6 ms·

I'm trying to understand; it sounds like you feel that an AI selecting targets and letting some live is just as bad and indiscriminate as a group forming a char

I'm trying to understand; it sounds like you feel that an AI selecting targets and letting some live is just as bad and indiscriminate as a group forming a charter that reads "exterminate all Jews." (Paraphrasing, but the meaning is not disputed.) That's hard to agree with. I'd rather the group that tries to save some civilians over one that targets all civilians intentionally. Wouldn't you? That said, we can criticize. But we should do it constructively. Provide a better option, militarily, or otherwise. (I don't have one. And anyway I believe this article is baseless.) Short of offering options, we're just picking sides, and to me it looks like you're picking the wrong one. And, that is bias.

michaelmrose 3y ago
The criminal that hides under color of law while killing far more innocents is more odious on multiple fronts. Dead children and austere serious men walking through their blood reeking of offal and rightiousness is a disturbing contrast. The US ought to disassociate ourselves forever from such undepentant criminals.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  So the one that kills openly against the law prescribed by democracy is better? Do continue. The world is listening. >ourselves Please don't call yourself American. Your immorality is embarrassing me. Israel: 10% acceptable civilian casualty as defense against Gaza. (An unsubstantiated claim without a source. But let's pretend it's true since that's what we're commenting on.) Gaza: 100% intentional civilian casualty as defense... Uh wait, they weren't even defending anything. They were trying to uproot 12 million residents in a neighboring country. That is literally their stated goal. How is the second one more moral? Don't bother answering because if you can explain that, you belong in prison, or you at least need a psych evaluation.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    This post doesn't make any sense no matter how many times I try to parse it. You are part of the 10% I mention who lash out at anything anyone else says. Be well.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      Which part didn't make sense? I'm happy to help you. Start here: Gaza seeks to exterminate 100% of enemy civilians. It's in their charter and it's their stated goal. Does that part make sense? Next compare with Israel. According to this article their ugly secret mission is to save at least 90% of enemy civilians. Which of those is preferable to you? Lashes out My commentary shows that desire to be moral does not always make for moral action. You thought you were rooting for the good guy, and it turned out that you're not. That can be upsetting. The right thing to do is to revise your view. I'm not lashing out. You're upset with yourself.
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        I don't know how you keep coming up with #s from the article that somehow indicate Israel's trying very hard to protect civilians. It's self-soothing but no one, absolutely no one, thinks the article is saying that. n.b. not in their charter, not their stated goal. I'm a Zionist too, used to say stuff like this, I just had a wake up call in January about how I was unable to talk to other people anymore because I had walked too far down a path that was obviously us vs. them and the Likud-Gvir unholy alliance was doing truly evil things that made us vs. them look really, really, bad.
        trimethylpurine 3y ago
        >not in their charter I can't tell if you're pretending or not. Are you? ARTICLE 7: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." INTRODUCTION: "This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised." https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp Etc. etc. >coming up with numbers They are accepting 10% casualties according to the article (probably bullshit). I didn't expect to have to explain this, but the % symbol implies it's divided by 100. That means there are 90% unacceptable casualties. >absolutely no one, thinks the article is saying that. I think most people here can subtract 10 from 100 and get 90. Am I the only genius on HN? I hope not. Help us all if I am. Or are you talking about the 100% number for Gaza? I took it from their charter. I assume that "O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him" means that they want all of them dead. I didn't find any mention of rogue or rebel trees or stones that would allow Jews to hide behind them, so I have to assume they mean all of them. But, I'm intrigued by your accusation. Where are you finding different numbers? I'd love to see even a single document that allows for saving a Jew authored by Gaza's government. Let me know where this document is. For clarity, I'm no Zionist. I just don't understand why anyone would support a government blatantly claiming a hateful purpose in their founding documents. If you want me to feel bad for people in Gaza, I do. I very much do. But this discussion is about governments, and you've made a comparison between governments where there is a very clear cut difference. One has the moral high ground and is attempting to minimize civilian casualties, while the other is blatantly maximizing them in practice and inarguably as their stated purpose.

michaelmrose 3y ago

The criminal that hides under color of law while killing far more innocents is more odious on multiple fronts. Dead children and austere serious men walking through their blood reeking of offal and rightiousness is a disturbing contrast. The US ought to disassociate ourselves forever from such undepentant criminals.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
So the one that kills openly against the law prescribed by democracy is better? Do continue. The world is listening. >ourselves Please don't call yourself American. Your immorality is embarrassing me. Israel: 10% acceptable civilian casualty as defense against Gaza. (An unsubstantiated claim without a source. But let's pretend it's true since that's what we're commenting on.) Gaza: 100% intentional civilian casualty as defense... Uh wait, they weren't even defending anything. They were trying to uproot 12 million residents in a neighboring country. That is literally their stated goal. How is the second one more moral? Don't bother answering because if you can explain that, you belong in prison, or you at least need a psych evaluation.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  This post doesn't make any sense no matter how many times I try to parse it. You are part of the 10% I mention who lash out at anything anyone else says. Be well.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    Which part didn't make sense? I'm happy to help you. Start here: Gaza seeks to exterminate 100% of enemy civilians. It's in their charter and it's their stated goal. Does that part make sense? Next compare with Israel. According to this article their ugly secret mission is to save at least 90% of enemy civilians. Which of those is preferable to you? Lashes out My commentary shows that desire to be moral does not always make for moral action. You thought you were rooting for the good guy, and it turned out that you're not. That can be upsetting. The right thing to do is to revise your view. I'm not lashing out. You're upset with yourself.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      I don't know how you keep coming up with #s from the article that somehow indicate Israel's trying very hard to protect civilians. It's self-soothing but no one, absolutely no one, thinks the article is saying that. n.b. not in their charter, not their stated goal. I'm a Zionist too, used to say stuff like this, I just had a wake up call in January about how I was unable to talk to other people anymore because I had walked too far down a path that was obviously us vs. them and the Likud-Gvir unholy alliance was doing truly evil things that made us vs. them look really, really, bad.
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        >not in their charter I can't tell if you're pretending or not. Are you? ARTICLE 7: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." INTRODUCTION: "This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised." https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp Etc. etc. >coming up with numbers They are accepting 10% casualties according to the article (probably bullshit). I didn't expect to have to explain this, but the % symbol implies it's divided by 100. That means there are 90% unacceptable casualties. >absolutely no one, thinks the article is saying that. I think most people here can subtract 10 from 100 and get 90. Am I the only genius on HN? I hope not. Help us all if I am. Or are you talking about the 100% number for Gaza? I took it from their charter. I assume that "O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him" means that they want all of them dead. I didn't find any mention of rogue or rebel trees or stones that would allow Jews to hide behind them, so I have to assume they mean all of them. But, I'm intrigued by your accusation. Where are you finding different numbers? I'd love to see even a single document that allows for saving a Jew authored by Gaza's government. Let me know where this document is. For clarity, I'm no Zionist. I just don't understand why anyone would support a government blatantly claiming a hateful purpose in their founding documents. If you want me to feel bad for people in Gaza, I do. I very much do. But this discussion is about governments, and you've made a comparison between governments where there is a very clear cut difference. One has the moral high ground and is attempting to minimize civilian casualties, while the other is blatantly maximizing them in practice and inarguably as their stated purpose.