Hezbollah-Israel and Zidane-Materazzi

[Laotra]

Normal "moral equality":
When Materazzi provokes and Zidane gets provoked and answers with head butt, FIFA says both are wrong and slaps the provoker twice and the head butter thrice.

Most people think that is fair and just, because that is how we rear out children, telling them that both provoking and getting provoked is wrong, adults do not get in the debate with their children over "who started it" or "right to defend oneself" but demand that the kids stop fighting and behave decently.


Those who cheer for either side, talk about the right to "self-defence" and debate over "who started it" are not behaving like responsible adults, but like the chreering crowd watching a schoolyard fight.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Overly simplistic.

[LiberalVoice]

2. Not really. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Actually, yes it is.

Since you don't think so, why is it not?

[CuteNFuzzy]

4. The lesson to be learned is obvious

simplistic or not

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Not all that obvious.

Sometimes, it does matter "who started it."

[CuteNFuzzy]

10. Not to those

mourning or coping or forced in some way to deal with consequences of reckless leaders decisions

[Behind the Aegis]

12. But that was not what the OP set up.

[CuteNFuzzy]

15. Then why do you think responsible adults

demand kids stop fighting regardless of who started it (besides to shut them the hell up)

[Behind the Aegis]

17. in a situation like that...

...it is to stop a melee. I am not saying that is wrong to stop it. However, once it is stopped, a discussion will ensue on who was the responsible party for the conflict, and punishment meted out accordingly.

[LiberalVoice]

8. Hmmm, lets see...

Israel shouldn't be given a free pass, by the US and other nations, to attack a foreign country and its civilian infrastructure(not to mention civilian casualties) in retaliation for a terrorist attack by a terrorist organization.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. That is why I said "overly simplistic."

The analogy was overly simplistic and not reflective of the situation to which the OP was addressing.

[LiberalVoice]

11. Funny thats the moral I got out of it.

The point of the story is while both soccer players were condemned for their actions, Israel is given a free pass in the destruction of southern lebanon in retalitation for a terrorist attack while Hezbollah is condemned.

That is not to say Hezbollah shouldn't be condemned. Of course they should. But Israels actions are not righteous just because they "didn't start it".

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Not really...

Well, I guess it depends on how you read the whole post. Israel has been condemned the world around. The way I read it the post was that it shouldn't matter "who started it," and that I find overly simplistic.

[LiberalVoice]

20. Condemned around the world?

They have been given a free pass to destroy a country. Please.

On Edit: If this was any other ME country you would have American troops in there.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. By whom?

Everything I have read in the past week has included strong condemnations from nations around the world.

[LiberalVoice]

22. America and England for two superpowers.

"Israel has the right to protect herself." has been the new slogan for both admins for the past week.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. 2 countries...I said "around the world."

The world has condemned the actions of the Israelis without mincing words. There was a UN SC resolution in the works that was supported by everyone, except the US because it was ONE-SIDED! So, if any group is not being routed worldwide, it would be Hizb'allah! If anything, THEY are the ones being given the "free pass."

[LiberalVoice]

24. Man.

Now Hezbollah has the free pass. lol

[Behind the Aegis]

26. It is as laughable as your assertion.

[Laotra]

25. OK

Now I understand your point about oversimplification, but you read wrong. It does IMO matter "who started it", but as that discussion goes back to Kain and Abel, it is of philosophical nature, about wisdom and understanding, things we also try to teach our kids to the best of our abilities.

One of my proudest moments as father was when I had told my 6 year old that if somebody hits you, you don't have to take revenge, few days later I heard him repeating that teaching to his friends who were engaged in a cycle of revenge. :)

[Behind the Aegis]

27. At what point do you strike back?

Have you taught your son to always take a hit? Is there nothing that would warrant a "strike" back? Who started it and why are important questions...ask any court of law.

[Laotra]

28. No

>>>Have you taught your son to always take a hit?<<<

No, I teach my sons how to avoid fighting and getting hit. And they teach me.

Also, there's nothing constructive or ethical in theorizing when striking back would be justified, there is no moral code to be applied to all possible situations - I don't consult courts of law in matters of ethics. If a person knows right and wrong in his heart and is not blinded by hatred, he will act accordingly.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. And things aren't always that simplistic.

[Laotra]

5. You are aware

that one-liner "rebuttals" are quite annoying, aren't you?

[Behind the Aegis]

6. It wasn't a rebuttal, but an opinion.

[LiberalVoice]

13. Its still a rebuttal :-) nt

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Not really. A rebuttal would have included a deconstruction.

I simply gave an opinion. A rebuttal would have been me providing an argument or evidence to the contrary. Stating it was "overly simplistic,' is an opinion.

[LiberalVoice]

18. Im not trying to get into an argument about it but...

...calling the OP "overly symplistic" is a rebuke. The point of the OP was that it had a moral that coincided with events in Lebanon/Israel. If anything, your opinion was an "overly simplistic" rebuttal. lol

[Behind the Aegis]

19. A rebuke, yes. A rebuttal, no.

If anything, my post was an "overly simplistic" rebuke, for an overly simplistic analogy.

[adwon]

30. Misapplied principles

Applying personal moral principles to states is almost always poor practice. States have responsibility to far more people than any single person.