zapatos

I'm a bit confused by Iran's attack on Israel. Israel is attacking Hezbollah so Iran responds by attacking Israel. Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran, and the primary reason belligerents use proxies is so that they can avoid direct confrontation which could turn costly. That is how the US and Russia fought all during the Cold War without ever firing a shot at each other. But by attacking Israel directly, Iran invites direct retaliation by Israel and the risk of a wider war. Why is Iran suddenly moving away from the idea of a proxy war and toward direct confrontation?

Buying out a store's supply of the "toy of the year" at Christmas and tripling the price on Facebook Marketplace because you know the parents will do what they can to not disappoint a child.

If you are not going to bother to read what people write you are wasting everyone's time.

This has already been answered by both Endy and swansont. Since you don't feel their data answered the above question, perhaps you can explain exactly what was wrong with the figures and explanations they gave you. That way we can understand exactly what it is you are looking for.

Citation please.

Really? https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/the-1973-oil-crisis-three-crises-in-one-and-the-lessons-for-today/#:~:text=Indeed%2C the 1970s would prove,barrel to %2480 a barrel.

Price gouging is typically done when they can get away with it, which is when the consumer cannot do without it or find an alternative. At the beginning of the pandemic price gouging was rampant for things like face masks and sanitizer. It is sometimes done with lifesaving drugs. In 2015 a drug called Daraprim was acquired by a start-up run by a hedge fund manager. Overnight, the price of the drug increased from $13.50 per tablet to $750 per tablet. They figured the patients had no alternative so they would pay.

They should, and often do for a time, but if they are successful and limit competition then regulators usually step in.

There are those who believe it can be achieved and will result in Nirvana. I believe most people use morality as a target to strive for, knowing it is unlikely to be achieved.

I guess I was lied to in all my business courses.

What I was suggesting was that I prioritize my child and you prioritize your child. That is possible and I imagine would probably result in an overall positive outcome, similar to the way companies all prioritize their own best interests and we all benefit with cheaper or more innovative products. Scaled up to government level simply means each government looks out for its own people as a priority over the people of other countries. It does not mean we should take it to extremes like America First, or indiscriminate bombing in populated areas.

Was my decision to put the safety of my child at a higher priority than yours unethical? That doesn't mean I should act myopically. Circumstances may tell me that I should change the evaluation if, for example, saving your child might benefit my family. A problem with ethics is that they can only be a guideline. Not everyone will agree that THIS is the cutoff; that all things less than this are ethical and all things more are unethical. Leaders should certainly help people make informed decision, or even make the decision themselves if they feel strongly enough about it. But just because you think we have reached the limit on how many Palestinian civilians can die in our attempt to make Israeli civilians safe, doesn't mean I agree. People of equal goodwill may still have a difference of opinion. A set of ethics developed today may be wildly different than a set of ethics made up tomorrow. If my decision to put the safety of my child first is ethical, then I don't see why we cannot not scale those ethics up to government levels. No government decision can be made in a vacuum without looking at the broader picture, but I see nothing wrong with the first question being "is this in the best interests of my people?" Similar to the way doctors may evaluate a care plan by first asking "will this harm my patient?" Sometimes the best interests of my people will result in a negative outcome for your people. This is not meant to suggest free reign just because it is better for my people, but that to some degree, looking out for yourself first is ethical.

I think it is from the perspective of the government's constituents. Simply put, "we voted you in to take care of us, not to take care of them at our expense". The government is doing what the people indirectly asked them to do. Leaders perhaps see things more clearly than the average constituent, but if they don't tow the line they will not be in office for long. People supported Israel 100% early in the conflict. As deaths and suffering of civilians has increased support for Israel has waned. I personally feel that Israel has moved well past diminishing returns to their actions and are digging deeper and deeper into the red. Unfortunately it seems as if Netanyahu has abandoned both ethics and the demands of his constituents and is now focusing on personal gain.

I believe that ethics (my ethics at least) demand that I value those close to me higher than I value those who are not close to me. This may even be an evolutionary trait. While we can dispassionately agree all civilians are equal, if I see my son and your son in front of a speeding car, my son's life will take priority over your son's life. If I am in the Israeli military I will feel obligated to pull an Israeli to safety before I pull the Palestinian to safety. From the perspective of the Israeli government, I suspect they would accept 10 Palestinian civilian deaths before they accept one Israeli civilian death, and if that means 10 Palestinian civilians must die to kill the Palestinian terrorist who might kill one Israeli civilian in the future, then they will believe they are justified. In the US during Covid, we vaccinated our population with a first dose, but rather than giving vaccines to countries who had not vaccinated at all, we gave our citizens a booster. Clearly we thought our responsibility was to limit American deaths, even if that meant a greater number of total deaths worldwide. I think Israel is wrong in the way they are executing this war, although I do think I understand where the motivation comes from. And to preempt any objections, yes I do think Hamas was terribly wrong in what they did. However, Hamas is no longer in the act of killing concertgoers in the park, but Israel is still bombing Gaza, which means Israel is the one keeping itself open to ongoing criticism.

Yes. When you mentioned the 2000 pound bombs dropped by Israel and then suggested that it was comparable to thousands of small bombs launched by Hamas. Did you mean something else?

This sounds like you are arguing that belligerents are justified taking any action as long as their foe did so first.

I recently read a book that discussed Israel's history of how they dealt with conflict. Over the long term their goal was to avoid 'war' as long as they can as the country is not large or rich enough for sustained warfare when surrounded by countries who could throw a lot of hardware and soldiers at them. Instead they utilized targeted killings of anyone who was furthering the goals of their adversaries, whether they were leaders, scientists from European countries helping Iraq develop nuclear weapons, or terrorists. The idea being they wanted to slow their opponents down before war began, and strengthen ties with less hostile opponents. For much of their history Israel did indeed fight with one hand tied behind their back by taking extreme measures to avoid collateral damage, and to avoid conflict with the West. The result has included improved relations with many of its traditional enemies. It is usually when some Israeli leaders who think the best strategy is to bomb their enemies back to the stone age that they stray into such despised actions as dropping 2000 pound bombs near (or on top of) civilians. In recent history Western countries try to avoid such actions. Countries like Russia, Syria and sometimes Israel still do so.

Based on the rest of your post I think you are suggesting that Israel shouldn't restrict itself to approved weaponry lest it risk annihilation. But taken alone I don't see how this paragraph could mean anything other than the Palestinians shouldn't restrict itself to approved weaponry given the overwhelming superiority of Israel's conventional, approved weapons. Suggesting Israel is the one with the knife and the Palestinians are the ones with the gun is not something I can get my head around. Can you please clarify for me what you meant? My understanding is that "Israel" sees itself (among other ways) as the final guarantor that Jews will never again have to risk what happened in WWII. And of course they cannot be that guarantor if they cannot remain whole and strong. My fear is that they risk with their tactics becoming that which they are so opposed to; an entity that tramples on the lives of those that it views not worthy.

Nothing wrong with imagination but it should have some grounding in science. Simply saying "maybe" is no basis for discussion. Try predicating it on some fact, such as "Since "x" is true, then maybe "y" will be true also."

Yeah, and maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Right. It's the culture. It's not the people. People who are brought up in this culture are affected by it, even if they are not Americans.

I know a woman with a strong Irish background who has red hair and blue eyes. She told me that is quite common in some parts of Ireland. Since both traits are recessive I guess the genetic population must not be heavily diluted in those places.

So you think it is what? Genetics? The water supply? Take a million babies born to European parents and transport them to the US to be reared there. Do you think they'll all eschew guns when they grow up, or will their view of guns reflect the population as a whole?

And unfortunately it is baked into the system. If we lived in a place where there were rocks laying all around, if you were attacked by someone you'd probably be thinking about using a rock to defend yourself. Since we allow guns to be everywhere it's only natural that a lot of people will be thinking about guns to defend themselves. It's not Americans per se, it is the American system.

I can't see how this could happen but I would love to see Palestine form their own state, in a place that is NOT adjacent to Israel. Just like Israel was granted a state we could do the same for Palestine. It wouldn't be fair in many ways, but it could certainly lower the heat and as Palestinians thrived there would be less motivation for future generations to risk ruining their better life by taking revenge for things that happened in the past to someone they never knew.