Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

That’s why LW is posting like this guys, you’ve both cherry-picked the part you think is the easiest to take apart as an argument, and ignored the rest, citations and all.

You're having fantasy arguments with people who only exist inside your own head.

I would have thought gaslighting to be above you, but I guess I was wrong.

You misinterpreted - willfully or otherwise - an argument LW made(no Hamas in West Bank) and then demanded he provide evidence for that misinterpretation, and then said he had made the argument multiple times previously.

When LW goes back and clarifies every time he brought it up - presumably, I’m not the one making the accusation so I’m not going to check the completion percentage - you then said he was the one bringing nonsense to the thread when I expressed support.

It’s a pretty clear-cut case of sealioning, really.

More fool me really since I’m the one falling for it.

"Misinterpreted" his literal words and repeated opinion. Don't throw words like "gaslighting" at me when you're the one pretending he literally didn't say what he just requoted a few posts ago in that heap of sarcasms directed at me. He clearly believes that because hamas isn't in charge of the West Bank, hamas are not active in the West Bank.

Meanwhile you make statements like this:

So are we operating on a falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus basis here? Because he was wrong/erroneous/lying in one thing that everything else he says is wrong or irrelevant?

and the bit I just responded to

That’s why LW is posting like this guys, you’ve both cherry-picked the part you think is the easiest to take apart as an argument, and ignored the rest, citations and all.

Makes it clear that you're not talking to me, because I weren't claiming that everything "everything else he says is wrong or irrelevant". I wasn't "cherry-picking the part I think is easiest to take apart", I was responding to the two things in the previous back and forth between LW and Strongpoint that I disagreed with him about. The rest is you projecting onto me.

[Schmaven]

At first I thought that killing so many Gazans would have to lead to their surviving relatives taking up arms later on to avenge their loss, in a perpetual cycle of violence.  But while I think everyone can understand how someone in their situation would respond that way, it doesn't appear to necessarily be the case.  At least I haven't heard of any German or Japanese hostilities persisting long after WW2.  And the indiscriminate bombing their civilians were subjected to was arguably worse.  So it's not impossible that this war too might lead to peace between those involved.  I'm sure that during WW2, the Americans, Germans and Japanese would have found it just as impossible to imagine everyone getting along as it seems the Israelis and Palestinians see things today.  It wasn't by chance though, the significant and deliberate post war period of rebuilding played a large role in how things turned out.  If only there was some way to skip all the horrors of war in the middle and just go directly to the peace part of things...

[hector13]

That’s why LW is posting like this guys, you’ve both cherry-picked the part you think is the easiest to take apart as an argument, and ignored the rest, citations and all.

You're having fantasy arguments with people who only exist inside your own head.

I would have thought gaslighting to be above you, but I guess I was wrong.

You misinterpreted - willfully or otherwise - an argument LW made(no Hamas in West Bank) and then demanded he provide evidence for that misinterpretation, and then said he had made the argument multiple times previously.

When LW goes back and clarifies every time he brought it up - presumably, I’m not the one making the accusation so I’m not going to check the completion percentage - you then said he was the one bringing nonsense to the thread when I expressed support.

It’s a pretty clear-cut case of sealioning, really.

More fool me really since I’m the one falling for it.

"Misinterpreted" his literal words and repeated opinion. Don't throw words like "gaslighting" at me when you're the one pretending he literally didn't say what he just requoted a few posts ago in that heap of sarcasms directed at me. He clearly believes that because hamas isn't in charge of the West Bank, hamas are not active in the West Bank.

Meanwhile you make statements like this:

So are we operating on a falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus basis here? Because he was wrong/erroneous/lying in one thing that everything else he says is wrong or irrelevant?

and the bit I just responded to

That’s why LW is posting like this guys, you’ve both cherry-picked the part you think is the easiest to take apart as an argument, and ignored the rest, citations and all.

Makes it clear that you're not talking to me, because I weren't claiming that everything "everything else he says is wrong or irrelevant". I wasn't "cherry-picking the part I think is easiest to take apart", I was responding to the two things in the previous back and forth between LW and Strongpoint that I disagreed with him about. The rest is you projecting onto me.

Sure thing. You’re right, I’m wrong, well done.

Pro-tip: you want to be treated with respect? Show it first.

[Loud Whispers]

Sure thing. You’re right, I’m wrong, well done.

Pro-tip: you want to be treated with respect? Show it first.

They got that Adam Savage "I reject your reality and substitute my own" mindset

At first I thought that killing so many Gazans would have to lead to their surviving relatives taking up arms later on to avenge their loss, in a perpetual cycle of violence.  But while I think everyone can understand how someone in their situation would respond that way, it doesn't appear to necessarily be the case.  At least I haven't heard of any German or Japanese hostilities persisting long after WW2.  And the indiscriminate bombing their civilians were subjected to was arguably worse.  So it's not impossible that this war too might lead to peace between those involved.  I'm sure that during WW2, the Americans, Germans and Japanese would have found it just as impossible to imagine everyone getting along as it seems the Israelis and Palestinians see things today.  It wasn't by chance though, the significant and deliberate post war period of rebuilding played a large role in how things turned out.  If only there was some way to skip all the horrors of war in the middle and just go directly to the peace part of things...

A good start would be peace, and a good continuation would be peace everlasting. Just as killing has a good way of begetting more killing, peace begets peace

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I do think if Palestinians didn't live under constant violence year in year out the Israelis would find them to make nice neighbours

[Strongpoint]

AHA! THE CONTEXT HAS IRREVOCABLY BEEN CHANGED. THERE WERE PROBABLY HIGHER CIVILIAN DEATHS IN THE PARAGUAYAN WAR,  THOSE 10,000 DEAD CHILDREN ARE EVEN MORE JUSTIFIED NOW"

No, the context was changed because the truth is that the combatants to civilians ratio in the Gaza war is higher than average by modern standards. And it being above average is perfectly explained by the dense population and Hamas tactics. You use wording heavily implying that it is the worst war in modern history. When it isn't. Not even freaking close.

But you lie that it is unprecedented heavily implying that it is because of Israel genocidal tactic. You lie despite your own source saying otherwise in the subtitle!!! Even now you manipulate bringing in a 19th-century war implying that modern wars are not like that. When they absolutely are.

And most of your Gish Galop walls of texts are either falsehoods or half-truths or appeals to emotions or blowing minor things out of proportion or things no one argues against.

[King Zultan]

This whole thread reminds me why I wish Toady would ban all this political shit on the forum, all it seems to do is cause conflict and solve nothing.

[feelotraveller]

It's hard to believe it's as low as 61% civilians, considering 70% of casualties are women and children. Even if all men are hamas.

The Israeli study did indeed regard all adult, non-elderly, men as Hamas.  There are other analyses that conclude that the figures are higher.  A good starting point (as usual) is Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casualties_of_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&useskin=vector#Civilians

A study in The Lancet estimated at least 68.1% of casualties were civilians, while an analysis by Israeli professor Yagil Levy estimated at least 61% of the casualties were civilian. Both studies came up with this conservative estimate by considering only women, children and elderly as civilians (i.e. classifying all adult men as combatants). Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated that 90% of the casualties were civilians.

Spoiler: The figures for those killed by on October 7th are somewhat more definitive (click to show/hide)

From the 'revision of casualty numbers section':

1,139: 695 Israeli civilians (including 36 children), 71 foreign nationals, and 373 security forces. There are additionally five people classed as missing, including four Israelis.

[Strongpoint]

Mexico and Chile have asked the International Criminal Court to investigate possible crimes committed during Hamas’s attack on Israel and the Jewish state’s subsequent invasion of Gaza.

This is what a healthy approach looks like. Investigating both sides instead doing South Africa and offering to persecute only Israel knowing that should both sides be persecuted by the same metric... Palestine\Militants\Hamas\Sinwar is way worse than Israel\IDF\Likud\Netanyahu

Not that ICC has much real power but some fair legal evaluation of who is more criminal would be nice.

[LoSboccacc]

I do think if Palestinians didn't live under constant violence year in year out the Israelis would find them to make nice neighbours

Careful with that interpretation of the death/injury data, it doesn't tell the whole story. One side death are low because they get better defences. Take iron dome away that graph would tell a very different thing. While I believe the Palestinian are entitled to some sort of peaceful resolution for living in their own state on their own term, the death count argument doesn't sit well with me, because penalize the state that's better at defending its citizen and rewards the state that throws martyr over the border and salaries their family. These numbers are so heavily biased to be meaningless for attribution of who lives under violence from whom.

[Strongpoint]

One thing to understand is that this conflict has two (major) dimensions. The first one is "this is our land, not yours", which can be solved by some kind of two-state solution and, indeed, would be less intense if Israelis didn't invade the territories of the West Bank again and again, didn't kill Palestinians, didn't take their homes by force not offering any kind of compensation, recognized wrongdoings of the 1948 war and the immediate aftermath, etc.

But there is another, more important, dimension of this war. So often ignored. RELIGION. Israel occupies zero % of Lebanon and yet there is a war with Hezbollah. And reducing violence will do absolutely nothing to stop religious fanatics from waging their war. Israel has some noticeable problems with its religious fanatics (including in the current ruling coalition), but, at its core, it is still a multi-religion secular democratic country. The other side are people who believe that only their brand of Muslims should have full rights in this part of the world, against people who are obsessed with the damned piece of architecture called Al-Aqsa valuing it far more than human lives, against people who say that they value death more than life. It is impossible to defeat this by diplomacy and deescalation.

Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 proved it. The deescalatory step of removing Jewish settlers and occupying force resulted in more violence not less.

[Jerick]

But there is another, more important, dimension of this war. So often ignored. RELIGION. Israel occupies zero % of Lebanon and yet there is a war with Hezbollah. And reducing violence will do absolutely nothing to stop religious fanatics from waging their war. Israel has some noticeable problems with its religious fanatics (including in the current ruling coalition), but, at its core, it is still a multi-religion secular democratic country. The other side are people who believe that only their brand of Muslims should have full rights in this part of the world, against people who are obsessed with the damned piece of architecture called Al-Aqsa valuing it far more than human lives, against people who say that they value death more than life.

How exactly do you propose solving this problem of religion?
Forced conversion at rifle point?
I'm Irish, I know perfectly well how the British attempts to forcefully convert the Irish to be Protestant went. It backfired horribly. The more they tried and the harshier measures they enforced the more fanatical the Irish Catholics became. The issue here is the Muslim fanatics, and fanaticism is not something you can ever fix with soldiers. You can only intensify it. They fixed it in Germany and Japan not with soldiers but with endless convoys full of food, medicine, and fuel. They bent over backwards to get those nations back on their feet standing on their own. The populations of those nations needed to reconcile the image of their enemies that had been built up over the war of brutal monsters with the enormous effort their former enemies were now going through to get them prosperous again. The Palastinians have to try and reconcile the image that Hamas preaches of 'Evil Jews out wipe us out and they can only be safe when all the evil Jews are gone' with the constant blockade, poor access to water frequent seemingly random bombing into one of the densest urban environments on earth with no thought for collateral damage and now full on ethnic cleansing. What conclusion do you expect them to reach other than Hamas is right? You cannot defeat an ideology by repeatedly confirming it in the minds of those who hold it.

Forcing them out and taking their land?
I'm sure they won't hold a grudge and there'll be no future issues. No future security threats. No diaspora full of hatred and blaming all their ills on Israel. I'm sure they won't blame the world for failing to stand up for them and I'm sure they won't make their anger everyone's problem. And I'm sure this absolutely has to be the most moral of solutions that won't backfire at all. I am completely sure that all those people forced out will find somewhere to go and won't die as refugees unable to find somewhere that'll let them settle down.

It is impossible to defeat this by diplomacy and deescalation.

How about we try it first? And not performative diplomacy either. Actually sitting down at a table and listening to both Palestinian and Israeli complaints. Actual diplomacy. I was alive just south of the border with the north in the waning of the troubles. Many people thought that that conflict was one that could never be de-escalated. It was a conflict tied into both religion and old and deep wounds. But genuine diplomacy and de-escalation worked.

Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 proved it. The deescalatory step of removing Jewish settlers and occupying force resulted in more violence not less.

It's strange, I gave the man I have locked in my basement more freedom to move about down there and he just used it to pry out a loose brick and throw it at my head. You know I think the solution to our disagreement is to add more chains until he's more agreeable. Giving him things just results in violence.

The withdrawal from Gaza might have made a difference if Israel didn't enact harsh restrictions on goods and people entering Gaza, and didn't repeatedly bomb infrastructure projects. The violence didn't stop because the violence didn't stop. Nothing was fixed.

[MorleyDev]

some fair legal evaluation of who is more criminal would be nice.

Why would it be? This is irrelevant. The crimes of one don't justify the crimes of the another, evil doesn't justify evil just because one evil is lesser than the other.

Definitely investigate both of them, seek to ensure a fair and equal application of justice. But don't pretend that that one being guilty provides any absolution to the other side if they're also guilty.

[Il Palazzo]

Thanks for that, Jerick. Spotlighting the Troubles as a proof that reconciliation through communication and compromise is possible, despite so much bad blood, is important.

But there is another, more important, dimension of this war. So often ignored. RELIGION. Israel occupies zero % of Lebanon and yet there is a war with Hezbollah.

Isreal and Lebanon have a harsh history together, including supporting religious militias, mutual invasions, and being complicit in massacres. There was never any proper reconciliation, just repeated bouts of violence. We could spend another dozen pages or so talking about how big a part does the religious fanaticism play in this conflict. But I think bringing up religion at all here is not useful. Whenever it's brought up, it's never to steer the discussion towards solutions, but rather to justify staying the course. To convince others you can't reason with >these people<. And when you can't reason with them, violence is the only option.
I don't know why anyone would want to go there.

[Strongpoint]

How exactly do you propose solving this problem of religion?
Forced conversion at rifle point?

How exactly did humanity solve the problem of Nazi? A hateful ideology that involves belief in the supernatural is not that different from a hateful ideology that involves bullshit belief in a superior race. Note that Nazi ideology wasn't wiped out completely. It is impossible.

Also note that there is Islam, the cultural skeleton of Palestinians and various hateful subvariants of Islam that are not a cultural skeleton but a parasite on that skeleton.

I'm Irish, I know perfectly well how the British attempts to forcefully convert the Irish to be Protestant went. It backfired horribly. The more they tried and the harshier measures they enforced the more fanatical the Irish Catholics became.

This is why we need to talk about deradicalization and secularisation not criminal forced conversion to Judaism or Atheism. I don't believe in any long-term peaceful solution in Palestine that doesn't involve moderate Islam

The issue here is the Muslim fanatics, and fanaticism is not something you can ever fix with soldiers. You can only intensify it. They fixed it in Germany and Japan not with soldiers but with endless convoys full of food, medicine, and fuel.

Note that the Soviet-occupied part of Germany were't that lucky, they were not treated with respect to their sovereignty,  but Nazism still went away. Also, soldiers and tribunals were the first steps of fixing it. Without soldiers sending convoys would do nothing.

But I reject the notion that being kind to defeated enemies guarantees that they will stop being your enemies. Germans and Japanese could still choose the way of armed resistance. They didn't.

The Palastinians have to try and reconcile the image that Hamas preaches of 'Evil Jews out wipe us out and they can only be safe when all the evil Jews are gone' with the constant blockade, poor access to water frequent seemingly random bombing into one of the densest urban environments on earth with no thought for collateral damage and now full on ethnic cleansing.

There was no full blockade, many Gazans worked in Israel and had numerous chances to see who Jews really are. Also, Gazans are not small children, they should understand that when some of you cheer and scream "Allahu Akbar" when rockets are flying to Israel, there will be "seemingly random" retaliation. Also, there is no full-on ethnic cleansing in Gaza yet, only mixed signals suggesting some "soft" forms of it possible after the war. No, wartime relocations are not ethnic cleansing. They become such if they are maintained after the war.


I have said quite a few times what I believe needs to be done in Gaza after the war: Benelovent occupation involving moderate Arab countries (or at least heavy involvement of Israeli Arabs), rebuilding of Gaza for Israeli and international money (not through the government of corrupt Palestinian Authority), educational reform with no UNRWA\PA involved. Support for new political movements which are not Hamas or Fatah. Propaganda of moderate (aka real) Islam by foreign or existing moderate Palestinian Imams. Do I believe that it is what Israel will do? I am veeeeery skeptical of that. Some of their words indicate that it is roughly the plan and then they go spew  "brilliant" ideas of resettling Gazans to Kongo. In any case, it is hard to predict what will Israel look like politically after the war. Like someone who monitors the Israeli segment of social networks, I'll be shocked if Bibi will stay in power so his personal plans are largely irrelevant.

How about we try it first?

It is like trying peace talks with Hitler in 1943. It is impossible before the Gaza war is over and Hamas will be stripped of political control over it.

[Starver]

My old headmaster once made a colossal gaffa "we are the most diverse school in all of London. And yet we still succeed." He did not mean to add the "yet" and we gave him a standing ovation for it.

Well, it might not have been quite the blunder (as in unintended, perhaps freudian, slip) that you ascribe him the 'credit' for.

"Yet" could be in the sense of "up until this moment" (as a plain summary of fact co-operating with the synonimical "still"), rather than "despite" (as an apparent reason why it should not be the case in the interlocutor's opinion).

It's like that old chestnut of the new teacher (well educated, but with perhaps a rather mismatched provincial accent and dialect to their current crop of students) announcing "You'll never learn anything while[1] I teach you..." ("while" as in until, rather than during the period of).


Of course, I wasn't there. It could or could not be an actual slip of the tongue, whether or not it ended up self-claimed as such because it ended up seeming best to do so or the sake of the right kind of opportunistic bonding with the audience.


...no, not particularly on-topic, but I've got nothing much to say about the current twist of topic beyond a general suggestion of "cooling it" when there's talking at cross-purposes and possible actual "separated by a common language" misinterpretation as well.


[1] Or "whilst", actually, this being an intra-British linguistic confusion, not a transpondian one where "whilst" would indicate other problems...