crapwittyname @ crapwittyname @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

462

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, it's terrible that they're the ones on the right side of history on this. It shows how low the US is willing to go to protect its ME interests. Literally morally lower than Saudi.

The problem with that position is that it's anti-scientific. If someone is scientifically illiterate then their opinion doesn't count anymore than my opinion on the supremacy of reading Tolstoy in the original Russian. I can't read Russian so it doesn't matter what I say. If, however, the majority of bilingual Russian/English speakers tell me that the best way to enjoy War and Peace is to learn Russian, I will believe them, even if I don't bother taking the time to learn that language.

Innocent people are killed by the state, is the problem.
Most people aren't willing to sacrifice innocent lives in order to be able to sacrifice guilty ones.

You're describing "beyond reasonable doubt". There still exist "unreasonable" doubts, such as, there's a conspiracy against this suspect which the entire police force, the judge and the jury are part of. Or "aliens did it", or anything.
You might think I'm being pedantic here, but being pedantic about language is a lawyer's bread and butter. The problem is that "reasonable" is open to interpretation, and that's the actual reason innocent people have been put to death...
There's no way, weird as it may sound, to definitively prove anything except mathematical expressions, it's a fact of life. That's why gravity is just a theory. It only takes one piece of evidence going the other way and it's proved wrong, just like in cases where the judge, jury and everyone else were so certain of guilt that they convicted someone to death, only to find out later they should have acquitted. It's not their fault, they were acting on the best information available to them. But it's impossible to be sure.
That, for me, is enough to render the death penalty unworkable. It would be nice to be able to delete the worst people in society, but it's a fantasy. It's just not possible to do it without sacrificing innocent people on the way.

Skills are just a development of a thing you practice. Get good at something you have some love for. Things like programming, mathematics, interpretation are very valuable things to be competent with, and can develop into many useful skills. But anything can be useful, if you practice it enough. Some things, usually art-centric skills tend to be a lot more difficult to use to earn money in my experience.

But take this advice from a former slacker: apply yourself to something and you'll be rewarded.

The Expanse, but with Avery Brooks hyperventilating whenever the stakes get above the average level of a self-checkout operation.
Would watch

To be fair the current Israel propaganda line is: "Hamas are to blame for every Palestinian death because of October 7th 2023". When asked about any events in human history before this date, they plug their ears and scream "RREEEEE!!! HAMAS RAPE MACHINE!!!! HUMAN MEAT SHIEEEEELLLLLDS!!!!! ALL TERRORIST!!!! KILL ALL!!!".
So if this is an Israel propagandist, at least they're a bit more subtle than, yknow, the actual government of Israel.

Vegans are allowed the exception on moral grounds.

Yeah, it's almost as if killing people isn't the best way to achieve anything.

Ok, so you unironically want to destroy every single, what, Arab? Including, presumably, children, because they're all "terrorist".
Do you realise what an awful piece of shit that makes you?

Please tell me you don't actually mean this unironically?

Solution: give employee 7 projects

That's a pretty good run down. There's all sorts of soft skills required for that as well, and hard skills specific to the industry they're in, but I think you've got the essence of it. Also in step 6, add: "take responsibility for everything that will go wrong with thing in the future" aka "sign off".

And then they point the finger six months later when the fan is covered in shite, am I right? An engineer is just an "I-fucken-told-you-so" generator. Sometimes.

Hang on, were you misunderstanding my reference to "the court"? Had you forgotten that we're discussing a court case? You did mention it in your reply.
Yet you thought I was referring to this forum as a court, is that what you were saying here?
Have another read of it, and take your time by all means.

I'm a weird guy I suppose. Laters!

Oh I've hit a nerve. That wasn't my intention. I'll leave you to it, mate.

I'll overlook what appears to be a baseless insult about me fundamentally misunderstanding language for the moment.

It is irrelevant that South Africa might have tried a different case, it's irrelevant that they may care about some war crimes and not others, irrelevant where the funding might be coming from, what their motivation may be for trying this case and it's irrelevant that may be experiencing political woe. None of these have any bearing on the credibility of the legal arguments being made. Discrediting the character of the source of an argument does not change the veracity of the argument; it stands or falls on its own merits. While you've raised a lot of interesting questions, they are separate and distinct from the question "is Israel committing/has Israel recently committed war crimes", which is what the court is hearing.

P.s. his confident, yet flawed rhetoric belies the shaky legal ground he stands upon. I thought that would be implicit.

I think the argument goes:

1. Israel is innocent of genocide (of course this is the standpoint of a lawyer defending Israel against accusations of genocide).
2. If the court decides against Israel, it will make provisions which will make it more difficult for Israel to freely execute its military strategies against Hamas (because the argument is that all of the military operations so far have had the sole objective of wiping out Hamas)
3. South Africa is therefore attempting to make it harder for Israel to pursue Hamas
4. South Africa is assisting Hamas, indirectly.

I think that's right?
So there are a few problems here, firstly the claim that South Africa is the legal arm of Hamas is clearly propagandising. It attempts to paint South Africa and Hamas as collaborators without evidence and it is a stretch to say this from the logic above.
Secondly, there is a fallacy present, it seems to me, in the assumption that if Israel were to be found guilty of genocide, then that would be aiding Hamas, which is unacceptable. This is a fundamentally flawed assumption: censuring Israel for genocide is a goal in itself regardless the consequences; crimes cannot be allowed even if they are perpetrated in pursuit of the goal of stopping other crime; Israel should be able to pursue Hamas without committing genocide.
It's also an unsound tactic because it does fit so well with the narrative that Israel blames Hamas for everything. When interrogated about questionable Israeli military actions, on many occasions, their representatives have publicly blamed Hamas, often to the point of absurdity. This argument therefore seems like an extension of that tactic.

That this is his chosen, and presumably best available strategy belies the shakiness of the ground he is on, and does not bode well for Israel's defence. The consensus among impartial academics is hat Israel is guilty of this crime, or is imperceptibly close to it.

It'll be interesting to see how things unfold, and I stand ready to have my mind changed from my current interpretation of the facts on the ground and the legal definition of genocide which are pointing to Israel's being guilty.

Sometimes referred to as a "hard start"