Scholar

It depends on the situation. I would reserve judgement. What is clearly unethical though is funding factory farms so that you feel a little more energy during the day. That's easy to say for you, not living in the middle east, surrounded by states and people who want to eradicate your race.

Sure, that is what will naturally happen. I think however the reality with HAMAS is not as simple. A lot of it is driven by outside actors, so while it is an outlet of palestinian valid frustration, I also believe it is a kind of dysfunctional outgrowth which is used by opportunists. But you have to admit that the way Israel is going about establishing a foothold is far more ethical than pretty much any other historical example you could think of. I would say what is happening in China alone, with the Uyghur people, is worse in pure ethical terms. The killings, from what I understand, are mostly a result of the violent conflict and power struggle, and of course the deaths will affect palestinians disproportionately, so I would view that as a seperate issue. But overall, I would say they are handling things farely well, considering how humans usually act.

I will cease this conversation with you because you are not able to engage with the substance of what I am saying.

This isn't what being rational means. They are not actually achieving their purpose, they in fact achieve the opposite. They will lose more land now, not less. They will get destroyed if Israel plays this right. By your logic, I as a vegan be rational and go on a killing spree because "That's the only means I have, I have no other choice but to kill you people because you don't want to go vegan!". This would be the case if everyone was hellbent on continuing to consume animal products. There is a point where the moral thing to do is to submit to the greater force of nature. If you do not do so, you will simply cause more harm and suffering. And in this situation, we are talking about forces of nature. Israel has no other choice in this situation. Sure, it is to some degree understandable, but it is still ignorant. And at some point, the greater natural force will have no choice but to extinguish any resistance. That is how human civilization has always, and still does, evolve.

You have more of a duty to advocate for the end of factory farms than you have for advocating for any type of human suffering that currently exists on this planet. Don't give me this nonsense about morality. You are completely and utterly self-serving, much more so than the Israeli's are. And of course you guys were justifying what HAMAS did, don't move the goal post. I said from the beginning, the palestinians have every right to defend themselves. What constitues rational defense is another question. This is like a lion and a gazelle. Of course the gazelle can kick the lion if it tries to eat it. But the lion is not wrong for trying to survive, even if it is unfair. This is what you are too biased to see.

Of course it does. I am not morally justified to go on a killing spree because people are not vegan, because it would not change anything and make the situation worse. Morality is directly linked to what is rational. Israel is justified in self-preservation. HAMAS reaction is expected to some degree, however much of it is fueled by outside nationstate actors. Point 3 is not true, this is delusional and biased.

Of course, every person on this planet is driven by something, including all rapists and murderers that ever lived. This doesn't change that HAMAS is acting contrary to any of their perceived goals, harming the Palestinians more, and therefore being irrational, while the Israeli's genuinely are acting in their interest, even if not perfectly. What you perceive as gross injustice is self-preservation for someone else. What is more injustice is that individuals have to be tortured and killed so you can feel a little better and have a little more energy during the day. And yet, you point to the Israeli's and claim they are committing atrocities. They are not as bad as you think, even if it is not fair for the palestinians. The palestinians are valid in the way they feel, there is simply no good solution in this situation, so the injustice will continue, as slavery had to continue for thousands of years for the sake of self-preservation. This is no different.

No, HAMAS is not justified because their actions are senseless and irrational. They don't achieve any goal, in fact, the opposite of their goal. I can't just go on a killing spree because nobody wants to go vegan, contemplate how insane that is. Israel has attempted to create peace, you are just too biased to recognize this. You don't appreciate true dilemmas.

Of course, you would murder endless beings for your own self-preservation, like I said, you are not a vegan and even if you were, you still torture and wipe out other living individuals for your own convinience. You are just too biased to see this. I am saying you are delusional in the way you apply your moral standards. You would act far worse if you were in the position of the israeli's, that's what you are not grasping, because you are so cushioned from the actual forces of evolution that you can afford to be in a position where you don't have to make significant moral choices that actually carry weight for you and others. The difference between the worst ethnonationalist Israelite and a Palestine civilian is smaller than between you and a vegan.

Colonization doesn't justify the type of terrorism HAMAS is engaging it. First and foremost, you have a moral duty to your own people rather than to bask in self-righteous acts of terror that will only bring more harm to your people. HAMAS isn't doing this so palestinians can prosper, that's not how they operate, they are ideologically driven and funded by states like Iran to be used as pawns. HAMAS is not the major threat to Israel, the neighbouring nationstates to israel are, and they are, in principle, willing to wipe out the jewish population if the opportunity presents itself. Palestinians don't get randomly slaughtered, there is obviously an active conflict going on. And yes, the Israeli are in power, so of course they will dominate the plaestinians. You are too biased to recognized this, but Israel is actually acting in farely high moral character considering the situation that is presented to them. I don't presume I would fare much better in the situation, and I know for certain that if you were in the situation, it would be hell on earth.

That's delusional, they are doing just fine using the means they have been for the past decades.

Like I said you are looking at this from a lense that makes no sense. Israel is under existential threat due to almost every actor in the middle east wanting to wipe the jews from the planet. Israel doesn't care about your petty moral views, they are trying not to get genocided again, and they will do what is necessary to achieve that. They have far better justifications for their unfair treatment of palestinians than you have for eating animal products. There is no strict morality that you can just apply across the board from your western lense.

You are misunderstanding my position. I think the palestinian perspective is valid, but I also believe the Israeli perspective is valid. What HAMAS did was not justified however, nor did it achieve anything but more suffering.

I don't identify myself as a zionist. What do you mean your comprehension levels? I just don't think you are trying to understand what I am saying in good faith. What I am saying is you have way too high standards for Israel, higher than you have for yourself. You are not looking at this objectively. The question wasn't if you side with Palestine, but whether HAMAS is justified in it's actions. You are missing the entire point why the Ethnostate exists and why Israel is acting the way it does. It isn't because people are being "immoral". Go read my other posts in this thread, my response to Roy. If you believe western imperialism and colonialism happened because people were immoral, you don't understand evolution, human nature, and human development.

You need to re-read what I wrote, I have no interest in a conversation with you if you lack basic comprehension of my points. Europe needs migrants because of their collapsing demographics: This is another issue where in reality there are no good solutions. Israel is in a situation where it is acting in self-preservation, facing actual genocide by other nationstates if they weaken, while the palestinians obviously suffer the consequences of that self-preservation drive, and having their own self-preservation drive, they will of course fight as well. Often times when we face true dilemmas, we tend to moralize. We don't believe that there are "unresolvable issues", we will sooner delude ourselves than face the truth in that way. We will think that one side is simply correct. If you are not a sociopath, it is exceptionally difficult to actually admit to the flow of nature. To realize that if the gazelle does not escape the lion, it will be eaten alive, and if it does escape the lion, the lion will starve. There is no good resolution here. This is what reality is, and this is what the palestine-israel conflict is. It is not nearly as simple as the ukraine-russia conflict. We also tend to enjoy moralizing about the past. We like to point at european colonialism, not realize that people back then were driven by survival to a degree we cannot really fathom today. The reality is, if you did not enslave other people 2000 years ago, you would be weaker than a society that will enslave people. This means, if you did not want to be enslaved, you will have become the slave. Slavery was a necessity of human evolution. And so was colonialism. It just takes one actor, out of all nation actors of the world, to engage in colonialism, for everyone to be required to engage in it lest they will become colonized. Life is a competition in that way. Most often, you are not given the choice whether or not to engage in moral atrocities. People here in the west, like people on this forum, criticize the Israeli state, which is acting as a direct result of real self-preservation forces, while they themselves commit moral atrocities they are completely ignorant of, and are even unwilling to admit are atroctiries. Not because of pressures of self-preservation, but simply because of laziness.

Also, of course Israel is ethnonationalist. If everyone around you wants to kill you for your ethnicity and wants to destroy your country, the natural human response is ethnonationalism. This is the evolutionary function of ethnonationalism. In fact, I would go so far s to say, ethnonationalism is the healthy collective response to the situation israel is in. Of course, there is a degree of ethnonationalism which is helpful, and then there is ethnonationalism which will lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering. That is the danger of each developmental stage, however.

From what I have picked up, Natanyahu was criticizes for a lack of response and a kind of degradation of the IDF? From what I understand this might have been one of the reasons for this strike, the perceived weakening of the IDF.

It's backwards thinking because it is way too moralistic. What HAMAS did will not help palestinians at all, it will just lead to more death and misery. You can argue that what Israel does and did in the past was unjustified, but that doesn't justify blind terrorism. From the perspective of Israel none of this is as simple as it seems. 80 years ago a holocaust was committed, which of course motivated them to seek their own national identity, and of course they were willing to forgoe moral idealism to achieve that goal. They are still existentially threatened by nation-state actors around them, and so naturally will seek to secure more power within their own region. If the european settlers were being hunted by the europeans, and found a foothold in the america's, where everyone around them wants to murder them, I would have much more sympathy for the americans if they decided to occupy a strip of the US the way the israeli's do. Stop thinking about this in terms of morality, and look at it from the perspective of self-preservation. You have it easy because you don't have to make such choices. If you are going to talk about moral ideals the way you do, you could justify occupying the whole of arabia because of their systematic rape and murder of women. This is a game that has no end. In fact, by your logic, any vegan is justified to go on a killing spree to kill meat eaters, or go and kill slaughterhouse workers. Because, if you believe you are morally superior to the israeli's as a non-vegan, you are kidding yourself. It's completely self-serving. In fact, even if you are vegan, your consumption of luxury goods requires the deprivation of land, the murder of individuals, and all to serve a completely trivial function, your own satisfaction, that you could gain by other means. I can understand the palestinians, I can even understand HAMAS, even if they are utterly delusional and far less developed than even the Israeli right wing is. What I am disappointed in however, is that people in here have such a flat, black and white view of this. The world is not as simple as you would like it to be.

This is backwards thinking. None of this will help anyone, especially not palestinians. HAMAS didn't do this to help palestine-israeli relationships, they did this because they are ideologically motivated to eradicate all jewish people from israel and probably being used as pawns by larger actors like Iran. There are actors who are unlikely to allow actual peace to happen. There is a reason HAMAS is being funded by foreign nations. Realistically, these types of prospects are pipe dreams.

There is reportedly footage of dead naked female soldiers being paraded around by HAMAS and palestinian civilians.

Interestingly, some say the coordination required for this attack could have not been performed by HAMAS alone, and that this could indicate involvement from Iran, who are not happy about recent Arab–Israeli normalization deals. The aim would be to basically provoke and force a response from Israel that will set the progress back and leave Israel more vulnerable in the long term.

You can dislike something about someone without disliking them as a whole. I agree with Kastrup on the irrationality of materialism, and I like some of the ways he frames idealism. I don't think he quit because of some greater realization. He just got offended and his ego got in the way. The fact that I can exist and engage outside of that framework. You will not witness that because when I engage with hyperrationalists I must speak their language.

I'm not so much emphasizing my superior cognition as a lack of cognition in you hyperrationalists. If you didn't love condescension you wouldn't be a moderator on this forum.

I don't think it is necessarily ineptitude, although communication on a forum is harder than it is in face to face interactions, simply because you lack most social indicators. This is why online interactions tend to make people more autistic-brained, including me. Notice that this type of conversation would have never happened in voice communication. IRL, I would have just dismissed your cheeky provocation and moved on, and in the forum I feel like I can expand on my thoughts more, even though I know none of this will reach you at all. Forest is an interesting case because he has a very impersonal communication style, but I do get the sense that behind that is a sensitive soul. So you could say I was inept in the sense that I was not aware enough of this when I made the honest comment about how I perceive him. But notice that I did apologize to him and clarified that it was not a personal attack, without any direct prompt. The immature thing would have been to crybaby like Kastrup.

I don't have the sense that Forestluv doesn't like me, we have a long history of going back and forth in the way we did in our past interaction. In fact I am surprised that he did like me enough to give me advice, as our interactions always tend to end in that way. I am aware of how I come across and you are correct that it could be emotionally cutting. I usually adjust my communication style to the person I am communicating with, especially logic brained people like you I tend to handle this way. Riling you up is part of my communication strategy.