"What the media get wrong is..."

[Oscar_Kipling]

Was smashing Nazi Germany "complicated"? Or a simple choice of good vs evil? Clue me in here.

Well, Yeah WWII was complicated, In Europe , In north Africa/Mediterranean and in the Pacific. I want to talk about Japan if you don't mind, because they don't get as much flack as the Nazis and while the nukes were objectively less destructive and lethal than the combined carpet bombing campaigns I did just watch Oppenheimer again, sooo cool.  Japan was basically waging a Jihad but instead of Allah they had a God Emperor and instead of a Koran they had bushido (oversimplification, but just go with me). The Japanese mindset leading up to and during the war could rightly be described as zealous, delusional and unhinged. This mindset fueled some truly horrific war crimes that rival the Nazis if not in scope necessarily (though maybe idk) in the extreme cruelty and utter disregard for the humanity of other human beings, or evil as you might say. The Japanese industrial war machine was integrated into civilian residential districts (especially in the context of the practical limits of WW2 weapon precision). There is competent debate to this day about whether the nukes ended the war, or the Russians turning their attention to Japan in Manchuria or some confluence of both and other factors. All that to say that even with 8 decades of hindsight and focusing on just 2 bombs, the question of what would have happened is still murky if not entirely inscrutable. Post WW2 not every one of those extremely zealous soldiers were killed, dare I say that many of them changed their views. I mean to be fair some of them were still at literal war for many decades after the surrender  ( I think the last Japanese soldier to concede the war was in like the 70's). Anyway, I don't know that you would have called the Japanese irredeemably evil if you lived in a country they invaded and were a part of the population that they terrorized, but some certainly did. Were they right, are there no reformed or redeemed Japanese?, ..IOW yeah I think it is complicated.

TLDR: Yeah I do think it is complicated

Edit: oops, forgot to explicitly say that I think the Nazis were terrible, not a fan at all.

I guess you can see that civilian death is regrettable, but I guess you cannot cotton to describing it as not good.

Because sometimes it is necessary. God Himself destroyed Sodom, even while conceding that there might be non wicked people still there. Such is life.

I mean you're preaching to the atheist convention with that example, I think Sodom is an illustration of the nonsensical proposition that the Abrahamic God is good. Like seriously why would God ever be like "Maybe there are good people here", like, he knows for sure right? 

Neurodivergent as I may be, these 2 things aren't even close and do not pose this problem for me. What does pose a problem for me is the insistence that I ignore regrettable features that have a meaningful impact on what I deem to be good, for the sake or what exactly?

It seems to me that given the opportunity, you would either be incapable of acting, or would allow Hamas to remain in power. Am I mistaken?

If you encounter a morally complicated or ambiguous choice do you just get caught in some sort of endless loop and become incapable of doing life? I'd be incapable of acting while believing or espousing that what I'm doing is this wholly good, pure and righteous crusade against the forces of pure evil. I am capable of doing a great many things that I do not consider to be good, or I make concessions in my choices where I know there is a higher moral choice that is available to me,  but I choose not to go down the narrow path for many reasons i.e. it would be too costly for me in time, money, or effort. I simply live with the fact that I could be doing more in my moral efforts. I do not like to pretend that the fact that I did all that I was willing to do in service of moral reasoning means that I have made the choice that was actually the most moral.

To put it another way, I'd only be paralyzed if for some reason I thought that all of my actions needed to be of the highest possible moral quality in order to proceed, but I don't actually live like that, not only because I would actually be paralyzed by that impossible standard, but also because my willingness to sacrifice my self interests for moral ideals has limits...also laziness. I'm no angel and I do not expect myself or anyone else to be, but I do admit this to myself and I think we would all be better served by honest self evaluation of the moral quality of our choices and beliefs.

TLDR: I am not paralyzed because I allow myself to make choices that I know are not of the highest moral quality or that I cannot fully evaluate. I do not need to know that my choices are the most moral in order to act, I just don't pretend that because I acted as best as I could or as best as I was willing to that this means that my choice/action was actually the most moral choice.

"TLDR" was TLDR: I know it's not good and I do it anyway.

I wish, when I have difficulty sleeping I like to imagine myself in the alpha quadrant of the Star Trek universe circa the mid to late 2300's. I'm not having adventures or anything, I'm just building things with all of the advanced tools & technologies, so fun to think about. In this reality, I guess I'd deluded enough to believe that what people do, especially on large scales usually defies naïve categorization, I leave the archetypes on the holodeck.

You keep reverting to fictional universes. I'm trying to be polite here, but I wonder if any further discussion would be fruitful for either of us.

To be fair, I think that your religious texts are mostly fiction and your God is pure fantasy, I'm trying to be polite too, I think we're both doing a respectable job. Anyway my personality is cobbled together from old 90's commercials and Sci-Fi novels. Sorry, Pop culture & entertainment is a lens through which I see the world, not the only one but I have found that it is usually much more relatable for others than analogies from my other interests which are more mathy or food related. Also religious people seem to really get peeved when I use examples from the bible, so its a rock and a hard place deal.

I am finding this conversation fascinating, though I am under no illusions that I'm doing something important by having it.

[Fenris]

Well, Yeah WWII was complicated,

No, it wasn't.  I don't know what your issues are, but you seem incapable of discerning right from wrong.

Anyway, I don't know that you would have called the Japanese irredeemably evil

I didn't call the Palestinians evil either. But their government in Gaza, Hamas, must be smashed just as we smashed Nazis Germany and totalitarian Japan.

I mean you're preaching to the atheist convention with that example, I think Sodom is an illustration of the nonsensical proposition that the Abrahamic God is good. Like seriously why would God ever be like "Maybe there are good people here", like, he knows for sure right? 

The point wasn't whether God knew or not. The point was that Abraham asked and God answered.

If you encounter a morally complicated or ambiguous choice do you just get caught in some sort of endless loop and become incapable of doing life?

Nope.

I'd be incapable of acting

OK, you're an observer and not an actor.

To put it another way, I'd only be paralyzed if for some reason I thought that all of my actions needed to be of the highest possible moral quality in order to proceed, but I don't actually live like that, not only because I would actually be paralyzed by that impossible standard, but also because my willingness to sacrifice my self interests for moral ideals has limits...also laziness. I'm no angel and I do not expect myself or anyone else to be, but I do admit this to myself and I think we would all be better served by honest self evaluation of the moral quality of our choices and beliefs.

TLDR: I am not paralyzed because I allow myself to make choices that I know are not of the highest moral quality or that I cannot fully evaluate. I do not need to know that my choices are the most moral in order to act, I just don't pretend that because I acted as best as I could or as best as I was willing to that this means that my choice/action was actually the most moral choice.

"TLDR" was TLDR: I know it's not good and I do it anyway.

Ok, so what would you do in the case of Hamas? Poof, you're the Israeli PM.

To be fair, I think that your religious texts are mostly fiction and your God is pure fantasy

An opinion you are entitled to.

[Athanasius]

Edit: oops, forgot to explicitly say that I think the Nazis were terrible, not a fan at all.

Oh about Hamas, they don't think the Holocaust happened, so their designs are to do it for real.

We don't need to entertain a reductio ad Hitlerum since there's no reduction happening. So, you think Hamas [are] terrible and you're not a fan at all. Do you appease the Nazis, Mr Chamberlain?

[Sojourner]

In debates involving Israel vs Hamas, I think a point is being overlooked (or discounted). It's the fact that while most modern nations are focused on the political, economic and social issues at hand, Israel does not have that luxury. Instead, she must attend to such matters while also continually looking over her shoulder for those who mean her harm. The recent cowardly attack by Hamas on 10/7 demonstrates what happens when Israel even briefly lets her guard down.

Many see Israel's current campaign against Hamas as payback for the attack and are calling for a cease fire because 'two wrongs don't make a right'. But it's not that simple. Israel is seeking to eliminate a dangerous, mortal enemy that will not hesitate to attack again at the first opportunity--claiming even more innocent lives. Hamas operates at the behest of the Palestinians. who put the terrorist organization in power. Unlike Hamas, Israel seeks to attack only legitimate military targets. But collateral damage is difficult to avoid when the enemy is firing from behind civilians serving as human shields.

[ProDeo]

To be clear, I am not asserting that Israel isn't taking world class measures to minimize civilian casualties, but just like the US there are limits to what they are willing to do in the name of avoiding collateral loss of life while still accomplishing the military objectives that they have. And again Israel is not special or weird or mean for having military goals, it is what it means to have a competent military and be attacked.

10/7 for Israel is what 9/11 was for USA.

Shall I start listing the US war crimes?

[Athanasius]

To be clear, I am not asserting that Israel isn't taking world class measures to minimize civilian casualties, but just like the US there are limits to what they are willing to do in the name of avoiding collateral loss of life while still accomplishing the military objectives that they have. And again Israel is not special or weird or mean for having military goals, it is what it means to have a competent military and be attacked.

10/7 for Israel is what 9/11 was for USA.

Shall I start listing the US war crimes?

Sorry, the women in Afghanistan aren't available for comment.

[ProDeo]

It's an attempt to self reflection.

[Athanasius]

It's an attempt to self reflection.

Yeah, but they aren't allowed mirrors.

It's biting cynicism that adds to the reflective point.

[ProDeo]

It's not meant as cynicism, I like to hear from Oscar (for instance) his stance on the Iraqi war (based on the sentiments of 9/11) at the cost of more than 100,000 dead Iraq people and if that was proportional to the alleged threat of WMD that wasn't a threat after all.

[Athanasius]

I'm being cynical. You're asking about Iraq, I'm making the/a point with Afghanistan.

[ProDeo]

Then I misunderstood you, still do 

[Oscar_Kipling]

Anyway, I don't know that you would have called the Japanese irredeemably evil

I didn't call the Palestinians evil either. But their government in Gaza, Hamas, must be smashed just as we smashed Nazis Germany and totalitarian Japan.
 

I know you didn't, From the context I thought it was understood that I was using synecdoche, "The Japanese" meaning  the Japanese leadership, military and relevant parties to draw a comparison to the current situation. Specifically that the Japanese committed atrocities that could be called evil by your standard, many in Manchuria & the Pacific theater might have understandably called the Japanese irredeemably evil, The Japanese had beliefs & behaviors that could be rightly called religious zealotry and genocidal. Not every Japanese service member, military or civilian leader was eliminated during the war or even faced judicial action, and some of those people changed their views after the war. The Japanese as a culture had a redemption arc like in the movies. It really does seem to me that you do not draw a distinction between something being good and something being justifiable due to badness of the other guy.

I mean you're preaching to the atheist convention with that example, I think Sodom is an illustration of the nonsensical proposition that the Abrahamic God is good. Like seriously why would God ever be like "Maybe there are good people here", like, he knows for sure right? 

The point wasn't whether God knew or not. The point was that Abraham asked and God answered.
 

Well, I don't know what moral evaluation even means if what you know or don't know doesn't factor into it, just like I don't know what it means to regret something if your regret does not weigh at all into your evaluation of the moral character of the situation. So, Abraham asked and God answered > therefore you can destroy an entire population whether or not you've even checked to see if there were any innocent people and it was well within your power to evacuate them > Hence Israel actually takes measures at all to identify and avoid innocent casualties > thus this is a good war because even God didnt try this hard > Ergo my moral compass is broken because this conclusion seems flawed to me if for no other reason than it follows from the idea that God's example is obviously Good.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the choice to not review information that is readily available to or take any measures to avoid innocent deaths doesn't color the moral character of God in this story to you, but it legit surprises me every time someone just glosses over it. 

If you encounter a morally complicated or ambiguous choice do you just get caught in some sort of endless loop and become incapable of doing life?

Nope.
 

Exactly, me neither.

I'd be incapable of acting

OK, you're an observer and not an actor.
 

My full statement was  "I'd be incapable of acting while believing or espousing that what I'm doing is this wholly good, pure and righteous crusade against the forces of pure evil.". Even if my meaning wasnt clear from that sentence ( which is entirely understandable), I would have thought the subsequent statements would have clarified That what i was trying to convey was that I can act just fine, I just refuse to act like what I'm doing is some righteous wholly good & pure crusade against evil. It's more about how I'd characterize my actions than whether or not I act. I have to say that my point was initially in the context of the media, that is  that our tendency to characterize things as good vs evil is one of the reasons that the media tends toward hyperbole.

To put it another way, I'd only be paralyzed if for some reason I thought that all of my actions needed to be of the highest possible moral quality in order to proceed, but I don't actually live like that, not only because I would actually be paralyzed by that impossible standard, but also because my willingness to sacrifice my self interests for moral ideals has limits...also laziness. I'm no angel and I do not expect myself or anyone else to be, but I do admit this to myself and I think we would all be better served by honest self evaluation of the moral quality of our choices and beliefs.

TLDR: I am not paralyzed because I allow myself to make choices that I know are not of the highest moral quality or that I cannot fully evaluate. I do not need to know that my choices are the most moral in order to act, I just don't pretend that because I acted as best as I could or as best as I was willing to that this means that my choice/action was actually the most moral choice.

"TLDR" was TLDR: I know it's not good and I do it anyway.

Ok, so what would you do in the case of Hamas? Poof, you're the Israeli PM.
 

Probably more or less the same thing if I were poofed into the situation just as I finished reading your sentence.  While I was doing it I'd likely even publicly characterize it as a battle between good and pure evil for rhetorical purposes, but not because I believe it, but because it would be useful and having the kind of back and forth that you and I are having  as the prime minister would be a sure fire way to muddy my messaging and potentially hinder my ability to consolidate support and effectively lead.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Oh about Hamas, they don't think the Holocaust happened, so their designs are to do it for real.

Yeah, I strongly disagree with them on that point, I personally believe that the holocaust actually did happen.

We don't need to entertain a reductio ad Hitlerum since there's no reduction happening. So, you think Hamas [are] terrible and you're not a fan at all. Do you appease the Nazis, Mr Chamberlain?

Why would I appease the Nazis? Like what is it about my refusal to characterize WW2 as a good battle between good and evil just because the Nazis were were truly horrific actors and the allies fought against them that would lead you to think that that possibly means that I would therefore appease the Nazis. Just because I refuse to characterize the death penalty as good or the US prison system or justice system as good, it doesn't mean that I think we should free all the serial child murderers from prison. Or maybe you are making some point that I missed, if so, sorry it's getting pretty hard to parse what it is that people think that I believe.

[Oscar_Kipling]

To be clear, I am not asserting that Israel isn't taking world class measures to minimize civilian casualties, but just like the US there are limits to what they are willing to do in the name of avoiding collateral loss of life while still accomplishing the military objectives that they have. And again Israel is not special or weird or mean for having military goals, it is what it means to have a competent military and be attacked.

10/7 for Israel is what 9/11 was for USA.

Shall I start listing the US war crimes?

I mean you can, I do not know to what end though. If you've read what i've written in this thread and believe that I would characterize our post 9/11 war on terror as good then you have entirely misunderstood me. I have my views today in part because I was swept along in the whole good versus evil characterization and sentiment during that time and I believe that it had consequences and repercussions that we'll be dealing with for many decades to come....and that is just the sentiment the actual fighting is a whole other can of worms even though they are inside the same tackle box....I think that works, I haven't really been fishing since I was a kid.

[Oscar_Kipling]

It's not meant as cynicism, I like to hear from Oscar (for instance) his stance on the Iraqi war (based on the sentiments of 9/11) at the cost of more than 100,000 dead Iraq people and if that was proportional to the alleged threat of WMD that wasn't a threat after all.

As i've said the sentiment that we were the righteous warriors for good facing off against pure evil after the 9/11 attacks did us no favors. It provided the moral justification and the non existent wmd's provided the material justification. We were (including myself) all hopped up on the moral high ground, and it ended (insofar as it ended) in a whole bunch of broken and dead people. In my book, calling that good is a slap in the face of the meaning of the word if it is to have any meaning at all.

Edit: Just for the sake of clarity, While Afghanistan doesn't have the legitimacy problems Iraq does I would not classify it as good either. I think that the entire enterprise of war eludes the category of good by virtue of what it is.