5 ms·

[flagged]

by nolongerthere 2y ago

[flagged]

locallost 2y ago
[flagged]
- nolongerthere 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - locallost 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - nolongerthere 2y ago
      > And I quoted an ICJ ruling that said "at least some of the acts alleged by South Africa appear to fall under the provisions of the Genocide Convention" As I re-read this, I struggle to understand what this means; everything done during war time falls under the provisions of the Genocide Convention, that doesn't mean that genocide is happening, but rather again, that it's a war and people are being killed. Its kinda like calling an airstrike against a military target "premediated murder in the first degree" or calling all soldiers who have killed the enemy serial killers. If you squint and remove all context the labels apply but they're meaningless under our current understanding of those words. > I also never claimed that risk of losing your right to be protected from genocide is like getting your Nintendo Switch stolen, it was just a pointer for you to think about what it actually would mean. "I never made the comparison, I just made the comparison because I was conducting a social experiment" Ok, I'll let you continue trying to figure out what you mean by that. If we go back to your original comment, you also made a number of false statements in there: > Israel is actively blocking delivery of food to the civilian population and has already in one case caused a massacre of people trying to get their hands on basic supplies. This is totally false. Israel is not actively blocking delivery of food and the case of a massacre can be clearly seen in video to be caused by people trampling each other after attempting to rush at a platoon of soldiers. > At the same time, a minister in the government is publicly calling for occupying Gaza and "motivating" civilians to "voluntarily" leave. Would you care to explain what specifically is problematic about saying that terrorists should be encouraged to move their terror activities away from Israel? Or what is problematic about Israel governing an area that they've shown they can govern in a much more democratic and fair way than the currently elected suicidal death cult? Were you upset when the US occupied Germany for 11 years? and continued to have a large presence for the next 30 years? > But speaking of holes, I guess I discounted the large void between your ears. Insults are always used by those who know they've lost. Thank you for admitting defeat.
    - locallost 2y ago
      I never made a social experiment either. People with something between their ears are able to scroll up and see I wrote as a direct reply to the claim "it's ridiculous to even say that". I then proceeded to mention this to you explicitly several times, but I guess you needed a flowchart to connect the dots. You can verify all this by scrolling up but I am not holding my breath. It's funny how I say "minister 'motivating' civilians" and you ask and replace civilians with terrorists. Wasn't there an old looney tunes cartoon with a not very bright character picking up a can of gasoline and blowing himself up after saying g-a-s what a strange way to write water? I guess he won at being stupid, which seems to be a common theme here. Congratulations on your victory.
      - nolongerthere 2y ago
        "Insults are the last refuge of insecure men with crumbling arguments." By showing your inability to have a civil discussion you've proven you don't have a leg to stand on.
        locallost 2y ago
        They are also the last refuge of people who wrote civilians and got asked about terrorists as if they were the same thing. Well, for you in any case the same - only a dead Palestinian is a good dehumanized Palestinian, they are all the same.
        nolongerthere 2y ago
        > only a dead Palestinian is a good dehumanized Palestinian, they are all the same. Is that what you believe? That's a pretty grotesque thing to say, even if it's not really clear what it means. Instead of failed attempts to cast insults and innuendos why don't you actually address the discussion. Admit that you made a grotesque comparison in an attempt to prove your moral superiority but instead got caught in your own hubris. Admit that you're making up quotes left and right so you can try to salvage some part of your argument, admit that you're putting words in other peoples mouths so you can build up strawmen to attack. Admit that every time you're shown you're wrong you refuse to even acknowledge it and instead start hurling insults as if that will make people forget the preposterous arguments you attempted. Admit that not once in this entire discussion did you approach it with even an ounce of curiosity, and instead assumed malice at every step. Then we can continue to have some sort of civil discussion, otherwise you're tilting at windmills and it makes you look foolish. You've broken nearly every hn guideline for good discussion and continue to fume, it might be time to step back and step away for a bit.

[flagged]

locallost 2y ago

[flagged]

nolongerthere 2y ago
[flagged]
- locallost 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nolongerthere 2y ago
    > And I quoted an ICJ ruling that said "at least some of the acts alleged by South Africa appear to fall under the provisions of the Genocide Convention" As I re-read this, I struggle to understand what this means; everything done during war time falls under the provisions of the Genocide Convention, that doesn't mean that genocide is happening, but rather again, that it's a war and people are being killed. Its kinda like calling an airstrike against a military target "premediated murder in the first degree" or calling all soldiers who have killed the enemy serial killers. If you squint and remove all context the labels apply but they're meaningless under our current understanding of those words. > I also never claimed that risk of losing your right to be protected from genocide is like getting your Nintendo Switch stolen, it was just a pointer for you to think about what it actually would mean. "I never made the comparison, I just made the comparison because I was conducting a social experiment" Ok, I'll let you continue trying to figure out what you mean by that. If we go back to your original comment, you also made a number of false statements in there: > Israel is actively blocking delivery of food to the civilian population and has already in one case caused a massacre of people trying to get their hands on basic supplies. This is totally false. Israel is not actively blocking delivery of food and the case of a massacre can be clearly seen in video to be caused by people trampling each other after attempting to rush at a platoon of soldiers. > At the same time, a minister in the government is publicly calling for occupying Gaza and "motivating" civilians to "voluntarily" leave. Would you care to explain what specifically is problematic about saying that terrorists should be encouraged to move their terror activities away from Israel? Or what is problematic about Israel governing an area that they've shown they can govern in a much more democratic and fair way than the currently elected suicidal death cult? Were you upset when the US occupied Germany for 11 years? and continued to have a large presence for the next 30 years? > But speaking of holes, I guess I discounted the large void between your ears. Insults are always used by those who know they've lost. Thank you for admitting defeat.
  - locallost 2y ago
    I never made a social experiment either. People with something between their ears are able to scroll up and see I wrote as a direct reply to the claim "it's ridiculous to even say that". I then proceeded to mention this to you explicitly several times, but I guess you needed a flowchart to connect the dots. You can verify all this by scrolling up but I am not holding my breath. It's funny how I say "minister 'motivating' civilians" and you ask and replace civilians with terrorists. Wasn't there an old looney tunes cartoon with a not very bright character picking up a can of gasoline and blowing himself up after saying g-a-s what a strange way to write water? I guess he won at being stupid, which seems to be a common theme here. Congratulations on your victory.
    - nolongerthere 2y ago
      "Insults are the last refuge of insecure men with crumbling arguments." By showing your inability to have a civil discussion you've proven you don't have a leg to stand on.
      - locallost 2y ago
        They are also the last refuge of people who wrote civilians and got asked about terrorists as if they were the same thing. Well, for you in any case the same - only a dead Palestinian is a good dehumanized Palestinian, they are all the same.
        nolongerthere 2y ago
        > only a dead Palestinian is a good dehumanized Palestinian, they are all the same. Is that what you believe? That's a pretty grotesque thing to say, even if it's not really clear what it means. Instead of failed attempts to cast insults and innuendos why don't you actually address the discussion. Admit that you made a grotesque comparison in an attempt to prove your moral superiority but instead got caught in your own hubris. Admit that you're making up quotes left and right so you can try to salvage some part of your argument, admit that you're putting words in other peoples mouths so you can build up strawmen to attack. Admit that every time you're shown you're wrong you refuse to even acknowledge it and instead start hurling insults as if that will make people forget the preposterous arguments you attempted. Admit that not once in this entire discussion did you approach it with even an ounce of curiosity, and instead assumed malice at every step. Then we can continue to have some sort of civil discussion, otherwise you're tilting at windmills and it makes you look foolish. You've broken nearly every hn guideline for good discussion and continue to fume, it might be time to step back and step away for a bit.