https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-israel-airstrike-family-omar-b1848193.html
But this doesn't matter to Bitconnect because he thinks it's about sides and he's already taken his. Moral vacuum, exactly.

Targeting the Israeli army would be a genuine step above what they're doing now — BitconnectCarlos

Agreed.

The best step would be for them to re-enter negotiations. — BitconnectCarlos

You can't negotiate your way out of apartheid/occupation with a party who has chosen that above a one or a two-state solution. The US would have to step in and that's unlikely.

No, all I said was in some instances war is justified and in during warfare or military action intention does matter. That's all I was seeking to establish. — BitconnectCarlos

Answer the question. Is taking arms against an occupying army justifiable? Would you consider doing that if you were a Palestinian?

Part of the problem here is one of identification. If you don't identify with a group or do identify with their opponents, it's hard to be an impartial judge. Lay that aside and answer the question.

So, presumably you believe war against Israel by the Palestinians is justified? Again, in their position, living under a foreign occupation, how would you react?

I edited it to acknowledge that. So, there's a loophole in the definition. It doesn't change the ethical argument for me.

No, you come on.

Definition of a war crime:

"Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;"

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml

(Here is where the "intention" excuse comes in, but I don't buy it).

But also:

"Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;"

No mention of intention here.

You don't get to use the "intention" excuse when civilian casualties are inevitable. Deliberately attacking civilian targets* is a war crime regardless of your stated intention (as if that should be trusted).

[Edit: *Which are "undefended and not military objectives"]

If you were forced to live under an apartheid system and brutalized for protesting against it, I imagine you might be tempted to take up arms against it. I condemn all attacks on civilians on both sides without reservation. The underlying cause of this conflict though is the unrelentingly and largely unrecognized violent oppression of the Palestinians. Try the trivial thought experiment of putting yourselves in their place and you might come up with a more objective viewpoint.

Good for him. Especially seeing as his section is so tiny, his control over the whole building so insignificant (he has been removed against his will, for example, from the larger housing community he wished to remain a part of), and the dominant party so insufferable to live with.

Whether I move to a different house or my brothers fuck off elsewhere, I don't care. But the bastards have neither the right to evict me nor to force me to stay. Similarities in outcome are irrelevant. The issue is choice. Sovereignty if you like.

What's the difference between me deciding to leave my house for another and my three brothers deciding for me? Either outcome has us in different houses. You're being silly.

England gave Scotland the finger over Brexit. Now they’re about to have it broken off. Good for the Scots.

If Scotland has the right to vote for its own independence then England has the right to vote for its own independence, Wales has the right to vote for its own independence, and Northern Ireland has the right to vote for its own independence. — Michael

Of course. Why would that even be an issue?

Yes, it's a bug.

Quite. And this is all I have to show for it.

Just kidding around. In all seriousness, I have a deep interest in your profession. I once considered becoming a top pastry chef, only I don't really knead the dough.

Don't give up the day job.

Fuck him.

Stop baiting, please. You're turning your own thread into a circus.

the idea that Marxism was constructed by Marx for personal gain and power is inexcusably idiotic. — Maw

Masterfully understated.

You know, judging by reports from his lectures, Kant was quite a cheeky chappy with all sorts of wild ideas, therefore I propose that the Critique of Pure Reason was a hoax. Now, of course, I don't know anything about Kant or his ideas because I haven't read him but I know I don't like his type much, so you should probably take me and my idea seriously and spend time debating this.

Oh, and here's some links to two articles critiquing Kant to make this seem substantive.

A right-wing internet random who obviously hasn't read Marx, doesn't understand his intellectual capacity, influence, method or anything about his life, presents a thesis that's it's all a hoax based on the fact that he thinks Marx was mischievous.

Advice: read "Capital", realize how clownish and unthought-out your idea is and then come back and write an at least half-serious critique.

Then maybe you can stop the others from constantly mentioning the book, too. Thanks. — Apollodorus

Yes, we'll keep it on topic.

trying to ban me from the forum — Apollodorus

We are not going ban you just for mentioning a book by a fascist scumbag. I expect it was unintentional. I’ve removed the name and title from the OP. The topic of discussion is fine. Try to steer clear of neo-nazi resources in future though as you might be misinterpreted.

Pearce is sticking around for an impressively long time. — bert1

And we much appreciate it!

I don't recall anyone arguing for blind faith in their healthcare provider.

Interesting design, more Space Fart than Space Force, but if the cap fits as they say. :party:

Well done. :up: Don't spend it all on MAGA hats. :monkey:

:cool:

Nothing in crypto doesn't have the potential for a 4 digit apr, only talking about guaranteed returns here. Still, I understand you on BTC. What's the platform you're using anyhow?

Or you can get up to 30% (or more) apr on a Bitcoin carry trade. Short a quarterly future and buy an equivalent amount of the underlying. Only risk is custody, which you're taking anyway.

Thanks.

(Please only tag or reply to David with comments or questions in the main thread. I don't want these two mixed up.)

We're going to keep the main thread tightly on topic. You have more freedom to maneuver on this one.

Welcome, David! We appreciate any time you can give us, so please do proceed at your own pace. :smile:

(Just want to add that we'd like to keep this thread for questions to and interactions with David. Comments on this thread and debates among yourselves can be posted in the accompanying discussion posted previously. So, if your comment disappears, it's probably been moved there.)

May need to wait for a Netflix drama on the subject.

This is not a place for posting bare literary analyses. It's a philosophy forum. OPs are expected to have a point of philosophical, political or sociological debate to them. You posted a short analysis on a relatively obscure book with no apparent context or relevance. My question also is why this happened?

David has accepted our invitation. :party: If everyone interested could please read up on his ideas and prepare some questions for him. We'll start with an AMA thread soon (anyone can contribute to the thread but please keep all questions to a 250 word limit, and please be respectful and considerate of our guest, thanks).

Alright thanks, let's see if he replies to that. If not, I'll chase him up elsewhere.