Exactly. The numerous rapes and kidnappings are absolutely not called for, nor justified, ever. These are innocent civilians being pulled into a larger conflict. That is the worst part of war - even innocent people suffer, instead of it being a private conflict between whatever groups.
Exactly. The numerous rapes and kidnappings are absolutely not called for, nor justified, ever. These are innocent civilians settlers, many of whom are reservists in the oppressors armed forces, being pulled into a larger ongoing and extremely one-sided conflict. That is the worst part of war - even innocent people suffer, instead of it being a private conflict between whatever groups I am forced to acknowledge the ongoing support the first world has provided to an apartheid state and I don’t like being confronted with the consequences of decades of oppression.
I usually think of it this way, though I use the term server and acknowledge there are often many servers involved. Is this incorrect, or is there a better way to think about it?
I have also been thinking about it myself for a while. Although I do not have a clear answer, I do think it is helpful to realize that violence comes in many forms and is almost always present in at least one. Take, for example, the state’s monopoly on violence, usually handled by the police. Whenever there is a differing opinion on how to handle something, one of the parties may ask: What if I just do the thing I want? If one foregoes compromise and dialogue, there is nothing but violence left as a tool to either push forward or back at a cause. Sometimes there may be legitimate reasons for not wanting to compromise on an issue. Sometimes the ones we see “engaging in violence” are those whose needs have been neglected due to their potential for violence deemed lower than those doing the neglect. Violence is a destructive tool that often have better alternatives. However this should not make us default to the position that there are always clear cut answers to who really started the cycle and that someone are morally faulty for engaging with it.
TL;DR the status quo is usually backed by threats of violence or actual violence. This makes it hard to judge who is at fault for violent actions at any given moment, i.e. it all depends on context.
My understanding of history is that most improvements in living standarts have been bought by violence or the threat of it against the ruling class (yes, i guess you could call me a commie).
Though i also feel like it is a bit of a dice roll. Kinda like rerolling a dice and hoping you get a higher number. The higher your starting number the higher the chance you end up with a lower number. Does that make sense to anyone or have i completely detached from reality here? :D
I think you’re misunderstanding it. Do what you do, you’re going to break something anyways just don’t half-ass it. Just like there’s a graveyard behind every doctor, there’s a pile of mistakes behind every sysadmin.
Occam’s razor, because it seem it is often used wrong by using it for just shutting down possible explanations. Typically noone mentions, that this is about guessing probabilities without prior knowledge and not a way to completely ignore an explanation.
I get hungover way less since I drink a lot of water after or ideally at the same time as getting drunk.
If I get hungover anyway it’s greasy food, weed, sweet drinks like soda or juice schorle and couch with a series or a silly movie. Probably a cat or two with me on the couch. Let’s be honest, probably only the one, the other only really loves my SO. Normal stuff I guess.
Or if it’s summer festival time maybe countering with beer might be another option to kill a hangover.
People have been coming up with theories about this forever, from perspectives and time periods as diverse as Aristotle, St. Augustine, Gandhi, and Trotsky. You put a lot of very difficult questions in your post, but you didn’t put forth a criteria for what “justified” means to you. I think you’re going to need to interrogate that before being able to even think about any of these questions. For example, is violence justified by better outcomes, or by some absolute individual right to fight your oppressor? Is justification a question of morality, legality, tactical value, or something entirely different?
I know this lies at the core of the question, simply because “justification” is such a complex concept on its own. I asked the question because I can’t for the life of me get even remotely close to an answer because the different theories of morality and justice all are founded in sound logic, even though they contradict one another.
I want to hear what other people think, if they’ve made up their mind, and why they think what they think.
Assuming it's not seriously illegal where you live, substitute alcohol for cannabis, have a great night and wake up rested and refreshed the next morning.
Seems to be less damaging to the body long term too, but that's neither here nor there.
I get a terrible headache if I smoke a lot of weed the night before. I also know many people (including myself sometimes) who get really bad anxiety even with just a bit of weed. I like to cannabis but it just has never hit the same as alcohol for me
I like to get drunk as hell and then smoke up the same night. It used to give me a bad case of the spins in my 20s but these days it’s fine. Plus the weed keeps me from drinking too much to the point of hangover, cause the moment it kicks in I lose all desire to drink.
Don’t forget to drink water the night before , you will feel better the next day. Its dehydration that hit us the most so being hydrated while and after drinking helps a lot.
When widespread violence is already in play, then the use of widespread violence in opposition is justified. It’s not always the right move, though.
Edit to add that, looking at history, those advocating for large-scale violence in pursuit of a righteous cause are typically more interested in the violence than the cause.
Not so much an answer to your question, but I want to push back on the idea that Hamas are in any way about defending the rights of ordinary Palestinians. They are a genocidal hate group who use other Palestinians as pawns in their terrorist atrocities. Think whatever you want about Israel and support whatever solution to the situation you like (unless it’s genocide - don’t support that), but don’t think that Hamas are in any way the good guys.
If in doubt, just remember - the good guys never murder babies. Hannah are not freedom fighters, they are evil.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.