|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Gaza - the facts emerge (3/30/2009 3:52:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaineD
Okay, a few more comments addressing Firmhand. I'm keeping this respectful.
The use of human shields is generally against my moral code, so if the IDF used human shields, any individual who did so would probably receive my condemnation.
Why the probably? Your answer would be one I could respect if not for the word 'probably'.
Because I'm not omniscient. I can conceive of situations in which a human shield might be necessary and even moral.
While I think that absolutes are reasonable moral guidelines, I also know that at times, and in places, absolutes can be counter-productive and destructive.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaineD
A2. If medical facilities (or religious facilities) are used for military purposes, then those facilities are no longer protected by the laws of war. Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt if the medical facilities under question were not used for any military purpose by Hamas?
Surely the onus of proof would be on the IDF to prove those facilities were being used by Hamas?
I suspect the answer to this question goes to the root of our perceptions of the entire situation. Who are you more likely to believe, or more likely think has the greater moral legitimacy in this situation?
If you think that Hamas has the greater legitimacy, then you believe the onus for proof falls on the Israelis. If you think that Israel has the greater legitimacy, then you believe that the onus for proof falls on Hamas.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaineD
A3. No. I see no evidence of the death count as being "collective punishment" as I think you mean it to be.
Facts not in evidence, and lack of understanding on your part of war and warfare.
UN investigator Richard Falk and professor of international relations Avi Shlaim would disagree.
Appeal to authority.
Tell me about these people, their history, their biases, their evidence gathering techniques, their logical reasoning and their conclusions ... then I might be able to give an opinion of their accuracy and their creditability.
Yeah, I know it's detailed and tough, but finding a reasonable truth in a battlefield of propaganda and justification is usually a pretty harrowing enterprise.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaineD
A4. Any death may be counter-productive to a chance for peace. Likewise, any death or deaths could lead to peace. Your question is biased rhetoric based on a position, and not an honest question.
How could the deaths of over 1, 400 palestinians this year lead to peace?
I'm not sure it will.
I do know that the genocide of one party in a conflict will almost certainly lead to a "peace".
But my wider point is about wars and conflicts: one side wins, when the other side quits. Pretty simple concept, really.
The number of deaths, and the amount of destruction necessary to make one side or the other "quit" is the number of deaths required to cause peace.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaineD
A5. Some people who are parts of these organizations are "pro-Hamas". Some are "pro-Israel". Some are honest, hard-working and idealistic people. Some are jaded, worn-out sell-outs.
Do you have any evidence that any members of the UN, Amnesty international, and Human Rights Watch are "pro-hamas"? Although, your definition of who is pro-hamas is pretty thin.
You fail to understand my point, and see only the parts that support your pre-existing belief that I am strictly biased a certain way.
Hard to argue with someone whose field of vision is restricted only to those actions or information that support what they already believe.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaineD
It's the quality of information, the basis on which claims are made, and the reasoning behind those claims that is important. In other words, I rarely agree with simply taking any report at face value. This is a common logical fallacy called appeal to authority of which I am acutely aware. I tend to be very critical (and use critical thinking) on any report, survey, or claims.
I don't think you're as critical as you think you are. Most of your posts are layered with your bias and you were very quick to label me as pro-Hamas. You tend to be critical of reports that go against your opinion, while not fully addressing the funamental points of those reports.
I dunno. I am fully aware of my biases, and where they come from. I don't let them go easily, as I've taken years to build them up. [:D]
As far as this thread goes, I'm very critical of the first video, and so stated. I think DomKen actually did a pretty good job of fisking it. The other two videos I didn't even bother to watch.
Why?
One of my biases is that if someone's first major piece of "evidence" is demonstratably propaganda in the service of an agenda, I don't particular see the utility in wasting my time watching all the other material. My experience is that it will be just more of the same.
Nothing mentioned in this thread causes me to rethink that bias in this situation.
The first two links to written material was slightly better, but anyone who doesn't have a lot of experience with critical analysis of news reports (especially "first reports") might as well just read the headlines. To me, those two reports basically were written by someone who wanted to push an agenda as well, therefore of minor weight in critical analysis.
You wanna fisk them with me? As I said, it takes time and energy to find a reasonable truth, and presenting it is also time intensive. I don't really believe that I'd change anyone's mind. It's easier just challenging assumptions as they arise.
More entertaining that way, as well.
Firm
|
|
|
|
