Israel/palestine debate: the most common bad/invalid arguement form used

I don't if this is the right place for this but anyway here it goes.


I have been looking and participating in debates on this issue. There is one commonly used form of argument used by both sides. It is invalid and stupid. It is when people argue that one side is not guilty or not responsible because the other side is guilty or responsible when both sides are guilty or responsible.

Another person guilt or responsibility has no bearing on yours. If you both do the same crime or both have done the same thing to negatively impact a third person/groups way of life guess what your both guilty and your both responsible.


Please for the love of god stop using this form of argument.
people who I know have used this form in someway: SAM, Mr. spock, Cheskichips, otheadp, spidergoat, disease, buffaloroam, and others as well.

I also have used this form sadly for which I am sorry for staining my intellectual honesty. I have vowed to stop using such a horrid argument to make my point. I hope you all will do the same.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you believe both sides are equivalent? I see an miltary power pounding a population they have locked into an enclosed space and been deliberately starving for two years. They have no army, navy or air force. Their crime? They are not Jews

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

irrelavant the crimes of one does not negate the crimes of another.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not what I asked. But I do believe that starving an entire population gives them the right to protest anyway they can especially when they are powerless

 

I think what SAM is trying to say, is that the severity of the crimes are not equal.

 

just because a crime is committed against you does not give you the right to commit crimes against them. severity is irrelevant. how well justified they are is irrelevant.

 

It is still irrelevant. If you steal a hundred dollars from me does that me its ok for me to steal 5 dollars from you, no it doesn't.

 

But does that make the loss of a $100 equal to $5 ?
No.
While the morals of the crime may be equivocal, (i.e, Two wrongs don't make a right), The losses aren't.

 

I disagree. If the US government had bombed the people of Katrina for rioting, the fault would still lie with the US government for failing the people of Katrina. Hunger and desperation can make people do strange things. And if the government had sealed off all exits and then bombed them I doubt anyone would have considered it justified. If your acess to food water and medicine is cut off, it is not a crime to fight back, it is a right.

 

Congratulations - you have just rendered most of moral philosophy obsolete. In several paragraphs, you've solved a conundrum that puzzled hundreds of philosophers for hundreds of years. Humanity will be indebted to you for ages.

 

*applauds*

Another person who see`s the light

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*wave* Hey SAM.. good to see you back.

 

Can someone explain it to me again ?

All I can gather. Just because one nation/entity committed a crime does not justify another crime against it.

This still smacks of trying to equalise the severity of crimes, and as a consequence, their punishment.
I don't know, maybe it's the wording.

 

Very good logic, and well stated, your learning.

 

PJDude is making the argument "Murder of 6" = "Murder of 1". Both are murder.

pjdude is not recognizing, "Retaliation is not murder."

 

So basically if I shoot you and you hit me [or vice versa], both of us are criminals.

 

Conversely if you punch me repeatedly and I shoot you to death...no one is a criminal there.

 

So the winner is the one who kills the most; well maybe that is where Israel is heading. Its unlikely the Palestinians will stop fighting to live on their land, so the Israelis will probably end up killing them all for it. Or they'll be relegated like aboriginals and native Americans once most of them are dead.

You think that will make Israel secure?

 

More secure, yes.

 

Looking at the last 60 years, I would say, the political groups seem to be moving further right with every incursion. I hear Islamic Jihad is waiting for Hamas to fall. You'll end up with a group that has no national affiliations cares nothing about Palestine and only wants to kill Jews. I doubt thats defined as security

 

No SAM if you shoot someone else for no reason you are a murderer, and the person you shot isn't in a position to shoot back.

Hamas has been shooting at Israel for 2 full years from Gaza, and finally the Israelis are shooting back, and in full justification.


Israeli stands between Hamas and their children, Hamas hides behind their children and let them take the bullets intended them.