|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
United States42837 Posts
On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid?
No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right?
|
On September 27 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right?
I feel like you should though. It's a much better analogy.
See in the scenario that you used, pretending to believe that it was a good analogy, you're killing one person to save a crowd of thousands. Meanwhile in the real world, as you used to know in 2021, Israel kills way more people than Hamas does, so I feel like your analogy should reflect that. The guy goes into the crowd wanting to shield himself from your car, and you plow into the crowd, killing numerous civilians, in an attempt to stop the evil man and save one person.
|
On September 27 2024 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 23:44 Billyboy wrote:On September 26 2024 23:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 26 2024 23:15 Billyboy wrote:
Wow, I knew facts that got in the way of your narrative bothered you but I did not think you would stoop so low. As a self proclaimed leftist you should know how calling someone autistic in a negative way is wholly inappropriate. It is not just an insult to him, which is bad enough and completely unnecessary but offensive to everyone neurodivergent and their friends and family. I don't think capitalism or whatever is the problem, it is you and how you treat people.
Many of your posts have nothing to do with the topic and are just direct insults or sarcasm. But usually you are at least savvy enough to not be so blatant or attack unpopular or new posters. This is one is on a different level. It's a direct quote, Mohdoo has said that we are looking at the conflict too emotionally and he's able to develop this superiorly rational view of it because of his autism. It was hard for you to tell because you've only been there for about a week or two, and also because you were waiting for an opportunity to jump on me with something that has nothing to do with the topic and is just a series of direct insults and sarcasm. I didn't know it was an exact quote, makes it marginally better, but still not great and you know this. The second part of your post is a strange fantasy, you are not that important. You are just not a nice poster. That's probably true yes, I'm not a very good person in general. In terms of this thread it's just a little aggravating to navigate in the long term, I feel like everything that is worth posting has been posted before already, we're just in a cycle of repeating slightly different versions of the same stuff to people who don't really care. When I see people say "Israel doesn't need to invade Lebanon", there's a part of me who wants to quote the millions of quotes about wanting to attack that most people in Israel's chain of command have. Israel isn't driven by what it needs to do, it does what it wants to do. That's obviously true, but I'll post that, nobody will answer and in two weeks when there's another decision point for Israel there's going to be talk about what Israel has to do and needs to do again as if they were some fucking liberals reluctant to go to war. I could talk about how that comes from media framing, since they never let Israel play an active role in its own decisions, but I have done that. I could talk about how it's a consequence of dehumanization too, as Palestinians are scary savages and force the "reactions" that we see, but I've done that too. Human shields is a propaganda term, obviously, because it's used exclusively in the context of removing blame from Israel as it mauls down civilians. They have some IA that demands a strike if a small target is surrounded by 20 people? That's okay, those people were human shields, so therefore it's not my fault when I killed them with my automated process that allows me to kill them, it's the fault of the bad guy for being around people. We're never supposed to feel bad for Palestinians because they're used as human shields, we're supposed to not feel as bad about Palestinians being killed because they're used as human shields. It's particularly disgusting to use "human shields" to describe people who aren't humans, and whose presence doesn't shield anything. But "human sacrifices" isn't going to catch up as it doesn't sufficiently remove the responsibility of Israel, some people may wonder why it's playing the part of the Aztec high priest. So in two weeks when Israel kills slightly more Palestinians than usual in one go, we'll hear about human shields again. So, like, okay, I can keep showing people when their quotes or their logic don't work, but that hasn't changed anybody's mind in the history of the internet. It's not like I'm discovering this right now either, I'm used to it. Sometimes I slip. When the guy who used to openly agree that Israel wanted to ethnically cleanse Palestine is suddenly worried about how I view the Geneva conventions, it's easier to slip. Whatever.
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do". Conversely if a terrorist had 5 people surrounding him while he worked on setting up a nuke in the middle of a populated city and the military hit him with a missile strike killing him, the 5 innocents and stopping the nuke, people would probably think it was acceptable, though awful and blame the terrorist more than military.
It is unfair of you to make the jumps that you have from people simply pointing out the fact that Iran's armies use human shields. It does not absolve them of every act, it just adds context to the situation. The reality is everyone is making a huge amount of presumptions because no one knows how many innocents have even been killed, the IDFs numbers are not trustworthy and Iran claiming everyone who has died is innocent is also clearly wrong. We also know that Hamas have killed Palestinians and blamed the IDF. And we know the IDF have made some choices that are like my first example along with the second. There is plenty of awful and blame to go around. People putting some blame on Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah is totally reasonable because they are awful and doing awful things. There is shared blame for what is going on, that is reality.
As for your last paragraph people not agreeing with your logic and how you have formed your opinions does not make them bad people. They may just disagree with your opinion, or have made different assumptions based on the few facts we know. You can not expect everyone to come to the same conclusions as you with how little facts we actually know, you have to understand that some of yours are wrong the same way I understand that some of mine are wrong.
We are all going to slip and get mad, heck I just did. I didn't know the back story to your post (which was still not nice or necessary) but it certainly added context and changed my opinion. If WE (that includes me) try to not go down that path it will be better, it does not mean it will be perfect. But if we all just assume the worst then it is just pages of internet fites, which are super boring.
On September 26 2024 23:59 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 23:44 Billyboy wrote:On September 26 2024 23:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 26 2024 23:15 Billyboy wrote:
Wow, I knew facts that got in the way of your narrative bothered you but I did not think you would stoop so low. As a self proclaimed leftist you should know how calling someone autistic in a negative way is wholly inappropriate. It is not just an insult to him, which is bad enough and completely unnecessary but offensive to everyone neurodivergent and their friends and family. I don't think capitalism or whatever is the problem, it is you and how you treat people.
Many of your posts have nothing to do with the topic and are just direct insults or sarcasm. But usually you are at least savvy enough to not be so blatant or attack unpopular or new posters. This is one is on a different level. It's a direct quote, Mohdoo has said that we are looking at the conflict too emotionally and he's able to develop this superiorly rational view of it because of his autism. It was hard for you to tell because you've only been there for about a week or two, and also because you were waiting for an opportunity to jump on me with something that has nothing to do with the topic and is just a series of direct insults and sarcasm. I didn't know it was an exact quote, makes it marginally better, but still not great and you know this. The second part of your post is a strange fantasy, you are not that important. You are just not a nice poster. Nebuchad is no more unkind than you are. Get off your high horse. Debate his arguments and stop attacking the person.
The extreme irony of the post really made me chuckle. So thanks for that. But it is also inaccurate because he had no argument in that particular post. When he does I do engage with it.
In case you don't know what I mean with irony. You just attacked me personally and didn't engage with my arguments, whilst on the highest of horses.
|
On September 27 2024 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do".
Why not?
|
United States42837 Posts
On September 27 2024 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right? I feel like you should though. It's a much better analogy. See in the scenario that you used, pretending to believe that it was a good analogy, you're killing one person to save a crowd of thousands. Meanwhile in the real world, as you used to know in 2021, Israel kills way more people than Hamas does, so I feel like your analogy should reflect that. The guy goes into the crowd wanting to shield himself from your car, and you plow into the crowd, killing numerous civilians, in an attempt to stop the evil man and save one person.
The logical conclusion there is if the terrorists put enough hostages in their truck then at a certain point you think they should just be allowed to drive into crowds. They just need to hit that number.
Hamas came to the exact same conclusion as you did. That's why they operate the way they do.
|
On September 27 2024 01:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right? I feel like you should though. It's a much better analogy. See in the scenario that you used, pretending to believe that it was a good analogy, you're killing one person to save a crowd of thousands. Meanwhile in the real world, as you used to know in 2021, Israel kills way more people than Hamas does, so I feel like your analogy should reflect that. The guy goes into the crowd wanting to shield himself from your car, and you plow into the crowd, killing numerous civilians, in an attempt to stop the evil man and save one person. The logical conclusion there is if the terrorists put enough hostages in their truck then at a certain point you think they should just be allowed to drive into crowds. They just need to hit that number. Hamas came to the exact same conclusion as you did. That's why they operate the way they do.
They're not driving into the crowd though, they're on foot. You're driving into the crowd.
|
United States42837 Posts
On September 27 2024 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:39 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right? I feel like you should though. It's a much better analogy. See in the scenario that you used, pretending to believe that it was a good analogy, you're killing one person to save a crowd of thousands. Meanwhile in the real world, as you used to know in 2021, Israel kills way more people than Hamas does, so I feel like your analogy should reflect that. The guy goes into the crowd wanting to shield himself from your car, and you plow into the crowd, killing numerous civilians, in an attempt to stop the evil man and save one person. The logical conclusion there is if the terrorists put enough hostages in their truck then at a certain point you think they should just be allowed to drive into crowds. They just need to hit that number. Hamas came to the exact same conclusion as you did. That's why they operate the way they do. They're not driving into the crowd though, they're on foot. You're driving into the crowd.
No, my analogy specified that they were driving a truck into a crowd. Can you not read?
|
On September 27 2024 01:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:39 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right? I feel like you should though. It's a much better analogy. See in the scenario that you used, pretending to believe that it was a good analogy, you're killing one person to save a crowd of thousands. Meanwhile in the real world, as you used to know in 2021, Israel kills way more people than Hamas does, so I feel like your analogy should reflect that. The guy goes into the crowd wanting to shield himself from your car, and you plow into the crowd, killing numerous civilians, in an attempt to stop the evil man and save one person. The logical conclusion there is if the terrorists put enough hostages in their truck then at a certain point you think they should just be allowed to drive into crowds. They just need to hit that number. Hamas came to the exact same conclusion as you did. That's why they operate the way they do. They're not driving into the crowd though, they're on foot. You're driving into the crowd. No, my analogy specified that they were driving a truck into a crowd. Can you not read?
Hmm hmm. In the real world what happened is I read your analogy, explained why it was shit, which you ignored and continued with the faulty analogy. As long as you pretend that it's a scenario where the Hamas guy is about to kill dozens of people and you're stopping him by killing one person, I'm going to mock you for being an idiot and then counter with a more realistic situation, in which the Hamas guy isn't currently killing anyone and you're targeting him through a method that kills dozens of people.
|
On September 27 2024 01:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do". Why not?
Darn, I thought it was possible to have a non bad faith discussion with you.
To move on to things that interest me more, and maybe others. This moves into conspiracy territory, but I am wondering who is helping the IDF with all the Hezbollah intel, like it could certainly be that they have just an amazing spy network, but is it possible that Lebanese and other countries worried about Iran's growing influence in the region and the harm they are doing to their own countries? Well they won't say it publicly as Israel is the devil to most of the populace, Iran is also their enemy and more of an immediate threat to their existence. I wouldn't be shocked if sometime in the distant future it comes out that a bunch of countries not wanting to become Syria have already started to privately help the IDF.
Before the Hamas attack, normalizing relations was becoming a lot more common. It could very well be the reason for the timing of Oct 7th, because it certainly was not about making it better for the Palestinians.
|
On September 27 2024 01:57 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do". Why not? Darn, I thought it was possible to have a non bad faith discussion with you.
What are you talking about lol, I'm in good faith wondering why you think people wouldn't say that, what's the reason according to you? Cause to me this looks like a situation that is very similar to what's happening and people are definitely saying that, like that's almost a direct quote from Netanyahu talking to Congress to roaring applause.
|
United States42837 Posts
On September 27 2024 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:46 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:39 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right? I feel like you should though. It's a much better analogy. See in the scenario that you used, pretending to believe that it was a good analogy, you're killing one person to save a crowd of thousands. Meanwhile in the real world, as you used to know in 2021, Israel kills way more people than Hamas does, so I feel like your analogy should reflect that. The guy goes into the crowd wanting to shield himself from your car, and you plow into the crowd, killing numerous civilians, in an attempt to stop the evil man and save one person. The logical conclusion there is if the terrorists put enough hostages in their truck then at a certain point you think they should just be allowed to drive into crowds. They just need to hit that number. Hamas came to the exact same conclusion as you did. That's why they operate the way they do. They're not driving into the crowd though, they're on foot. You're driving into the crowd. No, my analogy specified that they were driving a truck into a crowd. Can you not read? Hmm hmm. In the real world what happened is I read your analogy, explained why it was shit, which you ignored and continued with the faulty analogy. As long as you pretend that it's a scenario where the Hamas guy is about to kill dozens of people and you're stopping him by killing one person, I'm going to mock you for being an idiot and then counter with a more realistic situation, in which the Hamas guy isn't currently killing anyone and you're targeting him through a method that kills dozens of people.
So is it your understanding that Hamas are only trying to kill one Jew? Because their understanding of their own intentions is that they're trying to kill millions of them. Like some kind of crowd of them. Presumably you think they're wrong.
Edit: wrong about their intentions, not wrong generally, I wouldn't presume that of you
|
On September 27 2024 02:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:46 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:39 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right? I feel like you should though. It's a much better analogy. See in the scenario that you used, pretending to believe that it was a good analogy, you're killing one person to save a crowd of thousands. Meanwhile in the real world, as you used to know in 2021, Israel kills way more people than Hamas does, so I feel like your analogy should reflect that. The guy goes into the crowd wanting to shield himself from your car, and you plow into the crowd, killing numerous civilians, in an attempt to stop the evil man and save one person. The logical conclusion there is if the terrorists put enough hostages in their truck then at a certain point you think they should just be allowed to drive into crowds. They just need to hit that number. Hamas came to the exact same conclusion as you did. That's why they operate the way they do. They're not driving into the crowd though, they're on foot. You're driving into the crowd. No, my analogy specified that they were driving a truck into a crowd. Can you not read? Hmm hmm. In the real world what happened is I read your analogy, explained why it was shit, which you ignored and continued with the faulty analogy. As long as you pretend that it's a scenario where the Hamas guy is about to kill dozens of people and you're stopping him by killing one person, I'm going to mock you for being an idiot and then counter with a more realistic situation, in which the Hamas guy isn't currently killing anyone and you're targeting him through a method that kills dozens of people. So is it your understanding that Hamas are only trying to kill one Jew? Because their understanding of their own intentions is that they're trying to kill millions of them. Like some kind of crowd of them. Presumably you think they're wrong.
So is it your understanding that Israel only killed one child in the truck of Hamas? Or maybe you remember how analogies work and you're just sour that you don't have a good counter?
|
United States42837 Posts
On September 27 2024 02:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 02:00 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:46 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:39 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right? I feel like you should though. It's a much better analogy. See in the scenario that you used, pretending to believe that it was a good analogy, you're killing one person to save a crowd of thousands. Meanwhile in the real world, as you used to know in 2021, Israel kills way more people than Hamas does, so I feel like your analogy should reflect that. The guy goes into the crowd wanting to shield himself from your car, and you plow into the crowd, killing numerous civilians, in an attempt to stop the evil man and save one person. The logical conclusion there is if the terrorists put enough hostages in their truck then at a certain point you think they should just be allowed to drive into crowds. They just need to hit that number. Hamas came to the exact same conclusion as you did. That's why they operate the way they do. They're not driving into the crowd though, they're on foot. You're driving into the crowd. No, my analogy specified that they were driving a truck into a crowd. Can you not read? Hmm hmm. In the real world what happened is I read your analogy, explained why it was shit, which you ignored and continued with the faulty analogy. As long as you pretend that it's a scenario where the Hamas guy is about to kill dozens of people and you're stopping him by killing one person, I'm going to mock you for being an idiot and then counter with a more realistic situation, in which the Hamas guy isn't currently killing anyone and you're targeting him through a method that kills dozens of people. So is it your understanding that Hamas are only trying to kill one Jew? Because their understanding of their own intentions is that they're trying to kill millions of them. Like some kind of crowd of them. Presumably you think they're wrong. So is it your understanding that Israel only killed a few people around the truck of Hamas? Or maybe you remember how analogies work and you're just sour that you don't have a good counter?
I'd say it was good talking with you and leave it at that but it wasn't.
|
On September 27 2024 02:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 02:00 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:50 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:46 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:39 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote:
Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? No? Wouldn’t you agree that Hitler was right? I feel like you should though. It's a much better analogy. See in the scenario that you used, pretending to believe that it was a good analogy, you're killing one person to save a crowd of thousands. Meanwhile in the real world, as you used to know in 2021, Israel kills way more people than Hamas does, so I feel like your analogy should reflect that. The guy goes into the crowd wanting to shield himself from your car, and you plow into the crowd, killing numerous civilians, in an attempt to stop the evil man and save one person. The logical conclusion there is if the terrorists put enough hostages in their truck then at a certain point you think they should just be allowed to drive into crowds. They just need to hit that number. Hamas came to the exact same conclusion as you did. That's why they operate the way they do. They're not driving into the crowd though, they're on foot. You're driving into the crowd. No, my analogy specified that they were driving a truck into a crowd. Can you not read? Hmm hmm. In the real world what happened is I read your analogy, explained why it was shit, which you ignored and continued with the faulty analogy. As long as you pretend that it's a scenario where the Hamas guy is about to kill dozens of people and you're stopping him by killing one person, I'm going to mock you for being an idiot and then counter with a more realistic situation, in which the Hamas guy isn't currently killing anyone and you're targeting him through a method that kills dozens of people. So is it your understanding that Hamas are only trying to kill one Jew? Because their understanding of their own intentions is that they're trying to kill millions of them. Like some kind of crowd of them. Presumably you think they're wrong. So is it your understanding that Israel only killed one child in the truck of Hamas? Or maybe you remember how analogies work and you're just sour that you don't have a good counter?
Looks like the latter.
|
On September 27 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:57 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 01:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do". Why not? Darn, I thought it was possible to have a non bad faith discussion with you. What are you talking about lol, I'm in good faith wondering why you think people wouldn't say that, what's the reason according to you? Cause to me this looks like a situation that is very similar to what's happening and people are definitely saying that, like that's almost a direct quote from Netanyahu talking to Congress to roaring applause.
Because you obviously know there is a difference between the two examples I stated, and you ignored the whole argument to pull out the one part out of context that you thought you would win with and I'm not interested in having the type of conversation where the goal is winning. That is your thing and you have plenty of people to do it with. So if you would like to put forth some effort and explain your reasoning I'm happy to do the same, but if not I'm out.
Or you want to turn a complex situation into something black and white by ignoring any facts that add complexity, which is equally uninteresting.
|
On September 27 2024 02:07 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:57 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 01:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do". Why not? Darn, I thought it was possible to have a non bad faith discussion with you. What are you talking about lol, I'm in good faith wondering why you think people wouldn't say that, what's the reason according to you? Cause to me this looks like a situation that is very similar to what's happening and people are definitely saying that, like that's almost a direct quote from Netanyahu talking to Congress to roaring applause. Because you obviously know there is a difference between the two examples I stated, and you ignored the whole argument to pull out the one part out of context that you thought you would win with and I'm not interested in having the type of conversation where the goal is winning. That is your thing and you have plenty of people to do it with. So if you would like to put forth some effort and explain your reasoning I'm happy to do the same, but if not I'm out. Or you want to turn a complex situation into something black and white by ignoring any facts that add complexity, which is equally uninteresting.
I definitely do want to do that yes, the complexity of this situation is almost entirely manufactured, it's very a simple situation. But that's okay we don't have to talk, have a nice day.
|
On September 27 2024 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 02:07 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:57 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 01:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do". Why not? Darn, I thought it was possible to have a non bad faith discussion with you. What are you talking about lol, I'm in good faith wondering why you think people wouldn't say that, what's the reason according to you? Cause to me this looks like a situation that is very similar to what's happening and people are definitely saying that, like that's almost a direct quote from Netanyahu talking to Congress to roaring applause. Because you obviously know there is a difference between the two examples I stated, and you ignored the whole argument to pull out the one part out of context that you thought you would win with and I'm not interested in having the type of conversation where the goal is winning. That is your thing and you have plenty of people to do it with. So if you would like to put forth some effort and explain your reasoning I'm happy to do the same, but if not I'm out. Or you want to turn a complex situation into something black and white by ignoring any facts that add complexity, which is equally uninteresting. I definitely do want to do that yes, the complexity of this situation is almost entirely manufactured, it's very a simple situation. But that's okay we don't have to talk, have a nice day.
Heck I had no idea, mind solving it for me?
|
On September 27 2024 02:45 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 02:07 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:57 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 01:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do". Why not? Darn, I thought it was possible to have a non bad faith discussion with you. What are you talking about lol, I'm in good faith wondering why you think people wouldn't say that, what's the reason according to you? Cause to me this looks like a situation that is very similar to what's happening and people are definitely saying that, like that's almost a direct quote from Netanyahu talking to Congress to roaring applause. Because you obviously know there is a difference between the two examples I stated, and you ignored the whole argument to pull out the one part out of context that you thought you would win with and I'm not interested in having the type of conversation where the goal is winning. That is your thing and you have plenty of people to do it with. So if you would like to put forth some effort and explain your reasoning I'm happy to do the same, but if not I'm out. Or you want to turn a complex situation into something black and white by ignoring any facts that add complexity, which is equally uninteresting. I definitely do want to do that yes, the complexity of this situation is almost entirely manufactured, it's very a simple situation. But that's okay we don't have to talk, have a nice day. Heck I had no idea, mind solving it for me?
Solving it is difficult, you said black and white which means you were talking about morality. Morally it's very simple.
|
On September 27 2024 02:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 02:45 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 02:07 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:57 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 01:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do". Why not? Darn, I thought it was possible to have a non bad faith discussion with you. What are you talking about lol, I'm in good faith wondering why you think people wouldn't say that, what's the reason according to you? Cause to me this looks like a situation that is very similar to what's happening and people are definitely saying that, like that's almost a direct quote from Netanyahu talking to Congress to roaring applause. Because you obviously know there is a difference between the two examples I stated, and you ignored the whole argument to pull out the one part out of context that you thought you would win with and I'm not interested in having the type of conversation where the goal is winning. That is your thing and you have plenty of people to do it with. So if you would like to put forth some effort and explain your reasoning I'm happy to do the same, but if not I'm out. Or you want to turn a complex situation into something black and white by ignoring any facts that add complexity, which is equally uninteresting. I definitely do want to do that yes, the complexity of this situation is almost entirely manufactured, it's very a simple situation. But that's okay we don't have to talk, have a nice day. Heck I had no idea, mind solving it for me? Solving it is difficult, you said black and white which means you were talking about morality. Morally it's very simple.
How so? Is is morally wrong to destroy evil?
|
On September 27 2024 02:55 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 02:53 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 02:45 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:33 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 02:07 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:57 Billyboy wrote:On September 27 2024 01:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 27 2024 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Human shields is a real term and it does not completely absolve anyone. For example if a bank robber took 40 hostages and stood behind them he would be using them as human shields. If the police used a rocket to kill the robber and the 40 hostages, no one would be like, "well they used human shields so what could the police do". Why not? Darn, I thought it was possible to have a non bad faith discussion with you. What are you talking about lol, I'm in good faith wondering why you think people wouldn't say that, what's the reason according to you? Cause to me this looks like a situation that is very similar to what's happening and people are definitely saying that, like that's almost a direct quote from Netanyahu talking to Congress to roaring applause. Because you obviously know there is a difference between the two examples I stated, and you ignored the whole argument to pull out the one part out of context that you thought you would win with and I'm not interested in having the type of conversation where the goal is winning. That is your thing and you have plenty of people to do it with. So if you would like to put forth some effort and explain your reasoning I'm happy to do the same, but if not I'm out. Or you want to turn a complex situation into something black and white by ignoring any facts that add complexity, which is equally uninteresting. I definitely do want to do that yes, the complexity of this situation is almost entirely manufactured, it's very a simple situation. But that's okay we don't have to talk, have a nice day. Heck I had no idea, mind solving it for me? Solving it is difficult, you said black and white which means you were talking about morality. Morally it's very simple. How so? Is is morally wrong to destroy evil?
It's a little weird how you're suddenly interested in having a conversation with me because I think this is morally simple, two posts ago you said the opposite.
As for my position, I got it from Michael Brooks and he was a much better man than me, here's a link
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
