PARIS—“Do I really have to answer that question? I’m certainly not voting for the person leading the Republican Party.” That was the response of communist icon Angela Davis when a journalist asked about her intentions for the 2024 U.S.
Oh, you only want no genocide and not no killing? Do you have a soul? You’re such a monster!
We can go on forever saying some things are worse than others. Eventually you have to accept you don’t have a choice of perfection, and you never will.
I’m sorry, I don’t have a bomber. That is not a choice I have. I also am not a member of the International Court of Justice nor am I an attorney or a UN representative. I don’t really have any power to enforce the Geneva convention. By the way you’re speaking it appears you do and you should use that power instead of telling others they aren’t doing it.
What does boycotting the election do that is any different than if I just didn’t exist? If they can just ignore me, then what effect does that have that forces them to change? It would appear effectively being non-existent is the cowardly option.
You speak a big game, but you don’t actually play it. Its easy to say something isn’t enough, but what actually would be? I can always point to a flaw. A coward would say “I’m just not going to do anything.” Someone who actually cares will accept that they have a moral responsibility to do what they can to achieve the best outcome, even if that outcome isn’t perfect and still has massive moral flaws, because the alternative would only be worse.
Being cowardly and letting the worst option come to fruition is true moral degeneracy. The Palestinians that die from US support ramping up will be on everyone’s hands, and especially those who chose it or didn’t try to prevent it, including those from outside trying to make other do so.
There is no way to write that sentence without a double-negative. Quotes could have differentiated it (not “no killing”), but there’s no alternative with the same meaning that isn’t a double-negative (at least that I’m aware of).
Some infinities are larger than others.
Most people prefer less genocide. It’s quite good for it to be scarce.
Removed by mod
Oh, you only want no genocide and not no killing? Do you have a soul? You’re such a monster!
We can go on forever saying some things are worse than others. Eventually you have to accept you don’t have a choice of perfection, and you never will.
Removed by mod
I’m sorry, I don’t have a bomber. That is not a choice I have. I also am not a member of the International Court of Justice nor am I an attorney or a UN representative. I don’t really have any power to enforce the Geneva convention. By the way you’re speaking it appears you do and you should use that power instead of telling others they aren’t doing it.
What does boycotting the election do that is any different than if I just didn’t exist? If they can just ignore me, then what effect does that have that forces them to change? It would appear effectively being non-existent is the cowardly option.
You speak a big game, but you don’t actually play it. Its easy to say something isn’t enough, but what actually would be? I can always point to a flaw. A coward would say “I’m just not going to do anything.” Someone who actually cares will accept that they have a moral responsibility to do what they can to achieve the best outcome, even if that outcome isn’t perfect and still has massive moral flaws, because the alternative would only be worse.
Being cowardly and letting the worst option come to fruition is true moral degeneracy. The Palestinians that die from US support ramping up will be on everyone’s hands, and especially those who chose it or didn’t try to prevent it, including those from outside trying to make other do so.
Removed by mod
There is no way to write that sentence without a double-negative. Quotes could have differentiated it (not “no killing”), but there’s no alternative with the same meaning that isn’t a double-negative (at least that I’m aware of).