I’m not sure if you are attempting a platitude or are making a point, but to make a point your logic should be sound.
Your logic is that if an average first world person cannot live in a place comfortably, then you have an unstated implication that they should not receive support against death. Please correct if you were implying something else, would have been easier to know if you had spoken less vaguely.
Nonetheless regarding said “logic”, (TLDR it’s not logical) I don’t see the logical connection between the tourism experience of visiting a country under siege and how that determines whether the residents of that country should be exterminated.
If you were making a point, could you elaborate on this connection? If however you were attempting a platitude, no explanation needed, you succeeded.
Ah great, well thank you for the explanation regarding their implication. That is helpful.
Do you happen to also understand if their position is logical, or is your meaning then, “They murder, so we must murder them, so that all of the murderers have been murdered.”
(Please correct the above if I am misunderstanding)
Because there is a bit of a problem with that sentiment as well.
I’m not stating that you take this position, so do not take this next statement as targeted at you, rather it is targeted at those who may hold the above sentiment. That is, progress is rarely generated from the barrel of a gun. Then we live in a world where B’s hate against A is justified, because A hates B. This is a perpetual cycle of endless violence and war, that is the end result of this type of thinking, and why these comments are so negative because a lot of us have lived long enough to see this cycle, every day, it does not end through bloodshed.
They make a valid point, that most of the residents of Gaza despise the rainbow community, and many of them would physically harm them given the chance.
With this in mind, it’s quite bizarre that a Lemmy community built around the rainbow community is formally in support of them. I personally think the best thing to do in this situation would have been to stay out of it.
Plenty of people in the rural southern Appalachian county I grew up in would and did physically harm me when given the chance. Am I supposed to be okay with bombing their kids and hospitals now or something?
I think the best thing to do in this situation is not bomb hospitals and children. 🤷♂️
If it is, I guess we could all take a minute and talk about how Israel has such a problem controlling violent homophobic religious extremists that Jerusalem Pride has needed a ratio of 1 armed guard for every 6 marchers.
I’m not sure if you are attempting a platitude or are making a point, but to make a point your logic should be sound.
Your logic is that if an average first world person cannot live in a place comfortably, then you have an unstated implication that they should not receive support against death. Please correct if you were implying something else, would have been easier to know if you had spoken less vaguely.
Nonetheless regarding said “logic”, (TLDR it’s not logical) I don’t see the logical connection between the tourism experience of visiting a country under siege and how that determines whether the residents of that country should be exterminated.
If you were making a point, could you elaborate on this connection? If however you were attempting a platitude, no explanation needed, you succeeded.
They murder gay people, that was their point.
Israel murders those gay people too, as well as their families and friends. The answer to homophobia just isn’t genocide 🤷
Ah great, well thank you for the explanation regarding their implication. That is helpful.
Do you happen to also understand if their position is logical, or is your meaning then, “They murder, so we must murder them, so that all of the murderers have been murdered.”
(Please correct the above if I am misunderstanding)
Because there is a bit of a problem with that sentiment as well.
I’m not stating that you take this position, so do not take this next statement as targeted at you, rather it is targeted at those who may hold the above sentiment. That is, progress is rarely generated from the barrel of a gun. Then we live in a world where B’s hate against A is justified, because A hates B. This is a perpetual cycle of endless violence and war, that is the end result of this type of thinking, and why these comments are so negative because a lot of us have lived long enough to see this cycle, every day, it does not end through bloodshed.
They make a valid point, that most of the residents of Gaza despise the rainbow community, and many of them would physically harm them given the chance.
With this in mind, it’s quite bizarre that a Lemmy community built around the rainbow community is formally in support of them. I personally think the best thing to do in this situation would have been to stay out of it.
Plenty of people in the rural southern Appalachian county I grew up in would and did physically harm me when given the chance. Am I supposed to be okay with bombing their kids and hospitals now or something?
I think the best thing to do in this situation is not bomb hospitals and children. 🤷♂️
Is that relevant?
If it is, I guess we could all take a minute and talk about how Israel has such a problem controlling violent homophobic religious extremists that Jerusalem Pride has needed a ratio of 1 armed guard for every 6 marchers.
The fact that Israel has a pride march at all kinda works against whatever point you’re making.
Do you feel that needing 1 armed guard for every 6 marchers is indicative that it is incredibly safe to be out as queer in Jerusalem?
Who provides the armed guards, out of interest?
Why are the armed guards needed?
Who are they being protected from?
Do you think a pride march in the Gaza strip would be any safer?
so doesn’t the us
Not as a matter of policy, no.