Scholar

Of course it does. I am not morally justified to go on a killing spree because people are not vegan, because it would not change anything and make the situation worse. Morality is directly linked to what is rational. Israel is justified in self-preservation. HAMAS reaction is expected to some degree, however much of it is fueled by outside nationstate actors. Point 3 is not true, this is delusional and biased.

Of course, every person on this planet is driven by something, including all rapists and murderers that ever lived. This doesn't change that HAMAS is acting contrary to any of their perceived goals, harming the Palestinians more, and therefore being irrational, while the Israeli's genuinely are acting in their interest, even if not perfectly. What you perceive as gross injustice is self-preservation for someone else. What is more injustice is that individuals have to be tortured and killed so you can feel a little better and have a little more energy during the day. And yet, you point to the Israeli's and claim they are committing atrocities. They are not as bad as you think, even if it is not fair for the palestinians. The palestinians are valid in the way they feel, there is simply no good solution in this situation, so the injustice will continue, as slavery had to continue for thousands of years for the sake of self-preservation. This is no different.

No, HAMAS is not justified because their actions are senseless and irrational. They don't achieve any goal, in fact, the opposite of their goal. I can't just go on a killing spree because nobody wants to go vegan, contemplate how insane that is. Israel has attempted to create peace, you are just too biased to recognize this. You don't appreciate true dilemmas.

Of course, you would murder endless beings for your own self-preservation, like I said, you are not a vegan and even if you were, you still torture and wipe out other living individuals for your own convinience. You are just too biased to see this. I am saying you are delusional in the way you apply your moral standards. You would act far worse if you were in the position of the israeli's, that's what you are not grasping, because you are so cushioned from the actual forces of evolution that you can afford to be in a position where you don't have to make significant moral choices that actually carry weight for you and others. The difference between the worst ethnonationalist Israelite and a Palestine civilian is smaller than between you and a vegan.

Colonization doesn't justify the type of terrorism HAMAS is engaging it. First and foremost, you have a moral duty to your own people rather than to bask in self-righteous acts of terror that will only bring more harm to your people. HAMAS isn't doing this so palestinians can prosper, that's not how they operate, they are ideologically driven and funded by states like Iran to be used as pawns. HAMAS is not the major threat to Israel, the neighbouring nationstates to israel are, and they are, in principle, willing to wipe out the jewish population if the opportunity presents itself. Palestinians don't get randomly slaughtered, there is obviously an active conflict going on. And yes, the Israeli are in power, so of course they will dominate the plaestinians. You are too biased to recognized this, but Israel is actually acting in farely high moral character considering the situation that is presented to them. I don't presume I would fare much better in the situation, and I know for certain that if you were in the situation, it would be hell on earth.

That's delusional, they are doing just fine using the means they have been for the past decades.

Like I said you are looking at this from a lense that makes no sense. Israel is under existential threat due to almost every actor in the middle east wanting to wipe the jews from the planet. Israel doesn't care about your petty moral views, they are trying not to get genocided again, and they will do what is necessary to achieve that. They have far better justifications for their unfair treatment of palestinians than you have for eating animal products. There is no strict morality that you can just apply across the board from your western lense.

You are misunderstanding my position. I think the palestinian perspective is valid, but I also believe the Israeli perspective is valid. What HAMAS did was not justified however, nor did it achieve anything but more suffering.

I don't identify myself as a zionist. What do you mean your comprehension levels? I just don't think you are trying to understand what I am saying in good faith. What I am saying is you have way too high standards for Israel, higher than you have for yourself. You are not looking at this objectively. The question wasn't if you side with Palestine, but whether HAMAS is justified in it's actions. You are missing the entire point why the Ethnostate exists and why Israel is acting the way it does. It isn't because people are being "immoral". Go read my other posts in this thread, my response to Roy. If you believe western imperialism and colonialism happened because people were immoral, you don't understand evolution, human nature, and human development.

You need to re-read what I wrote, I have no interest in a conversation with you if you lack basic comprehension of my points. Europe needs migrants because of their collapsing demographics: This is another issue where in reality there are no good solutions. Israel is in a situation where it is acting in self-preservation, facing actual genocide by other nationstates if they weaken, while the palestinians obviously suffer the consequences of that self-preservation drive, and having their own self-preservation drive, they will of course fight as well. Often times when we face true dilemmas, we tend to moralize. We don't believe that there are "unresolvable issues", we will sooner delude ourselves than face the truth in that way. We will think that one side is simply correct. If you are not a sociopath, it is exceptionally difficult to actually admit to the flow of nature. To realize that if the gazelle does not escape the lion, it will be eaten alive, and if it does escape the lion, the lion will starve. There is no good resolution here. This is what reality is, and this is what the palestine-israel conflict is. It is not nearly as simple as the ukraine-russia conflict. We also tend to enjoy moralizing about the past. We like to point at european colonialism, not realize that people back then were driven by survival to a degree we cannot really fathom today. The reality is, if you did not enslave other people 2000 years ago, you would be weaker than a society that will enslave people. This means, if you did not want to be enslaved, you will have become the slave. Slavery was a necessity of human evolution. And so was colonialism. It just takes one actor, out of all nation actors of the world, to engage in colonialism, for everyone to be required to engage in it lest they will become colonized. Life is a competition in that way. Most often, you are not given the choice whether or not to engage in moral atrocities. People here in the west, like people on this forum, criticize the Israeli state, which is acting as a direct result of real self-preservation forces, while they themselves commit moral atrocities they are completely ignorant of, and are even unwilling to admit are atroctiries. Not because of pressures of self-preservation, but simply because of laziness.

Also, of course Israel is ethnonationalist. If everyone around you wants to kill you for your ethnicity and wants to destroy your country, the natural human response is ethnonationalism. This is the evolutionary function of ethnonationalism. In fact, I would go so far s to say, ethnonationalism is the healthy collective response to the situation israel is in. Of course, there is a degree of ethnonationalism which is helpful, and then there is ethnonationalism which will lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering. That is the danger of each developmental stage, however.

From what I have picked up, Natanyahu was criticizes for a lack of response and a kind of degradation of the IDF? From what I understand this might have been one of the reasons for this strike, the perceived weakening of the IDF.

It's backwards thinking because it is way too moralistic. What HAMAS did will not help palestinians at all, it will just lead to more death and misery. You can argue that what Israel does and did in the past was unjustified, but that doesn't justify blind terrorism. From the perspective of Israel none of this is as simple as it seems. 80 years ago a holocaust was committed, which of course motivated them to seek their own national identity, and of course they were willing to forgoe moral idealism to achieve that goal. They are still existentially threatened by nation-state actors around them, and so naturally will seek to secure more power within their own region. If the european settlers were being hunted by the europeans, and found a foothold in the america's, where everyone around them wants to murder them, I would have much more sympathy for the americans if they decided to occupy a strip of the US the way the israeli's do. Stop thinking about this in terms of morality, and look at it from the perspective of self-preservation. You have it easy because you don't have to make such choices. If you are going to talk about moral ideals the way you do, you could justify occupying the whole of arabia because of their systematic rape and murder of women. This is a game that has no end. In fact, by your logic, any vegan is justified to go on a killing spree to kill meat eaters, or go and kill slaughterhouse workers. Because, if you believe you are morally superior to the israeli's as a non-vegan, you are kidding yourself. It's completely self-serving. In fact, even if you are vegan, your consumption of luxury goods requires the deprivation of land, the murder of individuals, and all to serve a completely trivial function, your own satisfaction, that you could gain by other means. I can understand the palestinians, I can even understand HAMAS, even if they are utterly delusional and far less developed than even the Israeli right wing is. What I am disappointed in however, is that people in here have such a flat, black and white view of this. The world is not as simple as you would like it to be.

This is backwards thinking. None of this will help anyone, especially not palestinians. HAMAS didn't do this to help palestine-israeli relationships, they did this because they are ideologically motivated to eradicate all jewish people from israel and probably being used as pawns by larger actors like Iran. There are actors who are unlikely to allow actual peace to happen. There is a reason HAMAS is being funded by foreign nations. Realistically, these types of prospects are pipe dreams.

There is reportedly footage of dead naked female soldiers being paraded around by HAMAS and palestinian civilians.

Interestingly, some say the coordination required for this attack could have not been performed by HAMAS alone, and that this could indicate involvement from Iran, who are not happy about recent Arab–Israeli normalization deals. The aim would be to basically provoke and force a response from Israel that will set the progress back and leave Israel more vulnerable in the long term.

You can dislike something about someone without disliking them as a whole. I agree with Kastrup on the irrationality of materialism, and I like some of the ways he frames idealism. I don't think he quit because of some greater realization. He just got offended and his ego got in the way. The fact that I can exist and engage outside of that framework. You will not witness that because when I engage with hyperrationalists I must speak their language.

I'm not so much emphasizing my superior cognition as a lack of cognition in you hyperrationalists. If you didn't love condescension you wouldn't be a moderator on this forum.

I don't think it is necessarily ineptitude, although communication on a forum is harder than it is in face to face interactions, simply because you lack most social indicators. This is why online interactions tend to make people more autistic-brained, including me. Notice that this type of conversation would have never happened in voice communication. IRL, I would have just dismissed your cheeky provocation and moved on, and in the forum I feel like I can expand on my thoughts more, even though I know none of this will reach you at all. Forest is an interesting case because he has a very impersonal communication style, but I do get the sense that behind that is a sensitive soul. So you could say I was inept in the sense that I was not aware enough of this when I made the honest comment about how I perceive him. But notice that I did apologize to him and clarified that it was not a personal attack, without any direct prompt. The immature thing would have been to crybaby like Kastrup.

I don't have the sense that Forestluv doesn't like me, we have a long history of going back and forth in the way we did in our past interaction. In fact I am surprised that he did like me enough to give me advice, as our interactions always tend to end in that way. I am aware of how I come across and you are correct that it could be emotionally cutting. I usually adjust my communication style to the person I am communicating with, especially logic brained people like you I tend to handle this way. Riling you up is part of my communication strategy.

I did engage in logic-brained rationalizations, and it's interesting that once I did provide one you did not actually respond to the substance of what was being said, and started making a general vague point about multiperspectivalism. You just do the switcheroo whenever it fits you. But like I said, none of this should even require much logic. The fact that logic is required here means there is a lack of competency in regards to social dynamics. It also is an indicator that logic is being used to simply confirm ones own bias, as Kastrup did in his explanation point. You can rationalize all of this away, but the reality is pretty simple, and most people immediately will recognize it because they don't suffer from autism.

It's not about how serious you take it, but how logic-brained your approach here is. It's just silly because we are talking about basic social dynamics. To me, this is completely obvious, the reason why I am engaging in logic-brain myself is because you are so trapped in it you won't take anything else seriously. Well, if we agree Kastrup it an immature crybaby who was stuck up in his own ego during the interaction then I don't have much more to argue about.

I agree with much of what Kastrup is saying, I don't dislike him at all. I am just objective about him being a crybaby and stuck in his own ego.

It absolutely is different. But even if it was the same, just because some people don't react the same to your provocation does not mean you should be surprised when eventually someone does. You, similar to Kastrup, are way too logical about this, and you are just missing how human beings work, it's just completely obvious if you are not so stuck in your mind. The hypocrisy is, if you are going to be so logic brained as to not admit to the obvious thing that is happening here, then you can't also at the same time be an emotional cry baby whose voice shakes from anger because the other person reacted in an arrogant manner. If you want to be the hyperrational robot then at least be consistent about it, otherwise you just seem childish. Leo is also provocative with his speech, but imagine if Leo were to debate someone, make the statements he usually does, and then get completely furious at his opponent at the first glance of hostility. That would be mindblowingly immature. What Kastrup did was socially clumsy even if nothing had happened. Kastrup, if he had sufficient emotional maturity, could have easily laughed the arrogant response off, and cheekily apologizes to calling his opponents position groteqsue and moved on. If the other person were still this upset, he could have at some point said "Okay we clearly are not able to have a conversation here anymore, I don't know if it makes sense to continue.". But his ego got so riled up he immediately locked up and even refused any sort of explanation or attempt of reconciliation, even though the other person attempted to do so once he realized how absurdly upset Kastrup got, trying to explain himself "I only did this because you started it with the insulting language!". The mature thing at that point is to recognize the miscommunication and try to move on, instead of being a stubborn crybaby. The reality is, Kastrup takes himself way too seriously, he has a huge ego, and the sad thing is people even encourage it in him, praising him in conversation as if he was the second coming of Christ. The guy is not that special, he is arguing against an untenable position. This isn't the type of thing that requires genius.

I don't think this is true. Divine Intelligence is far more sophisticated than Leo seems to assume here. He believes that because it's so sophisticated, that it could not possibly be through lucky concidence. But, the intelligence and ingenuity of the universe is so sophisticated, that it actually is lucky concidence and random mutation. The very metaphysics of the universe, and math itself, is designed such that through put freedom, pure random chance, all of this will self-construct itself into existence. That is the genius of creation. There is nobody guiding it, all of that is already embued in the very nature of math itself. This is why MLA work and give such sophisticated results, through simple evolutionary chance mechanism. Divine Intelligence is so genius, it's intelligence works through dumb and random chance. Imagine coming up with a system where all of life on this planet and everything beyond will necessarily happen as the result of simple mechanisms and random chance. That's the miracle of existence.