If words and theater alone are sufficient to appease you, if the death of innocent human beings overseas is an acceptable price for the protection of those close to you, then that’s your prerogative. If that is the case, though, then I will not be quiet about how revolting I find your moral calculus to be. And I have no doubt that my nonbinary, immigrant partner would share in my disgust, doubly so if you feigned it to somehow be in her interest.
Do your cousins think that protecting them from harsh rhetoric is an acceptable exchange for the genocide of children? Or are you doing it solely for your own comfort? Because, while we’re sharing anecdotes, if it’s the former, then I suspect that my transgender, pro-Palestine cousin might like to have a word with them.
Jesus, you seem to relish in imagining my meaning to be so opposed to your own. Obviously words and theater enough aren’t alone. I think I made that clear. I also think we are done talking, since it doesn’t seem to matter what I say.
Indeed, I don’t think I can convince you that the deaths of Palestinians should take precedence over the hypothetical discomfort, or even danger, of those closest to you. I can’t convince you that all human beings are of equal value. You’re on your own there.
Your political advocacy clearly suggests otherwise. Usually if you value all human life equally, you would not advocate for a candidate promising “the most lethal military in the world” in combination with pledging “no change” from Biden’s policies of contribution to an internationally-recognized genocide, with the rationale of “it may make those closest to me slightly safer”.
Your espoused values are in conflict with each other. Cognitive dissonance. Sort that out.
If words and theater alone are sufficient to appease you, if the death of innocent human beings overseas is an acceptable price for the protection of those close to you, then that’s your prerogative. If that is the case, though, then I will not be quiet about how revolting I find your moral calculus to be. And I have no doubt that my nonbinary, immigrant partner would share in my disgust, doubly so if you feigned it to somehow be in her interest.
Do your cousins think that protecting them from harsh rhetoric is an acceptable exchange for the genocide of children? Or are you doing it solely for your own comfort? Because, while we’re sharing anecdotes, if it’s the former, then I suspect that my transgender, pro-Palestine cousin might like to have a word with them.
Jesus, you seem to relish in imagining my meaning to be so opposed to your own. Obviously words and theater enough aren’t alone. I think I made that clear. I also think we are done talking, since it doesn’t seem to matter what I say.
Indeed, I don’t think I can convince you that the deaths of Palestinians should take precedence over the hypothetical discomfort, or even danger, of those closest to you. I can’t convince you that all human beings are of equal value. You’re on your own there.
You don’t need to, I already agree with you on that point.
Your political advocacy clearly suggests otherwise. Usually if you value all human life equally, you would not advocate for a candidate promising “the most lethal military in the world” in combination with pledging “no change” from Biden’s policies of contribution to an internationally-recognized genocide, with the rationale of “it may make those closest to me slightly safer”.
Your espoused values are in conflict with each other. Cognitive dissonance. Sort that out.
Cool, you have no interest in understanding me. Have a good one.