For the record, I love reading. It’s just that you’re not producing text. You’re producing gibberish you think is convincing rhetoric. It’s sort of like watching a five-year old play kitchen. You have absolutely no idea of the words you use and your rhetoric is elementary.
i enjoy reading also, it’s often just technical material or something sociological in nature. I should say the same thing about you, you’ve done nothing but reiterate the same points for the first five or however many comments you made, i simply responded in kind, you’ll notice i responded to actually engaging questions in this one!
my brother in christ you do nothing more than post links to shit other people have said and reiterate what they say while being mad, you are literally the equivalent of a piece of silicon processing USB signals.
You ignore the evidence
brother, the evidence you are posting is people going “yeah we think this might be genocide, and we would like for it not happen please” Like i’m sorry but if this were documentation about a nuclear reactor i’d be reading a hand manual for a fucking blender right now.
You ignore the fact that ICJ and ICC courts take a significant amount of time.
yeah, it’s a court, of course they do, why do you think i’m waiting until the finalize their statement on this situation? Lmao.
If you were right now being held for trial for allegedly having raped 800 children and there were hundreds of hours of filmed evidence of you doing it, do you think it’d mean you’re innocent because you’ve not yet got a guilty verdict?
hmm let’s see, and if i were david mcbride, rotting in australia prison right now, for “committing warcrimes” when i merely exposed actual war crimes, and how they were covered up, by charging people who DIDN’T COMMIT THOSE WARCRIMES. How would i feel about the situation? Idk probably devasted, but like, i think this is probably the least of our concerns. Julian assange was only recently freed, and he didn’t even do shit.
Also, legally speaking, it’s undecided until the verdict, unless pleas deal technically, but the same standard applies so whatever.
The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is more about how we should treat people going through the court, you know, salem witch trial type shit.
You’re despicable. And it shows from you getting so utterly pissed when I sussed out so easily that you’re probably part of this group and of Jewish American descent, went to your birthright (because you couldn’t afford a holiday anytime else) and got brainwashed so bad that now you’re getting literally cross-brained trying to not to admit what the scum of Israel are doing.
damn, you really hung yourself out to dry on this one huh. Unfortunately i just so happened to respond with actual responses this time. RIP.
Why do you ignore all the evidence?
the shit you’re posting is bad homie. It’s not good evidence. It’s the metaphorical equivalent of me scrawling on a napkin that there is 12 million dollars in cash in a forest somewhere in ohio, at these coordinates, and then handing it to you.
I read all your childish garbage utterings. None of them have a lick of an argument behind them. It’s like piss-poor rhetoric from a malnourished Soviet official who started vodka on an empty stomach; zero literacy and stumbling all over in a panic because they know they’re in trouble.
“Fake news fake news, everything is an opinion, facts don’t exist! Israel is just defending itself! Genocide doesn’t exist! Palestinians are animals, you can’t genocide animals!”
Genocide hasn’t been determined, as again, ICC procedures take time. Why are you ignoring this? Why are you claiming there is no evidence, when there is enough evidence for the ICC to find “reasonable grounds” for prosecuting and seeks arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant? https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf
The Prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister
of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli Minister of Defense, on the basis that they
committed the war crime of ‘intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of
warfare’ under article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the ICC Statute. The Prosecutor also seeks to
charge the two suspects with various other war crimes and crimes against humanity
associated with the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare under articles
7 and 8 of the ICC Statute. These include the war crimes of ‘[w]ilfully causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body or health’ or cruel treatment, wilful killing or
murder, and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population. The
proposed charges also include the crimes against humanity of murder, extermination,
other inhumane acts and persecution with respect to deaths and injuries resulting from
or associated with the systematic deprivation of objects indispensable to the survival of
Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The Panel notes the Prosecutor’s statement that other
alleged crimes, including in connection with the large-scale bombing campaign in
Gaza, are actively being investigated.
The Prosecutor seeks to charge Netanyahu and Gallant on the basis that they made an
essential contribution to a common plan to use starvation and other acts of violence
against the Gazan civilian population as a means to eliminate Hamas and secure the
return of hostages as well as to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population
of Gaza who they perceived as a threat to Israel. It is also alleged that they had effective
authority and control over their subordinates and knew of their subordinates’ crimes but
did not take necessary action to prevent or repress these crimes, leading to their criminal
responsibility as superiors.
The war crime of ‘intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’
requires ‘depriving [civilians] of objects indispensable to their survival, including
wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions’. The
crime is not limited solely to the deprivation of food, but includes other objects
indispensable for the survival of civilians such as water, fuel and medicine.
The Panel notes three preliminary points relevant to its analysis. First, as a result of a
number of factors, including the imposition by Israel of restrictions on the movement
of people and goods from and to Gaza in the aftermath of its 2005 disengagement,
Gazans were highly dependent on Israel for the provision of and access to objects
indispensable for the survival of the population even before 7 October.7
Second, although Israeli officials have a right to ensure that aid is not diverted to the
benefit of the enemy and to stipulate lawful technical arrangements for its transfer, they
cannot impose arbitrary restrictions – such as restrictions that violate Israel’s
obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and 7
international human rights law, or that contravene the principles of necessity and
proportionality – when exercising these rights.
Third, parties to an armed conflict must not deliberately impede the delivery of
humanitarian relief for civilians, including humanitarian relief provided by third parties.
And when a territory is under the belligerent occupation of one party to the conflict,
there is also an enhanced active obligation for the occupying power to ensure adequate
humanitarian aid for civilians, including by providing such aid itself insofar as this is
necessary.8 In the Panel’s view, while it can reasonably be argued that Israel was the
occupying power in Gaza even before 7 October 2023, Israel certainly became the
occupying power in all of or at least in substantial parts of Gaza after its ground
operations in the territory began.9
With this in mind, and based on a review of material presented by the Prosecutor, the
Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant
formed a common plan, together with others, to jointly perpetrate the crime of using
starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The Panel has concluded that the acts
through which this war crime was committed include a siege on the Gaza Strip and the
closure of border crossings; arbitrary restrictions on entry and distribution of essential
supplies; cutting off supplies of electricity and water, and severely restricting food,
medicine and fuel supplies. This deprivation of objects indispensable to civilians’
survival took place in the context of attacks on facilities that produce food and clean
water, attacks against civilians attempting to obtain relief supplies and attacks directed
against humanitarian workers and convoys delivering relief supplies, despite the
deconfliction and coordination by humanitarian agencies with Israel Defence Forces.
These acts took place with full knowledge of the extent of Gazans’ reliance on Israel
for essential supplies, and the adverse and inevitable consequences of such acts in terms
of human suffering and deaths for the civilian population.
The Prosecutor has also sought charges against Netanyahu and Gallant for the war
crimes of wilful killing or murder and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian
population, as well as the crimes against humanity of extermination or murder and
persecution for deaths resulting from the use of starvation and related acts of violence
including attacks on civilians gathering to obtain food and on humanitarian workers.
In the Panel’s view, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects committed
these crimes. The Panel also considers that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
the crimes were committed in the context of a widespread and systematic attack against
the civilian population of Gaza, pursuant to State policy.
The Panel’s assessment is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu
and Gallant are responsible for the killing of civilians who died as a result of starvation,
either because the suspects meant these deaths to happen or because they were aware
that deaths would occur in the ordinary course of events as a result of their methods of
warfare. According to material submitted by the Prosecutor, a large number of
Palestinian civilians have already died in these circumstances. In relation to
extermination, the number of deaths resulting from starvation is sufficient on its own to support the charge, according to standards set out in international jurisprudence.10 And this number is, unfortunately, only likely to rise. There are also reasonable grounds to
believe that the starvation campaign and associated acts of violence involved the severe
deprivation of victims’ fundamental rights by reason of their identity as Palestinians.
This can be qualified as the crime against humanity of persecution.
The Prosecutor has also sought to charge Netanyahu and Gallant with the crime against
humanity of other inhumane acts and the war crime of wilfully causing great suffering,
or serious injury to body or health, or cruel treatment, with respect to the non-lethal
suffering inflicted through starvation of the civilian population of Gaza. The Panel
assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects committed these
crimes against many thousands of individuals in Gaza.
Based on the material it has reviewed, the Panel assesses that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant made essential contributions to the
common plan to use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and commit other
acts of violence against the civilian population. This is evidenced by their own
statements and the statements of other Israeli officials. It is also evidenced by the
systematic nature of the crime, and the involvement of the suspects at the apex of the
Israeli governmental apparatus, with effective authority and control over their
subordinates and leadership positions in the War Cabinet and Security Cabinet, in
which all key decisions on the conduct of the war – including blocking and limiting
humanitarian aid – have been made. The Panel is also of the view that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects can be held responsible as superiors
given their knowledge of the crimes and the fact that they took no steps to prevent or
repress their subordinates who committed them.
But no, there’s “no evidence”, right? You’re not just being a willfully ignorant brainwashed git who’s ignoring all the literal evidence and having a tantrum, right? But you won’t even read those chapters, and even if you did, your programming won’t allow you to accept them. It’s despicable. Get a fucking grip on your own head.
“Fake news fake news, everything is an opinion, facts don’t exist! Israel is just defending itself! Genocide doesn’t exist! Palestinians are animals, you can’t genocide animals!”
cool quote, where’d you get it from?
How did you enjoy your birthright year?
no clue what this is supposed to mean, but i assume it’s jewish, and in which case, it would probably be offensive in this context, but i’m not jewish so it isn’t my place to decide (oops there goes my logic making sense again)
Genocide hasn’t been determined, as again, ICC procedures take time. Why are you ignoring this?
Yeah, this is exactly what i said, you’re literally paraphrasing the exact thing i said, and then asking me why i’m ignoring it, when i’ve literally stated it at least three times. Yes court takes time, that’s why i fucking trust it to be accurate. There is little to no benefit in the court ruling incorrectly, so when they inevitably rule one way or they other, it’ll be final, and if not, then it will be overturned legally, of course. This is the wonderful thing about the court system, it’s fully self regulated and has procedures for everything
Why are you claiming there is no evidence, when there is enough evidence for the ICC to find “reasonable grounds” for prosecuting and seeks arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant?
oh boy what a blatant mischaracterization you’ve got here, you really seem to be losing your grips on this conversation now huh? First of all. I personally do not have enough information (not evidence) on whether or not there is an past, present, or future tense genocide happening in palestine at this very time. Unfortunately i don’t exactly have copious amounts of time to dedicated to reading up on legal paperwork and various different court rulings as well as going to palestine, or at the very least, interacting with people from either side to see what’s actually going on around the area.
And as a result, i am doing the very responsible thing of staying nuanced and undecided. It’s a rather remarkable thing really, not being politically charged in any given direction, makes for quite a peaceful life, it’s nice, you should try it.
also, evidence is a bit of a stretch, we’re talking about genocide here, you either kill hundreds of thousands of people, or you don’t. It’s more accurately “suspected grounds for genocide” unless of course the evidence you’re referring to here is the active warzone. But that wouldn’t make your case sound as strong otherwise would it? Perhaps the ruling courts are using the term evidence? I have no idea. That’s possible.
on the basis that they committed the war crime of ‘intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’
ah curious, a charge that isn’t genocide! In fact, not a single block of text you ripped includes the word genocide, fascinating.
But no, there’s “no evidence”, right?
Are you familiar with the USSRs history? Their own people starved, very frequently, they were put through literal labor camps, even to this day, russia still uses labor camps for punishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrective_labor_colony
Yet they haven’t been charged with genocide once to my knowledge, though originally, the USSR included a draft on the genocide clause that stated it would not apply to your own people. So there is that, but i’m guessing that was removed at some point.
You’re not just being a willfully ignorant brainwashed git who’s ignoring all the literal evidence and having a tantrum, right?
Ah yes, i’m the one having a tantrum here.
But you won’t even read those chapters, and even if you did, your programming won’t allow you to accept them. It’s despicable. Get a fucking grip on your own head.
bro the first four chapters are about starvation and intentional withholding of supplies and food. It’s literally referred to as starvation, not genocide.
There you go again, pretending that either you’ve never heard of what either “implication” or “birthright” mean and that you’re literally too stupid to write a single word into Google… OR you keep doing the same thing you’ve been doing all along; arguing in bad faith.
Just like you genocide defending lunatics always do.
Keep hammering out pages of junior high level non-sequiturs, it’s not gonna change the situation.
You deny a genocide happening. The world doesn’t.
Keep pushing that propaganda, I’ll keep replying here, as I enjoy forums and laughing at proudly ignorant American girls like you.
“It’s literally referred to as starvation, not homicide”
I come over and strangle you to death. The cause of death is strangulation. The coroner writes that in the autopsy report. Due to this evidence, I get arrested and put on trial. Yet later, after a trial I get convicted for homicide? "There goes my logic, making sense again." ;)
There you go again, pretending that either you’ve never heard of what either “implication” or “birthright”
what do you mean by implication? I meant birthright specifically.
and that you’re literally too stupid to write a single word into Google…
i did, and curiously it spat some shit out about israel, which would be why i assumed it’s jewish. Shockingly, i’m not israeli, nor jewish, so idk what the fuck it is. But please, indulge me and expand upon it. I’m always willing to learn. Unlike some people.
arguing in bad faith.
bro i asked a question, it’s not that deep, calm down.
Just like you genocide defending lunatics always do.
again with the adhom and saying shit that’s demonstrably false. Very cool.
Keep hammering out pages of junior high level non-sequiturs, it’s not gonna change the situation.
and maybe i will, because i’m actually just an AI. Perhaps i’m not. Who knows!
You deny a genocide happening. The world doesn’t.
not a single part of this statement is true. The world might suspect a genocide is happening though. Me personally? It could go either way.
Keep pushing that propaganda, I’ll keep replying here, as I enjoy forums and laughing at proudly ignorant American girls like you.
oh cool, i’m female now. Did you ever stop to think about the fact that most israeli supporters in the US are middle aged white men who are republican? Probably not. I’ll give you this one for your future adhoms.
I come over and strangle you to death. The cause of death is strangulation. The coroner writes that in the autopsy report. Due to this evidence, I get arrested and put on trial. Yet later, after a trial I get convicted for homicide? “There goes my logic, making sense again.” ;)
ah sick, roleplaying i enjoy this.
Let’s do one. You’re my kid, i’m your parent, i don’t feed you because you keeping bombing israel and israel is angry (or something) and israel in return takes away your food (i guess i’m israel in this context) That would also make you palestine though. Naturally, you become malnourished, and eventually the authorities take you away from me, for child neglect, assuming that it doesn’t just stop at this point (that does happen here) and that i get hit with a legal case, it would almost certainly be under the pretense of “child neglect” not “homicide” because, curiously, i didn’t kill you.
Again similar thing happening in ukraine right now. They have little to no food production, which is most of their exports, but that’s irrelevant. Curiously russia isn’t committing genocide by blowing up grain silos in ukraine. It’s funny how that works.
You keep arguing in bad faith, as everyone knows that if you actually wanted to know what “birthright” meant, as if you didn’t already, it’d take you 10 seconds to check it on Google. So asking that is you asking in bad faith. I’m explaining this because I genuinely think you don’t understand it, the proudly ignorant American that you are.
Once again, equivocation on the level that I mostly remember encountering on recess 20 years ago. You said “it says starvation, not genocide”. That’s you pretending that once can’t commit by, among other methods, intentional starvation.
##The Israeli government is using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in the Gaza Strip, which is a war crime.
You can’t admit to a single piece of evidence of the MOUNTAIN of evidence of war crimes there is against Israel, but you’ll keep pretending you aren’t on their side, but being “nuanced”. No you’re not. You’re scared, willfully ignorant and on the wrong side of history.
That’s why I keep linking things like these and the only thing you can do is pitiful whinging about “both sides”.
People like you disgust me, but as I don’t want to be as shit of a person as you, I actually reply in good faith. People like you just tie yourself in knots.
You keep arguing in bad faith, as everyone knows that if you actually wanted to know what “birthright” meant, as if you didn’t already, it’d take you 10 seconds to check it on Google. So asking that is you asking in bad faith. I’m explaining this because I genuinely think you don’t understand it, the proudly ignorant American that you are.
Yeah, i googled it. I still don’t understand what the fuck you meant by the implication of using it though. Which is why i think it’s related to israel or judaism. But i don’t know anything about those two things, so i’m not sure i would be able to recognize what you meant by it, unless you meant my birthright to post shitpost comments on the internet or something? I fail to see how this is relevant though. So i’m assuming it’s some sort of dig at religion that is failing incredibly hard here because i legitimately have no idea what you mean. And you are gaslighting yourself into believing otherwise.
Once again, equivocation on the level that I mostly remember encountering on recess 20 years ago. You said “it says starvation, not genocide”. That’s you pretending that once can’t commit by, among other methods, intentional starvation.
i already covered this, go read what i actually said. This simply isn’t congruent with history, nor does it make any sense in the context providing, because genocide is almost always an explicit violence act against another group of people for no reason other than their ethnicity. Defining it as anything else would include Mao’s famines, and north koreas famines. But weirdly, you don’t seem to be continually puking yourself over the thought of hundreds of thousands of north korean farmers who are currently starving. It’s almost as if you either, only care about the Palestinians, or simply do not actually believe what you are saying, and are simply doing some classic, political posturing here.
Again, because you seem to be incapable of reading, russia is LITERALLY doing the same thing to ukraine. But again, doesn’t seem to matter to you, because apparently ukrainians are less worthy to life than Palestinians according to your complete lack of care about them starving.
You can’t admit to a single piece of evidence of the MOUNTAIN of evidence of war crimes there is against Israel
war crimes against israel? October 7th was considered to be one, but obviously, you misspoke here. And you meant the war crimes that israel is committing, that are being levied against israel. To which, i have agreed too. And you have subsequently, ignored, either because you aren’t reading what i’m posting, even though i’m clearly reading what you post. Or because it simply disentangles your entire narrative here of you being “correct” and it makes you look bad, so in turn you have to save face by pretending they don’t exist.
Or are you just going to pull the “i couldn’t remember” card? Even though it was literally 30 minutes to an hour ago that i said this, and that you read it, in fact, why don’t i go pull it up? “Oh look, another question you haven’t asked yet which btw, yes israel is comitting war crimes, and so has hamas. It’s almost like answering actual questions is, rather easy.”
oh wow, look at that, you literally lied.
You’re scared, willfully ignorant and on the wrong side of history.
i’m on the wrong side of history? Homie, there is no wrong side of history, merely the side that gets written down and archived at some point. Whether this comes to bite in the back later is a different story. The chances of that happening are incredibly small though.
Also i find it rather cute that you keep calling me willfully ignorant, even though i keep explaining to you, that i am quite literally basically ignorant on the topic, because well. I don’t have the fucking time.
pitiful whinging about “both sides”.
oh, you’re the “both sides” type of person, nobody is worse than these type of people. Because they sit in a superiority complex of their own, completely abusing a rather useful concept.
Since you don’t seem to understand how it works, i’ll explain it to you (properly( bothsidesing is a technique commonly used to compare to different groups, in this case opposing parties. Via isolating one side, documenting it’s behaviorisms, and rhetoric. And the repeating the same for the other side, in a similarly isolated manner. And finally, once complete, you can compare them between the two, and what would be expected (in this situation) is a significant overlap in a lot of rhetoric, and a handful of valid underlying causes to the problem. The rhetoric is obviously going to be self determinant. It should be very clear where it is. The underlying structures are going to be hidden within rhetoric most of the time, though apparent.
The problem with most “both sides” ““both sides”” type of people is that they complete forego the entire process of this, and instead do surface level equivocations of two often entirely irrelevant scenarios. Even though this is literally a fundamental fallacy of conceptualization. It’d be like if i said that global warming doesn’t exist because seasons still happen. But of course, you’ve never done this right?
i would also like to point out, that you’re expecting to link the same resources over and over again, while expecting me to do something about it instead. Debate is a two way street my friend, you have done nothing but fence sitting here.
oh and by the way, i find it curious that you accuse me of sealioning, even though you’re literally the one DEMANDING an answer from me, lmao. Go read your definitions better so you can use fallacies properly.
People like you disgust me, but as I don’t want to be as shit of a person as you, I actually reply in good faith. People like you just tie yourself in knots.
my guy, you have done nothing but reiterate the same exact statement you made originally. If anybody here is in bad faith, it’s you because you refuse to interact with any of the premises i propose.
Interesting that you seem to use the “people like you” phrasing. Surely that could never imply anything bad. Surely you don’t have a trained predispoition against people who disagree with you. Do you?
But, since you seem to like fallacy so much, i will indulge you. Notably, you keep using an “appeal to the stone” fallacy. Or more clinically referred to as “proof by assertion” You’re also entertaining an “invincible ignorance fallacy” You will probably engage in “argument of repetition” later on, when in the shower, yelling at me. Also an “argument from silence” fallacy in there. And since you seem to like language so much 'ignoratio elenchi" fallacy as well.
Curious how all of these are “relevance fallacies” isn’t it. Fun fact, a common trap with fallacy is just misapplying them wherever you see fit. Whether that is the case here, or whether your line of behaviorisms uniquely lines you up for this specific type of fallacy, is not up to me, as i don’t like to meander into these kinds of things. It’s rather boring and difficult. It’s more interesting running into the underlying concepts.
You’re such a bad liar, and it taking several comments for you to even understand what “in bad faith” meant and then pretend like you suddenly do know how to ask it the simple questions you pretended not to understand in the previous comment is… just chefskiss.
because genocide is almost always
Ah, so we’re using your definition, but the definition of the UN and the actions of Israel actually fulfilling reasonable grounds for it doesn’t matter, the experts on international law don’t matter, but things you pull out of your arse do? :D
If you weren’t American, I’d have to assume you’re asking this in bad faith, once again. But since I know your guys’ literacy rates are on the level of the third world, I think you might have actually read it like that. No worries, I’ll help you understand your native language better. I said “You can’t admit to a single piece of evidence of the MOUNTAIN of evidence of war crimes there is against Israel”
The war crimes weren’t committed against Israel. The evidence is against Isreal. The evidence that proves they’ev committed war crimes. On Palestine.
You’re literally ignoring the fact that the world is against Israel’s slaughter of women and children, so you get to this tantrum and start kicking your foot and going “waaah, waah, no no no, Israel no bad, only hamas bad!”
Then you go on a tiresome tirade about how you see “fallacies”. It’s rather entertaining, really, watching a kid like you larp understanding debating. That’s why I’m still in this thread. People like you disgust me, but it’s that sort of morbid type of disgust in which I’m sort of intrigued by it. Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting.
to use the “people like you” phrasing.
Yeah, people like you. People who act in this way, denying reality, denying genocide. Which is what you’re doing, and which is what I talked about through-out this thread, you being the case in point, really. I’m not talking about some random of group of people. It’s not some ethnic trait I’ve chosen to hate. I hate genocide deniers, like I hate rapist pieces of shit and child murderers. It doesn’t matter where they’re from or what they look like; if they slaughter children and rape people and then deny all that having happened; they’re a shit person, innit? (Oh and just as a personal tip, if you like larping philosopher with “fallacies”, maybe Google “fallacy fallacy”, unless you’re still pretending not to know how to Google. :DD)
Israel is a war criminal and it’s committing genocide, and you are defending it.
please explain to me what you think i’m lying about, i’m very curious.
Ah, so we’re using your definition, but the definition of the UN and the actions of Israel actually fulfilling reasonable grounds for it doesn’t matter, the experts on international law don’t matter, but things you pull out of your arse do? :D
ah yes, just the colloquially accepted definition of genocide by most jewish people, and also the general public at large, as a result of the actions of nazi fucking germany. Also i find it cute how you have silently retconned from saying “confirmed genocide” to “reasonable grounds for genocide”
And again, i don’t disagree with the experts, you just completely mischaracterize what they say and then shit yourself over it repeatedly until someone quits yelling at you for being wrong.
You’re literally ignoring the fact that the world is against Israel’s slaughter of women and children, so you get to this tantrum and start kicking your foot and going “waaah, waah, no no no, Israel no bad, only hamas bad!”
“fun fact, most people don’t agree that killing people is morally good” wow aren’t you just a stand up citizen, stating the laws of nearly every fucking country in the world. And the culturally accepted moral status of murder globally across the world, wow look at how far you’ve come.
Again, i am also against this, i have literally said as much. You’re just fucking stupid and refusing to acknowledge it.
The following are quotes of things that i have said, in this conversation:
did i mention the israeli settlements in westbank/gaza (however that works) because if not, why the fuck are they there? Yet another anti-israeli point for you to wrap your head around.
Oh look, another question you haven’t asked yet which btw, yes israel is comitting war crimes, and so has hamas. It’s almost like answering actual questions is, rather easy.
And this is just the first page of comments on my profile. You can almost certainly find more if you actually look through my history. But you won’t.
Then you go on a tiresome tirade about how you see “fallacies”. It’s rather entertaining, really, watching a kid like you larp understanding debating. That’s why I’m still in this thread. People like you disgust me, but it’s that sort of morbid type of disgust in which I’m sort of intrigued by it. Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting.
my brother not in christ, you have sealioned me this entire debate, and then without a hint of irony, you accused me of sealioning, even though clearly, you’re significantly more aggressive on me answering your questions, than i am on your answering my questions. WHICH MIGHT I ADD, IS BECAUSE YOU FUCKING IGNORE THEM.
following pulled from an actual philosopher. Something you would be deeply unfamiliar with.
American academic philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong discussed the term in his book Think Again: How to Reason and Argue, saying:
Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called ‘sealioning’. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes.
Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting
bro if you think willful* ignorance psychologically is “interesting” I regret to inform you that i don’t even yell at you to gather interesting information about you, because literally everything you’re doing right now is an already documented existing form of fallacy, or trolling. There is nothing else here.
And besides, willful ignorance is a well studied concept since at least the beginning of science. Probably well before it. Stoicism in some capacity is primarily based on willful ignorance. There are entire fucking religions based on the ignorance of modern society, and it’s methods of operation. In fact, there is an entire disorder on the schizophrenia spectrum that is primarily related to willful ignorance of most things not immediately relevant to an individual.
Yeah, people like you. People who act in this way,
as defined by what strict standards? Because you cannot be the one to define them. As that would be a conflict of involvement. For one thing, that’s dehumanization. A tale as old as racism. Secondly the entire purposes for the definition of my “actions” is to argumentatively enclose me into your small framework of the world. Because you don’t have the mental capacity to conceptualize anybody thinking outside of three cubic meters of physical space. And unfortunately for you, i am unbound by physical space. I could literally just start saying “israel is committing genocide against palestine” “death be to israel” tomorrow if i so pleased, and you could do nothing about it.
Which is what you’re doing, and which is what I talked about through-out this thread
it’s throughout, though i suppose that could be a regional difference huh?
you being the case in point
you ever stop to think about the everlasting effects of the dunning kruger effect? Yeah me neither. Good thing i’m not making any assertions on anything.
I hate genocide deniers
yet curiously, you defined it earlier as “grounds for genocide happening” weird how you slip in and out of frameworks isn’t it? Almost as if my technical accuracy has tainted your restricted framework so much that you’re working between two different frameworks entirely.
maybe Google “fallacy fallacy”, unless you’re still pretending not to know how to Google. :DD)
the fallacious fallacy is a good one. Curiously, i never stated that your argument was wrong due to use of fallacies, i just pointed out that you used fallacy commonly. Because fallacy is a rather weak rhetorical device that can almost always be applied retroactively due to the sheer amount of them out there. Your argument is wrong because it’s fucking bad. Your entire argument rests on the basis of one statement being worded in a specific way, meaning something that it does not. The ONE argument that you have is that “according to the ICJ and UN courts, Israel has “committed genocide”” even though the rulings you cite do not fucking say that.
Israel is a war criminal
wow look, something i’ve agreed up three fucking times, from the first time you mentioned it.
and you are defending it.
please, demonstrate it. This would be libel if it weren’t for the fact that you were demonstrably wrong.
And yet, curiously i’ve not once heard you mention anything else i’ve mentioned that would also count as genocide under your own definition of genocide.
continuation of last comment :)
i enjoy reading also, it’s often just technical material or something sociological in nature. I should say the same thing about you, you’ve done nothing but reiterate the same points for the first five or however many comments you made, i simply responded in kind, you’ll notice i responded to actually engaging questions in this one!
my brother in christ you do nothing more than post links to shit other people have said and reiterate what they say while being mad, you are literally the equivalent of a piece of silicon processing USB signals.
brother, the evidence you are posting is people going “yeah we think this might be genocide, and we would like for it not happen please” Like i’m sorry but if this were documentation about a nuclear reactor i’d be reading a hand manual for a fucking blender right now.
yeah, it’s a court, of course they do, why do you think i’m waiting until the finalize their statement on this situation? Lmao.
hmm let’s see, and if i were david mcbride, rotting in australia prison right now, for “committing warcrimes” when i merely exposed actual war crimes, and how they were covered up, by charging people who DIDN’T COMMIT THOSE WARCRIMES. How would i feel about the situation? Idk probably devasted, but like, i think this is probably the least of our concerns. Julian assange was only recently freed, and he didn’t even do shit.
Also, legally speaking, it’s undecided until the verdict, unless pleas deal technically, but the same standard applies so whatever.
The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is more about how we should treat people going through the court, you know, salem witch trial type shit.
damn, you really hung yourself out to dry on this one huh. Unfortunately i just so happened to respond with actual responses this time. RIP.
the shit you’re posting is bad homie. It’s not good evidence. It’s the metaphorical equivalent of me scrawling on a napkin that there is 12 million dollars in cash in a forest somewhere in ohio, at these coordinates, and then handing it to you.
this ones clever, i like this one.
“Fake news fake news, everything is an opinion, facts don’t exist! Israel is just defending itself! Genocide doesn’t exist! Palestinians are animals, you can’t genocide animals!”
How did you enjoy your birthright year?
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/
Genocide hasn’t been determined, as again, ICC procedures take time. Why are you ignoring this? Why are you claiming there is no evidence, when there is enough evidence for the ICC to find “reasonable grounds” for prosecuting and seeks arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant? https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf
The Prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli Minister of Defense, on the basis that they committed the war crime of ‘intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’ under article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the ICC Statute. The Prosecutor also seeks to charge the two suspects with various other war crimes and crimes against humanity associated with the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare under articles 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute. These include the war crimes of ‘[w]ilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health’ or cruel treatment, wilful killing or murder, and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population. The proposed charges also include the crimes against humanity of murder, extermination, other inhumane acts and persecution with respect to deaths and injuries resulting from or associated with the systematic deprivation of objects indispensable to the survival of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The Panel notes the Prosecutor’s statement that other alleged crimes, including in connection with the large-scale bombing campaign in Gaza, are actively being investigated.
The Prosecutor seeks to charge Netanyahu and Gallant on the basis that they made an essential contribution to a common plan to use starvation and other acts of violence against the Gazan civilian population as a means to eliminate Hamas and secure the return of hostages as well as to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza who they perceived as a threat to Israel. It is also alleged that they had effective authority and control over their subordinates and knew of their subordinates’ crimes but did not take necessary action to prevent or repress these crimes, leading to their criminal responsibility as superiors.
The war crime of ‘intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’ requires ‘depriving [civilians] of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions’. The crime is not limited solely to the deprivation of food, but includes other objects indispensable for the survival of civilians such as water, fuel and medicine.
The Panel notes three preliminary points relevant to its analysis. First, as a result of a number of factors, including the imposition by Israel of restrictions on the movement of people and goods from and to Gaza in the aftermath of its 2005 disengagement, Gazans were highly dependent on Israel for the provision of and access to objects indispensable for the survival of the population even before 7 October.7
Second, although Israeli officials have a right to ensure that aid is not diverted to the benefit of the enemy and to stipulate lawful technical arrangements for its transfer, they cannot impose arbitrary restrictions – such as restrictions that violate Israel’s obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and 7 international human rights law, or that contravene the principles of necessity and proportionality – when exercising these rights.
Third, parties to an armed conflict must not deliberately impede the delivery of humanitarian relief for civilians, including humanitarian relief provided by third parties. And when a territory is under the belligerent occupation of one party to the conflict, there is also an enhanced active obligation for the occupying power to ensure adequate humanitarian aid for civilians, including by providing such aid itself insofar as this is necessary.8 In the Panel’s view, while it can reasonably be argued that Israel was the occupying power in Gaza even before 7 October 2023, Israel certainly became the occupying power in all of or at least in substantial parts of Gaza after its ground operations in the territory began.9
With this in mind, and based on a review of material presented by the Prosecutor, the Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant formed a common plan, together with others, to jointly perpetrate the crime of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The Panel has concluded that the acts through which this war crime was committed include a siege on the Gaza Strip and the closure of border crossings; arbitrary restrictions on entry and distribution of essential supplies; cutting off supplies of electricity and water, and severely restricting food, medicine and fuel supplies. This deprivation of objects indispensable to civilians’ survival took place in the context of attacks on facilities that produce food and clean water, attacks against civilians attempting to obtain relief supplies and attacks directed against humanitarian workers and convoys delivering relief supplies, despite the deconfliction and coordination by humanitarian agencies with Israel Defence Forces. These acts took place with full knowledge of the extent of Gazans’ reliance on Israel for essential supplies, and the adverse and inevitable consequences of such acts in terms of human suffering and deaths for the civilian population.
The Prosecutor has also sought charges against Netanyahu and Gallant for the war crimes of wilful killing or murder and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population, as well as the crimes against humanity of extermination or murder and persecution for deaths resulting from the use of starvation and related acts of violence including attacks on civilians gathering to obtain food and on humanitarian workers.
In the Panel’s view, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects committed these crimes. The Panel also considers that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crimes were committed in the context of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza, pursuant to State policy.
The Panel’s assessment is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant are responsible for the killing of civilians who died as a result of starvation, either because the suspects meant these deaths to happen or because they were aware that deaths would occur in the ordinary course of events as a result of their methods of warfare. According to material submitted by the Prosecutor, a large number of Palestinian civilians have already died in these circumstances. In relation to extermination, the number of deaths resulting from starvation is sufficient on its own to support the charge, according to standards set out in international jurisprudence.10 And this number is, unfortunately, only likely to rise. There are also reasonable grounds to believe that the starvation campaign and associated acts of violence involved the severe deprivation of victims’ fundamental rights by reason of their identity as Palestinians. This can be qualified as the crime against humanity of persecution.
The Prosecutor has also sought to charge Netanyahu and Gallant with the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts and the war crime of wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health, or cruel treatment, with respect to the non-lethal suffering inflicted through starvation of the civilian population of Gaza. The Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects committed these crimes against many thousands of individuals in Gaza.
Based on the material it has reviewed, the Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant made essential contributions to the common plan to use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and commit other acts of violence against the civilian population. This is evidenced by their own statements and the statements of other Israeli officials. It is also evidenced by the systematic nature of the crime, and the involvement of the suspects at the apex of the Israeli governmental apparatus, with effective authority and control over their subordinates and leadership positions in the War Cabinet and Security Cabinet, in which all key decisions on the conduct of the war – including blocking and limiting humanitarian aid – have been made. The Panel is also of the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects can be held responsible as superiors given their knowledge of the crimes and the fact that they took no steps to prevent or repress their subordinates who committed them.
But no, there’s “no evidence”, right? You’re not just being a willfully ignorant brainwashed git who’s ignoring all the literal evidence and having a tantrum, right? But you won’t even read those chapters, and even if you did, your programming won’t allow you to accept them. It’s despicable. Get a fucking grip on your own head.
cool quote, where’d you get it from?
no clue what this is supposed to mean, but i assume it’s jewish, and in which case, it would probably be offensive in this context, but i’m not jewish so it isn’t my place to decide (oops there goes my logic making sense again)
Yeah, this is exactly what i said, you’re literally paraphrasing the exact thing i said, and then asking me why i’m ignoring it, when i’ve literally stated it at least three times. Yes court takes time, that’s why i fucking trust it to be accurate. There is little to no benefit in the court ruling incorrectly, so when they inevitably rule one way or they other, it’ll be final, and if not, then it will be overturned legally, of course. This is the wonderful thing about the court system, it’s fully self regulated and has procedures for everything
oh boy what a blatant mischaracterization you’ve got here, you really seem to be losing your grips on this conversation now huh? First of all. I personally do not have enough information (not evidence) on whether or not there is an past, present, or future tense genocide happening in palestine at this very time. Unfortunately i don’t exactly have copious amounts of time to dedicated to reading up on legal paperwork and various different court rulings as well as going to palestine, or at the very least, interacting with people from either side to see what’s actually going on around the area.
And as a result, i am doing the very responsible thing of staying nuanced and undecided. It’s a rather remarkable thing really, not being politically charged in any given direction, makes for quite a peaceful life, it’s nice, you should try it.
also, evidence is a bit of a stretch, we’re talking about genocide here, you either kill hundreds of thousands of people, or you don’t. It’s more accurately “suspected grounds for genocide” unless of course the evidence you’re referring to here is the active warzone. But that wouldn’t make your case sound as strong otherwise would it? Perhaps the ruling courts are using the term evidence? I have no idea. That’s possible.
ah curious, a charge that isn’t genocide! In fact, not a single block of text you ripped includes the word genocide, fascinating.
Are you familiar with the USSRs history? Their own people starved, very frequently, they were put through literal labor camps, even to this day, russia still uses labor camps for punishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrective_labor_colony
Yet they haven’t been charged with genocide once to my knowledge, though originally, the USSR included a draft on the genocide clause that stated it would not apply to your own people. So there is that, but i’m guessing that was removed at some point.
Ah yes, i’m the one having a tantrum here.
bro the first four chapters are about starvation and intentional withholding of supplies and food. It’s literally referred to as starvation, not genocide.
There you go again, pretending that either you’ve never heard of what either “implication” or “birthright” mean and that you’re literally too stupid to write a single word into Google… OR you keep doing the same thing you’ve been doing all along; arguing in bad faith.
Just like you genocide defending lunatics always do.
Keep hammering out pages of junior high level non-sequiturs, it’s not gonna change the situation.
You deny a genocide happening. The world doesn’t.
Keep pushing that propaganda, I’ll keep replying here, as I enjoy forums and laughing at proudly ignorant American girls like you.
I come over and strangle you to death. The cause of death is strangulation. The coroner writes that in the autopsy report. Due to this evidence, I get arrested and put on trial. Yet later, after a trial I get convicted for homicide? "There goes my logic, making sense again." ;)
what do you mean by implication? I meant birthright specifically.
i did, and curiously it spat some shit out about israel, which would be why i assumed it’s jewish. Shockingly, i’m not israeli, nor jewish, so idk what the fuck it is. But please, indulge me and expand upon it. I’m always willing to learn. Unlike some people.
bro i asked a question, it’s not that deep, calm down.
again with the adhom and saying shit that’s demonstrably false. Very cool.
and maybe i will, because i’m actually just an AI. Perhaps i’m not. Who knows!
not a single part of this statement is true. The world might suspect a genocide is happening though. Me personally? It could go either way.
oh cool, i’m female now. Did you ever stop to think about the fact that most israeli supporters in the US are middle aged white men who are republican? Probably not. I’ll give you this one for your future adhoms.
ah sick, roleplaying i enjoy this.
Let’s do one. You’re my kid, i’m your parent, i don’t feed you because you keeping bombing israel and israel is angry (or something) and israel in return takes away your food (i guess i’m israel in this context) That would also make you palestine though. Naturally, you become malnourished, and eventually the authorities take you away from me, for child neglect, assuming that it doesn’t just stop at this point (that does happen here) and that i get hit with a legal case, it would almost certainly be under the pretense of “child neglect” not “homicide” because, curiously, i didn’t kill you.
Again similar thing happening in ukraine right now. They have little to no food production, which is most of their exports, but that’s irrelevant. Curiously russia isn’t committing genocide by blowing up grain silos in ukraine. It’s funny how that works.
Proudly ignorant, once again.
You keep arguing in bad faith, as everyone knows that if you actually wanted to know what “birthright” meant, as if you didn’t already, it’d take you 10 seconds to check it on Google. So asking that is you asking in bad faith. I’m explaining this because I genuinely think you don’t understand it, the proudly ignorant American that you are.
Once again, equivocation on the level that I mostly remember encountering on recess 20 years ago. You said “it says starvation, not genocide”. That’s you pretending that once can’t commit by, among other methods, intentional starvation.
Like this:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza
##The Israeli government is using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in the Gaza Strip, which is a war crime.
You can’t admit to a single piece of evidence of the MOUNTAIN of evidence of war crimes there is against Israel, but you’ll keep pretending you aren’t on their side, but being “nuanced”. No you’re not. You’re scared, willfully ignorant and on the wrong side of history.
That’s why I keep linking things like these and the only thing you can do is pitiful whinging about “both sides”.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses
Oh, right, sorry, I just remembered you’re proudly ignorant and probably your literacy matches that attitude, so something… more to your level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_the_Gaza_Strip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_schools_during_the_Israeli_invasion_of_Gaza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_during_the_Israel–Hamas_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_airstrikes_on_municipal_services_in_the_Gaza_Strip
People like you disgust me, but as I don’t want to be as shit of a person as you, I actually reply in good faith. People like you just tie yourself in knots.
Yeah, i googled it. I still don’t understand what the fuck you meant by the implication of using it though. Which is why i think it’s related to israel or judaism. But i don’t know anything about those two things, so i’m not sure i would be able to recognize what you meant by it, unless you meant my birthright to post shitpost comments on the internet or something? I fail to see how this is relevant though. So i’m assuming it’s some sort of dig at religion that is failing incredibly hard here because i legitimately have no idea what you mean. And you are gaslighting yourself into believing otherwise.
i already covered this, go read what i actually said. This simply isn’t congruent with history, nor does it make any sense in the context providing, because genocide is almost always an explicit violence act against another group of people for no reason other than their ethnicity. Defining it as anything else would include Mao’s famines, and north koreas famines. But weirdly, you don’t seem to be continually puking yourself over the thought of hundreds of thousands of north korean farmers who are currently starving. It’s almost as if you either, only care about the Palestinians, or simply do not actually believe what you are saying, and are simply doing some classic, political posturing here.
Again, because you seem to be incapable of reading, russia is LITERALLY doing the same thing to ukraine. But again, doesn’t seem to matter to you, because apparently ukrainians are less worthy to life than Palestinians according to your complete lack of care about them starving.
war crimes against israel? October 7th was considered to be one, but obviously, you misspoke here. And you meant the war crimes that israel is committing, that are being levied against israel. To which, i have agreed too. And you have subsequently, ignored, either because you aren’t reading what i’m posting, even though i’m clearly reading what you post. Or because it simply disentangles your entire narrative here of you being “correct” and it makes you look bad, so in turn you have to save face by pretending they don’t exist.
Or are you just going to pull the “i couldn’t remember” card? Even though it was literally 30 minutes to an hour ago that i said this, and that you read it, in fact, why don’t i go pull it up? “Oh look, another question you haven’t asked yet which btw, yes israel is comitting war crimes, and so has hamas. It’s almost like answering actual questions is, rather easy.”
oh wow, look at that, you literally lied.
i’m on the wrong side of history? Homie, there is no wrong side of history, merely the side that gets written down and archived at some point. Whether this comes to bite in the back later is a different story. The chances of that happening are incredibly small though.
Also i find it rather cute that you keep calling me willfully ignorant, even though i keep explaining to you, that i am quite literally basically ignorant on the topic, because well. I don’t have the fucking time.
oh, you’re the “both sides” type of person, nobody is worse than these type of people. Because they sit in a superiority complex of their own, completely abusing a rather useful concept.
Since you don’t seem to understand how it works, i’ll explain it to you (properly( bothsidesing is a technique commonly used to compare to different groups, in this case opposing parties. Via isolating one side, documenting it’s behaviorisms, and rhetoric. And the repeating the same for the other side, in a similarly isolated manner. And finally, once complete, you can compare them between the two, and what would be expected (in this situation) is a significant overlap in a lot of rhetoric, and a handful of valid underlying causes to the problem. The rhetoric is obviously going to be self determinant. It should be very clear where it is. The underlying structures are going to be hidden within rhetoric most of the time, though apparent.
The problem with most “both sides” ““both sides”” type of people is that they complete forego the entire process of this, and instead do surface level equivocations of two often entirely irrelevant scenarios. Even though this is literally a fundamental fallacy of conceptualization. It’d be like if i said that global warming doesn’t exist because seasons still happen. But of course, you’ve never done this right?
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23128346/11632541
oh, oh no… What a terrible discovery.
i would also like to point out, that you’re expecting to link the same resources over and over again, while expecting me to do something about it instead. Debate is a two way street my friend, you have done nothing but fence sitting here.
oh and by the way, i find it curious that you accuse me of sealioning, even though you’re literally the one DEMANDING an answer from me, lmao. Go read your definitions better so you can use fallacies properly.
my guy, you have done nothing but reiterate the same exact statement you made originally. If anybody here is in bad faith, it’s you because you refuse to interact with any of the premises i propose.
Interesting that you seem to use the “people like you” phrasing. Surely that could never imply anything bad. Surely you don’t have a trained predispoition against people who disagree with you. Do you?
But, since you seem to like fallacy so much, i will indulge you. Notably, you keep using an “appeal to the stone” fallacy. Or more clinically referred to as “proof by assertion” You’re also entertaining an “invincible ignorance fallacy” You will probably engage in “argument of repetition” later on, when in the shower, yelling at me. Also an “argument from silence” fallacy in there. And since you seem to like language so much 'ignoratio elenchi" fallacy as well.
Curious how all of these are “relevance fallacies” isn’t it. Fun fact, a common trap with fallacy is just misapplying them wherever you see fit. Whether that is the case here, or whether your line of behaviorisms uniquely lines you up for this specific type of fallacy, is not up to me, as i don’t like to meander into these kinds of things. It’s rather boring and difficult. It’s more interesting running into the underlying concepts.
You’re such a bad liar, and it taking several comments for you to even understand what “in bad faith” meant and then pretend like you suddenly do know how to ask it the simple questions you pretended not to understand in the previous comment is… just chefskiss.
Ah, so we’re using your definition, but the definition of the UN and the actions of Israel actually fulfilling reasonable grounds for it doesn’t matter, the experts on international law don’t matter, but things you pull out of your arse do? :D
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Here you go, miss.
If you weren’t American, I’d have to assume you’re asking this in bad faith, once again. But since I know your guys’ literacy rates are on the level of the third world, I think you might have actually read it like that. No worries, I’ll help you understand your native language better. I said “You can’t admit to a single piece of evidence of the MOUNTAIN of evidence of war crimes there is against Israel”
The war crimes weren’t committed against Israel. The evidence is against Isreal. The evidence that proves they’ev committed war crimes. On Palestine.
Like these:
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses
Oh, right, sorry, I just remembered you’re proudly ignorant and probably your literacy matches that attitude, so something… more to your level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_the_Gaza_Strip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_schools_during_the_Israeli_invasion_of_Gaza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_during_the_Israel–Hamas_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_airstrikes_on_municipal_services_in_the_Gaza_Strip
You’re literally ignoring the fact that the world is against Israel’s slaughter of women and children, so you get to this tantrum and start kicking your foot and going “waaah, waah, no no no, Israel no bad, only hamas bad!”
Then you go on a tiresome tirade about how you see “fallacies”. It’s rather entertaining, really, watching a kid like you larp understanding debating. That’s why I’m still in this thread. People like you disgust me, but it’s that sort of morbid type of disgust in which I’m sort of intrigued by it. Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting.
Yeah, people like you. People who act in this way, denying reality, denying genocide. Which is what you’re doing, and which is what I talked about through-out this thread, you being the case in point, really. I’m not talking about some random of group of people. It’s not some ethnic trait I’ve chosen to hate. I hate genocide deniers, like I hate rapist pieces of shit and child murderers. It doesn’t matter where they’re from or what they look like; if they slaughter children and rape people and then deny all that having happened; they’re a shit person, innit? (Oh and just as a personal tip, if you like larping philosopher with “fallacies”, maybe Google “fallacy fallacy”, unless you’re still pretending not to know how to Google. :DD)
Israel is a war criminal and it’s committing genocide, and you are defending it.
please explain to me what you think i’m lying about, i’m very curious.
ah yes, just the colloquially accepted definition of genocide by most jewish people, and also the general public at large, as a result of the actions of nazi fucking germany. Also i find it cute how you have silently retconned from saying “confirmed genocide” to “reasonable grounds for genocide”
And again, i don’t disagree with the experts, you just completely mischaracterize what they say and then shit yourself over it repeatedly until someone quits yelling at you for being wrong.
“fun fact, most people don’t agree that killing people is morally good” wow aren’t you just a stand up citizen, stating the laws of nearly every fucking country in the world. And the culturally accepted moral status of murder globally across the world, wow look at how far you’ve come.
Again, i am also against this, i have literally said as much. You’re just fucking stupid and refusing to acknowledge it.
The following are quotes of things that i have said, in this conversation:
And this is just the first page of comments on my profile. You can almost certainly find more if you actually look through my history. But you won’t.
my brother not in christ, you have sealioned me this entire debate, and then without a hint of irony, you accused me of sealioning, even though clearly, you’re significantly more aggressive on me answering your questions, than i am on your answering my questions. WHICH MIGHT I ADD, IS BECAUSE YOU FUCKING IGNORE THEM.
following pulled from an actual philosopher. Something you would be deeply unfamiliar with.
bro if you think willful* ignorance psychologically is “interesting” I regret to inform you that i don’t even yell at you to gather interesting information about you, because literally everything you’re doing right now is an already documented existing form of fallacy, or trolling. There is nothing else here.
And besides, willful ignorance is a well studied concept since at least the beginning of science. Probably well before it. Stoicism in some capacity is primarily based on willful ignorance. There are entire fucking religions based on the ignorance of modern society, and it’s methods of operation. In fact, there is an entire disorder on the schizophrenia spectrum that is primarily related to willful ignorance of most things not immediately relevant to an individual.
as defined by what strict standards? Because you cannot be the one to define them. As that would be a conflict of involvement. For one thing, that’s dehumanization. A tale as old as racism. Secondly the entire purposes for the definition of my “actions” is to argumentatively enclose me into your small framework of the world. Because you don’t have the mental capacity to conceptualize anybody thinking outside of three cubic meters of physical space. And unfortunately for you, i am unbound by physical space. I could literally just start saying “israel is committing genocide against palestine” “death be to israel” tomorrow if i so pleased, and you could do nothing about it.
it’s throughout, though i suppose that could be a regional difference huh?
you ever stop to think about the everlasting effects of the dunning kruger effect? Yeah me neither. Good thing i’m not making any assertions on anything.
yet curiously, you defined it earlier as “grounds for genocide happening” weird how you slip in and out of frameworks isn’t it? Almost as if my technical accuracy has tainted your restricted framework so much that you’re working between two different frameworks entirely.
the fallacious fallacy is a good one. Curiously, i never stated that your argument was wrong due to use of fallacies, i just pointed out that you used fallacy commonly. Because fallacy is a rather weak rhetorical device that can almost always be applied retroactively due to the sheer amount of them out there. Your argument is wrong because it’s fucking bad. Your entire argument rests on the basis of one statement being worded in a specific way, meaning something that it does not. The ONE argument that you have is that “according to the ICJ and UN courts, Israel has “committed genocide”” even though the rulings you cite do not fucking say that.
wow look, something i’ve agreed up three fucking times, from the first time you mentioned it.
please, demonstrate it. This would be libel if it weren’t for the fact that you were demonstrably wrong.
And yet, curiously i’ve not once heard you mention anything else i’ve mentioned that would also count as genocide under your own definition of genocide.