no, because you cannot hold one person accountable for the actions of a different person unless they directly enabled it.
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
31 points (73.1% liked)
Ask Lemmy
28681 readers
2352 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Isn't that just neutrality?
Edit: Oh you meant "no innocents in enemy territory". No, that's not valid.
The idea of free will is unfalsifiable. So far, there is no evidence that there is anything causing conscious beyond, physical, chemical interactions. This means, that most likely, humans do not have free will. Every action, every thought, is caused by some chemical, or physical thing, and is ultimately predetermined.
The idea of "guilt" is born out of the idea that humans have free will, and are therefore culpable for "bad" or "immoral" actions. But humans do not have free will. Punishing a "guilty" person, is actually just inflicting suffering on the qualia, or the conscious experience of someone, for circumstances completely out of anyone's control, including themselves.
I believe that all people are innocent. Every act of violence should be evaluated as if it was being done against an innocent person. The only difference between a killer and a saint is that of brain chemistry.
As for Israel specifically, since that is a different question than the nature of innocent, here is my reply:
- Israel funded and supported Hamas to undermine Palestinian authority
- Israel had extensive knowledge on Hamas' capabilities beforehand, but "accidentally" ignored warning signs
I see a few people blaming Hamas for Oct 7th. I disagree. When a dog bites someone, do you blame the dog or the owner?
This robs Hamas of their heroism. The flood wasn't just animals escaping their cage, it was a strategic defeat of the most advanced border wall in the world. They overcame incredible odds to break through it into the land that was stolen from them.
And Hamas didn't break in to randomly kill people. They wanted hostages to exchange for the hostages Israel had. With that in mind, most of the deaths might very well have been inflicted by the IDF under the Hannibal directive to deprive Hamas of hostages.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The way I see it, the only truly innocent people are those who sincerely do not know right from wrong, and they're mostly children. The rest of us are each and all responsible for our choices and actions.
There are lots of people who commit crime without realizing that they're doing something wrong. I know a guy personally who raped his date in college, and didn't realize it was a rape until decades later. Was he innocent? What about drunk people? What about people who don't "choose"? What if free will is post-hoc nonsense?
Do you think an infant knows right from wrong? I don't... and I work my way out from there, looking for that same innocence in others. As to your friend or anyone else, I can't answer for people I don't personally know... even when I do know people, I still can't always answer for them.
This one is just projection. To believe this statement denies there are plenty of people who are innocent on both sides. We are not talking about those people.
We are talking about the people who hate the other side on both sides, but once again we aren't talking about both sides here. One side has made the statement popular to dehumanize the other side.
This is what we are talking about. You can't agree with this statement because it is used as an excuse to kill people. Regardless if the statement has truth to it it is in essence propaganda used to manipulate people.