mdurak
2yr ago
What are “epithets” in this context? Is there published research or articles on this checksumming process?
mdurak
2yr ago
Why was it morally wrong to drop the second nuke, when Japan still appeared to have no intention of surrendering at the time and even went through a failed coup to prevent a surrender after the second one was dropped?
mdurak
2yr ago
Huh, I'd never heard of that instinct before, but now that you mention it it does seem to describe leftist rhetoric pretty well. Where is this terminology from, and what other instincts have we discovered that majorly drive political course?
mdurak
2yr ago
Many of the women in the documentary were definitely on the chubbier side, and were encouraged to get fatter from the cult leader's diet plan.
mdurak
2yr ago
Like I said, if you've seen a cult documentary before, none of this will be new to you.
This was the first cult documentary I've watched. Are there any others you'd recommend?
mdurak
2yr ago
So... why does this weird media phenomenon exist? If it's because of anti-Israel bias, then why is the media biased against Israel?
mdurak
2yr ago
The proportionality principle, which is what limits collateral damage that could kill civilians, is proportionality relative to what is needed to destroy the legitimate military target compared to other means that would achieve the same military effect, not the proportion of military-to-civilian casualties.
Do you have a source for this? Because if this is true, then I've seen such misinformation repeated all the time:
Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life... which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.
mdurak
2yr ago
But all this derives from some first-order assumptions of the nature of the conflict, which I suspect you and I diverge on.
Wat are your assumptions?
On the other hand, we are constantly being asked by our authorities to consider it justified that Israel has retaliated by doing the same against Palestinian civilians
Isn't "killing civilians as part of collateral damage from attacking military targets" very much not "doing the same" as "killing civilians by attacking them intentionally"? Using this as an additional principle seems much more obviously legitimate than the ones you mention, and is what I actually see advocated in public discourse. I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith, but does "Killing civilians is better when it is done by well-uniformed military members" not seem like an obvious strawman to you?
Once you have identified something as a problem, whatever countermeasure remains after you have eliminated all the impossible ones must be good, because the alternative would be to shrug and say that nothing can be done
Saying that "nothing can be done" is a part of the ideas implied in "well, do you have a better idea?" There have certainly been a sizable fraction of the population calling for a ceasefire. On the other hand, there are of course those in support of continuing the military operation, who would presumably think this to be the least bad of all options, even with civilian casualties and all. And in that case, the Americans stepping aside and "doing nothing" to stop Israel is exactly what is desired -- it's their conflict, let them have at it.
consider both the action and the response justified as many of those 18-24 year olds probably do
I honestly haven't seen anyone support the right of both Hamas and the IDF to hit their respective populations in this way. Rather,
or consider neither the action nor the response justified.
from what I've seen, this seems to be the most common opinion from the people who want a ceasefire. They don't condone Hamas (the "this is what decolonization looks like" people still appear to only be a fringe minority), but they also can't stand the images of civilian casualties from Israeli attacks.
Source? Would love to read about that.
More options
Context Copy link