digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk —

Gaza rocketeers escalates situation

news.bbc.co.uk — Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel, targeting innocent civilians, women and children, increasing its rocket range to target a larger area in Israel. Israel is reacting to protect its citizens as would any other country in the same situation.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • gbudavid, on 03/02/2008, -9/+24When I was a Young Man Israel Took no Guff. I believe that if your current"leadership" does not soon act like Ben Gurion and Dayan that there will be no Israel as we know it. Throw off the Shackles and get rid of the Carter Influenced Policies and treat Terrorists as they should be treated.
    • Iconoclast25, on 03/02/2008, -5/+15That comment applies to the USA as well. Enough of the back-stabbing cowardly appeasers.
  • redmonkey, on 03/02/2008, -4/+5http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/03/a_weekend_in_sdero ...
  • Gunite, on 03/02/2008, -8/+2What a terribly written article. How difficult is it to provide factual information, not just flavored opinions and ideas?
  • mellomeh, on 03/03/2008, -10/+6Ah yes those evil rocketeers who have killed a whopping 13 people since 2001. How many civilians were murdered by Israel just the other night?
    • JimmySpaza, on 03/03/2008, -8/+2Morality is just so relative with some people. Hey, why not everyone just make up our own morality depending on how we feel? Why not base ethics and standards of right and wrong on our emotions like the atheists do?

      Why not? Well, hello...for obvious reasons. Reality.
      • BlackBob, on 03/03/2008, -3/+8Sorry Jim, you're wrong. Atheists base ethics and standards of right and wrong on logic and common sense. You're the one that bases everything on emotions and feelings. You 'feel' that an old book is telling you how to live your life and you are basing your ethics and standards on this feeling, even though logic would tell you that this is impossible.
        • JimmySpaza, on 03/03/2008, -9/+1Sorry, BlackBob, you're wrong. I believe that the Bible is accurate for purely logical, historical, and common sense reasons...all based on science, particularly archeology.

          What logic and common sense do you use to form your own standards of ethics and morality?
          • BlackBob, on 03/03/2008, -2/+6I mainly go with "treat others as you would like to be treated".
          • lydecker, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7I agree with the Golden Rule. But more than that, I like "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and "all for one and one for all."
          • JimmySpaza, on 03/04/2008, -7/+1@Blackbob.

            "I mainly go with "treat others as you would like to be treated"."

            No problem. But, you didn't mention WHY you go with this moral code.
          • lydecker, on 03/04/2008, -1/+10Because it's the code of ethics that best benefits humanity... Helping others and treating them nicely helps them be prosperous, and they in turn will help you prosper. When everyone contributes to society, it makes life easier for everyone. It's the same principle as teamwork and assembly lines... When everyone helps out based on what they are skilled at, as a society we are more efficient, and can spend more time enjoying ourselves as well.
          • BlackBob, on 03/04/2008, -1/+9I told you, logic and common sense:
            I believe that most people are reasonable. Reasonable people tend to act in ways that they believe will bring them the most positive outcome. For reasonable people living together as a society, one strategy for obtaining the most positive outcome is to treat others as you would like to be treated. If everyone in the group follows this same strategy, then everyone will benefit.
            It's not perfect. There are people who refuse to follow the plan, but for me this strategy has worked pretty well.
          • JimmySpaza, on 03/04/2008, -7/+1@Blackbob,

            So, you use empathy and emotion to determine that people living together for everyone's benefit is best. OK. No problem.

            I just wanted to pin down the fact that you use empathy and feelings as your guide. The problem is that many others use their OWN sense of empathy and feelings...and come to a very different conclusion about what is good and evil. That's the problem with using feelings as a moral guide. They are so relative to the person.
          • lydecker, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6How did you take "one strategy for obtaining the most positive outcome" and turn it into "feelings as a moral guide are so relative to the person?" I know some people feel the MOST positive outcome is different, but when acting in groups, we use REASON and LOGIC to determine collectively what IS the most positive outcome.
          • BlackBob, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6Spaza - empathy and emotion don't mean what you think they mean. I told you I use logic and common sense. I gave an example of how this works.
            I say that you're the one using only empathy and feelings as your guide. You see only what you want to see. A fact could be staring you right in the face but, if it doesn't agree with what you already feel to be true, you will ignore it. The really sad thing is that there are so many people in the world that think like this.
          • eir574, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6JimmySpaza: Here's another perspective: I start with the assumption that all people are equal. If I want other people to follow certain rules (like not murdering me or stealing my stuff), then I need to follow those rules, too. That's logical, right?. Society's challenge is to come to some sort of consensus about what those rules should be. Occasionally, I may need to follow a law with which I disagree, perhaps for the sole reason that the legal system works only if we all agree to abide by it. When I'm in the majority on a certain issue, I try to consider the minority's point of view in the hopes that they'll do the same for me when our positions are reversed. If I don't prove to the minority that I respect their rights and opinions, then they may turn on me someday. Similarly, I hope that the majority will treat me with the same consideration when I'm in the minority.
          • JimmySpaza, on 03/05/2008, -7/+1@eir574

            "Here's another perspective: I start with the assumption that all people are equal. If I want other people to follow certain rules (like not murdering me or stealing my stuff), then I need to follow those rules, too. That's logical, right?."

            Yes, such is logical...except I am trying to get at WHY you want others to follow those rules? It is because you FEEL a certain way, yes? That's the point. It's not that you are obeying something objective and transcendant to humanity like the laws of God, but because you FEEL a certain way.

            "Society's challenge is to come to some sort of consensus about what those rules should be. Occasionally, I may need to follow a law with which I disagree, perhaps for the sole reason that the legal system works only if we all agree to abide by it. When I'm in the majority on a certain issue, I try to consider the minority's point of view in the hopes that they'll do the same for me when our positions are reversed. If I don't prove to the minority that I respect their rights and opinions, then they may turn on me someday. Similarly, I hope that the majority will treat me with the same consideration when I'm in the minority."

            Yes. This is the same stance that I would take if God didn't exist or if God didn't make any rules for humans to live by.
          • BlackBob, on 03/05/2008, -1/+9JimmySpaza: Just because you don't understand logic or common sense doesn't mean that they don't exist.
          • yellowcakewalk, on 03/05/2008, -2/+4ALL moral utterances are mere statements of preference. Paraphrased from A.J.Ayer
          • lydecker, on 03/05/2008, -0/+9Jimmy, people follow rules that benefit society and benefit individuals because it is a logical approach, and many "feel" this logical approach is best based on much evidence.

            You follow your rules because God says them, and you "feel" that following these rules are in your best interests.

            There's always a feeling that makes one follow an overarching philosophy, but it isn't feelings that govern individual acts, as in "I feel hungry, lets take whomever's bread is right here."

            I think you were trying to prove that individual actions are based on fallible feelings, but that isn't the case. Individual actions are based on a philosophy, and people adhere to one philosophy because they feel it is best. In this sense, you are no different in adhering to your philosophy because you feel it is best. This feeling is different from feelings of empathy or emotion, it is a conclusion.
          • eir574, on 03/06/2008, -0/+5Jimmy: Lydecker expressed what I wanted to say to you better than I probably would have myself. If most people didn't really have any goals in life and didn't care whether they lived or died, whether they were happy, whether their children prospered or perished, and so on, then we might not be able to arrive at a set of rules we could all follow. In that case, religion probably wouldn't help much, either.
            In fact, you could probably get to a decent starting point for building a set of rules just from the instinct to survive, the instinct to reproduce, and the instinct to nurture your children and see them survive. Those things are not even unique to humanity.
          • beloitpiper, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2As an archaeologist, I object to your reference of my field of study in your fantasy world.
  • alcornmj, on 03/03/2008, -2/+8From a similar article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/world/middleeast ...
    "Hamas, under some political pressure from the effective isolation of Gaza and deteriorating conditions there, seems to be trying to lure Israel into a major ground operation."

    They've begun striking Ashkelon, a city with a power station supplying power to Gaza. I'd say it's about time Israel ceased all infrastructure support of Gaza: cut the power, cut the water. If Hamas want to act like barbarians; let them live like barbarians.
  • str3ama, on 03/03/2008, -5/+2Buried as inaccurate because of what you say in your description:
    "Israel is reacting to protect its citizens as would any other country in the same situation."
    Yea right..Israel has it's land, everything since then has been overkill. It's no longer about defence, then it is about revenge and profit. If Israel wants to be taken seriously it needs to take down that wall, pull back its colonization efforts and stop unilaterally making decisions that uproot its neighbours and its own citizens. Israel and Palestine need to start acting more diplomatically, they're both acting immaturely - the world is not conspiring against you, stop shutting yourself off from the world - using racism as an excuse to prevent criticism.
  • JimmySpaza, on 03/03/2008, -2/+4The bottom line is that Israel owns most of the land in the Middle East per the original title deed as described in the Old Testament. The Arabs are the true invaders, and Israel has every right to take back what God gave them.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.