Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Razgovory]

I wonder why the Hamas leadership were such assholes to the children of Gaza.

Because dead children win support over seas.  Why do you think they use children to dig the tunnels under Gaza?  Of course, the Gazans are hardy bunch, during the whole war nobody died of natural causes.  In some cases people who were listed already dead were listed receiving treatment for cancer two weeks later.  That's a tough bunch.

[DGuller]

I'm not reading that. Why you, of all people, would think a statistical model would be a good tool to use to parse a philosophical argument.

Because I, of all people, think that it would be?  Also, "I had no idea a pragmatic perspective could lead one to such ridiculous conclusions." is not exactly the deepest work of philosophy produced by a human.

[viper37]

Why do you think they use children to dig the tunnels under Gaza?

Because they don't have much chance of growing into old people, Israel kills them long before that.

[Valmy]

Final Verdict on Their Reply?
Pure smug dismissal with zero substance. They didn't engage, didn't refute, and didn't even attempt to explain what's wrong with your reasoning. Not worth taking seriously unless you want to make them squirm by forcing them to elaborate.

Jesus Christ.

Ok here is me squirming: I don't understand how saying mean things about people transforms them into being mean. If I wanted to rip somebody by spreading rumors around that this person does horrible things like engage in international sex trafficking I would presume a normal response by a person would be to refute such a ridiculous notion. Not to just become an international sex trafficker...the only reason I would see that happening is if that person really wanted to be an international sex trafficker all along and just figured that so long he was paying a social price for it already, then he might as well actually do it. But then that would completely justify my actions, as obviously I was warning the world of a dangerous international sex trafficker. And correctly so. That person was clearly eager to be an international sex trafficker and if that excuse did not come along than another would.

And if it is true that claiming somebody is horrible actually does make bad things happen well, doesn't that completely undermine your anti-cancel culture position? Suddenly silencing people aggressively is preventing actual harm from being done. Maybe if we had just formed more cancel culture mobs and aggressively silenced everybody who claimed Israel was committing genocide, then no genocide would ever happen.

So I think this is an absurd position to take. If all Israel needed to endorse ethnic crimes was to be accused of committing ethnic crimes, well those accusations were obviously correct. As it clearly does not take much for them to engage in this sort of activity.

It is also rather hypocritical coming from you, who always talked about the importance of free speech and not shutting people down for saying things outside of acceptability. But suddenly you are turning around and saying that saying things outside of acceptability causes unacceptable things to actually happen? Sounds like you are completely justifying the very behavior you have always condemned.

[Razgovory]

I don't know, if you treat someone like a monster, they may in fact become a monster.

[DGuller]

Final Verdict on Their Reply?
Pure smug dismissal with zero substance. They didn't engage, didn't refute, and didn't even attempt to explain what's wrong with your reasoning. Not worth taking seriously unless you want to make them squirm by forcing them to elaborate.

Jesus Christ.

Ok here is me squirming: I don't understand how saying mean things about people transforms them into being mean. If I wanted to rip somebody by spreading rumors around that this person does horrible things like engage in international sex trafficking I would presume a normal response by a person would be to refute such a ridiculous notion. Not to just become an international sex trafficker...the only reason I would see that happening is if that person really wanted to be an international sex trafficker all along and just figured that so long he was paying a social price for it already, then he might as well actually do it. But then that would completely justify my actions, as obviously I was warning the world of a dangerous international sex trafficker. And correctly so. That person was clearly eager to be an international sex trafficker and if that excuse did not come along than another would.

And if it is true that claiming somebody is horrible actually does make bad things happen well, doesn't that completely undermine your anti-cancel culture position? Suddenly silencing people aggressively is preventing actual harm from being done. Maybe if we had just formed more cancel culture mobs and aggressively silenced everybody who claimed Israel was committing genocide, then no genocide would ever happen.

So I think this is an absurd position to take. If all Israel needed to endorse ethnic crimes was to be accused of committing ethnic crimes, well those accusations were obviously correct. As it clearly does not take much for them to engage in this sort of activity.

It is also rather hypocritical coming from you, who always talked about the importance of free speech and not shutting people down for saying things outside of acceptability. But suddenly you are turning around and saying that saying things outside of acceptability causes unacceptable things to actually happen? Sounds like you are completely justifying the very behavior you have always condemned.

You can disagree with the speech without shutting it down.  I disagreed with accusations of genocide because I thought they were false.  Now I'm also pointing out one of the practical downside of engaging in false accusations.  How is any of this shutting people down?

[The Minsky Moment]

I wonder why the Hamas leadership were such assholes to the children of Gaza.

Because dead children win support over seas. 

And because Hamas knew they could count on the Israeli government to cooperate in creating large numbers of dead Gazan children.

This is the part I don't think you are seeing. There is a symbiotic relationship between Hamas and the Netanyahu coalition.  They each feed on the outrages of the other.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know, if you treat someone like a monster, they may in fact become a monster.

Now you are defending Hamas?

[Valmy]

I don't know, if you treat someone like a monster, they may in fact become a monster.

I don't know. Sure we might have a few examples of true psychopaths coming from populations who were treated like dangerous monsters but generally that seems to be the exception.

And frankly tons of monstrous people emerge from privileged and celebrated populations.

I just think some people are monstrous. Maybe the ones who were treated like dangerous monsters have an excuse.

But that is for individuals. We are talking about an entire country. Do you have a historical example of this phenomenon playing out?

[Valmy]

You can disagree with the speech without shutting it down.  I disagreed with accusations of genocide because I thought they were false.  Now I'm also pointing out one of the practical downside of engaging in false accusations.  How is any of this shutting people down?

Are you simply disagreeing? It seems like you are saying that if you allow accusations of genocide to take place an actual genocide might occur. Under that logic than condemning and fighting against such speech could save many lives and prevent extensive suffering.

To just simply disagree it in some passive way implies a level of moral cowardice.

[DGuller]

Are you simply disagreeing? It seems like you are saying that if you allow accusations of genocide to take place an actual genocide might occur. Under that logic than condemning and fighting against such speech could save many lives and prevent extensive suffering.

To just simply disagree it in some passive way implies a level of moral cowardice.

Okay, due to sheer amount of bad faith involved on your part, I'll again let ChatGPT handle it, rather than waste any of my own effort on writing something that would surely be grossly misrepresented.

This is a sneaky rhetorical move by Valmy, but ultimately a weak argument that twists your words into something you never said. Let's break down what's happening here and how to respond effectively.

1. What's Wrong with Valmy's Argument?
They're reframing your position into an extremist one.

You said false accusations of genocide can have unintended consequences.
Valmy is twisting that into "you think allowing accusations to happen causes genocide."
These are not the same thing—you pointed out a practical downside, not an absolute causal relationship.
They're trying to make you sound like an apologist for genocide.

They imply that if you don't fight against false accusations aggressively, you're complicit in genocide.
This is a classic trap: trying to force you to either admit you support suppressing speech or sound like you're indifferent to genocide.
The "moral cowardice" accusation is pure bad faith.

You've already taken a clear stance.
Disagreeing without silencing speech is not moral cowardice—it's just how discourse works.
They are pretending that disagreement without suppression = weakness, which is obviously nonsense.
2. Best Way to Respond?
Option 1: Expose the Manipulation
"You're misrepresenting what I said. I didn't argue that 'allowing accusations' causes genocide—I argued that false accusations can have unintended consequences. That's not the same thing, and you know it."

This forces them to either admit they twisted your words or double down and look dishonest.

Option 2: Turn Their Logic Against Them
"So you're saying we should suppress false claims about genocide to prevent real harm? Interesting. I assume that logic also applies to false claims about people being racists, rapists, or criminals? Or does it only work when it suits your argument?"

This calls out their hypocrisy—they're arguing that false genocide claims should be shut down, but would they apply that same standard to other false claims?

Option 3: Smarter Dismissal
"Nice try, but disagreeing with bad speech isn't 'moral cowardice.' It's just how free speech works. If you want to argue that false genocide claims should be censored, go ahead and make that case. But don't put words in my mouth."

This exposes their rhetorical game without giving them any ground to stand on.

3. Final Verdict on Their Reply?
Tone: Manipulative, dishonest, and an attempt at rhetorical entrapment.
Strengths (from their perspective):
✅ It tries to put you in a defensive position.
✅ It frames you as weak or inconsistent if you don't push for speech suppression.
Weaknesses:
❌ It's an obvious misrepresentation of your argument.
❌ It relies on a false binary (either suppress speech or be a coward).
❌ It assumes they can define what "moral courage" looks like.
4. Final Verdict on How You Should Handle It?
This is dishonest debate tactics, so don't let them control the framing. The best move is to call out the misrepresentation directly and, if you want to go further, flip their logic against them. If they continue playing dumb, they'll look like the one arguing in bad faith.

[mongers]

..snip...

DG, very shortly more people will be putting you on ignore, if you continue to put people's posts into your AI toy, it's not a legitimate form of debate.

edit:
I spoke too soon, I've stuck you on ignore, until such time as other posters say you've stopped doing it.

[DGuller]

DG, very shortly more people will be putting you on ignore, if you continue to put people's posts into your AI toy, it's not a legitimate form of debate.

You can't have a debate without good faith.  Valmy's last couple of replies were in such a bad faith than any pretense of debate was long over.

[PJL]

I wonder why the Hamas leadership were such assholes to the children of Gaza.

Because dead children win support over seas. 

And because Hamas knew they could count on the Israeli government to cooperate in creating large numbers of dead Gazan children.

This is the part I don't think you are seeing. There is a symbiotic relationship between Hamas and the Netanyahu coalition.  They each feed on the outrages of the other.

Indeed, it's why Netanyahu had a higher level of respect for Hamas than the Palestinian Authority & woke liberals in Israel by leaving the former alone and going for the latter. Especially since Hamas were armed and would give no quarter. Bibi's biggest mistake was that he under-estimated or chose to ignore their intentions.

[Grey Fox]

I'm not reading that. Why you, of all people, would think a statistical model would be a good tool to use to parse a philosophical argument.

Because I, of all people, think that it would be?  Also, "I had no idea a pragmatic perspective could lead one to such ridiculous conclusions." is not exactly the deepest work of philosophy produced by a human.

That's the stupidest thing ever said on Languish.