Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [azsecularhumanists] Re: rights v. power struggles

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
    ... Of course violence begets violence. It cannot be otherwise in war. It will end when one side or the other decides to give up. Since the imperialists need
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 21 4:31 PM
      >
      >--- In azsecularhumanists@yahoogroups.com, thekoba@a... wrote:
      >> >I believe the evidence of history shows that a person is
      >objectively
      >> >harmful to humanity only when that person infringes upon the
      >rights
      >> >of others.
      >> >
      >> >--Jason Auvenshine
      >>
      >> That is a tautology, as you believe that by harming humanity, that
      >person
      >> infringes on rights. I would conclude, that one may not
      >intentionally
      >> infringe on rights to be a menace. The Jewish children blown up in
      >> the martyrdoms in Tel-Aviv are doubtless without malice.
      >Nonetheless they
      >> are future generations who will serve as soldiers of Zionism, and
      >killing
      >> them while young is as valid as killing them while old.
      >
      >You are correct, it is a tautology as stated. What I left out was
      >the definition of specific right(s) in question.
      >
      >So, let me rephrase the statement with a specific right for our
      >discussion:
      >The evidence of history shows that a person is always objectively
      >harmful to humanity if that person infringes upon the right of
      >another peaceful human being not to be killed.
      >
      >Based on your paragraph above, I assume it would be fair to state
      >your position as the opposite:
      >The evidence of history shows that a person is not always objectively
      >harmful to humanity if that person infringes upon the right of
      >another peaceful human being not to be killed.
      >
      >For the sake of argument, let's examine your statement about Jewish
      >children, ie that they will grow up to be "soldiers of Zion" whose
      >operational defintion will be "a bad thing for humanity."
      >
      >The future is not predictable with certainty. It's possible that
      >some of the Jewish children would grow up and be peace activists.
      >Maybe a libertarian, or a communist, or an islamist. All of these
      >things are possible, but of course you would say that becoming
      >a "soldier of Zion" is the most likely outcome for a Jewish child, a
      >claim which I cannot dispute. So let's assume that the probability
      >is high.
      >
      >Humans are fallible. The most immediate possible fallacy is that the
      >children in the blast radius might not all be Jewish. But again, the
      >probability of them being Jewish is pretty high given the target area.
      >
      >So...the suicide bombers are with a high probability killing children
      >who would otherwise grow up to be something we have defined for sake
      >of argument as objectively harmful to humanity. Does this establish
      >that the killings are objectively beneficial? Not by a long shot.
      >
      >Rights address how societies function -- the interaction between many
      >human beings. Thus far we have considered only the Jewish children
      >and the suicide bombers. How are the parents, siblings, and friends
      >of the Jewish children likely to react to the situation? By becoming
      >MORE violent, not less. This is the "escalation" factor I mentioned
      >in a previous message. For every Jewish child killed by a suicide
      >bomber, the family and friends are apt to attempt/support retaliatory
      >actions that would result in a far greater number of Palestinians
      >being killed.
      >
      >You may of course point out that the suicide bombings are only
      >happening because the Israeli army is _already_ killing Palestinian
      >children, both directly and indirectly. This would be correct, but
      >it makes rather than refutes my point. Violence begets more and
      >greater violence. I do not excuse violence initiated by Isreal (or
      >the U.S.) and realize that much of what goes on currently is simply
      >backlash. Are the Isrealis objectively better off for having killed
      >Palestinian children? No. Are the Palestinians objectively better
      >off for having killed Isreali children? Again, no. Not because
      >they're not actually taking out likely soldiers for the other
      >side...they are. But because they are continuing in a cycle of
      >violence which, if unchecked, will result in massive bloodshed,
      >destruction, and death on both sides until one side or the other is
      >utterly vanquished.
      >
      >This ever-growing "backlash" for killing is one of the things that
      >makes it objectively harmful to do so even when the person being
      >killed is presumed to be objectively harmful but currently peaceful.
      >
      >The other reason why killing an objectively harmful, but currently
      >peaceful person is itself objectively harmful is desensitization.
      >History and human psychology tends to indicate that the more one
      >engages in (in this case, orders) killing, the more indiscriminate
      >one becomes about it. Thus, over time, we could expect those
      >ordering the killings to get sloppy with their assessments about who
      >is objectively harmful, and start killing peole who were simply a
      >threat to their political power and such.
      >
      >--Jason Auvenshine

      Of course violence begets violence. It cannot be otherwise in war.
      It will end when one side or the other decides to give up. Since
      the imperialists need us to do the work for them, they can't kill
      us all, but since we don't need them, we can kill all of them. Thus
      it is logical to assume that there will be some Arabs left alive after
      every Jew is dead, or more likely, that the Zionists will give up the
      struggle and either return to Europe and North America or agree to
      live in a united, democratic secular Palestine without economic privilege
      without having killed all the Palestineans.

      On the other hand, what is the alternative? Not kill any Jews and suffer
      their oppression? That is a formula for continuing Zionist oppression,
      which is not conducive to the happiness of humanity. Kill only soldiers?
      That will result in a casualty rate lopsided in the favour of the Jews
      and will cause the defeat of the current struggle. Also soldiers also
      have loved ones, and when soldiers are killed there is also a call for
      vengeance and an escallation of violence, so the result will be just
      as bad for the Palestineans in the long run. Given that Israel practices
      universal conscription, there isn't much distinctions between soldiers
      and civilians in that country anyway.

      --Kevin

      Roses are red
      Violets are blue
      For every dead Arab
      Another dead Jew

      --National Alliance chant
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.