5 ms·

It's odd this has been downvoted. There isn't anything factually incorrect. All statements have been proven.

by ktallett 1y ago

SirFatty 1y ago
Because it has nothing to do with the story, perhaps?
- ktallett 1y ago
  I would say it is relevant as it shows that the company are potentially being dishonest about their intentions and marketing.
- anthem2025 1y ago
  It speaks to the credibility of the people involved when they claim to protect journalists.
- Fnoord 1y ago
  Every Israeli is drafted when reaching adolescence age. Intelligent tech people end up in Unit 8200 (part of IDF). These young people end up with a plethora of experience, using it for their career or even security related startups, yet loyalty often lies with state of Israel. The legal presence / country of a company very likely performing a genocide is very much relevant and ontopic. Look up the dark history of companies like IBM and IG Farben and the term "Wir haben es nicht gewußt".
CLPadvocate 1y ago
[flagged]
- ktallett 1y ago
  I would say at this point given government statements and declarations and then actions that occur directly after prove they have broken international law
  - CLPadvocate 1y ago
    Not really - it may be sufficient for you to develop an opinion, but it definitely not a legal proof.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Just because a court hasn't said it doesn't mean that it isn't proven. If, someone proves something, it's proven right then and there, even if it takes years for people to understand it, or for it to make its way into textbooks. This stuff really is very obvious.
      - CLPadvocate 1y ago
        most obvious things are often enough the mostly wrong ones - this is why everyone was sure for centuries that the Earth is flat or that the Sun and stars are orbiting the Earth. and this is why people invented specific protocols to ensure (or at least come close to) correctness of theories. these are called proofs. and, for example - if you are using one specific LEGAL definition of a genocide then you have to prove LEGALLY, following the regular process. if you're not doing it, then it's per definition not a proof.
        tialaramex 1y ago
        > this is why everyone was sure for centuries that the Earth is flat Nope. There was a pretty smooth transition from "Nobody has ever wondered about this" to "All educated people know it's a ball shape" a very, very long time ago. Eratosthenes comes up with a pretty good approximation both for how big the ball is, and how much its axis is off (you also if you think about it realise the planet must be spinning, that's why there's a day-night cycle) Flat Earthers are a weird modern thing, they aren't somehow a remnant.
- fwip 1y ago
  https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-committee-finds-israels-warfare-methods-gaza-consistent-genocide https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-c... I'm curious what your angle here will be - that these events never happened, that these events don't constitute genocide, or that this isn't "proof."
  - CLPadvocate 1y ago
    Are you kidding me - of course it's not a proof. It's already in the description - they are not claiming that they have proven something - they just say it looks like something. It's not even an opinion.
    - rainonmoon 1y ago
      You are dreadfully insistent on proof yet provide none of your own that there is no genocide, despite multiple credible organisations and experts, and the consensus of the international community, contradicting you.
    - fwip 1y ago
      Okay, so the third thing. You believe Israel is doing things that constitute genocide, but also that nobody has proved it.
    - fwip 1y ago
      Followup, not that you care: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies... > The Commission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to commit the following actus reus of genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, namely (i) killing members of the group; (ii) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (iii) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (iv) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
- hdgvhicv 1y ago
  If you ignore any statement other than form the Israeli government then sure > The world's leading association of genocide scholars has declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. > A resolution passed by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) states that Israel's conduct meets the legal definition as laid out in the UN convention on genocide. > Across a three-page resolution, the IAGS presents a litany of actions undertaken by Israel throughout the 22-month-long war that it recognises as constituting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. And then there’s > B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel released separate reports on Monday based on studies of the past 21 months of conflict. The organisations, which have been active in Israel for decades, said in a joint statement that "in these dark times it is especially important to call things by their name", while "calling on this crime to stop immediately". What level of proof would you find acceptable?
  - halflife 1y ago
    That IAGS report lacks any credibility: https://www.timesofisrael.com/genocide-scholar-says-group-pushed-through-israel-condemnation-without-debate/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/genocide-scholar-says-group-pu...
  - CLPadvocate 1y ago
    Not a single one of these is even close to be a proof. All of them are just opinions of specific groups of people - most of them have their own agenda, so they can't even be considered to be unbiased opinions. If we're talking about legal evaluation, then there is a strict formal procedure that collects and evaluates the evidence from both sides controlled by lawyers. And after the court comes to a final conclusion including appeals or whatever steps are provided by the legal system, then you may claim that something was proven. For a scientific proof, the procedure is much more complex - basically you start with a claim and then you have to disprove or invalidate EVERY SINGLE opposite claim, fact or evidence. And there is actually no time limit here - scientists are still trying to disprove theories from the 17th century. This is how things work in real world.
    - Fnoord 1y ago

It's odd this has been downvoted. There isn't anything factually incorrect. All statements have been proven.

SirFatty 1y ago

Because it has nothing to do with the story, perhaps?

ktallett 1y ago
I would say it is relevant as it shows that the company are potentially being dishonest about their intentions and marketing.
anthem2025 1y ago
It speaks to the credibility of the people involved when they claim to protect journalists.
Fnoord 1y ago
Every Israeli is drafted when reaching adolescence age. Intelligent tech people end up in Unit 8200 (part of IDF). These young people end up with a plethora of experience, using it for their career or even security related startups, yet loyalty often lies with state of Israel. The legal presence / country of a company very likely performing a genocide is very much relevant and ontopic. Look up the dark history of companies like IBM and IG Farben and the term "Wir haben es nicht gewußt".

CLPadvocate 1y ago

[flagged]

ktallett 1y ago
I would say at this point given government statements and declarations and then actions that occur directly after prove they have broken international law
- CLPadvocate 1y ago
  Not really - it may be sufficient for you to develop an opinion, but it definitely not a legal proof.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    Just because a court hasn't said it doesn't mean that it isn't proven. If, someone proves something, it's proven right then and there, even if it takes years for people to understand it, or for it to make its way into textbooks. This stuff really is very obvious.
    - CLPadvocate 1y ago
      most obvious things are often enough the mostly wrong ones - this is why everyone was sure for centuries that the Earth is flat or that the Sun and stars are orbiting the Earth. and this is why people invented specific protocols to ensure (or at least come close to) correctness of theories. these are called proofs. and, for example - if you are using one specific LEGAL definition of a genocide then you have to prove LEGALLY, following the regular process. if you're not doing it, then it's per definition not a proof.
      - tialaramex 1y ago
        > this is why everyone was sure for centuries that the Earth is flat Nope. There was a pretty smooth transition from "Nobody has ever wondered about this" to "All educated people know it's a ball shape" a very, very long time ago. Eratosthenes comes up with a pretty good approximation both for how big the ball is, and how much its axis is off (you also if you think about it realise the planet must be spinning, that's why there's a day-night cycle) Flat Earthers are a weird modern thing, they aren't somehow a remnant.
fwip 1y ago
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-committee-finds-israels-warfare-methods-gaza-consistent-genocide https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-c... I'm curious what your angle here will be - that these events never happened, that these events don't constitute genocide, or that this isn't "proof."
- CLPadvocate 1y ago
  Are you kidding me - of course it's not a proof. It's already in the description - they are not claiming that they have proven something - they just say it looks like something. It's not even an opinion.
  - rainonmoon 1y ago
    You are dreadfully insistent on proof yet provide none of your own that there is no genocide, despite multiple credible organisations and experts, and the consensus of the international community, contradicting you.
  - fwip 1y ago
    Okay, so the third thing. You believe Israel is doing things that constitute genocide, but also that nobody has proved it.
  - fwip 1y ago
    Followup, not that you care: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies... > The Commission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to commit the following actus reus of genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, namely (i) killing members of the group; (ii) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (iii) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (iv) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
hdgvhicv 1y ago
If you ignore any statement other than form the Israeli government then sure > The world's leading association of genocide scholars has declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. > A resolution passed by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) states that Israel's conduct meets the legal definition as laid out in the UN convention on genocide. > Across a three-page resolution, the IAGS presents a litany of actions undertaken by Israel throughout the 22-month-long war that it recognises as constituting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. And then there’s > B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel released separate reports on Monday based on studies of the past 21 months of conflict. The organisations, which have been active in Israel for decades, said in a joint statement that "in these dark times it is especially important to call things by their name", while "calling on this crime to stop immediately". What level of proof would you find acceptable?
- halflife 1y ago
  That IAGS report lacks any credibility: https://www.timesofisrael.com/genocide-scholar-says-group-pushed-through-israel-condemnation-without-debate/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/genocide-scholar-says-group-pu...
- CLPadvocate 1y ago
  Not a single one of these is even close to be a proof. All of them are just opinions of specific groups of people - most of them have their own agenda, so they can't even be considered to be unbiased opinions. If we're talking about legal evaluation, then there is a strict formal procedure that collects and evaluates the evidence from both sides controlled by lawyers. And after the court comes to a final conclusion including appeals or whatever steps are provided by the legal system, then you may claim that something was proven. For a scientific proof, the procedure is much more complex - basically you start with a claim and then you have to disprove or invalidate EVERY SINGLE opposite claim, fact or evidence. And there is actually no time limit here - scientists are still trying to disprove theories from the 17th century. This is how things work in real world.
  - Fnoord 1y ago