Again, I am VERY happy to provide the list of your highly transphobic things said in the other thread. I"m not avoiding, I'm happy to "shout it from the mountain tops". Just not here, in this thread.


Why did you put Palestine in quotes? Is this an implication about their legitimacy?

I agree. I think it is reasonable to assume that, at some point, the tunnels would end up being used not for a military attack, as they had been thus far, and instead be used for a civilian attack. That said, can we say that CONCLUSIVELY? That was my pushback, not that it isn't a reasonable guess or likely, but that it IS correct to say that we don't know it conclusively and thus far only have evidence of it being used in the one way, not the other.

LOLkeeed. Can you please stop hurting my side of debates?

So its a conversation for this thread when you want it to be, and its not a conversation for this thread when you don't want it to be.

Fact is, all you have is that I refuse to call him a her. That's it. Move on with your life and seek your "points" elsewhere.



Sorry I put "Palestine" in quotes, I should have called it... hmm... how do I say The Zionist Entity in Arabic? Kind of ruining my own joke by asking, oh well.

Quite possible , Micro. And just to be clear, I support his right to be whatever he wants, and to call himself as he pleases. When people like Uke call me transphobic, they are putting me on the hateful same footing as people who would probably murder Caitlynn for taking his stance... when I am so far removed from that position. Its not funny that false equivalences like this are made, I support human rights, I support Caitlyn Jenner, but he's still a man / male. If I met him i'd shake his hand, give him a hug, i'd even bow and kiss his hand like he were a true lady. Of course if Caitlynn were my friend or relative i'd refer to them as she / her. Just like if I attend religious services with someone of a different faith , I don't tell them at their place of faith that I find their beliefs silly (and I have been to some very whacky churches, believe me), I go, I am civil, and I keep those views to myself.


Meanwhile , Senorkeed can't figure out why Hamas digs tunnels to residential neighborhoods filled with Jews.

Why do you want to talk about your transphobic remarks in this thread instead of the thread in which you said them?

I'm MORE than happy to talk about them. I'm MORE than happy to go into why all the different things you said are transphobic. I'm MORE than happy to provide a list to you. So let's do it, bump the thread and I will do so.

LOLKeeed.

Hold on. Stop confusing me with Keeed like lvls of ridiculousness.

You've come to your conclusions, and now there is no discussion to be had

You're not concerned with swaying me, your interest is in smearing me.

Its a sad state you're in, and you seem to draw some kind of satisfaction from it, and even though you're wrong you think you're getting "points" in tarring and feathering me. Cool.

Its the weekend now, and its time to go get "points" in real life by being with friends, and not posting on 2+2 to get my "points". See you on Sunday if I feel like it, but if not, feel free to tell the world from a mountain top that you're so smart and so amazing at posting that I ran, tail between legs, from accusations of transphobia.

You're not like Keed. And i'm not like the people you seem to think I am, simply because I recognize that he is a he and not a she.

There's simply no way, through text and typing on a forum, to proove to you that I don't harbor ill will towards trans people. My loss, I guess?

You are fundamentally confused about what transphobia is if you think this is a defence against it. Hint for the future: the next time you challenge me to demonstrate something, don't run away when I offer to take you up on that challenge.

Literally the most fundamental concept in criminal (ie "war crimes" law) - as we saw with the tunnels example - is intent. Intent (well, also gross negligence, which I hope to god you are not arguing), is a fundamental determination of criminal behaviour.

So. What exactly do you think Hamas' intent was when sending the messages? Was it to warn civilians, as you and the Committee seem to prefer?

In fact, do you even know what the messages said, such that you can make a determination?

As an aside, why are we discussing whether the tunnels were meant to target civilians or military targets? Contrary to LOLKeeed's SOUL READ, that's not why I brought it up - in fact, the military establishment in Israel seems perfectly comfortable operating under the assumption that the tunnels are intended to reach military targets.

Not that Hamas wouldn't murder a bunch of Jews if given the chance (given what triggered the war), but the tunnels are largely directed at military bases along the border, not population centres.

The subject of these paragraphs is this: I.e., the question here appears to be "did Hamas provide such effective warnings"? They determined that Hamas messaging did NOT satisfy their interpretation of "effective advance warning", and described the precise characteristic they did not meet. I don't see anything in this description that hinges on intent so while I accept that it is broadly used in law, you should answer my request to be precise about what your exact criticism of this quote actually is.

Just say this: "He" and "She" are not discrete, mutually exclusive, objective concepts anymore. They are identity pronouns, not scientific pronouns.

The proper personal pronoun is generally what the person prefers to be called. The End. It's not hard to explain this stuff.

Ironically, NC Flounce would have done way better to just say transgendered people have a psychological disorder like body dismorphia or something. I don't know anything about that stuff or if it is even true, but it would be way more defensible that "ILL CALL THEM WHAT I DAMN WELL PLEASE."

do you think its appropriate to even try to characterize the messages as warnings?

Seriously? Because YOU challenged a sentence in a section discussing whether these tunnels were used for civilian or military targets. It said they could not conclusively say the purpose, but that thus far it had been military targets. You seemed to think this very clear and obvious statement was in fact ridiculous ambiguous and biased, so we explained to you that no, in the context of a debate discussion between civilian and military targets, it was in fact very clear.

I'm happy to explain it. But in the thread it occurred in, and which he never got back to my posts. If he wants to talk about it, I"m happy to do it there.

Ironically, he has already questioned their pscyhological state:

Well we have rigorous concepts that are precisely defined and colloquial concepts that are not. The rigorous concept here "effective advanced warning" was - as argued - not met. Was it also a colloquial concept of "warning"? I don't really care. It was a form of communication that failed the rigorous test of being an effective warning.

This is a cahracterixzation of the "warnings":
I guess you are wanting them to never say the word "warning" and only write "communication" or something? Meh. That seems silly. And it has nothing to do with intent, which is what I thought you just said was the problem here.

There is nothing mutually exclusive about having a psychological disorder and being psychologically stable. The issue to me is the stigmatization, not the psychological stability.

Sure. The point is that going around musing about how you question the mental health of transexual people is deeply transphobic.

obviously. you are still dancing around the issue.

The fundamental implied principle is intent. If the message is obviously not intended to be a warning but a threat, then even going through the conceptual analysis is idiotic. It obviously fails.

Suppose Keeed finally loses it and calls in a threat to 2p2 headquarters to kill everyone there at 4pm if he doesn't get any respect. The threat is ignored and a bomb kills Sklansky and a bunch of cats.

Would you respect a court that goes through a vigorous analysis as to whether Keeed effectively warned Sklansky, and then rule it failed on a technical aspect?

Hell, maybe Sklansky killed himself by not leaving. We should analyze whether it was a suicide as well. Maybe the cat did it. Let's analyze whether a cat has the requisite mental capacity to murder someone with a bomb.

And still, have you even read the messages they sent?

There is a massive difference between individuals in societies - where all bombs are illegal - and the legality in wars where bombing in and of itself isn't a violation, only bombing under various circumstances. One of those circumstances is that if you are going to bomb civilian targets one of the things you have to do seems to be to give effective advanced warning. So the question is did Hamas do or not do this? I'm not sure how intent comes into this.

If we are to play make believe, it sounds like Keeed's bomb threat WOULD satisfy the condition of being an effective advance warning in this case.


As for reading, is this:
an unfair characterization in your mind? Maybe so. Feel free to prove that claim if you believe it to be the case. However, that doesn't dismiss the logic of the paragraphs you quoted.

No, the bolded is entirely prohibited. 100%. There is simply no bombing of civilian targets permitted in any case - i should not have to cite that for you. There is, however, bombing of military targets which may lead to civilian collateral casualties, and in that case, effective advanced warning would be required.

The report's obfuscation of that fundamental issue is part and parcel of why you think it all seems so reasonable.

No, it wouldn't because of the above.


What was the message? I see all sorts of reference to messages in both your post and the report. But what did the message say? Was there a military target?

Sure. I'm well aware and didn't mean to imply otherwise, just sloppy language.

Your criticism of this paragraph keeps evolving. In it, we are analyzing whether the communications did or did not satisfy the condition of being effective warning and the report correctly gives reasons why this is not the case. But this is a rather separate issue from the question of who the targets were. It isn't like the report hasn't discussed the difference betwen civilian and military targets (indeed it was the subject of the other quote!). At least your earlier "they shouldn't call it warnings!" argument was at least vaguely relevant to this analysis. The implication that they shouldn';t even engage in a rigorous analysis of whether there were or were not effective is particularly bad. Isn't it a good thing that we know that Hamas was not effectively warning civilians before there attacks?



Are you asking me? I'm just quoting the report. If you've dug deeper and want to share that the report is inaccurately reflecting reality, do share.

You. Cannot. Be. Serious.

I said it was a particularly stupid and absurd paragraph. It absolutely is, in light of the circumstances surrounding the Operation that are widespread public knowledge; in particular, it is absurd that the report analyzed whether generic, vague threats made by Hamas against all Israeli citizens constituted "effective advanced warning", because it is ****ing irrelevant, in light of the fact that the attacks are indiscriminate and largely fall on civilian population centres, which is categorically prohibited regardless of whether effective warning is given.

I don't have to return to first principles every time I discuss a criticism of the conflict. And you don't get to wander in here and pretend to be completely ignorant and criticize what I write as if you had none of the presumed knowledge. You do not get to be obtuse and then claim my argument is "evolving".

Simply amazing, for an academic and educator.

I am a Palestinian , I do not have comprehensive knowledge about internal Israel Politics but I know my life became harder after electing hardcore righ wing governments. Israeli government officials do not hesitate in expressing there hate for Palestinians. We actaully hate Israeli government officials too. But the have guns and they do not hesitate to use violence against Palestinians. I am not saying we " Palestinians" are angles from heaven. We also hate . But not as much as they "Israeli Government" do.

I ignored it the first time, but let's address it here. DOES the report - as you claim - obfuscate such an important issue? Not at all. The legal analysis of the rocket attacks begins, it is true, with an analysis of the warning, before diving full force into exactly this issue.

You say this, and the report AGREES with you:
The report continues discussing PRECISELY this issue of civilian vs military targets with this devastating concluding paragraph:
I submit your characterization of the report as obfuscating the distinction between civilian and military is absolutely false. Indeed, they have directly addressed this issue at length, and have noted as you have that the discussion about warnings does not modify these issues.

Now, does anything of your criticisms remain standing? The last is this:
It seems very strange that you would want the report to NOT address the question of whether effective warnings were or were not made. True, we can - as the report does - criticize these attacks in other ways, other more important ways, even. But is our criticism of Hamas not STRENGTHENED by knowing that not only were they were not only indiscriminately and intentionaly firing on civilian populations, but were additionally not providing effective warning of this? Including this analysis - which is fundamentally correct - does not harm the other, also correct, and i agree more important, analysis that follows.

It's him again.

2 posts. English is much better in the other post. Same 2 threads as last one.

Thekid could never get their/there straight.

Wow,
the tunisian PM is shutting down 80 mosques.....something tells me this aint going to end well
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33297245

Thekid,

For your next account, try posting in a poker strat forum for a little while first.