Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

If someone loves and supports a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, why should it not be said?

If someone does not oppose a culture*, as opposed to "loves and supports" that culture, why should that not be said in response? Why go to the trouble of describing those who disagree with you in such pejorative terms? My only point is that the insulting and demeaning language is ... unproductive.

* — i.e. they understand why that culture feels as they do. But they don't necessarily agree with the all the actions they take in response to their view(s).

Rubbish. If someone is constantly discussing an issue, then "love and support" is appropriate.

There was no insulting or demeaning none - only in your imagination. I was simply pointing to the strange fact that Mo and so many other westerners love and support Palestine in their struggle to eliminate Israel, yet they are one of the nastiest cultures in the world.

If this was about empathy, then we'd also see repeated posts supporting the Southern Sudanese, who face an even worse situation and is far less cynical and stage-managed than Palestine's ... or the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, in Myanmar, in Yemen et al.

[Mo_reese]

What you said about me personally isn't true.

Even if it were true, that doesn't preclude if from being personal.

[Sy Borg]

Of course it's true. You cannot backtrack after months of slipping in comments in favour of your favoured regime at every opportunity, while not saying a thing about the problems of Sudanese, Tibetans, Uyghurs, Yemenis, Syrians etc.

And no, it wasn't personal. If you display cognitive dissonance on a philosophy forum, it's a bit rich to expect everyone not to comment on it, and when someone does, you make a complaint about personal comments. More personal comments have been levelled at me on this thread than at you, but I'd rather debate the points than complain about them.

[Pattern-chaser]

Rubbish. If someone is constantly discussing an issue, then "love and support" is appropriate.

If you say so...



<misinformation alert>?

[Sy Borg]

Rubbish. If someone is constantly discussing an issue, then "love and support" is appropriate.

If you say so... 🙄



<misinformation alert>?

"Misinformation alert"? That is EXACTLY why agencies should not be given the means to declare things to be "misinformation". As soon as something is said that ideologues don't like because it offends them, such as qestioning the support of the murderous misogynistic and homophobic tyrants of Palestine, it is declared to be "misinformation".

In fact, your suggestion that support of Palestine is based on empathy for human suffering is closer to "misinformation", because if one is concerned about human suffering, one doesn't just focus on the death of children cynically placed in the line of fire by Hamas, but also on the deaths in Sudan and other hotspots. In fact, if we are going to emote about the problems in the world, how about sparing a thought for the homeless in our own countries, the suicides, the growing mental health decline?

Anyone can play "misinformation" with views they disagree with, which is exactly why I oppose laws aimed at reducing misinformation. In China, mentioning the Tiananmen Square killings will land a person in hot water for "misinformation".

I'd rather people discuss anything and everything, and allow the strength of arguments to stand or fall on their merits. It's not perfect, but nothing is. To that end, I support Musk's loose administering of Twitter/X. It's a town square where a gagged populace can air their grievances. Of course, seeing people - often deluded or hate-filled people - whining and moaning about things is not edifying, but much of life is not edifying. Schopenhauer understood this well. Also Camus. Not to mention Benetar.

[Sy Borg]

My current favourite YT philosophy educator has timely upload. The whole video is worthwhile but, if you're time strapped, around 6 and 24 mins appear especially pertinent to this thread:

[Pattern-chaser]

Rubbish. If someone is constantly discussing an issue, then "love and support" is appropriate.

If you say so...



<misinformation alert>?

"Misinformation alert"? That is EXACTLY why agencies should not be given the means to declare things to be "misinformation". As soon as something is said that ideologues don't like because it offends them, such as questioning the support of the murderous misogynistic and homophobic tyrants of Palestine, it is declared to be "misinformation".

Once again, you misunderstand. You claimed this:

"If someone is constantly discussing an issue, then "love and support" is appropriate."

But it's obviously incorrect. Someone, perhaps like yourself, who disagrees very strongly, at a deeply emotional level, with some issue, will likely find themselves "constantly discussing" that issue. With no "love and support" in sight.

Someone else, perhaps like me, might react to a real-world issue with sympathy and understanding for both sides. In the particular case you refer to, it might be that someone could have sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, whose land is occupied by military invaders, while also being troubled by some of the actions taken to 'remedy' the situation.

In the case of the ongoing (for nearly 3000 years) conflict in the Middle East — the battle for control of, and dominance over, the Middle East, all of it — Israel very much has the upper hand. Their military invasion and occupation of Palestine is backed by the most fearsome war machine our planet has ever known, and all of their allies. They are doing just fine without "love and support" from its friends and allies. The bombs and missiles are enough.

But only the most extreme supporters of Israel or Palestine "love and support" the many thousands of deaths, and the terrible ways in which they have happened.

To describe those who disagree with you as having "love and support" for the atrocities of the side they sympathise with, is to offer propaganda — misinformation. For there are atrocities, terrible atrocities, on both sides. Sympathy and understanding for the plight of one side does not automatically translate into mindless (love and) support for everything they do.

[Sy Borg]

Rubbish. If someone is constantly discussing an issue, then "love and support" is appropriate.

If you say so... 🙄



<misinformation alert>?

"Misinformation alert"? That is EXACTLY why agencies should not be given the means to declare things to be "misinformation". As soon as something is said that ideologues don't like because it offends them, such as questioning the support of the murderous misogynistic and homophobic tyrants of Palestine, it is declared to be "misinformation".

Once again, you misunderstand. You claimed this:

"If someone is constantly discussing an issue, then "love and support" is appropriate."

But it's obviously incorrect. Someone, perhaps like yourself, who disagrees very strongly, at a deeply emotional level, with some issue, will likely find themselves "constantly discussing" that issue. With no "love and support" in sight.

Someone else, perhaps like me, might react to a real-world issue with sympathy and understanding for both sides. In the particular case you refer to, it might be that someone could have sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, whose land is occupied by military invaders, while also being troubled by some of the actions taken to 'remedy' the situation.

In the case of the ongoing (for nearly 3000 years) conflict in the Middle East — the battle for control of, and dominance over, the Middle East, all of it — Israel very much has the upper hand. Their military invasion and occupation of Palestine is backed by the most fearsome war machine our planet has ever known, and all of their allies. They are doing just fine without "love and support" from its friends and allies. The bombs and missiles are enough.

But only the most extreme supporters of Israel or Palestine "love and support" the many thousands of deaths, and the terrible ways in which they have happened.

To describe those who disagree with you as having "love and support" for the atrocities of the side they sympathise with, is to offer propaganda — misinformation. For there are atrocities, terrible atrocities, on both sides. Sympathy and understanding for the plight of one side does not automatically translate into mindless (love and) support for everything they do.

No, you are once again wrong, an once again you will not admit it.

It is absolutely love and support. Remember, there are seven types of love (at least), not just romance. Constantly speaking up for one group is showing love and support, obviously.

What you are doing is providing misinformation, using weasel words to and misrepresenting the ME conflict in a one-sided way, suggesting that you also love and support Hamas simply for being an underdog.

Once I always "loved and supported" the underdog in any given situation. Like you, I always reflexively backed the underdog without deeply considering how those circumstances came about. Over time, however, I noticed that underdogs are very often in that situation due to their own problematic attitudes, choices and decisions.

[Pattern-chaser]

No, you are once again wrong, and once again you will not admit it.

I am not aware of whatever it is that you think I am "not admitting". What is it? What will I not admit?



I have stated here repeatedly, and I'm happy to say again, that I do not approve of violence of any sort.

I can *understand* the frustration (etc) that might lead some to violence, but I do not approve of it. I definitely don't "love and support" such violence. I yearn for its cessation. I yearn also for peace in the Middle East, for the peaceful coexistence of those who live there.

I love and support peace. I condemn genocide.

[Sy Borg]

No, you are once again wrong, and once again you will not admit it.

I am not aware of whatever it is that you think I am "not admitting". What is it? What will I not admit?



I have stated here repeatedly, and I'm happy to say again, that I do not approve of violence of any sort.

I can *understand* the frustration (etc) that might lead some to violence, but I do not approve of it. I definitely don't "love and support" such violence. I yearn for its cessation. I yearn also for peace in the Middle East, for the peaceful coexistence of those who live there.

I love and support peace. I condemn genocide.

Then you should be even-handed in your comments, rather than favour a culture that is warlike from pre-school to death.

I - like most of humanity - also love and support peace and condemn genocide. However, life is inherently competitive and conflicts have always happened. Over-focus on Palestine and indifference to South Sudan says a fair bit to me about the nature of a person.

[Pattern-chaser]

No, you are once again wrong, and once again you will not admit it.

I am not aware of whatever it is that you think I am "not admitting". What is it? What will I not admit?

Then you should be even-handed in your comments, rather than favour a culture that is warlike from pre-school to death.

I know little of the cultures of any Middle Eastern people. Like many people. I do not favour any particular Middle Eastern 'culture'.

I sympathise, quite strongly, with a people who have endured many hardships in recent years. In 1947, 55% of their land was stolen from them by an external and irresistible military force, and given to the descendants of a small religious group who were ejected from the Middle East nearly 3000 years before. Since then, the new arrivals have occupied nearly all of their neighbour's remaining land, with all the horror that usually accompanies war and military conquest.

I sympathise with any people who have endured this.

My sympathy does not mean I support everything that Palestine or Palestinians stand for. It merely reflects my hope and desire, on their behalf, for peace in the region. The aggressors are those who occupy the land that belongs to others. It's time they withdrew behind the borders set in 1947. Even then, the newly-formed state of Israel will retain 55% of Palestinian land. We need peace in the Middle East, and that is the aim I "love and support", no other.

The sympathy shown by marchers across the world is not "love and support" for Palestine or Palestinians, but only sympathy and support for a dispossessed people, like the indigenous populations of North America, New Zealand, and Oz too.

I - like most of humanity - also love and support peace and condemn genocide. However, life is inherently competitive and conflicts have always happened. Over-focus on Palestine and indifference to South Sudan says a fair bit to me about the nature of a person.

I sympathise with any people under threat, or who have been mistreated. Whether that is in Sudan, Taiwan, or any other part of the world. It is not over-focus to express support for any one of these places; there are so many of them. Too many.


And yet you continue to post venomous caricatures of anyone who does not support Israel. Please stop.





This is a topic about misinformation. In the current Middle Eastern conflict, there is much misinformation around. Much of it comes from Israel, whose propaganda (lies) has been fact-checked and disproved so many times recently. But not all: all sides make use of such deception. That is as even-handed a description of the current situation as we can hope for, I think.

[Sy Borg]

No, you are once again wrong, and once again you will not admit it.

I am not aware of whatever it is that you think I am "not admitting". What is it? What will I not admit?

Then you should be even-handed in your comments, rather than favour a culture that is warlike from pre-school to death.

I know little of the cultures of any Middle Eastern people. Like many people. I do not favour any particular Middle Eastern 'culture'.

I sympathise, quite strongly, with a people who have endured many hardships in recent years. In 1947, 55% of their land was stolen from them by an external and irresistible military force, and given to the descendants of a small religious group who were ejected from the Middle East nearly 3000 years before. Since then, the new arrivals have occupied nearly all of their neighbour's remaining land, with all the horror that usually accompanies war and military conquest.

I sympathise with any people who have endured this.

My sympathy does not mean I support everything that Palestine or Palestinians stand for. It merely reflects my hope and desire, on their behalf, for peace in the region. The aggressors are those who occupy the land that belongs to others. It's time they withdrew behind the borders set in 1947. Even then, the newly-formed state of Israel will retain 55% of Palestinian land. We need peace in the Middle East, and that is the aim I "love and support", no other.

The sympathy shown by marchers across the world is not "love and support" for Palestine or Palestinians, but only sympathy and support for a dispossessed people, like the indigenous populations of North America, New Zealand, and Oz too.

I - like most of humanity - also love and support peace and condemn genocide. However, life is inherently competitive and conflicts have always happened. Over-focus on Palestine and indifference to South Sudan says a fair bit to me about the nature of a person.

I sympathise with any people under threat, or who have been mistreated. Whether that is in Sudan, Taiwan, or any other part of the world. It is not over-focus to express support for any one of these places; there are so many of them. Too many.


And yet you continue to post venomous caricatures of anyone who does not support Israel. Please stop.

The venom is coming from your direction, not mine. I am merely pointing out incongruities.

Meanwhile, you focus on one "oppressed" group, while making obviously false claims about how you care equally about the others. Your weasel words are drowned out by your actions - in support of Palestine. Ask yourself, why are you supporting Palestine so vehemently and so uninterested in all the other injustices in the world?

Further, there is never even the slightest consideration of what Palestinians have done to bring this on themselves. The deaths and suffering only happened after a huge and unprecedented attack was made on Israel civilians, and a subsequent refusal to return hostages. Hamas could have returned the hostages as soon as it was clear that Israel were going to go hard - but they did not. Their strategy was to use a body count to remove international support for Israel.

When a nation is out-competed, it has options. One option is to be pragmatic and work within the limitations of the "oppressor" for the good of your people. To work and trade your way to prosperity. Another option is to opt for endless vengeance and to continually throw your people, generation after generation, into war's meat grinder. I will never support "underdogs" who opt for the latter, for whom hatred matters more than welfare.

You might as well stop pretending that you care even a little bit about all the other hotspots in the world where people (and other animals) are suffering. If you cared so much, you'd be posting about them. It's just posturing - virtue signalling in search for the moral high ground.

Thing is, it's alright not to care. No one really cares about all the suffering. So they specialise, focus on certain areas. Personally, I care most about animal welfare and growing homelessness in Australia. What happens overseas is not my business.

That says something about my own biases, just as Palestine focus says something about a person's biases - perhaps anti-Semitism, Marxism (always supporting the "oppressed") or simply following causes that the media pushes.

In truth, most people don't much care about things outside their sphere, but there is social cache in some circles (esp academic) to be had in pretending to care. As you suggested, the world is actually too big to care outside of your own circles. No matter how much suffering and how many injustices you agonise over, there is endless amounts of suffering and injustices that you missed, or simply didn't care about. And if you agonise over them, you neglect problems at home.

Welcome to the world.

This is a topic about misinformation. In the current Middle Eastern conflict, there is much misinformation around. Much of it comes from Israel, whose propaganda (lies) has been fact-checked and disproved so many times recently. But not all: all sides make use of such deception. That is as even-handed a description of the current situation as we can hope for, I think.

You cannot see your own biases. As for fact-checking, it is dominated by the academic left, who tend to despise Israel, in case you haven’t noticed. That's why censorship of misinformation is so dangerous - the left dominates academia. Wore, academics' opinions are frequently bought.

Independent arbitration is the issue. I would not trust you to make decisions on information and misinformation on contentious issues, and that is no doubt mutual. Nor would I trust any of the world governments to decide.

Better at this stage that claims and counter-claims be debated without censorship. It's not perfect because bad ideas can catch on quickly at times, but the alternative is authoritarianism, which is also sub-optimal.

[Pattern-chaser]

Thing is, it's alright not to care.

I disagree.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

[Sy Borg]

Thing is, it's alright not to care.

I disagree.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

A solid piece of virtue signalling, which - like all virtue signalling - is meaningless since you can't possibly care about the 300 million+ people in grinding poverty, suicide rates rapidly climbing due to widespread growing despair, and many millions of animals suffering gruesome deaths every day. You don't care because you can't care. The scope is vastly beyond you, if you are to be honest.

This is life, and it's always been this way. For at least 3.8 billion years, innumerable "eggs" have been broken (and needed to be broken) to create the "omelette" of the future.

If you choose to rail against the inherent cruelty of existence, you can go to the end of a very long queue.

[Pattern-chaser]

Thing is, it's alright not to care.

I disagree.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

A solid piece of virtue signalling, which - like all virtue signalling - is meaningless since you can't possibly care about the 300 million+ people in grinding poverty, suicide rates rapidly climbing due to widespread growing despair, and many millions of animals suffering gruesome deaths every day. You don't care because you can't care. The scope is vastly beyond you, if you are to be honest.

Actually, I do care about all those people. But your point is valid and correct. It's like the care must be diluted for each person, in order to reach all of them at once. It can't be as ... caring when there are so many involved.

The term virtue signalling refers to the act of expressing opinions or stances that align with popular moral values, often through social media, with the intent of demonstrating one's good character. While the expression might sometimes be sincere, it is frequently used pejoratively to suggest that the person is more concerned with appearing virtuous than with actually supporting the cause or belief in question.

If this is the meaning of that phrase, I deny it, and express my sorrow at your lack of care; in this case, for me. You judge my actions too harshly and, it seems, with ill intent. You have no idea what I care about, or why. But I really don't like one of my core beliefs to be trivialised and devalued as you have done here. Please don't do it again. Thanks.