The UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) reported on Saturday that over 50,000 children in the Gaza Strip are in urgent need of treatment for acute malnutrition, Anadolu Agency reports.

In a statement, the agency said that “with continued restrictions to humanitarian access, people in Gaza continue to face desperate levels of hunger.”

“Over 50,000 children require treatment for acute malnutrition,” it added.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The killing of children is widelly deemed the most immoral kind of murder, because there is no way it can be spinned as the killing of people guilty of anything or a self-defense: children are almost by definition innocent and incapable of defending themselves or overpower an adult, especially young ones - it takes a special kind of individual (namelly, sociopath or psychopath) to not only willingly take human life, but even that of those who are guaranteed innocent and totally incapable of defending themselves, much less attacking.

    This actually is reflected in the numbers of murder victims, were children are killed in a far, far lower proportion of their numbers than adults, and ditto for war casualties: adults on both sides usually will go a lot further in protecting children, even not their own, than they will for adults.

    It is surprising that in your moral framework you do not see the murder of children as an especially cold and calous kind of murder.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I dunno, to me that’s a little arbitrary. Killing someone outside of self defense is just murder. So in your view is a school shooter worse than a mall shooter? Would you say murdering a handicapped stranger in a wheelchair who cannot defend themselves is worse than killing a healthy young adult stranger?

      To me it’s all just killing innocent people, their age or health is irrelevant. The law makes no difference as far as I’m aware, it’s all murder. I don’t see any point in differentiating murders based on the traits of the victims.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        The vast majority of people in this World see the killing of other human beings as something that covers a moral range, with something like self-defense when in direct danger for one’s life being at the more acceptable end of the scale and the killing of the young children at the more unacceptable end of the scale.

        This moral scale within murder also applies to the murderers themselves, which is why - as I pointed out earlier - in murder statistics and deaths in wars, children form a far smaller proportion of the deaths in comparison to the total of children, than people of other ages for in proportion to the total of people of those ages.

        So even if you yourself haven’t a heightened sense of revulsion for some murderes versus others (which, by the way, is not normal), even people who kill other people generally find the killing of children harder or even unnacceptable.

        In practice child murder is pretty well correlated with the highest levels of sociopathy and psychopathy, so a military which practices high levels of child murder has higher levels of psychopaths and sociopaths in their midst and leadership, and they have freer reign to act in psychopathic and sociopathic ways with no punishment - there are always some psychopaths and sociopaths in the military, but there being so many that child-murder is a generalized practice including specific targetting children - for example snipping children or bombing playgrounds - is incredibly rare.

        We saw this with the SS and the Nazis, and we see this with the IDF and the Zionists.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          This seems a bit made up. Again, the law makes no difference.

          Regarding this moral scale, I disagree. I think the vast majority of the world sees it as binary. Murder bad. Self defense okay. Either/or, no sliding scale present. Do you have any sort of evidence?

          which is why - as I pointed out earlier - in murder statistics and deaths in wars, children form a far smaller proportion of the deaths in comparison to the total of children, than people of other ages for in proportion to the total of people of those ages.

          This is not sound. There are many reasons children could die in wars less, with evacuation from conflict zones being a big one. Similarly with crime, where things like gang violence will never target them due to them not being gang members.

          In practice child murder is pretty well correlated with the highest levels of sociopathy and psychopathy, so a military which practices high levels of child murder has higher levels of psychopaths and sociopaths in their midst

          This is not sound. You point out leadership in the very next line, and leadership absolutely makes a big difference. One correlation is not enough to draw such a conclusion when there are other factors.

          I’m academically inclined, personally, so I pay great attention to details and do not think with my feelings. So these details are important to me.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Every single Justice System in the World has a range of sentences for even the same kind of killing crime (for example for Murder) and even different crimes for the killing of another human being (such as Murder vs Manslaughter).

            So even the various Justice Systems in the World recognize different levels of blame and deserved punishment for different situations where a human being kills another.

            Justice Systems, even if containing plenty of unfair or ill-drafted laws, at the high-level encode what Society finds acceptable and unacceptable - you might have some countries with the Death Penalty and others without, and different minimum sentences for Murder across the World, but there isn’t a single Justice Systems in the World with a single fixed sentence for Murder, which would be what matches your “Murder is Murder” position.

            Meanwhile your argument on this is “the law makes no difference”. Full, unadulterated, 100% personal opinion of the denialist kind.

            Denialism is not Skepticism and it’s the very opposite of “academically inclined” and putting forward and holding a theory entirelly on what you believe without in this entire thread even once putting forward even the most basic piece of supporting evidence that the rest of the World thinks like you (everything has literally been what you think and what you disagree with) is about as anti-academic as it gets.

            Granted, for you it is as you say - Murder is Murder - (that’s pretty well established by now).

            For everybody else there are only two logical possibilities:

            • Most other people don’t think like you
            • Most other people do think like you and the discrepancy between everybody thinking like you but setting some of the most important formal structures in Society in a way which is completelly inconsistent with that, is that everybody else but you is a moron.

            Occan’s Razors is a pretty straighforward way to determine which of the two possibilities is the most likely.

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Okay, so do murderers of children get worse sentences then, on average? With supporting data, preferably.

              Murder and manslaughter are differentiated via intent, same with things like first or second degree murder. Afaik, the traits of the victims are not taken into account, that I’ve ever heard anyway.

              • Aceticon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                The very first link in a Google search - several states have explicity sentences for the murder of children, either with higher maximums, higher minimums or transforming things which would otherwise be Manslaughter into the same as First Degree Murder. (Just search for “Child” in that page to find those).

                Also check this paper. Even though it’s about gender rather than age, you can find the point I made earlier about “vulnerability” for example at page 435 section B.1 as well as explicity references to children in the various Sentencing Aggravatory Scales under Apending I (from page 464) explicitly under scale I and IV and implicitly in other scales (i.e. Scale 3 - Heinousness) which whilst they don’t prove that child killing explicitly is deemed more heinous than others, does prove my point that society has Heinousness criteria for Murder, disproving your “Murder is Murder” take.

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Three results for ctrl+f child.

                  First somewhat supports your claim.

                  First Degree Murder 25 years to life

                  Assault Causing the Death of A Child Under 8 Years of Age (Penal Code 273ab(a)) 25 years to life

                  The second specifies it has to be someone under your care.

                  the victim was a vulnerable person under the care of the offender (a child under 18, elderly person, or disabled adult)

                  The third has the same sentence for both.

                  Manslaughter Maximum of 40 years in prison (eligible for parole after 25 years if the defendant was under 18)

                  Manslaughter of a child under 10 10 to 40 years in prison without parole (eligible for parole after 25 years if the defendant was under 18)

                  Then there are 47 other states that seem to make no distinction, supporting my opinion that traits of the victim do not really matter.

                  I’ll check the other read later, it sounds like a deeper look.

                  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    First a note: The third entrance you found has a minimum sentence of 10 years in jail for child Manslaughter and no minimum sentence for adult Manslaughter, hence is nor the “same sentence” - per that law even if the Juri finds reasons for a sentence lower than 10 years in prison, the sentence cannot be less than 10 years in prison if the victim was a child.

                    The paper in the second link covers sentencing guidelines (which is formal guidance for prosecutors but not actual law, so they can disregard it) and how jurors actually decided (i.e. derived from de facto results), both of which as far as I can tell are much more common way sthan “by way of formal law” in shaping the sentences for killing of children are different than others.

                    Quite independently of all that, even just that first link (first result in the Google search) disproves that notion of yours that Murder is Murder.