Removed by mod

If you’re lost as to how that relates to the topic this conversation is beyond you.

Me: “I want to purchase healthy foods.”

You: Theres plenty of junk food out there that “brands” itself as healthy.

That’s true, so now what?

Do we give up on healthy food entirely and buy the chips for dinner?

Believe it or not, I think carrots and a bag of chips “branded” as healthy can be distinguished between.

Abuse isn’t the solution to miseducation.

If you care about the rights of Gazans then the ultimate right is the right of self determination and a right to life.

Those are two rights.

I believe the right to life is the ultimate right as one can’t access self determination if they are dead.

This is why the genocide takes priority over any worries about legitimacy.

So in that sense you should critically support Hamas in the Palestinian struggle against the settler-colonizers.

I support the Palestinian struggle against their colonizers but I appreciate that you put the word “critically” in their because I do also want to be able to say terrorism isn’t a good response and be able to say it’s wrong when anyone targets innocent civilians intentionally.

You want pretty elections in an apartheid ghetto.

No I want to stop the apartheid ghetto.

“Legitimacy” means nothing in a war zone. There’s nothing to talk about until the bombs stop.

How about they not have an apartheid ghetto and be integrated into a democratic process? Again, in order to do that they must not be under siege for decades…

Yeah how about that?

Haha I’m getting a but frustrated at the reading comprehension on this thread but at least we agree.

If you read through my replies you’ll see me consistently making this point as well.

“Legitimacy” is not a concept that exists in a war zone. The Palestinians are being robbed of the opportunity of legitimate representation by their occupiers.

I never felt I was presenting a moral framework based on legitimacy. You seem to be implying that just because I can’t label guerrilla fighters as a “legitimate government” I don’t think they have a moral right to resist?

Legitimacy and morality are completely separated to me. I think Trump is a perfect example of that. I accept he was elected as a legitimate leader, but he clearly has no moral justification for power and it is our moral duty to resist despite his “legitimacy”.

We must prioritize defending human rights before social constructs.

That’s why “legitimacy” breaks down here, legitimacy is a social construct we can only focus on in a collaborative environment when we’re not killing each other. It’s agreeing to international borders, boundaries, and non interference in each other’s governments. If we all start invading everyone then the construct we’ve built on a philosophy of peace time goes away which is why as you point out if it were a moral framework would be really flimsy.

Legitimacy as a moral judgement I think only works in a world where Israel is acting in good faith and actually wants to avoid war crimes and is held accountable for its crimes in a court of law.

Genocide is so much worse than illegitimate rulers so I’m really not interested in the legitimacy of Hamas as a question to begin with. Doesn’t seem important. I know they have a moral right to resist and whoever does the resisting isn’t going to be “legitimate” until after they’ve already won so I’m not gonna judge them for it.

Ideally let’s stop the genocide, let’s build back infrastructure, then we can hold elections and see who’s legitimate.

That’s a great example to bring up.

Ukraine has declared martial law and with that suspended elections that should have in peacetime occurred last year. Martial law continues to get extended 90 days at a time by parliament and this has happened 14 times now.

As I mentioned earlier, the longer time goes on without an election the less legitimate a government becomes. 4 year terms, 5 year terms, 6 years, I don’t think the micro details of it really matter but as a rule of thumb there should be elections at least twice a generation.

If we say a generation is 25-30 years that means every 12-15 years at a minimum.

Ukraine elected Zelensky in 2019, so it’s been 6 years since the last election.

All of this seems reasonable at this stage for me to say Ukraine’s government is 100% legitimate.

If 4 more years pass and it’s been a decade, I’m starting to think it’s time to give the next generation a shot at defending their land.

At 15 years i think its lost its legitimacy. Though I will likely still support it’s right to defend itself against occupation, I think a legitimate government would allow the new generation of Ukrainians to have a say on that and elections are necessary.

What are your thoughts? In 20 years do you think it’s okay if Ukraine still hasn’t held elections?

Yes, countries can invade and occupy other countries, suspend their governments, block future elections and violate their civil rights.

That’s what’s so bad about it.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise, Israel is doing much worse human rights abuses to the Palestinians than simply revoking the legitimacy of their government. They’re massacring them, they’re starving them and blowing up aid workers trying to bring in food, not even to mention the sexual violence I can’t even stomach thinking about.

It’s important to understand the severity of what a genocide implies. These are a people without a voice. If someone doesn’t stop the occupation and reallow legitimate elections, the very idea of a Palestinian people might be eradicated.

Hamas aren’t the ones preventing elections.

No, we’ve already gone over that it’s their occupiers fault for that

They don’t lose legitimacy just because other parties have illegally halted the electoral process. They’re not the obstacle.

No they do not.

They lose legitimacy over time as it becomes longer and longer since the last election.

75% of the population has never had an opportunity to vote for anyone at all and 50% is too young to have even been born at the last election. I don’t see how we can say these people have legitimate representation despite that.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have blocked elections since then.

Right, this is the primary reason I would argue that there’s no official representative.

But it sounds as though you’re presenting it to counter the point I was making. Can you elaborate on how this fact legimizes Hamas as an official representative?

But you are right that half of Gazans weren’t even born when Hamas won the last elections.

While that’s correct its even worse, once you factor in the minimum voting age of 18 years old, over 75% of Gazans were unable to participate in the last election.

What? There aren’t any?

If I explained to you ghettos are horrific and violate human rights, because as one example among so many other issues we would likely agree on, they strip a people of their right to fair elections and representation in the determination of their future.

And that the fact that Palestinians have not been free to organize, form new political parties and campaign in safe and uncoerced elections is a direct violation of their rights and the party to answer and blame for this is the one occupying them and preventing this from happening…

What are we disagreeing about?

What I disagree with is that an election an entire generation before the present that people alive never voted in should not be held up to represent their current politics and beliefs as a nation.

Hamas is the official representative of Gaza. They were elected.

What makes you say this? Do you not realize this “election” happened all the way back in 2006?

Do you know how long ago that was? 19 years.

Do you know what the median age in Gaza was in 2020 (before this recent escalation in genocide)? 18 years old.

In my opinion 20 years per election might not be an ideal timescale for a democracy.

I’m trying to assume good faith so I’m confused why you’d argue that’s adequate representation?

Many have told me about “their god” and I take their word for it.

Resultantly I believe in all of “their gods”.

I’m following so far

And I drew a conclusion about that guy.

What do you mean “that guy”. I thought we just established these are multiple guys?

I think “god” is a piece of shit unworthy of praise and we should seek to destroy and erase it.

What do you mean “it”? Don’t you mean “them”?

I hate god and have no respect for god-fearing people and no tolerance for their “beliefs”

Why are you talking about a singular God here? It reads like you’re blaming Yahweh for Zeus’ sexual behaviour and you’re blaming Hanuman for the Great Flood.

These aren’t the same character. Each “God” claim needs to be evaluated separately.

For example why do you hate Persephene so much? Why is she a piece of shit. You claim to believe in her right Your reasons shouldn’t include examples from the Bible.

Which supernatural make-believe system (read: religion ) is tolerant of my supernatural make-believe system?

You might find company among the Satanic Temple or other Satanists.

You said “Buddhism” was ruled out but you didn’t actually clarify so until you present your reasoning I’d say Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Jainism all lacking God’s are partially compatible.

I mean to be fair there’s not going to be a great answer because this isn’t a real question but a gotcha. And I say that as an atheist.

You obviously don’t actually believe in all the gods, your earlier language shows you haven’t thought enough about what that means and force them all into the same one God.

The Hittites believed in “all the gods” and absorbed every new God of neighbors they conquered. But they truly believed in these gods, not as a gotcha question but they really believed in the power of these entities.

Regardless of personal moral views on their behavior, outwardly taunting that being seems silly in light of genuine faith.