Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that a heroic Jewish bystander saved Jewish lives during the Bondi Beach massacre by tackling one of the gunmen. In fact, the man who made the heroic intervention is a Muslim of Levantine descent who was shot twice in the process.
Ahmed El Ahmed, from Idlib in Syria according to a relative, went up unarmed against one of the attackers, wrested his gun away and turned it on the terrorist, forcing him to flee, as footage shown by Al Jazeera demonstrates…
Hopefully you aren’t ever put into such a situation where a split second choice means no matter which you pick someone says you were wrong. He should be praised for acting, period, and the discussion should then move to the incident itself. Not some, “well, actualllllyyy…”
Sure sure, he’s a hero.
But it’s a social media with mostly shitposts, so why not say stuff out loud if for nothing else than to sort these thoughts that are kind of presenting themselves. And they are.
I mean, it would be a way cooler story of the guy went all Rambo and dispatched both of them instead of just caused a short pause for one of them.
If you mean try and prepare all the readers for when they get into such a situation, that’s really stretching the purpose. It’s fine to question what you would have done in the same situation, it’s absolutely something everyone is thinking when they read it. But don’t critique the person who was there, they did what they did, regardless of the “best” options after days of reflection.
If this was a trolley problem, he only saw a trolley screaming down the track and a lever. How do you make a “good” decision in seconds when you don’t even know the results later? You see some guy with a gun, you either try to protect yourself or you see a brief opportunity to stop him. When you get the gun away, there’s another mystery trolley with all sorts of variables. He must be a peaceful person, as he chose the least aggressive choice. Is that bad?
I’m just saying there’s a fine line on a discussion board between speculation and judging. The real discussion should be why regular people are getting caught in such situations in the modern era. We should be better than this. But that’s a far broader talk than whether or not he should should have shot the guy.
I’m approaching this from another angle.
Like, we all know what happened was bad and there is 300 news networks praising this guy for tackling the shooter and everybody is saying thoughts and prayers and ,…
That’s all there. It’s been said many times and it will be said many more times by smarter more eloquent people than myself and anyone else that ever installed Lemmy.
Nothing anyone writes here will be read by more than a handful of people and it is completely and utterly inconsequential on an inconsequential social media platform.
So why not go for something a bit more original and have a “drunk” philosophical debate about a “trolley problem” like this without some self-righteous outrage at a person for starting it.
No one has stopped you from making your points. We just disagree on them. There’s your discussion. The caveat of free expression means others can tell you you’re wrong, or even that you shouldn’t be saying such things. Your best defense is to show why they’re wrong. I’ll leave it to everyone who reads this thread to determine if that goal has been met.
I’m not saying they are wrong. Probably they are right, but way not iron out the edges.
But if insults stay coming, then maybe there is something more to it. It’s like a litmus test.
Even the harshest replies here have been towards your viewpoint and opinion, not you. If you’re taking discussion and debate as an insult, that is certainly a litmus test.
I’m not at all, but Lemmy often isn’t very friendly.
Welcome to the internet? Not even the internet, as such heated discussions have been around since the days of Usenet and BBSes, where the anonymity of posting thoughts and rebuttals allowed people to be less guarded in what and how they said things to each other. But so what? If your points are grounded in evidence and logic, why do you care if people get angry in their response?