I’d argue that the “two sides” argument is voiced by people who either don’t know the history, or is too biased to care.
There is always two sides to any conflict, by definition. It’s in of itself an intellectual cop out. But, bringing that point up when one side killing 30 children for every 1 killed, suggests the real basis is one of the two mentioned in the beginning.
There is always two sides to any conflict, by definition
That’s a great point and it is also very important here.
Really not much more to say. Reducing this conflict to the number of people killed on each side is just unreasonable and lacks both context and nuance.
Any other argument is just plain wrong and negates history
I’d argue that the “two sides” argument is voiced by people who either don’t know the history, or is too biased to care.
There is always two sides to any conflict, by definition. It’s in of itself an intellectual cop out. But, bringing that point up when one side killing 30 children for every 1 killed, suggests the real basis is one of the two mentioned in the beginning.
That’s a great point and it is also very important here.
Really not much more to say. Reducing this conflict to the number of people killed on each side is just unreasonable and lacks both context and nuance.
… you’re the one that is reducing it to “both sides”. You do see that, right? Which is the whole point?
It’s not a reduction to include historical context, motivations, etc.
If you do think that you should look up what reduction means.