefore, the best action is always to flatten and delete entire regions, without regard for innocent civilians or collateral damage. The fact is, that there is some rational limit is not really a barrier to self-defense. It's actually possible to negotiate with terrorists, not in the sense of giving them what they want, but taking advantage of their short-term goals so that your long-term goals win out in the end. With modern technology, we can be so discriminant that innocent deaths are almost always catastrophic failures, and sometimes engaging in war is not even necessary. Imagine destroying Hamas without killing any civilians. It is possible. This is a more effective way to dismantle modern terrorism.
  5. Israel has been in a constant state of war with gaps of maybe only a few years. I can't think of examples of countries that are unable to defeat their enemies for such a long period of time. What more do you want me to say? You could try to blame Islamic fundamentalism as the only reason, but so many countries have even stopped that within their own borders (like in the Balkans) or stopped any further escalation of direct attacks (the US after 9/11). It's still an issue, but it's not a constant threat.
  6. Reasoning in general. Being systematic, as in essentially and on purpose, rather than incidentally and ad hoc. I don't see how you can have an intent without an essential and purposeful goal. Of course not, that's not why I'm bringing up incompetency. I'm mentioning it because Alex seems to be insisting that Israel not only did nothing wrong, but that what they are doing is making meaningful progress toward safety or individual rights. The fact that Israel has practically always been in a state of war suggests that what it's doing is causing more conflict and making everything worse. If the idea is that Israel should be allowed to do literally anything to defend itself (even though you and I agree that there is a rational limit, Alex and others disagree), then what it does should actually work.
  7. This is my point about the first part, that special intent requires systematic effort. You can't have ad hoc special intent, and you could only establish it by pointing out systematic effort. At the absolute minimum, it's easy to show that Israel does not have a competent military.
  8. 1-4 is ad hoc without any particular organization besides a general attitude or culture of behavior. 5-10 are all by nature systematic things. If you want to get specific, your link talks about a cultural climate that genocide arises out of. My Lai massacre. This is as much a genocide as anything based on what you're saying. Killing anything that moves. And not just a few soldiers that did it. I mean, clearly we are distinguishing forms of barbarism, but I'm saying the word genocide has to be something direct and pervasive. To an extent all war is about 'us' versus 'them' since the vast majority of wars are unjustified. All unjustified wars are in some way racist. Of wars that are only partially justified, you will still find people who support the war for racist reasons. There seems to be a difference between starting a war with racist overtones, as opposed to merely exterminating. I mean, the founding charter of Hamas called for the extermination of Jews, not just the end of the Israeli state. If it was just the end of the Israeli state, that wouldn't be genocidal even though it would be still grounded in racism because of what Hamas thought about Jews. The extermination of Jews is genocidal, because that's not just seeking what they see as justice, or what they see as self-defense, but seeking out extermination in and of itself.
  9. And importantly, it mentions the systematic nature of it, not in an ad hoc disorganized way. I'm thinking of Vietnam, where US soldiers did horrific things, but not perpetrated in a way that was systematic by the US military or cohesive across the US military. As bad as this was, and being probably racially motivated, it wasn't genocide. I don't think what you say is as clear as you make it out to be, other than being the horrific nature of war in general when bad actors do bad things. How did the chain of command run here? Were the soldiers bad actors, ignoring orders or normal procedure? Could it be brought about by a culture of violence within the military that commanders fail to deal with, rather than overt orders to kill everybody on sight? That's what I mean by incompetence. Poor leadership and poor guidance on their own also lead to atrocities, like what happened in Vietnam. I will watch the video. But the statement here doesn't indicate anything other than unwillingness to deal with internal threats to liberty.
  10. 4-8 are missing. Even if you went all the way to 6, there is still not enough for it to be a genocide. Of course genocides don't happen instantly, there is a process, but you still have to establish that the intent is all the way to 9. Good thing you aren't then. Since I think it's hyperbole to say it's a genocide, my explanation is incompetency primarily. You were condemning an entire government based on a minority group within that government. 13% is a sickening number for that kind of group, but to consider that explicit moral endorsement by the political decision-makers is entirely different. I'll take a look at your video, but from the sounds of what you told us, it just talks about one group, not the way that the Israeli government has incorporated the ideas of that group specifically.
  11. But by that standard, there needs to be evidence that they are going through with the rest of the steps. There is a good case for all the way up to and including 3, but the rest of the steps indicate a systematic plan of action. Genocide still sounds like hyperbole; an improperly waged war may have racist overtones depending on who is defending it, but that doesn't then make the war a genocide. Vietnam was not a genocide for example, as bad as it was. In this case, there is justification for the war even if not justification for the way the war has been waged, which is different than genocides where literally the only violation was existing. Now you might argue that Israel manufactured the kidnappings, a sort of social engineering project, but then we are getting into territory like "did the CIA kill Kennedy?" If there is an equivalent to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, then you have a case to make. Otherwise, I think you are reaching. Give me documents, testimony, something stating intent. But I have to say, Israel killing three of its own is a catastrophic error, it indicates that Israel lacks competency. Lack of competency is different than genocidal intent, though. Don't be like the people who say that since they found a few Nazis in the Ukrainian military, the Ukrainian military must be infested by Nazis.
  12. The more I think about it, the more evident it is that Israel has consistently failed at fighting it. Strictly on the pragmatic side, Israel sucks at fighting totalitarian Islam. Ideological failure if you ask me. I prefer Israel over Hamas, but I'd much rather something over both of them. An unequivocal defender of liberty, not someone just barely good enough.
  13. Presumably, Dogland would launch a nuclear missile at SK in self-defense, killing millions of innocent Catlandians as collateral damage. The blood is on SK'S hands! If Dogland should not send a nuke, why are you saying that Dogland shouldn't defend itself!?
  14. I think you completely misunderstood the point of the question, you have the reason all wrong.
  15. This is incorrect though, you shouldn't cease to respect their rights. You responded as if respecting their rights would mean you would have to forgo self-defense. I can see why you would think that SK meant some kind of self sacrificial action. So I posted to clarify. And then SK liked my post, suggesting that my added clarification was the correct interpretation. If you want to talk about what Rand thought, she has never spoken about anyone losing rights, not even people who have violated rights. A person may try to harm me in some way, but the fact that they want to harm does not itself mean they lose all rights whatsoever. You still can't initiate force against them. In the context of this discussion, Palestinians are not categorically without rights, and if any Palestinians want harm in some vague way doesn't give Israel free reign. Against Hamas, sure, since they explicitly call for the initiation of force for the sake of Islamic fundamentalism. It's a pretty good question actually. Since the claim is stated that any act of retaliation is justified, it makes sense to go to the extreme. Nuclear strike on one person, with millions of casualties of people who did nothing at all. That's absurd, so you would have to modify the original claim to be that there is some rational limit to what kind of collateral damage is justified. It's pretty common that the reaction to reductio ad absurdum is "that conclusion is ridiculous, you're taking me out of context, that's not what I meant, your question is invalid because of how ridiculous it is!"
×
×
  • Create New...