Gaza: Comparing Egypt's blockade to Israel's?

[Alceste]

Well, I really try to be impartial with what I contribute. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as informed as I would like to be on this part of the world and their problems. I get a lot of value from these discussions, as it's more interesting than reading wiki page after wiki page trying to learn.

I know it seemed for a while that I was teaming up with Alceste, but I try to avoid giving that impression. I agreed with a lot of what she has said and I truly don't believe her to be anti-semetic. It's just been a very emotional discussion, and sometimes things can be taken out of context. But on the flip side, I've gotten just as much value from you and jayhawker and sincerely appreciate the dialog. You all are quite intelligent. But enough of the schmoozing.

Very entertaining discussion so far, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

Me too, actually. Lately it's got me thinking more about solutions than problems. Daydreaming about some future society that intentionally and stubbornly moves towards peace at any price instead of perpetual warfare to gain land and lucre* for their own tribe is actually kind of relaxing.

(*And before anyone jumps to conclusions about that admittedly triggering choice of words, I am also referring to China, the US, the UK, Russia, Islamist revolutionaries and every other tribe who currently does this, not ONLY Israel).

I'm more of the Ghandi, Mandela, Dalai Lama type when it comes to waging a war. IMO, it works way better, and the cost is much more bearable. Ghandi in particular believed it would achieve his aspirations more effectively to let his own "soldiers" be killed than to encourage them to engage in violence. And he turned out to be correct.

 

[icehorse]

Alceste, FWIW, I don't see you as anti-semetic. And I share your vision of moving towards peace.

I think I might agree with almost all of your thoughts on Israel-Hamas if I thought your implied context was something like:

"Given that Hamas is a terrorist organization that demonstrates a barbaric set of values, and acknowledging the incredibly difficult situation Israel has been forced to navigate, and that we need for Israel to rise to a standard that no country has ever been asked to rise to..."

Then we could go on to say things like: "we need to find a better way than blowing up children". And I'd be with you, lock step. Now I'm still searching for what "progressive" means, but there is a mindset often associated with "progressives" that I find problematic. I'll summarize the mindset as "Western bashing". I don't hold "the West" blameless - by any means. But I also think it's dangerous and counter-productive to sweep other problems into the "blame the West" bucket.

For example, saying that "ISIS is successful because of Western interventions", is dangerously inaccurate. I might say, "one factor in ISIS's success is their ability to make use of the West's recent, reprehensibly handled, interventions". I might agree that western interventions have contributed 15% to ISIS's successes. Interventions have made it easier, but interventions were no where near sufficient to fuel this catastrophe.

 

[Alceste]

Alceste, FWIW, I don't see you as anti-semetic. And I share your vision of moving towards peace.

I think I might agree with almost all of your thoughts on Israel-Hamas if I thought your implied context was something like:

"Given that Hamas is a terrorist organization that demonstrates a barbaric set of values, and acknowledging the incredibly difficult situation Israel has been forced to navigate, and that we need for Israel to rise to a standard that no country has ever been asked to rise to..."

Then we could go on to say things like: "we need to find a better way than blowing up children". And I'd be with you, lock step. Now I'm still searching for what "progressive" means, but there is a mindset often associated with "progressives" that I find problematic. I'll summarize the mindset as "Western bashing". I don't hold "the West" blameless - by any means. But I also think it's dangerous and counter-productive to sweep other problems into the "blame the West" bucket.

For example, saying that "ISIS is successful because of Western interventions", is dangerously inaccurate. I might say, "one factor in ISIS's success is their ability to make use of the West's recent, reprehensibly handled, interventions". I might agree that western interventions have contributed 15% to ISIS's successes. Interventions have made it easier, but interventions were no where near sufficient to fuel this catastrophe.

That's a fair criticism. In trying to be succinct in this format, I often assume the obvious doesn't need to be restated, for example that Hamas totally sucks and Israel is in a difficult position. But in the interest of real communication, I can try to include more of those allowances in the future.

If I were to offer you some constructive criticism in return, I would say that you sometimes interpret saying nothing as expressing support, and then respond to a post as if what you have imagined to be there had actually been said. I would suggest that you start with the assumption that whoever you are speaking to already understands that Hamas sucks and that Israel is in a difficult position. The reason I end up criticizing Israel so often is only that so many here are defending it, and this is a debate. I don't start these threads, I only join them.

 

[CMike]

That's a fair criticism. In trying to be succinct in this format, I often assume the obvious doesn't need to be restated, for example that Hamas totally sucks and Israel is in a difficult position. But in the interest of real communication, I can try to include more of those allowances in the future.

If I were to offer you some constructive criticism in return, I would say that you sometimes interpret saying nothing as expressing support, and then respond to a post as if what you have imagined to be there had actually been said. I would suggest that you start with the assumption that whoever you are speaking to already understands that Hamas sucks and that Israel is in a difficult position. The reason I end up criticizing Israel so often is only that so many here are defending it, and this is a debate. I don't start these threads, I only join them.

Funny, I see a lot of people criticizing Israel.

The problem too is that you refuse to even look at the evidence that contradicts your pre conceived opinions.

 

[icehorse]

Alceste,

Also a fair point. What got my dander up in the first place wasn't this forum, it was "Israel Apartheid Week" rallies being held on university campuses. As I read about those rallies I never heard the context you and I just agreed to.

That lack of context along with "western bashing" / moral relativism strikes me as exceedingly dangerous.

 

[Alceste]

Alceste,

Also a fair point. What got my dander up in the first place wasn't this forum, it was "Israel Apartheid Week" rallies being held on university campuses. As I read about those rallies I never heard the context you and I just agreed to.

That lack of context along with "western bashing" / moral relativism strikes me as exceedingly dangerous.

Well, it is a fact of life that conservatively inclined people are more likely to perceive things as dangerous than liberally inclined people.

Are Needs to Manage Uncertainty and Threat Associated With Political Conservatism or Ideological Extremity?

Who is perceiving the world as it really is? Nobody.

 

[icehorse]

I'd still like to know what "progressive" means. I can make some guesses...

But like all labels, it only partially fits. My guess is that if there was a "progressive" checklist, I'd probably agree with 80% of it. If there was a "conservative" checklist I'd probably agree with 30% of it.

As an example of the dangers of relativism, it's absurd (and dangerous), to take the stance that we can't say that the Dalai Lama's morals are "better" than Ted Bundy's.

 

[Alceste]

I'd still like to know what "progressive" means. I can make some guesses...

But like all labels, it only partially fits. My guess is that if there was a "progressive" checklist, I'd probably agree with 80% of it. If there was a "conservative" checklist I'd probably agree with 30% of it.

As an example of the dangers of relativism, it's absurd (and dangerous), to take the stance that we can't say that the Dalai Lama's morals are "better" than Ted Bundy's.

"Progressive" refers to people who desire to see "progress" towards a more compassionate, egalitarian, fair, peaceful, conscientious and contented society, and want to see proven strategies toward those aims adopted by our own governments.

"Moral relativism" is a phrase that does not make sense to me, personally, as I am not one who believes that abstract, philosophical propositions (like morals) can ever be objectively true. Morals and ethics are ideas, not facts. They can only be well-reasoned and well-evidenced, and can only be persuasively communicated using compelling evidence and sound reasoning.

So, to determine whether than the Dalai Lama's ethics are preferable to Osama bin Laden's, I must consider what kind of world I would like to live in, investigate the evidence regarding the social impact of the practice of each leader's personal philosophy, and make a sound rational argument for how the latter will ever lead to the former.

Note that by this calculation the Dalai Lama's personal philosophy is still VASTLY superior to Osama bin Laden's, but this assessment is only relevant to me, because we are talking about the world I want to live in.

Others want to live in a different kind of a world, so their own calculations yield very different results. To acknowledge that theirs are as important to them as mine are to me is simple humility. There is no objective right or wrong, only an objective effective and ineffective, where one's ethics hinges on their aims. The only "faith" I have and practice is that all of humanity desires to live in peace, and be free to live in accordance with our own conscience in a community to which we feel we belong.

It is unfortunate that the vast majority of us are incredibly crap and reasoning out an effective strategy to get us from here to there.

 

[icehorse]

Note that by this calculation the Dalai Lama's personal philosophy is still VASTLY superior to Osama bin Laden's, but this assessment is only relevant to me, because we are talking about the world I want to live in.

Others want to live in a different kind of a world, so their own calculations yield very different results. To acknowledge that theirs are as important to them as mine are to me is simple humility. There is no objective right or wrong, only an objective effective and ineffective, where one's ethics hinges on their aims. The only "faith" I have and practice is that all of humanity desires to live in peace, and be free to live in accordance with our own conscience in a community to which we feel we belong.

From a philosopher's perspective I can agree that there is no "objective" right or wrong. But from a practical, save the world, perspective I think we must stop pretending that a philosophy like secular humanism isn't "better" than most anything else humans have cooked up.

We can and should say that ideas like Maslov's Hierarchy (MH), and Gross National Happiness (GNH), are valid ways to assess right and wrong / better and worse, and that some sets of ideas are better at achieving MH and GHN than others.

 

[Alceste]

From a philosopher's perspective I can agree that there is no "objective" right or wrong. But from a practical, save the world, perspective I think we must stop pretending that a philosophy like secular humanism isn't "better" than most anything else humans have cooked up.

We can and should say that ideas like Maslov's Hierarchy (MH), and Gross National Happiness (GNH), are valid ways to assess right and wrong / better and worse, and that some sets of ideas are better at achieving MH and GHN than others.

I definitely agree with the second paragraph. As to the first, the adjective "better" is wholly contingent upon our aims, and is better described (IMO) as "effective" or "ineffective" in the context of achieving those aims.

It's a fact that a certain proportion of Christians and Islamists, for example, aim for a world in which EVERYBODY is a Christian, or an Islamist. It's a fundamental pillar of faith for extremists in both religions. Of course both of these aims are utterly absurd, but the pertinent question for both camps is: what moral practice would be most effective in winning over the hearts and minds of others who do not already agree?

Once we ask this question, we can easily understand that violence is ineffective, and therefore immoral, even if those wildly disparate aims remain unchanged.

What humans respond to - what shifts their philosophical paradigms in an enduring way - is example, not force. If your desire is peace, you must live as an unabashed ambassador of peace, and in so doing inspire others to follow in your footsteps.

That's my theory anyway. I know I've substantially altered the paradigm of one person, and one person is enough to keep me going.

 

[icehorse]

I definitely agree with the second paragraph. As to the first, the adjective "better" is wholly contingent upon our aims, and is better described (IMO) as "effective" or "ineffective" in the context of achieving those aims.

I'm happy with either term "better" or "effective". The key point is to agree that their are "better" and "worse" sets of aims to strive for. I think we should be honest enough to say that secularism is "better" for society than religious fundamentalism.

(And of course, that's a claim that some might disagree with )

 

[Alceste]

I'm happy with either term "better" or "effective". The key point is to agree that their are "better" and "worse" sets of aims to strive for. I think we should be honest enough to say that secularism is "better" for society than religious fundamentalism.

(And of course, that's a claim that some might disagree with )

Meh. It's "better" for me and everyone I know and associate with. I can think of no metric that could objectively determine once and for all than the death or conversion of everyone who is not a Christian or a Muslim is objectively "worse" than any other outcome, as far as the evolution of humanity is concerned.

OTOH, I do tend to think in terms of geologic time, by which measure nothing we do is of any real consequence except perhaps our reckless reproduction and collective consumption of resources.

 

[icehorse]

If you choose to live by theoretical, philosophical, perfect "objectivity" you're on sound footing. But the definition of "progressive" that you mentioned recently (a good, positive definition BTW), talks instead to a more practical, humane, common-sense sort of orientation.

I don't see how you can mix a humane orientation with a demand for perfect objectivity. Doesn't such a stance negate all of your concerns over bombing babies?

 

[Alceste]

If you choose to live by theoretical, philosophical, perfect "objectivity" you're on sound footing. But the definition of "progressive" that you mentioned recently (a good, positive definition BTW), talks instead to a more practical, humane, common-sense sort of orientation.

I don't see how you can mix a humane orientation with a demand for perfect objectivity. Doesn't such a stance negate all of your concerns over bombing babies?

Not exactly. In Gwynne Dyer's book (War), his humanism is apparent throughout, and his conclusion is that our present technological capacity for destruction renders the entire concept of warfare obsolete. In short, given that the aim of war is always to gain or defend territory and resources, the fact that our technology now obliterates and poisons the territory and resources we might hope to acquire, as well as inflicting a level of civilian casualty that the average mind can not countenance, war is no longer an effective method of achieving anybody's geopolitical aims. Diplomacy and negotiation is the ONLY viable future for us.

The aversion to killing children is a personal matter. I value all human (and non-human) life and feel it should never be pointlessly squandered, but I particularly value the lives of children because they are innocent. They are tabula rasa. They are our only hope for a more enlightened future. Children from oppressed and abused demographics are particularly valuable to me because I believe they see (or will begin to see) the world with more clarity and vision than we do.

 

[metis]

Well, I really try to be impartial with what I contribute. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as informed as I would like to be on this part of the world and their problems. I get a lot of value from these discussions, as it's more interesting than reading wiki page after wiki page trying to learn.

I know it seemed for a while that I was teaming up with Alceste, but I try to avoid giving that impression. I agreed with a lot of what she has said and I truly don't believe her to be anti-semetic. It's just been a very emotional discussion, and sometimes things can be taken out of context. But on the flip side, I've gotten just as much value from you and jayhawker and sincerely appreciate the dialog. You all are quite intelligent. But enough of the schmoozing.

Very entertaining discussion so far, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

Thank you for this, take care, and have a great weekend.

 

[metis]

The aversion to killing children is a personal matter. I value all human (and non-human) life and feel it should never be pointlessly squandered, but I particularly value the lives of children because they are innocent. They are tabula rasa. They are our only hope for a more enlightened future. Children from oppressed and abused demographics are particularly valuable to me because I believe they see (or will begin to see) the world with more clarity and vision than we do.

I fully agree with you, and the difficult question is how can this be best accomplished under the circumstances. Much like yourself, my basic impulse is with Gandhi, Mandela, King, Chavez, etc., as I have long considered them to be my mentors. However, where I have long struggled is with the path of non-violence, largely because we've seen throughout history, including modern history, whereas peoples without power or posing any threat became victims of genocide. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot didn't hesitate to kill millions of innocent people, including children.

Therefore, for me, even though I like to work in the direction of non-violence, nevertheless I also recognize that this approach can put millions of people at a greater risk than offering resistance. With just the use of non-violence, we might well have greeted each other this morning with "Heil Hitler!", and I'm not exaggerating.

Anyhow, sorry to get so hot under the collar, and I make no excuse for my rudeness. Have a great weekend.

shalom

 

[CMike]

Not exactly. In Gwynne Dyer's book (War), his humanism is apparent throughout, and his conclusion is that our present technological capacity for destruction renders the entire concept of warfare obsolete. In short, given that the aim of war is always to gain or defend territory and resources, the fact that our technology now obliterates and poisons the territory and resources we might hope to acquire, as well as inflicting a level of civilian casualty that the average mind can not countenance, war is no longer an effective method of achieving anybody's geopolitical aims. Diplomacy and negotiation is the ONLY viable future for us.

The aversion to killing children is a personal matter. I value all human (and non-human) life and feel it should never be pointlessly squandered, but I particularly value the lives of children because they are innocent. They are tabula rasa. They are our only hope for a more enlightened future. Children from oppressed and abused demographics are particularly valuable to me because I believe they see (or will begin to see) the world with more clarity and vision than we do.

However you don't care that the Hamas government uses it's own children as human shields.

That's where the outrage lies.

 

[icehorse]

Not exactly. In Gwynne Dyer's book (War), his humanism is apparent throughout, and his conclusion is that our present technological capacity for destruction renders the entire concept of warfare obsolete. In short, given that the aim of war is always to gain or defend territory and resources, the fact that our technology now obliterates and poisons the territory and resources we might hope to acquire, as well as inflicting a level of civilian casualty that the average mind can not countenance, war is no longer an effective method of achieving anybody's geopolitical aims. Diplomacy and negotiation is the ONLY viable future for us.

The aversion to killing children is a personal matter. I value all human (and non-human) life and feel it should never be pointlessly squandered, but I particularly value the lives of children because they are innocent. They are tabula rasa. They are our only hope for a more enlightened future. Children from oppressed and abused demographics are particularly valuable to me because I believe they see (or will begin to see) the world with more clarity and vision than we do.

I agree with all of that, but it's orthogonal to what you said earlier.

Would you say that healthy is "better" than diseased? Is this just from your view or would you say that can be an objective call? This is a question of definitions. Would you agree that "healthy is better than diseased" is objectively true? A pure philosopher would call that a subjective claim. But in practice, by my definition, it's objectively true.

 

[Alceste]

I agree with all of that, but it's orthogonal to what you said earlier.

Would you say that healthy is "better" than diseased? Is this just from your view or would you say that can be an objective call?

What I said earlier was in the context of being in charge of the IDF and tasked with the mission of killing or capturing militants. Beyond hypothetical, and a silly tangent, since with my philosophy that is a job I would never in a million years seek out for myself for ethical reasons.

Being healthy is not better than being diseased from the disease's point of view.

 

[icehorse]

What I said earlier was in the context of being in charge of the IDF and tasked with the mission of killing or capturing militants. Beyond hypothetical, and a silly tangent, since with my philosophy that is a job I would never in a million years seek out for myself for ethical reasons.

Being healthy is not better than being diseased from the disease's point of view.

It strikes me that you're a moral relativist... when it suits you. This is playing tennis without a net. Take a stance here Alceste. Are you a relativist or not?