• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Sure. Medicine and electronics also heavily overlap. They’re in no way the same thing.

    Now are you going to actually show a philosopher saying that it is justified to kill thousands of children in order to achieve a military objective or are you going to be honest and admit that no such philosopher, at least not one that is in any way widely-respected, would ever suggest such a disgusting idea?

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago
      • Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.

      • Children are civilians.

      • Therefore, philosophers have justified killing children in order to achieve a military objective.

      By your logic, if the Geneva conventions do not mention “Palestinians” then they do not protect Palestinians.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.

        You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians to achieve a military objective. All you have said is that it wouldn’t be allowed for that to happen. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t justified.

        Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths you put up earlier? Don’t tell me to do the research myself, don’t give me the law, quote the philosopher specifically advocating your upper limit cap.

        Or just admit you were being dishonest. Either one.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians

          And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”

          Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths

          I never provided an upper limit cap.

          I said “we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point.”

          Normal, as in “typical”. Which is not the same as acceptable, it depends on whether you believe a “normal” war is acceptable.

          As I suggested earlier, it’s quite reasonable to take the pacifist position that even “normal” wars are not acceptable.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”

            Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.

            Sorry, I’m not going to stop making this about children just because you don’t want it to be.

            So when do you think they should stop killing children before it is no longer justified?

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.

              Destroying Hamas means destroying the current leadership, so it can no longer function.

              It’s true that Israel is running the risk of inciting hatred and creating more fighters, but those future fighters won’t be in Hamas. They will be in some other organization that replaces Hamas, just like Hamas replaced Fatah.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Destroying Hamas means destroying the leadership, so it can no longer function.

                Where is that claimed? Or is that just your opinion?

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  These were Netanyahu’s goals in October:

                  destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities; and returning the hostages home

                  And these are Netanyahu’s current goals:

                  Seizing the Rafah Crossing is a very significant step towards destroying the remaining military capabilities of Hamas, including the elimination of the four terrorist battalions in Rafah, and an important step to damage the governmental capabilities of Hamas

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    You mean his goals keep changing? Hmm… seems like a constantly changing military objective would allow you to kill an unlimited number of children justifiably based on your reasoning.