Comment by Terr_

Comment by Terr_ 10 months ago

> Conducting a military operation that has a fully predictable rate of civilian casualties is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians.

By that logic only the absolute number of (expected) civilian deaths matters... which can't be right.

If it were true, then exploding a city bus (1 soldier, 10 civilians) would be more moral than striking a military base (1,000 soldiers, 11 civilians.)

It would also suggest a kind of blame-shifting if one side decides to install their missile launchers in the playgrounds of elementary schools or whatever.

abalone 10 months ago

You are simply incorrect. “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number.

But to your point, Israel’s ratio in Gaza was as high as 100 civilians to 1 soldier in the shopping mall (or more accurately, refugee family shelters).

Reply View 9 replies

Terr_ 10 months ago

> “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number.
No, you've cut off the crucial second half of the sentence, which says a military operation with known risks of civilian deaths "is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians."
The phrase "those civilians" refers to a countable quantity of them.
Perhaps you meant to write "morally equivalent to targeting that proportion of civilians"?

Reply View | 5 replies
- beedeebeedee 10 months ago
  
  This isn't pedantry, but what are you arguing?
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  Terr_ 10 months ago
  
  Assuming that's a plural "you", I would paraphrase the subthread like this:
  _________
  (1) zer0x4d: "Many people fail to see that morality depends on intent, there is a qualitative difference between deliberate and incidental collateral damage."
  (2) abalone: "No, only people suffering from broken moral cores think there's a difference. An attack when they knew a predictable rate of collateral damage is morally the same as deliberately targeting those civilians who died."
  (3) Terr_: "It's based on the number of civilians who die? That doesn't make sense. Consider these scenarios, where even though fewer civilians die, the intent/planning of the act makes us judge it as morally worse."
  (4) abalone: "Incorrect, I said it was about comparing the two rates of death."
  (5) Terr_: "Well, that's not quite what you wrote earlier, is this other version closer to what you meant to convey?"
  (6) beedeebeedee: "What is being argued?"
  (7) Terr_: [Error: Recursion depth exceeded]
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  [removed] 10 months ago
  
  [deleted]
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
km3r 10 months ago

[flagged]

Reply View | 2 replies
- abalone 10 months ago
  
  See my source which is based on reporting from inside Israel and the IDF.[1]
  [1] https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  km3r 10 months ago
  
  Lavender specifically calls out NCVs as high as 100 for high level commanders not soldiers, and NCVS aren't minimums they are maximums. Where is the actual case where 100 died for one soldier?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies