Gender Apartheid

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hamas either did or did or did not commit crimes in defense of their "rights" on Oct 7. You know they did and this pathetic defense of their doing so is based on the wrongs previously perpetrated against them by Israel. You're perfectly fine with hamas doing it but not Israel.

P1: Hamas committed war crimes
C: Therefore ...

Please finish the deduction as valid and sound.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did hamas commit war crimes....

This isn't productive.
No matter how many times I answered that question,
it's in one Zionist eyeball & out the other.
Nothing to add until you get some new material.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didnt say it was ok. Try to keep up. You asked it it was justified I said yes given that in their defense against a rabid enemy Israel would be destroyed otherwise.

"I didn't say it was okay, I said it was justified."

Uh huh. And I'm the one who needs to keep up?

What does a "reasonable military response" by Israel look like given that Hamas has no compunction about committing war crimes against Israel. Be specific.

Committing military intervention without committing war crimes, or at least with a clear and concerted effort to avoid unnecessary civilian death.

The IDF have very explicitly not done that.

Hamas doing war crimes is irrelevant. You can't justify committing war crimes in response to war crimes. If you genuinely believe that, and were consistent, your argument would just as easily support Hamas.

AGAIN what should Israel's defense look like?

A reasonable military response to terrorism. Do you believe war crimes are a reasonable military defence strategy against terrorism?

Likely no but you didn't show any evidence of a false accusation?

I did it repeatedly. You said I "assumed" October 7th wasn't a war crime, despite me calling it a war crime repeatedly.

Apologise.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You say "The grass is green." I say, "Ok". That is an acknowledgement of your statement not an agreement or approval of your statement or the color of grass.

You didn't say "OK". I asked if it was JUSTIFIED and you said YES.

Unless Israel responds in kind they will be destroyed.

That's delusional. The very idea that you need to commit war crimes in order to prevent war crimes is literally the same logic Hamas use.

 

[sayak83]

For the sake of discussion, let's say history is as one-sided as you're painting it to be. (I don't buy it, but for the sake of discussion...)

How does that justify the horrific, widespread misogyny that's occurring every day?

I'm not the US government. I'm a concerned citizen. I believe in the Golden Rule. I believe that humans are headed for a mad max world if we don't make some huge shifts right quick-like. And treating women as equals to men, is an essential aspect of the shifts we need to make.

I do not see it. Human societies have been horrifically unequal as well as patriarchal for millennia. Only sustainable reforms and development have been through natural, internal processes within the society itself. Quick huge shifts are usually disastrous.

 

[Ignatius A]

P1: Hamas committed war crimes
C: Therefore ...

Please finish the deduction as valid and sound.

First we have finally reached agreement that hamas committed war crimes. We could have saved a lot of time had you just admitted what we both know is true. Why didn't you do that?

Therefore Israel is justified to respond in kind since the publicly stated goal of hamas is the total destruction of Israel.

You didn't say "OK". I asked if it was JUSTIFIED and you said YES.


That's delusional. The very idea that you need to commit war crimes in order to prevent war crimes is literally the same logic Hamas use.

Yes justified no "ok" as in approval

I didn't say they were preventing war crimes. What's wrong with you? I said they were justified to depend on kind otherwise they will be destroyed. Please read with comprehension

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First we have finally reached agreement that hamas committed war crimes. We could have saved a lot of time had you just admitted what we both know is true. Why didn't you do that?

Therefore Israel is justified to respond in kind since the publicly stated goal of hamas is the total destruction of Israel.

Yes justified no "ok" as in approval

I didn't say they were preventing war crimes. What's wrong with you? I said they were justified to depend on kind otherwise they will be destroyed. Please read with comprehension

The bold one is invalid and thus illogical as a deduction based on the premise. You have to do better than that for justification.
Please try to at least make a valid deduction.

 

[Father Heathen]

Palestinian poll shows a rise in Hamas support and close to 90% wanting US-backed Abbas to resign

The findings signal more difficulties for the Biden administration’s postwar vision for Gaza and raise questions about Israel’s goal of ending Hamas’ capabilities.

apnews.com

Obviously the killing of innocent civilians - especially children - will contribute to the rise terrorism (families seeking vengeance). It's yet another reason why committing war crimes is bad.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes justified no "ok" as in approval

"Justified" means you believe it's JUSTIFIED.

If you don't approve, then how can you possibly believe it's JUSTIFIED?

I didn't say they were preventing war crimes. What's wrong with you? I said they were justified to depend on kind otherwise they will be destroyed. Please read with comprehension

Re-read what you just wrote and please try again to tell me who lacks comprehension, here. You are literally arguing that Israel needs to commit war crimes in order to prevent from "being destroyed", despite the fact that you make absolutely no effort to explain why the mass killing of civilians - and multiple other war crimes - are a necessary defensive measure against war crimes or further violence; and the fact that this is identical to the logic Hamas use to justify their war crimes, too.

When are you going to apologise for blatantly making a false accusation about me?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First we have finally reached agreement that hamas committed war crimes. We could have saved a lot of time had you just admitted what we both know is true. Why didn't you do that?

Therefore Israel is justified to respond in kind since the publicly stated goal of hamas is the total destruction of Israel.

Literally "war crimes are a justified response to war crimes".

So, if Israel have ever committed war crimes against Gaza, would that mean October 7th was justified? Why aren't you arguing that?

 

[Ignatius A]

Literally "war crimes are a justified response to war crimes".

So, if Israel have ever committed war crimes against Gaza, would that mean October 7th was justified? Why aren't you arguing that?

In which number post did i write that?

Yes it would justify it but hamas is a group of idiotic rabid dogs for taking on a bigger more powerful opponent. Instead of protecting their people they continue not attack a bigger more powerful opponent. They CLEARLY don't care about their civilians so they suffer.

 

[Ignatius A]

The bold one is invalid and thus illogical as a deduction based on the premise. You have to do better than that for justification.
Please try to at least make a valid deduction.

It's very valid. What you're proposing is that israel sit.down shut up and take their destruction without protest. What you fail to comprehend is they already tried that approach and it had a disastrous outcome. Wake up

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In which number post did i write that?

For numerous posts, you have been arguing that committing war crimes is justified.

Yes it would justify it

Like just there, for example.

but hamas is a group of idiotic rabid dogs for taking on a bigger more powerful opponent.

Why does that justify committing war crimes against civilians, exactly?

Instead of protecting their people they continue not attack a bigger more powerful opponent. They CLEARLY don't care about their civilians so they suffer.

I agree, they don't.

Why does that justify committing war crimes against civilians, exactly?

And when are you going to apologise for your blatant false statements about me?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's very valid. What you're proposing is that israel sit.down shut up and take their destruction without protest. What you fail to comprehend is they already tried that approach and it had a disastrous outcome. Wake up

You don't know what valid in logic means, right? Do you know what a deduction in logic is?

 

[Ignatius A]

For numerous posts, you have been arguing that committing war crimes is justified.


Like just there, for example.


Why does that justify committing war crimes against civilians, exactly?


I agree, they don't.

Why does that justify committing war crimes against civilians, exactly?

And when are you going to apologise for your blatant false statements about me?

You put up words with quotes around and attributed then to me. AGAIN, in which post did I write that?

I won't apologize to you unless you can prove your claim AND you actually cite where I made the statement you claim I made. I am not the least but impressed with your drama gueenery, I've seen much better.

 

[Ignatius A]

You don't know what valid in logic means, right? Do you know what a deduction in logic is?

If I were you I would avoid my anti-Semitism too.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You put up words with quotes around and attributed then to me.

You realise how quotes on this forum work, right? The bits directly attributable to you are in the quote boxes. The bits I write in inverted commas are a summary in my words of your argument. I never claimed you said that, I was summarising what you said. Work on your reading comprehension.

This is a weak diversion. You are arguing to justify war crimes.

I won't apologize to you unless you can prove your claim

I've done it multiple times. In the very post you quoted I said October 7th was a war crime twice. You made up the claim that I "assumed" it wasn't a war crime.

Apologise.

AND you actually cite where I made the statement you claim I made.

Done it repeatedly.

I am not the least but impressed with your drama gueenery, I've seen much better.

And I'm not much impressed with your desperate evasion.

I'll await an apology for your false allegation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I were you I would avoid my anti-Semitism too.

Can you rephrase that in light of what you quoted:

You don't know what valid in logic means, right? Do you know what a deduction in logic is?

I can't see the relevance of your answer to my questions?

 

[Ignatius A]

You realise how quotes on this forum work, right? The bits directly attributable to you are in the quote boxes. The bits I write in inverted commas are a summary in my words of your argument. I never claimed you said that, I was summarising what you said. Work on your reading comprehension.

This is a weak diversion. You are arguing to justify war crimes.


I've done it multiple times. In the very post you quoted I said October 7th was a war crime twice. You made up the claim that I "assumed" it wasn't a war crime.

Apologise.


Done it repeatedly.


And I'm not much impressed with your desperate evasion.

I'll await an apology for your false allegation.

Cite where I actually said what you attributed to me.

You got a long wait ahead of you Rumpelstiltskin.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Cite where I actually said what you attributed to me.

This dishonest tactic of yours is already old.

Why do you believe committing war crimes is justified, and when are you going to apologise to me for the false claim you made?