Columbia University is colluding with the far-right in its attack on students

[Arctish]

Have you not looked at the multiple polls which show that amongst those who have seen the videos the rate of calling them war crimes is much higher, but still far below a majority?

I'm going to say "no" in the (somewhat forlorn) hopes you will post links, with quotes and highlights of the parts that support your claims.

It's not that they don't know what happened, it's that they've been brainwashed into thinking that's proper behavior.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Why should I bother with evidence you've already been presented and ignored?

I don't recall if it was this thread or the main war one but I've posted multiple polls.

Did you, though? Or are you just saying you did?

Post your evidence. If people ask to see it again, post it again. It's not hard to go back and retrieve an old link. I do it for you all the time.

 

[Bomb#20]

I knew they were evil.

You say it sarcastically, but indeed they are evil. Remember, they started this war by brutally attacking Israel.

They are not psychopathic. They had reasons, that made sense in their situation.

Thank you, John "No, no. A psychopath kills for no reason. I kill for money." Cusack. It's a popular meme, and it's nonsense. Of course psychopaths have reasons that make sense in their situation. Of course the 10/7 terrorists are psychopathic. Being psychopathic is part of their situation.

I think many want to view the attackers as psychopaths is because it helps place a veil over the attackers that separates them from others.

And? Normal people do not do the sort of things the 10/7 attackers did.

Psychopath is a mental condition.

I.e., a disease of the brain. Brain diseases are every bit as capable of being contagious as the diseases of other body parts. Maybe more so, when the infectious agent is pure information in no need of duplicating a protein wrapper.

I find it unlikely that Hamas has a huge supply of them. At Tiananmen Square, did the Government replace the soldiers who didn't follow orders with a fresh group of Psychopaths or did they bring in people that were disconnected with the area?

Good example. At Tiananmen Square, when the Government brought in people that were disconnected with the area, did those disconnected people shoot into a crowd of belligerent protesters? Or did the Chinese soldiers attack a music festival, and go house to house hunting for innocent bystanders to slaughter, and stab girls in the genitals, and carve off their breasts, and rape them so violently they broke their pelvises?

Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"... a militant bent someone over, then "Esther" understood that he was raping the victim; the militant passed her on to someone else; she was still alive and bleeding from her back; the men cut off parts of her body, sliced her breast, threw it on the street and played with it;[7] another militant raped her, then while still penetrating her, shot her in the head, and then ejaculated. ..."

"... The New York Times viewed photographs of a woman's corpse found in a kibbutz that had dozens of nails driven into her groin and thighs. ..."

 

[Bomb#20]

Thank you, Donald Trump. I'll see your "look to the entire rest of the world like attempted genocide" and raise you Hamas is genocidal, Israel is not genocidal, their respective behavior proves this conclusively, and everyone here knows it. The constant unevidenced accusations of genocide against Israel are of a piece with DJT's constant unevidenced accusations of stealing the 2020 election against Biden.

The Jews are to blame. Ignore facts if necessary to reach this conclusion.

I've seen only a few sporadic cases of actual antisemitism. The bigots pushing the "Israeli genocide" narrative for the most part appear to be bigoted against Jewish Israelis because they're bigoted against Westerners in general, but they don't appear to be specifically bigoted against Jews provided they aren't Israeli. Heck, a fair number of those bigoted useful-idiots are even Jewish themselves. That the people born into the current clash-of-civilizations hotspot are Jews is incidental. The exact same kneejerk oppression-Olympics zealots would still be preaching their exact same double-standards to their exact same choir of self-righteous simpletons if Palestine had been colonized a hundred years ago by Danish Protestants instead of by Russian Jews.

 

[Bomb#20]

I could say the same about the 1/6 terrorists. But I doubt that Loren or anyone else here would excuse killing 30,000 trumpsuckers in response.

Do you live in some parallel universe where Israeli police officers can just drive up to 1300 Hamas operatives' homes and arrest them?

Nah. Just one where collateral deaths to retributive actions rarely require 10x the number of actual enemy.

Do you have some reason to think there are no more than 3400 Hamas and Islamic Jihad members in Gaza? (To clarify, my "1300" was a reference to the number of 1/6 terrorists that have been arrested and charged.)

The question of whether the number of collateral casualties is excessive in relation to the military objectives being achieved, I will have to leave to those more knowledgeable about urban warfare than I am. My point was simply that comparing 10/7 to 1/6 is an abysmal analogy, since 1/6 had a hundred times fewer casualties and required only normal policing to deal with. Your insinuation that Loren not excusing killing 30,000 trumpsuckers in response is due to a double standard on his part rather than due to the painfully obvious differences in the relevant facts of the respective attacks was completely baseless.

I understand that due to it being the Middle East with religious insanity everywhere, one person’s atrocity is another’s righteous action, one person’s genocide might be another person’s regrettable but unavoidable tragedy. And, as in this case it could be one despotic leader’s political life that requires the genocidal action under consideration.

Do you live in some parallel universe where there's an Israel that's trying to kill as many Gazans as it can but is so feeble at violence that it was only able to get the body count to 34,000? Good god! If Netanyahu were taking "genocidal action" there would be a million dead Gazans. Duh!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Dartmouth faculty votes 183 - 163 to censure Beilock

The motion condemned Beilock for her actions in response to the May 1 protest.

www.thedartmouth.com

 

[Elixir]

Do you have some reason to think there are no more than 3400 Hamas and Islamic Jihad members in Gaza?

Do you have reason to believe 3400 of them have been killed?

My point was simply that comparing 10/7 to 1/6 is an abysmal analogy, since 1/6 had a hundred times fewer casualties and required only normal policing to deal with.

I think it was closer to 30,000 times fewer casualties on the “enemy” side.

Do you live in some parallel universe where there's an Israel that's trying to kill as many Gazans as it can but is so feeble at violence that it was only able to get the body count to 34,000?

No. Stupid question.

 

[Bomb#20]

Evil is a cartoonish nonsense promoted by theists and other empathy-deficient non-thinkers to "explain" why people don't behave as they wish, without taking the trouble and effort to grasp that they are real people who have different experiences, but remain fundamentally human.

... I don't know what fairy tale you need to tell yourself about human thought processes to convince yourself that you're an enlightened empathetic thinker because you use the word "immoral" while they're all empathy-deficient non-thinkers because they use the word "evil", but whatever that fairy tale is, it's self-congratulatory claptrap. "Evil" and "immoral" mean the same thing: ...

"Evil" and "immoral" mean the same thing

No, they don't. Evil is the state of constant and even deliberate immorality, chosen as a direct challenge to "Good".

A person can (hypothetically) be evil - such a person would consciously elect to take the immoral option over a more moral alternative, because he is fundamentally in favour of immorality of any and all kinds.

A person cannot be immoral; His actions in a given situation can be, but observing him to choose an immoral action in one circumstance does not allow us to predict that he would choose a different but always immoral action in a different circumstance, as we could were he "evil".

If John kills his wife because he made an immoral decision to do so, that tells us bupkis about how John would act if he found an unsecured and unguarded bank vault.

If, on the other hand, John killed his wife because he is evil, we can be sure that he would also rob a bank given the opportunity, and would also, if he could, kick a cute puppy, put pineapple on your pizza, and build a doomsday machine to destroy the world.

If you catch a person in an immoral act, you can take steps to educate him into behaving differently the next time he has to choose. He can, in theory, be rehabilitated. But if a person is evil, only execution or life imprisonment could ever protect society from them.

Evil is the absurd, cartoonish, super-exagerated essense of immorality.

It's not mere immorality, it's defined as irredeemable, uncaring, and unavoidable.

It's one horn of the absurd Abrahamic false dichotomy of the struggle between good and evil (though of course that absurdity pre-dates Abrahamic religion - that's just its current preferred refuge).

No person is evil, just as no person is good. Real people do both moral and immoral things, and are not limited to only one of these two.

That's a surprisingly detailed fairy tale. Thank you for recounting your fairy tale so directly. It's transparently self-congratulatory claptrap, like I said. You are trying to refute other people by adding "killer amendments" to their positions. It's a popular tactic, but I've rarely seen it attempted on such a scale. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your definition is what Derec meant by "evil"? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your definition is what anyone meant by "evil", apart from the writers of "Evil Roy Slade", and Austin Powers movies?

He-who-must-not-be-named rather famously liked dogs. According to your theory of human thought processes, the people who say our culture's archetypal example of evil was "evil" all must think the man kicked cute puppies. And you accuse us of being cartoonish.

 

[Elixir]

.You are trying to refute other people by adding "killer amendments" to their positions.

Not unlike graphically describing atrocities committed by a few psycho Islamist militants and using those crimes as rationale for killing uninvolved Gazan civilians.
Next you’ll be citing unlinkable polls to “prove” those guilty Gazan civilians’ support for rape and mutilation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have you not looked at the multiple polls which show that amongst those who have seen the videos the rate of calling them war crimes is much higher, but still far below a majority?

I'm going to say "no" in the (somewhat forlorn) hopes you will post links, with quotes and highlights of the parts that support your claims.

It's not that they don't know what happened, it's that they've been brainwashed into thinking that's proper behavior.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Why should I bother with evidence you've already been presented and ignored?

I don't recall if it was this thread or the main war one but I've posted multiple polls.

Did you, though? Or are you just saying you did?

Post your evidence. If people ask to see it again, post it again. It's not hard to go back and retrieve an old link. I do it for you all the time.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make them go away. You simply ignore things that don't say what you want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I could say the same about the 1/6 terrorists. But I doubt that Loren or anyone else here would excuse killing 30,000 trumpsuckers in response.

Do you live in some parallel universe where Israeli police officers can just drive up to 1300 Hamas operatives' homes and arrest them?

Nah. Just one where collateral deaths to retributive actions rarely require 10x the number of actual enemy.

Do you have some reason to think there are no more than 3400 Hamas and Islamic Jihad members in Gaza? (To clarify, my "1300" was a reference to the number of 1/6 terrorists that have been arrested and charged.)

The question of whether the number of collateral casualties is excessive in relation to the military objectives being achieved, I will have to leave to those more knowledgeable about urban warfare than I am. My point was simply that comparing 10/7 to 1/6 is an abysmal analogy, since 1/6 had a hundred times fewer casualties and required only normal policing to deal with. Your insinuation that Loren not excusing killing 30,000 trumpsuckers in response is due to a double standard on his part rather than due to the painfully obvious differences in the relevant facts of the respective attacks was completely baseless.

And I have been providing that information. Typical is 9:1 civilian. Israel, by MoH data: 1.5:1. Israel, excluding the obviously bogus data in the MoH data: 1.3:1

I understand that due to it being the Middle East with religious insanity everywhere, one person’s atrocity is another’s righteous action, one person’s genocide might be another person’s regrettable but unavoidable tragedy. And, as in this case it could be one despotic leader’s political life that requires the genocidal action under consideration.

Do you live in some parallel universe where there's an Israel that's trying to kill as many Gazans as it can but is so feeble at violence that it was only able to get the body count to 34,000? Good god! If Netanyahu were taking "genocidal action" there would be a million dead Gazans. Duh!

How can you mention the elephant??

 

[Elixir]

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make them go away.

Piling sand on our heads doesn't make them real.
I'd be interested in who conducted those supposed polls, how they were conducted, how the questions were phrased (in Islamic, presumably), by whom and under what circumstances.
I doubt it was done by any method that didn't involve some selection bias, since that would be fairly impossible in Gaza.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

.You are trying to refute other people by adding "killer amendments" to their positions.

Not unlike graphically describing atrocities committed by a few psycho Islamist militants and using those crimes as rationale for killing uninvolved Gazan civilians.
Next you’ll be citing unlinkable polls to “prove” those guilty Gazan civilians’ support for rape and mutilation.

Since they have already been linked they're not unlinkable.

Just because you don't like the fact that most of the Gazans consider the atrocities proper doesn't make it go away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make them go away.

Piling sand on our heads doesn't make them real.
I'd be interested in who conducted those supposed polls, how they were conducted, how the questions were phrased (in Islamic, presumably), by whom and under what circumstances.
I doubt it was done by any method that didn't involve some selection bias, since that would be fairly impossible in Gaza.

I'm tired of the eternal derails in repeatedly asking for sources on the polls.

Read!

Home | PCPSR

pcpsr.org

 

[Elixir]

I'm tired of the eternal derails in repeatedly asking for sources on the polls.

Don’t be surprised, Loren. You’ve been relying on those phantom polls to validate your otherwise naked assertion that Gazans support raping and mutilating Israelis.
Your assertion that Gazans support raping and mutilating Israelis, is in turn used to justify sacrificing as many of them as “necessary” to accomplish the admittedly unattainable objective of eradicating Hamas.
IOW, it’s open season on Gazan civilians until or unless further notice is given by Netanyahu.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make them go away.

Piling sand on our heads doesn't make them real.
I'd be interested in who conducted those supposed polls, how they were conducted, how the questions were phrased (in Islamic, presumably), by whom and under what circumstances.
I doubt it was done by any method that didn't involve some selection bias, since that would be fairly impossible in Gaza.

I'm tired of the eternal derails in repeatedly asking for sources on the polls.

Read!

Home | PCPSR

pcpsr.org

How does the above jibe with what you said here?

And when you're in Gaza you had better say what Hamas wants you to say.

 

[laughing dog]

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make them go away. You simply ignore things that don't say what you want.

Boom - there went every irony meter in the multiverse.

 

[laughing dog]

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make them go away.

Piling sand on our heads doesn't make them real.
I'd be interested in who conducted those supposed polls, how they were conducted, how the questions were phrased (in Islamic, presumably), by whom and under what circumstances.
I doubt it was done by any method that didn't involve some selection bias, since that would be fairly impossible in Gaza.

I'm tired of the eternal derails in repeatedly asking for sources on the polls.

Read!

Home | PCPSR

pcpsr.org

I am tired of the
false accusations of derail when asked to support a claim of fact.

 

[Arctish]

Have you not looked at the multiple polls which show that amongst those who have seen the videos the rate of calling them war crimes is much higher, but still far below a majority?

I'm going to say "no" in the (somewhat forlorn) hopes you will post links, with quotes and highlights of the parts that support your claims.

It's not that they don't know what happened, it's that they've been brainwashed into thinking that's proper behavior.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

Why should I bother with evidence you've already been presented and ignored?

I don't recall if it was this thread or the main war one but I've posted multiple polls.

Did you, though? Or are you just saying you did?

Post your evidence. If people ask to see it again, post it again. It's not hard to go back and retrieve an old link. I do it for you all the time.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make them go away. You simply ignore things that don't say what you want.

Ad hominem.

If people missed a link you posted, re-post it. I do it all the time. It's very easy.

If you can't remember exactly when you posted it, use the Search feature in the upper right corner of this page. Type in the key words and then put your username in the rectangle where it says By:

If your search comes up empty then consider the possibility that the reason people say they don't remember it is because you didn't post it.

 

[Bomb#20]

People are abusing the word genocide (and hyperbole) in general in Israel v Hamas. Something doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong.

Ah, the old "No True Genocide" fallacy.

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Ah, the old "No True Leg" fallacy.​

The No True Scotsman fallacy refers to arguing someone isn't a Scotsman because he puts sugar on his porridge. It does not refer to arguing he isn't a Scotsman because he was born in Viet Nam to Vietnamese parents and no one in his family has ever been within a thousand miles of Scotland.

I do sometimes cage with the phrase "religious ethnocide" for this very reason, but I don't really think this argument is made in good faith, either.

Politesse, accusing others of not arguing in good faith.

No, a thing doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong. But neither does a thing have to be the exactly and only the Holocaust to count as an attempted genocide.

Nobody said it did. The word "genocide" wasn't even coined to talk about the Holocaust. It was coined to talk about the Ottoman Empire murdering 600,000+ Armenians. But since those accusing Israel of trying to murder the Palestinian people can't exhibit 600,000 dead Gazans, instead they just pretend anybody who won't drink their Koolaid is holding out for 6 million.

Israel does not intend for the Palestinian people to exist on the other side of this conflict, at least not while in possession of their own land, faith, and culture.

"at least". I.e., the "genocide" peddlers know perfectly well they're engaging in prosecutorial overcharging for the sake of some perceived rhetorical advantage.

 

[Politesse]

The greatest moral violation, apparently: falsely accusing someone of wanting to kill thousands of children, when they actually just don't care very much whether hundreds of children are killed tertiary to their political goals. The outrage! How can we have a civil society when a mass murderer can't even take down five or six kids in ten minutes without having their motives questioned by the morality police? In public! It's just not polite.