Genocide seems like a bit a stretch, but it is hard to tell. I would like to think that Israel is incapable of genocide, but at the very least it's clear they don't mind killing thousands of innocent people. Israel has done some truly inexcusable, horrific things.
I do sympathize with Israel. Israel is surrounded by countries that would like to see it wiped off of the map. Hamas has been attacking Israel from Palestinian territory for two decades. I'm glad that Israel exists and that the Jewish people have a home.
I'm afraid there doesn't seem to be a right answer, but Israel could at least show that it values human life.
> Israel is surrounded by countries that would like to see it wiped off of the map
Israel is occupying territories from 3 countries of those. Killing thousands. Initiated attacks in the past to conquer lands from another one (Egypt Sinai) and still occupying Palestinian lands (even if count 1967 borders) where there are 800k settlers/colonizers in west bank alone. And regularly bomb and kill civilians in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. It has WMD (remember the lie that Iraq get invaded under this claim because that is dangerous for the region)
Painting the problem on the other sides while the aggressor is very obvious is a dishonest take at best.
If you want your neighbors to even recognize and sympathize with your cause then you don't kill their children and take their lands. And then claim self-defense.
Most of isreali society origins are from Europe. They are victims of Europe refusing and kicking them outside. That doesn't make them victims in general.
The argument that the lands can be given back if there is a peace and recognition is bullshit. Israel have clear intend in annexation and the US is fine ans even recognized Golan heights as Israeli land. They settle their people in the occupying land. There is even companies and cabinet members discussing building new settlements in gaza after ethnically cleansing the Palestinians.
If you define genocide as collateral damage every defensive war would be classified as genocide. The Allies killed 65000 French civilians when liberating France from the Nazis. Are Americans guilty of genocide for liberating France?
Continuously throw enough plot twists and general stimulation at people and they'll never have the time to consider whether they're living in a simulation.
3. the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study.
#1 and #2 are pretty easy to prove, just look at journalism (arguably the main source of authoritative "plot twists and general stimulation", or many other broadly respected/worshipped disciplines, like "science" and their Theory of "Everything"), and the effect it has on people (hint: they typically believe it is an accurate representation of reality, you can tell because they will cite it as proof of their beliefs, and get angry if you do not accept it as proof).
One then runs into another problem: this will be rejected, because that "is not" a simulation, which brings us to yet another level of the simulation: language - the words we use to describe reality are objectively and obscenely incorrect, most of the time. Sometimes people will notice this, other times they will not - whether they do or not can be predicted with astonishing accuracy regardless of the person or their educational level based on whether it supports their pre-existing belief or not.
This basically ends up with a paradox: from most phenomenological perspectives (the main perspective, on a weighted causality basis), it is not possible for us to be living in a simulation, because of the simulation (culture, yet another level). It's basically bulletproof, a lot like like religion but even trickier and stronger.
> or do we care enough to know?
Consider the time and dedication it took to solve the many thousands of things that used to be a mystery - indeed, we do not care enough to take on solving this relatively simple problem. If you try to do it during a conversation, most people will object, usually passionately, based on memes like "We don't have time for that", "That's not what this place is for", etc. I'd even say that certain people in certain positions may like things just as they are, this state of affairs has high utility.
Or in the words of Shaggy…
“Saw you blowing up the children…”
“It wasn’t me.”
[flagged]
It's a very complicated situation.
Genocide seems like a bit a stretch, but it is hard to tell. I would like to think that Israel is incapable of genocide, but at the very least it's clear they don't mind killing thousands of innocent people. Israel has done some truly inexcusable, horrific things.
I do sympathize with Israel. Israel is surrounded by countries that would like to see it wiped off of the map. Hamas has been attacking Israel from Palestinian territory for two decades. I'm glad that Israel exists and that the Jewish people have a home.
I'm afraid there doesn't seem to be a right answer, but Israel could at least show that it values human life.
> Israel is surrounded by countries that would like to see it wiped off of the map
Israel is occupying territories from 3 countries of those. Killing thousands. Initiated attacks in the past to conquer lands from another one (Egypt Sinai) and still occupying Palestinian lands (even if count 1967 borders) where there are 800k settlers/colonizers in west bank alone. And regularly bomb and kill civilians in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. It has WMD (remember the lie that Iraq get invaded under this claim because that is dangerous for the region)
Painting the problem on the other sides while the aggressor is very obvious is a dishonest take at best.
If you want your neighbors to even recognize and sympathize with your cause then you don't kill their children and take their lands. And then claim self-defense.
Most of isreali society origins are from Europe. They are victims of Europe refusing and kicking them outside. That doesn't make them victims in general.
The argument that the lands can be given back if there is a peace and recognition is bullshit. Israel have clear intend in annexation and the US is fine ans even recognized Golan heights as Israeli land. They settle their people in the occupying land. There is even companies and cabinet members discussing building new settlements in gaza after ethnically cleansing the Palestinians.
2 replies →
[flagged]
2 replies →
[flagged]
Ah yes, the good old "I disagree with you therefore you're uneducated/nazi/antisemite" argument.
[dead]
[flagged]
If you define genocide as collateral damage every defensive war would be classified as genocide. The Allies killed 65000 French civilians when liberating France from the Nazis. Are Americans guilty of genocide for liberating France?
2 replies →
Continuously throw enough plot twists and general stimulation at people and they'll never have the time to consider whether they're living in a simulation.
Interesting, how do we prove we don't live in a simulation or do we care enough to know?
I don't think it's possible to prove we do not, but proving that we do is much easier.
Let's start with a definition:
sim·u·la·tion /ˌsimyəˈlāSH(ə)n/ noun noun: simulation; plural noun: simulations
1. imitation of a situation or process
2. the action of pretending; deception
3. the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study.
#1 and #2 are pretty easy to prove, just look at journalism (arguably the main source of authoritative "plot twists and general stimulation", or many other broadly respected/worshipped disciplines, like "science" and their Theory of "Everything"), and the effect it has on people (hint: they typically believe it is an accurate representation of reality, you can tell because they will cite it as proof of their beliefs, and get angry if you do not accept it as proof).
One then runs into another problem: this will be rejected, because that "is not" a simulation, which brings us to yet another level of the simulation: language - the words we use to describe reality are objectively and obscenely incorrect, most of the time. Sometimes people will notice this, other times they will not - whether they do or not can be predicted with astonishing accuracy regardless of the person or their educational level based on whether it supports their pre-existing belief or not.
This basically ends up with a paradox: from most phenomenological perspectives (the main perspective, on a weighted causality basis), it is not possible for us to be living in a simulation, because of the simulation (culture, yet another level). It's basically bulletproof, a lot like like religion but even trickier and stronger.
> or do we care enough to know?
Consider the time and dedication it took to solve the many thousands of things that used to be a mystery - indeed, we do not care enough to take on solving this relatively simple problem. If you try to do it during a conversation, most people will object, usually passionately, based on memes like "We don't have time for that", "That's not what this place is for", etc. I'd even say that certain people in certain positions may like things just as they are, this state of affairs has high utility.