Powerful post.
Thank you for that.

Why would this not already be obvious? — Thorongil

So it's a "yes" to my original question, then. Why didn't you just say so? My criticism, then, is that it isn't right or proper to call that sort of intervention humanitarian.

Thorongil, I apologize.

There is no reason we cannot hold different opinions and be civil. — m-theory

You were civil and have nothing to apologise for, but if doing so makes for a more productive discussion, then so be it.

"Would you consider the Gulf and Iraq wars to fall under the definition as you understand it, for example?" — Baden

Absolutely.
— Thorongil — Baden

I was right to be suspicious, eh?

By the way, in case people care, the Red Cross is out of money to continue to provide aid in Syria (or so it says in Dutch media, so maybe it's just the Dutch entity). — Benkei

The Red Cross. That is humanitarian intervention. The ones who make such intervention necessary on the other hand...

Why does one preclude the other in your view? I'm safe in my own country so I have the luxury to worry about other people and I think there's an ethical duty to do something (on me, I'm not saying my ethics should apply to you). — Benkei

I think the best strategy would be this: let's not try to understand one another. It's a waste of time.

I love the Red Cross. Doctors Without Borders is also awesome.

I think the best strategy would be this: let's not try to understand one another. It's a waste of time. — Mongrel

If that's how you feel. Personally, I don't think it's a waste of time to understand other points of view. The better I understand others, the more adept I become at taking their interests into account. That might not mean as much on a forum as it does in real life though.

The Red Cross. That is humanitarian intervention. The ones who make such intervention necessary on the other hand... — Sapientia

You really should try finishing your sentences instead of leaving me to fill in the blanks. I've got an active imagination and have gone through 10 different types of punishment in the past minute or so.

If that's how you feel. Personally, I don't think it's a waste of time to understand other points of view. The better I understand others, the more adept I become at taking their interests into account. That might not mean as much on a forum as it does in real life though. — Benkei

I don't think its a waste of time in general to try to understand people. It's just you, dude.

Thank you. And I hope @Thorongil responds in kind to your offer of a civil conversation.

I didn't mean this thread to be anything else than to share situations that break your heart. Whatever else that has been read into it, was projection. Sometimes I just like to whine. X-) — Benkei

Well, you did say "Vent your frustration". At least that's what I decided to read into it. O:)

Reading the posts, what does it say that people are more intent on arguing their worldview and what's wrong with the media, instead of thinking about ways to help? — Benkei

That doesn't really make sense or you have simply left out what it is you really want from us.

The problems, such as the one you posted the photo of, are grounded in worldviews and is presented by the media. (hey... you posted a what? media link)

Maybe I should just say it this way... we have people killing another in the streets because they cannot make worldview options meet and we're left with bits and piece of information the media bring to our attention to somehow make a decision one way or the other.

Unless you wish us (or me) to fly off to where this kid lives and try to intervene, either helping that particular kid (I'd have no clue what that would even be) or telling the people there to the faces to "cut it out with this shit" what do you expect?

Meow!

GREG

Just venting my frustration.

Feel free to add your own. — Benkei

That doesn't really make sense or you have simply left out what it is you really want from us. — Mayor of Simpleton

I wanted you to share.

Reading the posts, what does it say that people are more intent on arguing their worldview and what's wrong with the media, instead of thinking about ways to help? — Benkei

That was another observation after I asked people to share. What do you think it says?

Maybe it says "I'm not responsible because I can't do anything about it." Or "It's kind off the media's fault because they aren't showing us the really important things, or in a biased way". Or "I care but everybody else doesn't".

I've already established I am responsible; not as much as Assad but still. So if I'm going to own up to my responsibility, what does that mean in practice? The only thing so far I have been able to do is donate to the Red Cross. I'm still trying to figure out if there's more I can do that is in any way meaningful.

I wanted you to share. — Benkei

Share what exactly? Simply make a list of what bothers me in that I have the notion it "breaks my heart"? Fine...

That was another observation after I asked people to share. What do you think it says? — Benkei

Well, you mentioned something in the OP that made this a bit misleading.

...but in the end seems like combatting a symptom that doesn't solve the underlying problem. — Benkei

That reads like an invite to analyse what the "underlying problem" might be, so it has a tinge of an implied question.

OK... you continued with the following:

So the only solution I can see to really contribute is to pay an assassin to kill some key figures in that region. Unfortunately, I don't know with 100% certainty who the key figures are.

So it breaks my heart again because there's nothing I can do to prevent this and I know it will happen again and again. — Benkei

Well, since this is a philosophy forum and people here love to pick notions apart, it logically follows that people will begin to discuss other options than the assination option, as well as propose possible foundations and ideals... governments, military interventions, media, religions... that possibly are or contribute to "the underlying problem(s)". Once identified/proposed, they may well field possible solutions as to help avoid such things from happening again in the future.

Fine, now I know all you wanted to do was vent and not really wish to discuss the dynamics of the situation presented in the OP. That's fair.

In my case, there is really not much that "breaks my heart". I really cannot think of anything off the top of my head.

Not that I don't care, but I simply don't let things get to me that much.

Sorry to be philosophical here, but my moral relativism as well as my understanding of determinism coupled with my non-existential absurdist core keep me away from being bogged down by "heart break".

Meow!

GREG

Hmmm... Interesting. I find heart break quite a powerful motivator to do something so in that sense I don't feel "bogged down". It's also informative on a personal level what's at the core of my (moral) instincts.

Out of curiosity - and you don't have to answer if this is too personal - do you imagine you'd have heart break if your wife left you or one of your cats died? Or not in those cases either?

I view "heart break" as letting emotions take over and that usual leads to many mistakes in spite of "good intentions". I suppose that's why a appeal to emotions is considered a fallacy.

As for my wife or my cats...

... sure I'd be sad. Heart broken... probably not.

Things happen for reasons and have determining factors. My cats will eventually die. That's why I enjoy my time with them now, rather than regert it later that I missed th opportunity when it was here. My wife would only leave me for good reasons. I fail to see any real reason why that should or would happen. We are in constant contact with one another and I don't think she's hiding anything that would cause such an event or decision.

Basically... shit happens and will happen to me too.

Meow!

GREG

Well like I said back on the first page when I heard Malala Yousafzai's story I started sobbing.

I felt a brief flash of outrage then heartbreak because I realize there was not much I could about it.

But then when she won the nobel peace prize I was heartmended by that.

Out of curiosity - and you don't have to answer if this is too personal - do you imagine you'd have heart break if your wife left you or one of your cats died? Or not in those cases either? — Benkei

Damn. You just me realise that I'm more emotional about my cat than that boy in the photo. The latter isn't as close to home. I'm quite indifferent and emotionally detached to seeing that sort of thing in photos, to be honest. I don't really get heart broken or start sobbing over things. I'm not trying to boast or prove my manliness or anything silly like that; I'm just being honest. But the feeling I do get is more one of outrage or despair than heartbreak.

So, now we know that different things evoke different emotions. Kind of obvious. However, I bet that in almost every discussion most of us either assume what the other is feeling or assume that they obviously feel the same we do or at the very least should feel the same.

Mongrel assumes she/he knows me well enough not to want to waste time on trying to understand me. Or, read charitably, knows himself well enough to know it won't amount to anything.

I assumed MoS wasn't as Stoic as he says he is. In general, I assumed people more or less felt the same. M-theory probably came closest to the sentiments I felt.

There's a gulf of misunderstanding between people and in my experience, it only rarely is crossed through discussion. My daughter of 16 months is an excellent listener, much more so than any of us. Considering her limited ability to understand, relatively speaking she understands more than any of us.

Then to get to the subject many people wanted to talk about when they read my OP. It seems to me the underlying problem is that we talk too much and don't listen and ask follow up questions anywhere near enough.

I view "heart break" as letting emotions take over and that usual leads to many mistakes in spite of "good intentions". I suppose that's why a appeal to emotions is considered a fallacy. — Mayor of Simpleton

Why do emotions lead to mistakes? Did you marry your wife purely on rational grounds? Love your cats rationally?

If anything, I actually feel I don't have enough emotions. How's that for opposites? ;)

Why do emotions lead to mistakes? — Benkei

Emotions are highly personal; thus highly supported by personal bias. I find emotions and their foundations are very relative to the individual; thus if one makes decisions soley or largely upon emotional factors, this greatly increases the chance that one has left out (often very willingly) factors that should well be included when drawing conclusions or making decisions.

This is not to say emotions should be completely avoided or negated. On the contraray emotions have the tendency to get out attention to things that appear to be unjust or unfair... but one needs to move beyond the simple foundation of emotions and included non-emotional aspects as to gain a clearer picture.

It's much like the video you posted. If the person was not a child or very young, would the emotional impact be the same? If indeed it was a cat would the emotions be more or less for everyone?

Indeed I feel far more for my cats than I do for people I don't know and honestly more so than most people I do know. What does that say about me? Well... that depends upon who you ask and their personal standard of measure regarding emotions.

The problem with emotions as a standard of measure is the extreme relativity involved; thus I find facts and figures often to help be a better guide of balancing this equation.

Indeed this is take straight from Wiki, but I can go with it:

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones or appeal to feels is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.

Did you marry your wife purely on rational grounds? — Benkei

Marry my wife?

Actually yes!

Some here just went "huh"?

Long story short...

... I love my wife. I am American. She is Austrian. We wanted to stay together. Marriage seemed and still seems to be redundant, as we love each other and this outward ceremony would not change that in the slightest.

The problem...

... for us to stay together in the same country we needed, according to the rules of the state, to be married.

In spite of this ritual meaning really nothing to us (purely utilitarian), this ritual meant a lot to the Republic of Austria; thus the rational and logical conclusion was to get married.

* We did so in secret, as to avoid having to get married three time - the official one with the Austrian authorities, the Chruch one in Austria and the Church one in the USA. We were married by a retired judge in Richmond, Va. while on vacation. One nice things, an accident, is that this retired judge was a Mark Twain impersonator, so being married in the livingroom of a Mark Twain impersonator seemed somehow very appropriate.

Love your cats rationally? — Benkei

Love is not really rational or atleast usually isn't. I simply like cats. I have always liked cats. Cats tend to like me too.

When our cats prior to these two we have now passed away, we took some time out before including new cats. Funny thing is for my wife a documentary on the life of Charles Darwin did the most to get her past the death of the previous cats. A very rational process to get past the grieving.

Anyway...

... we went to the Vet who had a number of kittens for adoption. We wanted two females, as they are easier to deal with in an apartment and we do like black cats, but simply like cats.

Not to buy into fate, but two small kittens came to us immediately when we went into the kitten room. One black and the other a fluffy tiger, both female. That was the selection process.

Since then we have bonded with really little or no complications at all.

The care and company is quite rational, but the love is something I don't analyse with rationality.

Then again, I simply co-exist with my cats and don't argue for or against them, nor make any claims of their validity or soundness regarding anyone else's experience.

If anything, I actually feel I don't have enough emotions. How's that for opposites? ;) — Benkei

In which matters or which context do you not have enough emotions and according to who's standard of measure?

Funny thing in that sentence you wrote is that you "feel" you don't have enough "emotions".

A relative notion about a relative quality... how can you be certain? ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34

Meow!

GREG

In which matters or which context do you not have enough emotions and according to who's standard of measure?

Funny thing in that sentence you wrote is that you "feel" you don't have enough "emotions". — Mayor of Simpleton

That was actually on purpose. X-)

Let's just say I have a very rich emotional life behind my piano and it stops when I stop playing.

Let's just say I have a very rich emotional life behind my piano and it stops when I stop playing. — Benkei

Well... now you have a kid, so you can have a rich emotional life making him/her (I forget, sorry) take piano lessons, but (if you do that) be aware that (s)he'll have an emotional reaction to this too... and not always a rational one.

Meow!

GREG

Well... now you have a kid, so you can have a rich emotional life making him/her (I forget, sorry) take piano lessons, but (if you do that) be aware that (s)he'll have an emotional reaction to this too... and not always a rational one. — Mayor of Simpleton

Be aware that you'll have an emotional reaction to this too... and not always a positive one.

A catch-22. I already said I would not respond to the fellow, and yet I am effectively compelled to do so lest I be made to look like a petulant grudge-holder. Well, I shall only say that I do not know what I would apologize for. I spoke the truth when I said the aforementioned fellow is an ignoramus, with whom I do not enjoy conversing. Why should I apologize for speaking truthfully and honestly? Is this to lack civility, stating what one thinks? Civility, then, sounds more like an excuse to lie so as not to offend. I'm quite happy to cause offense. Nor do I care if people like me, least of all the person in question. It is good to have enemies, for it shows that one thinks for oneself without deference to the herd.

OK, the superman has spoken :-| . Anything to add to the actual conversation here?

Which one?

Which one? — Thorongil

This one. The one where you've tried to justify actions which lead to the sort of thing that happened to the boy in the photo, or worse, by attaching the term "humanitarian" to the term "military intervention", despite the apparent oxymoron, given that you include the sort of military intervention which is itself the cause of crises which require humanitarian aid, at least for those who survive long enough.

A solid bait, but I'm not taking it. Your language is even more calculated to show that continuing the conversation would be unproductive.

The idea of debate is to engage with those who disagree with you, not to call them names and run away.

A solid bait, but I'm not taking it. Your language is even more calculated to show that continuing the conversation would be unproductive. — Thorongil

The irony is that you're being the most unproductive person involved in this discussion, due your unwillingness to set aside trivialities and concentrate on the topic under discussion. Trivialities which you yourself are guilty of at times, and in this very discussion, such as sarcasm and bluntness.

Yes, I chose to poke the bear, because I'm critical of its views, and I'm undeterred by its roar.

If the shoe fits, then it fits.

If you lead with all sarcasm, without providing a serious counter-point, then you don't deserve my comment.

If you lead with all sarcasm, without providing a serious counter-point, then you don't deserve my comment. — Thorongil

I have done, and others can see that I have done, but it seems that you cannot, so you've chosen to ignore it - which is no skin off my back. But I won't be silenced.

Then please refer me to (or as is more likely, concoct) this serious point I seem to have missed buried under the mountain of sarcasm you have provided.

But I won't be silenced. — Sapientia

So is it that you like hearing yourself talk or that you have a genuine interest in what I have to say? I suspect the former. You don't care what I think. You've already made up your mind, hence the profusions of sarcasm. I at least know when to stop a conversation if I find it will be no use continuing it, as I did with the other gentleman in this thread.

Then please refer me (or as is more likely, concoct) this serious point I seem to have missed buried under the mountain of sarcasm you have provided. — Thorongil

Mountain of sarcasm? I like that. How about the point up above above about the apparent contradiction between humanitarianism and military intervention which causes humanitarian crises?

So is it that you like hearing yourself talk or that you have a genuine interest in what I have to say? I suspect the former. — Thorongil

Both.