4 ms·

If the other guy is literally holding a molotov in his hand saying "If you attack me im going to throw this" and then you attack him anyways, then yes it is 50%

If the other guy is literally holding a molotov in his hand saying "If you attack me im going to throw this" and then you attack him anyways, then yes it is 50% your fault. You knew what would happen before you did it.

Ajedi32 6mo ago
I disagree. Besides, if a guy is making threats like that you should have the police come in to remove him, or maybe even SWAT if it's a credible deadly threat. Threatening harm to uninvolved third parties is not a tactic that should be afforded any legitimacy, which capitulation certainly does.
- AngryData 6mo ago
  There is nothing wrong with threatening harm against people who are threatening you with harm. Some might even say it is a moral imperative to fight back against those who will harm and kill you or your friends and family. Iran didn't start this off, the US did with an inept surprise attack. On top of all that, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
  - Ajedi32 6mo ago
    Again, the issue here is not threatening harm against those threatening them, it's with threatening (and indeed, actively perpetuating) harm against uninvolved third parties. Punching back the guy who punched you? Understandable. Lobbing a molotov cocktail into the kitchen, pointing at the guy who punched you and declaring "Look what he made me do! You better stop him!" to onlookers? Completely unhinged.
    - AngryData 6mo ago
      I don't see Iran attacking Europe or anybody else that they aren't already in or have been in conflict with. Is it inconvenient? Sure. But if don't want to block the hallway for everyone else you don't start a fight with a guy standing in the hallway. You think if Spain was attacked by a bigger and stronger adversary that they would just let the logistics traffic that feeds the enemy and the enemy's allies pass freely through the Gibraltar strait? Hell no.
      - Ajedi32 6mo ago
        Traffic through the strait is certainly not "logistics traffic that feeds the enemy", unless Iran considers the entire world its enemy. Certainly high global oil prices affect the US just as they affect everyone, but these are not US ships being blocked, nor are they bound for the US. The US gets almost all the oil it imports from Canada, South America, and Mexico: https://www.voronoiapp.com/energy/Visualizing-Global-Oil-Trade-Flows-in-2024--6264 https://www.voronoiapp.com/energy/Visualizing-Global-Oil-Tra... The "blocking the hallway" analogy also fails because this isn't just unavoidable collateral damage; Iran is actively threatening to target ships from these uninvolved third parties.

Ajedi32 6mo ago

I disagree. Besides, if a guy is making threats like that you should have the police come in to remove him, or maybe even SWAT if it's a credible deadly threat. Threatening harm to uninvolved third parties is not a tactic that should be afforded any legitimacy, which capitulation certainly does.

AngryData 6mo ago
There is nothing wrong with threatening harm against people who are threatening you with harm. Some might even say it is a moral imperative to fight back against those who will harm and kill you or your friends and family. Iran didn't start this off, the US did with an inept surprise attack. On top of all that, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
- Ajedi32 6mo ago
  Again, the issue here is not threatening harm against those threatening them, it's with threatening (and indeed, actively perpetuating) harm against uninvolved third parties. Punching back the guy who punched you? Understandable. Lobbing a molotov cocktail into the kitchen, pointing at the guy who punched you and declaring "Look what he made me do! You better stop him!" to onlookers? Completely unhinged.
  - AngryData 6mo ago
    I don't see Iran attacking Europe or anybody else that they aren't already in or have been in conflict with. Is it inconvenient? Sure. But if don't want to block the hallway for everyone else you don't start a fight with a guy standing in the hallway. You think if Spain was attacked by a bigger and stronger adversary that they would just let the logistics traffic that feeds the enemy and the enemy's allies pass freely through the Gibraltar strait? Hell no.
    - Ajedi32 6mo ago
      Traffic through the strait is certainly not "logistics traffic that feeds the enemy", unless Iran considers the entire world its enemy. Certainly high global oil prices affect the US just as they affect everyone, but these are not US ships being blocked, nor are they bound for the US. The US gets almost all the oil it imports from Canada, South America, and Mexico: https://www.voronoiapp.com/energy/Visualizing-Global-Oil-Trade-Flows-in-2024--6264 https://www.voronoiapp.com/energy/Visualizing-Global-Oil-Tra... The "blocking the hallway" analogy also fails because this isn't just unavoidable collateral damage; Iran is actively threatening to target ships from these uninvolved third parties.