originalfrozenbanana @ originalfrozenbanana @lemm.ee

Posts

2

Comments

720

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don’t think there are online multiplayer games like CoD or CS that don’t require a platform like steam or good old games to buy, download, and run. I’m not actually sure what you’re trying to do, but if avoiding marketing is your goal I recommend you run steam and change the default page it opens to to be the library where your games are and not the store

Then you will have software that doesn’t work. This is not a Firefox problem, or a problem of extensions, or anything but a user problem.

If your 1998 Toyota Camry is struggling to haul a cargo container up a hill it’s not the car’s fault. You’re doing it wrong. Whatever tasks you’re trying to do with 1000 tabs, a web browser is the wrong tool for the job.

Maybe don’t have a THOUSAND tabs

What? I thought everyone knew they were the mouthpiece for that weird Chinese shen yun cult, falun gong

Ooh sorry this is a weird one it’s actually “wugopodes”

Well the Geneva convention didn’t exist during WW2 so that’s a moot point and “the US did it” is not a defense of war crimes. The US wantonly commits war crimes. An indiscriminate attack is not what you described. It is an attack that makes no effort (or insufficient effort) to target only military objectives and protect civilians.

This conversation has reached an end. You don’t understand the issue, and worse don’t seem to want to.

You didn’t link those because those are the ones Israel singed, you linked them because you didn’t know the difference.

The protocol I provisions on indiscriminate attacks define what and which civilian deaths are acceptable. Indiscriminate bombings - like blowing up a car in front of a completely unrelated building full of civilians - are unacceptable under protocol I. If your argument is that those attacks are moral because Israel is not a signatory of that protocol I’d argue they’re still committing war crimes, they just don’t admit it.

Again, same tired arguments. You are claiming the same thing bigots have claimed for time immemorial.

When women were fighting for the vote the argument made against them was that they would make poor choices. You arguing differently about women now doesn’t matter - you are making the same type of argument against Palestinians that were made against discriminated against groups at every turn.

White enslavers argued that black slave revolts justified continued enslavement, and this is precisely the argument you’re making.

Killing an enemy combatant is a military objective, so attacking a building containing an enemy combatant does not meet any of those criteria.

You seem to think that the presence of a military objective justifies any amount of civilian damage and death. A plain text reading of Protocol I - which you have clearly read for the first time, considering you linked the wrong articles earlier - says exactly the inverse of that. You are interpreting Article 51 of Protocol I to mean what you want, not what it says.

No, explicitly wrong:

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

What you are describing is unequivocally a war crime. the ICC didn’t charge Netanyahu with war crimes just for the fun of it.

This is literally the same argument bigots have always made. Lemme ask you a question: if we let women vote do you really think they would make the right choices?

If we let black people use the same bathrooms as white people do you really think they’d behave?

If we let those refugees in do you really think they’ll contribute to society?

If we dismantle apartheid do you really think they can govern themselves?

If we free the slaves do you really think they can do anything but menial labor?

What I think is whenever someone asks me if I really think we should stop discriminating against a group of people because they’re not worthy of respect, dignity, and basic right to life, I think that person fucking sucks

Those are articles of the Geneva Convention. Protocol I of the Geneva Convention is different. It was added later. The protocols are like amendments.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51

It clearly lays out what constitutes targeting of civilians. But the fact that you need to be told that killing civilians is wrong says everything that should be said.

Not according to Articles 51 and 54 of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, but then again who cares about war crimes, right?

When you dehumanize and demonize your opponent to the extent you are right now, you have lost the moral high ground.

That’s a lot of mental gymnastics to justify killing thousands of children

Fascinating that “a bunch of civilians” doesn’t factor into that valuation

You mean like a game cafe

Honest answer is probably because no one knows shit about fuck so they are reporting anything and everything they can. If they had more, they’d probably report it

And? These are the same people who roll coal to own the libs

Because those aren’t the actual arguments they respond to, just the face of the arguments. The real argument is that the car is an extension of the self. They should be able to drive anywhere, park anywhere, drive anything, without fear (Traffic deaths are unavoidable and unremarkable), judgment (I drive a Tesla, I’m saving the earth!), or undue cost (gas and maintenance. Sometimes tolls.) except for that which they’ve already internalized.

Public transport is by definition collective. The train is not an extension of you. It is a thing we all collectively benefit from. It isn’t tailored to your specific tastes. It doesn’t go 0-60 faster than Joe Nextdoor’s train. Everyone pays the same, you can’t show off how fancy your ticket is.

Some kid killed on the tracks is the fault of the train, because the driver could have been any of us. We are relatable people. The train is an unrelatable, unaccountable “us” that Americans will never, ever choose over their ideal “me.”