Goods on major Russian e-commerce platforms like Wildberries and Ozon have increased in price by up to 30% following extensive Ukrainian drone strikes on logistics facilities.
Okay, before I respond: Your point is that terror bombing is okay when you have been terror bombed already, right? That’s what you’re trying to say? And yes, using bombing “to put civilian domestic pressure towards political change” is the literal definition of terror bombing.
Are you going to be reductive and childish like in your edit rather than use adult conversation? In that case, I’ll answer in kind and ask you to answer my point first before I respond…
Are you saying it is wrong for an abused slave to murder his master, who has tortured him and killed or sold his family, when he escapes? Is it wrong for an abused woman to kill her rapist in the act? Or are there cases where a morally wrong action is sometimes warranted?
I actually do have a thoughtful response to your question that isn’t a pithy meme, but I’d like to see some good faith from you first and see you actually address the core moral question of my point first.
Are you going to be reductive and childish like in your edit rather than use adult conversation?
I mean, I am using adult conversation as you can see. I can do two things at once.
Are you saying it is wrong for an abused slave to murder his master, who has tortured him and killed or sold his family, when he escapes?
No, but killing the master’s children would be. Collapsing governments with their civilian populations in the way you just did is both fallacious and dangerous (Zionists for example love to do this); there are Russians who are attacking Ukraine and Russians who are not and one group cannot be punished for the actions of the other. I’d shed no tears if the attacks targeted the Russian army or the political leadership giving it orders, but attacking civilian infrastructure without a clear military goal cannot be justified as retaliation anymore than getting punched by a man would justify punching his cousin.
I mean, I am using adult conversation as you can see. I can do two things at once.
Nope, one undermines the other. You can’t actually engage in good faith adult conversation while being reductive and childish… the latter precludes the former. If you’re being childish by definition you aren’t being mature.
I also have not conflated civilian and military populations. I drew an explicit distinction. There’s nothing wrong with targeting military personnel as targets themselves; I’ve already said attempting to target civilians directly as a reprisal, I wouldn’t support. Non critical civilian infrastructure that also supports military, however, I think is far less morally questionable.
The example was purely to point out that normally immoral actions can in some situations be moral. Not all war crimes are created equal… shoplifting is more easily justified than murder. Similarly, targeting warehouses for consumer goods in the way least impactful to life possible is far more easily justified than targeting schools; equivocating these just because they’re both crimes is imo not being honest.
anymore than getting punched by a man would justify punching his cousin.
You see, you are equivocating here. If what Russia did is punching, Ukraine’s action is not punching. It was pretty clearly not even an attempt to kill civilians.
This is more like punching the business partner who (knowingly) is in business with someone who killed your family in order to put pressure on them to stop doing business with him. When there’s no police to help you legally find justice, importantly.
It’s really worrying that people cna write stuff like that and not realising there is something wring with it. Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
You can disagree with it, but this is just bullshit. That is a very well reasoned and difficult moral analysis. Stop being a baby and use big boy words and maybe consider for 5 seconds that some moral questions are actually really fucking difficult and not everyone will agree on.
I can just as easily argue you’re being a literal child by refusing to engage in serious and difficult moral questions by equivocating explicit bombing of schools and civilians with bombing commercial warehouses, at night to avoid casualties (that are also providing some supplies to military by the way) as both being “crimes against humanity”. One is a very clear crime against humanity, the other is a lot more unclear, they are not equivalent and being unsure about the latter (as a response to the former, by the way) does not at all give logical cover for the former.
Okay, before I respond: Your point is that terror bombing is okay when you have been terror bombed already, right? That’s what you’re trying to say? And yes, using bombing “to put civilian domestic pressure towards political change” is the literal definition of terror bombing.
Are you going to be reductive and childish like in your edit rather than use adult conversation? In that case, I’ll answer in kind and ask you to answer my point first before I respond…
Are you saying it is wrong for an abused slave to murder his master, who has tortured him and killed or sold his family, when he escapes? Is it wrong for an abused woman to kill her rapist in the act? Or are there cases where a morally wrong action is sometimes warranted?
I actually do have a thoughtful response to your question that isn’t a pithy meme, but I’d like to see some good faith from you first and see you actually address the core moral question of my point first.
I mean, I am using adult conversation as you can see. I can do two things at once.
No, but killing the master’s children would be. Collapsing governments with their civilian populations in the way you just did is both fallacious and dangerous (Zionists for example love to do this); there are Russians who are attacking Ukraine and Russians who are not and one group cannot be punished for the actions of the other. I’d shed no tears if the attacks targeted the Russian army or the political leadership giving it orders, but attacking civilian infrastructure without a clear military goal cannot be justified as retaliation anymore than getting punched by a man would justify punching his cousin.
Nope, one undermines the other. You can’t actually engage in good faith adult conversation while being reductive and childish… the latter precludes the former. If you’re being childish by definition you aren’t being mature.
I also have not conflated civilian and military populations. I drew an explicit distinction. There’s nothing wrong with targeting military personnel as targets themselves; I’ve already said attempting to target civilians directly as a reprisal, I wouldn’t support. Non critical civilian infrastructure that also supports military, however, I think is far less morally questionable.
The example was purely to point out that normally immoral actions can in some situations be moral. Not all war crimes are created equal… shoplifting is more easily justified than murder. Similarly, targeting warehouses for consumer goods in the way least impactful to life possible is far more easily justified than targeting schools; equivocating these just because they’re both crimes is imo not being honest.
You see, you are equivocating here. If what Russia did is punching, Ukraine’s action is not punching. It was pretty clearly not even an attempt to kill civilians.
This is more like punching the business partner who (knowingly) is in business with someone who killed your family in order to put pressure on them to stop doing business with him. When there’s no police to help you legally find justice, importantly.
Yes, that’s pretty justifiable in my view.
It’s really worrying that people cna write stuff like that and not realising there is something wring with it. Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
You can disagree with it, but this is just bullshit. That is a very well reasoned and difficult moral analysis. Stop being a baby and use big boy words and maybe consider for 5 seconds that some moral questions are actually really fucking difficult and not everyone will agree on.
I can just as easily argue you’re being a literal child by refusing to engage in serious and difficult moral questions by equivocating explicit bombing of schools and civilians with bombing commercial warehouses, at night to avoid casualties (that are also providing some supplies to military by the way) as both being “crimes against humanity”. One is a very clear crime against humanity, the other is a lot more unclear, they are not equivalent and being unsure about the latter (as a response to the former, by the way) does not at all give logical cover for the former.
You know what, screw it, blocked.