That’s what it is to be a compatibilist. They are determinists who believe that there is still a meaningful use of the phrase free will, despite the apparent determinism of the universe. They would redefine free will to not mean I have the ability to supervene on the natural laws, but that when you make a decision absent certain forces compelling a particular choice, that’s what we mean by free will.
For people arguing they have free will, they typically mean they have the ability to do other than what they did do. That is, whenever they make a choice, they do so under the belief that they could have, in principle, made a different choice. As far as science is concerned, such a free will does not exist, because the behaviors you exhibit appear to be completely explainable in terms of the environment impressing upon you, and the effects that impression has on your neural activity. There is no “you” making free decisions in this picture. There’s just stuff bumping into other stuff, and how is that free?
Regarding a general consensus of free will, that’s just not even an argument anyone should care about. Plenty of people are flatly told they have free will because, “they don’t have a choice, God made them with free will”. Others/most are simply uneducated or under-read on the subject. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean their opinion should weigh on our conclusions. If you show most people an optical illusion and ask them if it appears to be moving, they’d say yes, even though science will tell you there’s nothing moving.
I personally am a hard deterministic regarding free will. I think we have a will but nothing about it is free. It is subject to natural laws just as a rock rolling down a cliff. That’s fine. There’s a related philosophical position of compatibilism, which believes that we have a determined will, but that the truth of the determination does not undercut our ability to talk as if and use the phrase free will as if we really do have such a thing. In this sense, compatibilists would say we don’t have the ability to do other than what we are determined to do, but since we might not yet know what we are determined to do, then that ignorance captures what is meant by free will. So compatibilists are determinists, they just think free will as a concept is compatible with that determinism.
You emphasize this “which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” as if you cannot describe Israel’s entire offensive so far in exactly these terms. Gains minimal, civilian deaths enormous.
That’s your opinion. I don’t think Israel agrees.
Ignoring the West Bank?
I don’t know what agreements have been made about the west bank, so I can’t say. It seems you’re talking about events that have been happening before Oct 7. But, the original purpose was trying to show that Israel has been committing war crimes in Gaza. To that end, it doesn’t seem that they meet the criteria.
This is the weakest bullshit I’ve ever heard in my life. If you can’t find it in your heart to call out the intentional starvation of innocent citizens I don’t know how you can look at yourself in the mirror.
It’s not clear, but keep crying. Hamas takes food and supplies from the civilians. It’s not clear that Israel must supply Palestinians of food while their own government denies them the same. And, given how willful you were to misinterpret the previous accusations, I’m not inclined to believe that you’re correctly interpreting the convention. The latest I’ve heard is that 100 trucks of humanitarian aid are allowed in each day. How much food and supplies does an attacking country have to supply to the civilians of the country they’re attacking? Is Russia supposed to be supplying Ukrainians or can we add that to their war crimes?
Right, terrorists invade Israel and brutally murder 1500, and Israel’s response should be to give all Palestinians citizenship and land. I guess terrorism works?
Now you’re excusing terrorism. It’s all Israel’s fault, isn’t it? Israel made Gaza, Israel made the Gazans hate them, because Israel’s master plan was to create terrorists, finance that terrorist group, knowing the terrorists would eventually attack, and then Israel could finally kill all Palestinians, by warning them to evacuate, even though Israel is controlling Hamas to counter-propagandize the Palestinian populace and tell them to shelter in place, because that’s how Israel maximizes civilian deaths. Not even the terrorists putting Israeli babies in ovens are responsible for their actions. Israel was behind that too!
If Palestinians laid down their weapons, there could be peace. If Israel laid down their weapons, there would be no Israel.
Your version of the analogy implies equal damage on both sides. That is not the case, already Israel has killed way more than Hamas did. If you insist on making the first offense killing your family, it would be like killing my whole neighbourhood in response.
An eye for an eye retribution is all you understand? This isn’t about equality. This is about removing the ability for a terrorist group to bring harm against a sovereign nation. If your neighborhood wants to harbor terrorists, then they’re going to get blown the fuck up.
And then bombed both the routes to the “safe” place and the “safe” place itself, yes.
This is contested information. I’ve heard that Hamas was doing the bombings. Between the two sides, why would Israel warn civilians to evacuate, then bomb them and face international condemnation? Meanwhile, Hamas needs civilians as human shields so if the populace evacuates, Hamas loses their defense. Bombing their own citizens (which they’re known to do) and blaming it on Israel benefits them. So between the two, one side majorly benefits and the other side not at all.
Since you misquoted the Geneva convention, let’s fix that.
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
Israel has justification and are not wantonly destroying property. They are attacking military targets. If it was wanton, they would destroy all of Gaza instead of evacuating the north.
ICRC (Geneva IV and revisions) Rule 129 The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.
Shocking how you always leave out the part that justifies what Israel is doing.
Attacks against civilian population?
Nope, Israel is attacking military targets. The civilians need to gtfo of the way. If they don’t, that doesn’t mean Israel is committing war crimes. They’re justified to destroy military targets regardless. That’s how war works. Here’s another war crime: Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
Oops, you left that part out again.
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
And again, you leave out the part that justifies Israel. You’re intentionally lying to defame Israel. Sorry your feelings are hurt, but that doesn’t mean Israel has to roll over and die.
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
Israel isn’t occupying Gaza, nor do they intend to. They’re there to destroy Hamas and leave.
Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
Not sure about this one, but since you’ve lied about all the others, I’m not inclined to take your word for it. In fact, I’m more likely to believe you’re wrong since you’ve been wrong about the others.
Hamas however has strongly denied the presence of one of its leaders in the refugee camp. Hazem Qassem, a spokesman for the militant group, accused Israel of attempting to justify what he described as a “heinous crime against safe civilians, children, and women in Jabalya camp.”
Ah, yes, the terrorists wouldn’t want any civilians, children, or women getting hurt.
Also big fail from CNN, reporting this as a current refugee camp, when it’s a city named as a refugee camp, in Northern Gaza, that was ordered to evacuate.
There was a ceasefire as of 2021
There was a ceasefire in place on Oct 6th, wasn’t there?
Well, it sure depends doesn’t it? First of all, let’s correct your analogy. If you kill my family, then run behind your own family and yell I’M RELOADING FOR THE NEXT KILLING, that would be a more accurate analogy. In that case, I sure as shit have the right to defend myself. Israel told the Palestinians to get out of the way. Hamas told them to stay and die in their homes. If Palestinians would rather listen to a terrorist organization, if they would rather defend Hamas with their life, then they are literally terrorist supporters and they deserve what they get.
You realize launching rockets from civilian infrastructure, like Hamas does, is a war crime? Taking civilian hostages, war crime. Using civilians as human shields? Also war crime. Did you want to skip past those too? Man, Israel just can’t catch a break with you.
So it’s Israel’s fault they are terrorists? It’s Israel’s fault none of the other Arab countries want the Palestinians?
Let’s say Israel does… whatever it is you think they should do. Will that stop the organization that has sworn to kill all Jews and destroy Israel? After having 1500 of their civilians brutalized and murdered, Israel should… negotiate with the terrorists and give them land?
Do you protest Hamas as much?
Does 1500 Israeli dead count as mass murder?
I just disabled ghostery ad-block and that seems to work. Still have ublock going.
No, I pretty explicitly call out Hamas, it’s all their in my comment. Run away if you want. You realize Hamas is Palestinian?
As I’ve said from the start, what I’m criticizing is that those who call for ceasefire or for free Palestine, are implicitly ignoring the effects of the outcome they’re calling for. What happens to the Palestinian people if they lay down their arms? Peace or war? What happens to Israel if they lay down their arms? Peace or war?
Those who call for peace in the face of an enemy sworn to kill all Jews and destroy Israel, these people are not calling for peace at all. They are rallying against Israel and demanding its destruction. You have no solution to offer for the problem of Hamas, yet you insist Israel allow them to continue to exist, knowing that they will simply plan more attacks in the future. You do not want peace.
If you said black people were too incompetent to free themselves from slavery you’d be racist.
If you say Palestinians are too incompetent to win any wars then you’re racist.
Nope, that’s a factual statement. Stating facts isn’t racist. Racism involves subjective bias. What I said was, the Palestinian people are unable or unwilling to teach their children to want peace, so this war, like the wars before it, is the consequence. If your enemy raises their children to be soldiers, you destroy their soldiers.
So might is right. If the Nazis won world war two, do you think they should be allowed to do what ever the fuck they want to conquered peoples because they won?
No, might does not make right, but it does decide the outcome. Israel has the might, and Palestinians keep attacking them. Fuck around and find out. Israel will not allow Palestinians to endlessly attack their citizens and threaten their nation. Now they’re going to do something about it, so keep crying the team you like threw punches and picked a fight with someone they can’t win against. I, for one, am not crying.
You keep saying palestinian children are threats and Israel should be allowed to destroy any threat even if its not imminent (contradicting international law but hey ho) then saying oh but children aren’t actually being targeted, they’re just dying in large numbers because of IDF whoopsies.
You realize children grow up into Hamas fighters and they’re still somebody’s child? I wasn’t talking about literal children. I’m saying that is somebody’s child running around with an AK going door to door murdering Israeli civilians. The Palestinian people, if they cared about the life of their children, could have raised them to want peace. They failed. Now their children are soldiers, and for that, they’ve set their children up to die. That’s on the Palestinians, not on Israel. Peace will come when the Palestinians love their children and care for their future more than they hate Jews and Israel.
Again this is you saying Palestinian children are threats and that Israel is justified to remove threats
No, but leave it to a terrorist supporter to lie and misrepresent what I said. I meant exactly what I said, and only that. Apparently, the Palestinian people are unable or unwilling to raise their children to desire peace. The result is Hamas. Never did I say I support killing children, unless you are saying that Hamas is made of children. What I literally said in the comment you quoted is that Israel is there to destroy Hamas and all who support them. If you believe there are children supporting Hamas, you’re agreeing with my earlier point, that the Palestinians don’t love their children enough to put them on a path of peace.
Nice racism
Nice dodging the point. Just because in talking about a group of people, and even about how that group has failed in a certain way, doesn’t make it racism. It is apparent that the Palestinians will not or cannot stop their children from attacking Israel. This war is the consequence of that. You don’t punch the big bear standing next to you and expect to be free from consequences.
Yes personally, I’m pro-palestine which means I’m anti-israel not anti-israeli. The state built on fascism and oppression is what needs destroyed not the people. Nice of you to shoehorn the old if your anti-israel you are antisemitic, really filling up my Zionist bingo card.
Great, so like I said from the start, you’re advocating for peace except your advocacy really means Israel should be destroyed. Israel gets attacked by terrorists and the result is that you think they should be destroyed. You don’t repeatedly start wars, lose those wars, and then get to dictate terms to the winning army. Israel is, at least in principle, a democracy. If you want to take out fascist dictators oppressing people, you should be looking at Hamas, you know, the literal terrorists killing Gazan civilians and blaming it on Israel.
You insult your own intelligence to call these people anti-israeal or pro-palestine. They are pro-peace. We can both say they are wrong but they mean well.
No, they’re pro-ignorance is what they are. There can be no peace when one side has sworn to destroy Israel and kill all Jews. Go to Hamas and beg for peace, go on. These people say they want peace, but what happens when Israel lays down their weapons? These calls for peace are an empty call for Israel to do something it cannot do if it wants security for its people. As such, these are not calls for peace, these are calls to rally against Israel and ignore the terrorism of Hamas.
So it’s war and Israel considers all Palestinian children as threats.
Where did Israel say that? Source? More lies for your pathetic defense? Who did Israel declare war against? Hamas. They declared war against Hamas. If you want to say that Palestinian children are part of Hamas, that’s on you and the Palestinians.
Hang on you just said every child is a threat and they are going after every threat but that’s not indiscriminate or genocide?
Quote where I said that, you lying terrorist simp. I have repeatedly said Hamas is the threat and the target of IDF attacks. The fact you have to lie again just shows how irrational you are in this argument.
I’m advocating for liberation of Palestinian people and the destruction of the Zionist state.
You really said the quiet part out loud in this comment.
Ironic. You really said the quiet part out loud in this comment. You claimed at the beginning of this that you are pro-palestine, and what I showed was that truly means you’re anti-Israeli and demand their destruction. Guess what happens when you start a war and lose? You get shit taken from you. That’s what happens. This is exactly why Hamas will be destroyed, because they will never stop starting wars with Israel. Don’t ever say you care about the deaths of innocents. Don’t ever say you care about preventing genocide. You don’t, you liar. You care about Palestinians getting to eradicate Jews, and you don’t care how many innocent Jews die to get that. Well, guess what? The Palestinian people are too fucking incompetent to get what you want. They lost war after war after war, so this is what happens. Keep simping, it means nothing.
You can’t pretend that those calling for peace are calling for the destruction of Israel and should be suppressed.
I’m not pretending, you just admitted to it.
So don’t defend yourself from this angry bear that thinks you are a threat and wants to kill or oppress you even if you haven’t done anything yet.
Again, because you can’t stop sucking up to terrorists; Israel is defending themselves from Hamas who will never stop attacking them. If all Gazans laid down their weapons, there could be peace. If all Israel laid down there weapons, they would be genocided and suddenly you would not want to talk about genocide any more. You have no argument, you only lie and manipulate optics to continually attack Israel which you hate. This too only speaks to your irrationality in this argument. You have nothing.
I would call this determinism as much as anything else. Whatever you discover by reflecting on memories, you make your decision based on those memories, ergo there was a reason that determined your choice.
I would just agree that we have a “will”. It’s the “free” qualifier that’s disputed.
Sorry, I can’t agree. We have ignorance about the future, but that doesn’t mean my decisions are undetermined. As far as I can tell, everything is either determined or not determined. If it’s determined, then I was not free to choose it. If it’s not determined, then it’s random, in which case I again could not have freely chosen it. You seem to be moving towards compatibilism, which accepts determinism but believes determinism can still be compatible with a notion of free will, e.g. our ignorance of the future is what we mean by free will.
Personally, I think life is very interesting bring a wet robot! However, I understand why most reject the concept out of hand.