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

[Derec]

My statement had nothing to do with their bias. It had to do with their truthfulness.

I quote: "high variation in reliability".
And as I said, one can be misleading without technically lying.

 

[Derec]

We all know you wanted to send them off to Gaza to be killed,

I didn't. Not seriously anyway.
I just said that they would educationally benefit from the experience, if they survive.

but assaults are still illegal in this country even if you politically disagree with the message.

True. But at the same time, those on the left should not have their crimes ignored just because prosecutors agree with their message.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

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

No opinion on that. You said "10x the number of actual enemy.", not "10x the number of actual enemy that they've been able to kill so far.". The terrorists who haven't been killed yet still count toward the number of actual enemy.

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?

No. Stupid question.

It was a rhetorical question. Since you agree that you live in this universe, and you agree that the reason the body count is only 34,000 is not because Israel is too feeble at violence to get it higher, you must realize Israel is not trying to kill as many Gazans as it can. Your claim that the action under consideration is genocidal was therefore a stupid argument. Make a stupid argument, get a rhetorical question.

 

[Bomb#20]

.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.

Where the bejesus do you think you saw me use those crimes as rationale for killing uninvolved Gazan civilians? You made that up out of whole cloth. I graphically described atrocities committed by "a few" psycho Islamist militants as a rationale for rejecting bilby's groundless claim that the 10/7 terrorists aren't evil and aren't psycho.

Next you’ll be citing unlinkable polls to “prove” those guilty Gazan civilians’ support for rape and mutilation.

Why did you write that? Do you feel when you disagree with someone but can't refute what he says, making up something and imputing it to him is a legitimate argument tactic? Or is it just that blasphemers against your religious beliefs are outgroup to you, and are therefore interchangeable parts, and consequently you can't tell me from Loren?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

As apologetics for pious fraud go, pointing out that some moral violations are greater than the one you committed is probably the very best thing that can be said in its defense. So, congratulations, I guess.

 

[Bomb#20]

Front and center, obviously well done sign that says "From the River to the Sea". That's a dog whistle for genocide.

Original Party Platform of the Likud Party

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty

Three questions:
1. How many Arabs live under Israeli rule in Israel without being murdered?
2. How many Jews live under Palestinian rule in Gaza and the West Bank without being murdered?
3. Are you under the impression that "dog whistle for X" is purely a function of syntax and is independent of who is doing the whistling and which dogs are being whistled at?

Congratulations! As the 37th thread post to express that when someone writes something it is not purely a function of syntax but depends on who the authors are and particularly the intent behind the writing, your post wins a prize.

Sorry, there's a lot of material to go through, didn't see the first 36, my bad.

So I guess that means when you wrote your post, you had already been alerted 36 times that "dog whistle for X" is not purely a function of syntax, and depends on who is doing the whistling and which dogs are being whistled at, so you should have known 36 times over that the counterargument you were composing doesn't address Loren's point at all, and utterly fails to show his point is ridiculous. Congratulations!

When people advocate Palestinian rule from the river to the sea, that's a dog whistle for genocide because they and the choir they're preaching to know perfectly well that if Palestinians annex Israel they will very probably massacre a large fraction of the Jewish population. When people advocate Israeli rule from the river to the sea, that's not a dog whistle for genocide because they and the choir they're preaching to know perfectly well that if Israelis annex Gaza and the West Bank they will almost certainly not massacre a large fraction of the Palestinian population. This is not rocket science.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think evil is a special horrific form of immorality. Most people that I have observed reserve the description of evil for genocide, horrific mass murders ( e.g. Charles Manson murders), apartheid, etc… Typically lying or adultery may be viewed as immoral but not evil.

To be fair, my sampling is limited by my general lack of awareness on such issues.

So, pretty much the difference between "large" and "huge". Fair enough; I stand corrected. Are we agreed, then, that if bilby were to grant that "large" stuff exists while claiming "huge" is cartoonish nonsense promoted by theists and other spatial-sense-deficient non-thinkers, then the sort of distinction you're making between the meanings of the two words would provide no cover for his peculiar contention?

I think “ evil” is often misused (like genocide or racism) to describe something that is an affront to a particularly narrow viewpoint. While I could be wrong, my reading is that bilby’s response was, in essence, to such misuse.

His response was a response to Derec's assertion that the 10/7 attackers were evil. Are you seriously proposing that the viewpoint which targeting 1200 innocent bystanders for death, maiming, torture, rape, and kidnapping is an affront to is "particularly narrow"? What sort of deed do you feel it would take to qualify as an affront to a broad viewpoint?

 

[Bomb#20]

So, pretty much the difference between "large" and "huge".

No, the difference involves intent, magnitude, and scope. (For some religious folk, it implies a certain dude that sports a pitchfork.)

If I kick you in the testicles, that'd be immoral.
If I round up dozens of males who disagree with me politically and cut off their testicles, that'd be evil.

Or in the Israel-Hamas situation:
Israel's treatment of the Gazans in their response to 10/7 is immoral.
Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7th including the massacre of children was evil.

Okay, sounds like you and I are in violent agreement that Derec was right and bilby was wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

Is it possible that charges are dropped because of a lack of evidence of actual wrongdoing ? You do realize an arrest does not make someone guilty.

It is possible of course. It is more probable that the decision is political given how far-left DAs in both NYC and LA are.
It's the same way most 2020 rioters got away with their crimes.

Bias driven opinion duly noted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think evil is a special horrific form of immorality. Most people that I have observed reserve the description of evil for genocide, horrific mass murders ( e.g. Charles Manson murders), apartheid, etc… Typically lying or adultery may be viewed as immoral but not evil.

To be fair, my sampling is limited by my general lack of awareness on such issues.

So, pretty much the difference between "large" and "huge". Fair enough; I stand corrected. Are we agreed, then, that if bilby were to grant that "large" stuff exists while claiming "huge" is cartoonish nonsense promoted by theists and other spatial-sense-deficient non-thinkers, then the sort of distinction you're making between the meanings of the two words would provide no cover for his peculiar contention?

I think “ evil” is often misused (like genocide or racism) to describe something that is an affront to a particularly narrow viewpoint. While I could be wrong, my reading is that bilby’s response was, in essence, to such misuse.

His response was a response to Derec's assertion that the 10/7 attackers were evil. Are you seriously proposing that the viewpoint which targeting 1200 innocent bystanders for death, maiming, torture, rape, and kidnapping is an affront to is "particularly narrow"? What sort of deed do you feel it would take to qualify as an affront to a broad viewpoint?

But they're Jews, they aren't innocent!

 

[laughing dog]

I think evil is a special horrific form of immorality. Most people that I have observed reserve the description of evil for genocide, horrific mass murders ( e.g. Charles Manson murders), apartheid, etc… Typically lying or adultery may be viewed as immoral but not evil.

To be fair, my sampling is limited by my general lack of awareness on such issues.

So, pretty much the difference between "large" and "huge". Fair enough; I stand corrected. Are we agreed, then, that if bilby were to grant that "large" stuff exists while claiming "huge" is cartoonish nonsense promoted by theists and other spatial-sense-deficient non-thinkers, then the sort of distinction you're making between the meanings of the two words would provide no cover for his peculiar contention?

I think “ evil” is often misused (like genocide or racism) to describe something that is an affront to a particularly narrow viewpoint. While I could be wrong, my reading is that bilby’s response was, in essence, to such misuse.

His response was a response to Derec's assertion that the 10/7 attackers were evil. Are you seriously proposing that the viewpoint which targeting 1200 innocent bystanders for death, maiming, torture, rape, and kidnapping is an affront to is "particularly narrow"? What sort of deed do you feel it would take to qualify as an affront to a broad viewpoint?

The answer to your first question is not necessarily. But coming from a someone who narrowly construes any outcome in the Middle East as "bad" or "evil" if it negatively affects Israelis, the determination of "evil" from such a source is questionable.

 

[laughing dog]

I think evil is a special horrific form of immorality. Most people that I have observed reserve the description of evil for genocide, horrific mass murders ( e.g. Charles Manson murders), apartheid, etc… Typically lying or adultery may be viewed as immoral but not evil.

To be fair, my sampling is limited by my general lack of awareness on such issues.

So, pretty much the difference between "large" and "huge". Fair enough; I stand corrected. Are we agreed, then, that if bilby were to grant that "large" stuff exists while claiming "huge" is cartoonish nonsense promoted by theists and other spatial-sense-deficient non-thinkers, then the sort of distinction you're making between the meanings of the two words would provide no cover for his peculiar contention?

I think “ evil” is often misused (like genocide or racism) to describe something that is an affront to a particularly narrow viewpoint. While I could be wrong, my reading is that bilby’s response was, in essence, to such misuse.

His response was a response to Derec's assertion that the 10/7 attackers were evil. Are you seriously proposing that the viewpoint which targeting 1200 innocent bystanders for death, maiming, torture, rape, and kidnapping is an affront to is "particularly narrow"? What sort of deed do you feel it would take to qualify as an affront to a broad viewpoint?

But they're Jews, they aren't innocent!

Repetition of the passive-aggressive false accusation of anti-semitism doesn’t make it truer.

 

[barbos]

For the record, I don't really have a dog in this fight:

 

[Elixir]

Kids, kids, let's stop fighting! There's plenty of evil to go around.
There are still some 20,000 Hamas combatants out there running running about.
The IDF valiantly took out 2 (count 'em - TWO!) of them last night, and only killed about 40 civilians, some burned alive.
(No word on non-fatal injuries.)
At that rate (which has been remarkably consistent), they will only have to kill another 400,000 Gazan civilians to "get the job done" as Bibi puts it. We can deliberate after the job is done - "was that EVIL, or just IMMORAL?"
Those most effected won't give a flying fuck what you call it.

 

[bilby]

Kids, kids, let's stop fighting! There's plenty of evil to go around.
There are still some 20,000 Hamas combatants out there running running about.
The IDF valiantly took out 2 (count 'em - TWO!) of them last night, and only killed about 40 civilians, some burned alive.
(No word on non-fatal injuries.)
At that rate (which has been remarkably consistent), they will only have to kill another 400,000 Gazan civilians to "get the job done" as Bibi puts it. We can deliberate after the job is done - "was that EVIL, or just IMMORAL?"
Those most effected won't give a flying fuck what you call it.

Well, Bibi might like to think that; But if more than one in twenty of the civilians killed has a relative who becomes a Hamas fighter to avenge that death, the end result will be an increase in the number of Hamas combatants.

This is why nobody in history has eliminated terrorism by the use of overwhelming force*; And why it won't work once again this time around.





*Unless they kill literally everyone in the target population. The "Make a desert and call it peace" strategy, aka "Genocide".

 

[ZiprHead]

So did we ever determine what the right wing collusion was?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So did we ever determine what the right wing collusion was?

I think it's a reference to university presidents caving to political pressure from congress, currently led by right-wing crazies. Basically, they keep their jobs by getting tough, calling in police, destroying free speech. Not doing so results in job insecurity, possible lawsuits, claims of anti-semitism, possible removal of funding.

 

[Derec]

Kids, kids, let's stop fighting! There's plenty of evil to go around.

Brothers! We should be struggling together!

There are still some 20,000 Hamas combatants out there running running about.

Give or take a few thousand.

The IDF valiantly took out 2 (count 'em - TWO!) of them last night, and only killed about 40 civilians, some burned alive.

Two senior operatives. The numbers suggest more than these two were combatants. Yes, even the numbers provided by the Hamas health ministry as relayed by Al Jazeera.

The enclave’s health ministry on Monday said 45 people, including 23 women, children and elderly, were killed in the attack and 249 others wounded.

Let's dissect these numbers. If 23 were "women, children and elderly", then 22 were non-elderly adult men. 22/45=48.9%, almost half. But only ~23% of Gaza population are non-elderly adult men. That's an odds ratio of more than 2. The χ² test gives 0.4% chance of this overrepresentation happening by chance. So the conclusion is that there almost certainly were other terror operatives among the dead. Probably 15ish were terror operatives (which would mean 23% of the civilian dead were non-elderly adult men, which is their percentage in the Gaza population). That also means ~30 civilians, for a much better 1:2 ratio.

If you look at the accompanying video, the people milling about in the aftermath are almost all adult men, mostly young.

(No word on non-fatal injuries.)

Apparently 249 according to Hamas numbers. No demographic breakdown for those.

At that rate (which has been remarkably consistent), they will only have to kill another 400,000 Gazan civilians to "get the job done" as Bibi puts it. We can deliberate after the job is done - "was that EVIL, or just IMMORAL?"
Those most effected won't give a flying fuck what you call it.

But that has not been the rate. We have ~45k total fatalities according to Hamas (if you count those missing under rubble) and ~16k dead terrorists according to IDF. That's a ratio of ~1:3 if terrorists are not counted among the Hamas numbers and ~1:2 if they are. Nowhere close to 1:20 ratio.

 

[Derec]

I think it's a reference to university presidents caving to political pressure from congress,

On the contrary, universities are caving to the political pressure from the occupiers.

currently led by right-wing crazies.

Really?

Basically, they keep their jobs by getting tough, calling in police, destroying free speech.

There is no free speech right to occupy university grounds, or to disrupt functioning of a university so that it has to move all instruction online. There is certainly no free speech right to break and enter into university buildings.

 

[Derec]

Well, Bibi might like to think that; But if more than one in twenty of the civilians killed has a relative who becomes a Hamas fighter to avenge that death, the end result will be an increase in the number of Hamas combatants.

Except that Elixir is wrong about the 1:20 ratio. Both in regard to this one incident and in regard to the war at large.

This is why nobody in history has eliminated terrorism by the use of overwhelming force*; And why it won't work once again this time around.

You can certainly suppress terrorism with overwhelming force.