I mean, it's not that much about the movie but about the experience. It's just an FX festival. Of course that's only going to work with the appropriate equipment.
It's not an excuse, but it's an explanation. What Israel has been doing with the Gaza strip is literally textbook "how to breed terrorists"
Obviously the terror that ensued is horrible and needs to be condemned. But just killing every current Hamas follower and then leaving the situation as is will just create another Hamas in the future.
I think it's part of a push of making your smartphone your "everything" device. I love small phones but I will say that some tasks are just impossible with them.
how they could live fine as is, without resorting to violence. How they will not live fine if they practice terrorism.
Well that's quite literally not true. People in Gaza can not "live fine as is" because they are cut off from the whole world, relying on an enemy nation to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered. People in the Westbank aren't allowed to use their own land because Israel is keeping it occupied and keeps building settlements.
You can’t reason with people who want to kill and create terrorists out of their own citizens
This is true, but kinda unrelated to what I said. I said there are reasons people become terrorists. Whether or not you can still reason with them after that point of radicalization is not what I was arguing.
Propose a better way to deal with terrorism, or just accept the reality.
"Either solve an unsolvable problem, or accept that bombing civilians is an acceptable solution" isn't really an argument, it can be turned around to justify the terror the Hamas is spreading: "Propose a better way to deal with the occupation of our land and the killing of our people, or just accept the reality". It's just an absurd.
Sorry I should have clarified/specified what I was objecting to. I apparently misinterpreted this paragraph
It’s not right to sit and watch everyone commit various crimes against humanity. But adding your own violence with absolutely no chance at preventing loss of life, as Iran is implying they will do here, is somehow worse than apathy.
The rest of your comment is fine and it's clear that you are explicitly talking about the actions of Iran. I read this paragraph as a summary/generalization which you used as the basis of your opinion about the actions of Iran. I'll switch it around a bit to make it clear how I read it:
It’s not right to sit and watch everyone commit various crimes against humanity. But adding your own violence, with absolutely no chance at preventing loss of life, is somehow worse than apathy. Which is what Iran is implying they will do here.
Where the first two sentences are the generalization tied back to the conflict discussed in the thread with the last sentence. And I would object to this generalization.
Edit:
Apologies if this sounds even the slightest bit hostile
Don't worry I am always happy to be more specific if asked! I get that I am sometimes not as specific as I should be in these comments
I'm not saying I support Iran with their threats but I think I have a problem with the generality of what you said. The same could be used to say the west shouldn't support Ukraine with weapons because then the war would be over sooner, preventing deaths and violence.
I mean how the fuck would Palestine pay for something like the dome? Or even install it in the Gaza strip, it is completely cut off from the rest of the world. Even in the Westbank Palestine doesn't have the ability to use a big chunk of their land for economic purposes because the Israeli forces keep occupying it, so again, how would they fund such a system?
Right, that's one way to deal with Terror, ignoring the reasons the terrorists became that way and killing everyone close to them to avoid new terrorists.
I am again surprised that we apparently are supposed to be talking with rigorous scientific accuracy, here in a thread about terror attacks, between people that are, obviously, not biology scientists.
What I obviously meant was that humans have evolved to have the capacity to do things that no other species can do.
Once again, your argumentation is fallacious and based on fallacious reasoning
The word "animal" comes from the Latin animalis, meaning 'having breath', 'having soul' or 'living being'. The biological definition includes all members of the kingdom Animalia. In colloquial usage, the term animal is often used to refer only to nonhuman animals.
So your argument here is basically "But I have big brain because I use the correct word as defined in biological science as opposed to the morons that use language colloquaillyon the internet". Good job.
Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
As does anyone with a brain.
I mean yeah sure they are in the same category in the sense that both have evolved from the same basis. But humans have evolved further than animals, which is why there is commonly a distinction made between humans and animals without having to say non-human animals.
Examples are:
animal cruelty
animal rights
animal shelter
Obviously none of these relate to humans, because everyone with a brain uses the term animal to mean life that is not human.
Are you braindead?
It sure feels that way when I talk to you, because you are draining my will to live.
behaviour [SIC]
Imagine not knowing that behaviour is a valid spelling of the word everywhere but the place that had to drop the letter U from words to feel special. Time to make a few more rounds in the spelling bee
Humans aren’t smarter than animals because we are animals. We’re also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.
Great let's dissect this then:
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of "animal" meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform. Yeah yeah go ahead and nitpick about mushrooms and plants if you want to. Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
The first sentence thus becomes a tautology because you moved the goalpost to include humans in the term "animal". I bet you felt clever about that. Just to then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words "non-human animal". Because, turns out, its a useful distinction to make. I'm gonna go ahead and ignore your ignoring of this and use "animal" to refer to "non-human animals".
You claim that humans aren't smarter than animals, which you further claim to be evidenced by the "self-destructivene behaviour" humans display. So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species. I'm now claiming that you putting animals and humans in the same catgegory stems from this false equivalence of intellects, which by your logic is dependent on the actions.
So yes, while you never explicitly said that "being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action" your logic and phrasing make it clear that you see animals and humans in the same category, and the reason for that is the, according to you, equivalent level of intellect and actions.
Edit: I am forgetting my nettiquette again, so sorry!
You know what I was typing up a whole argument about how the "if you are self-destrucive you are dumb and therefore an animal" logic is flawed but then I remembered I am on the internet and get to do this fun thing instead:
Please don't resist.