Ships to Gaza incident

[Asher]

Yep, now you've done it.

[Kuciwalker]

For your information, the purpose of the law against interdiction in international waters is to ensure the right of free navigation between neutral countries. Nations are given jurisdiction over a limited region of the ocean bordering their territory so that they can control their own borders.

[Kuciwalker]

The only reason you think I'm obnoxious is that I consistently am right when I argue with you, and you are so stubborn that you cannot stand being proven wrong.

[Asher]

For your information, the purpose of the law against interdiction in international waters is to ensure the right of free navigation between neutral countries. Nations are given jurisdiction over a limited region of the ocean bordering their territory so that they can control their own borders.

Oh my God.

If you're going to be obnoxiously pedantic, get it right and source it.

Where is that defined so explicitly?

[Asher]

The only reason you think I'm obnoxious is that I consistently am right when I argue with you, and you are so stubborn that you cannot stand being proven wrong.

You're rarely right when you get in an argument with me, and you know it.

Even now you're essentially saying "Nope. You're wrong, that's not the PURPOSE of the law" like it's some obvious, documented fact. Then you reply with your OPINION, again stated as fact and unsubstantiated.

You're obnoxious because you're grotesquely arrogant, exceptionally condescending, morally indifferent, and frequently wrong.

[Asher]

I feel like I'm arguing with a know-it-all sixth grader who has a chip on his shoulder.

[Al B. Sure!]

Kuci, what you said and what Asher said are virtually the same for all intents and purposes. Can you describe a situation in which a law based on one premise would result in a different treatment of a particular situation than a law based on the other reasoning? Or moreso, how it relates to this situation? Are you implying that Israel and Turkey (as it was apparently a Turkish vessel) are at war?

[Kuciwalker]

Oh my God.

If you're going to be obnoxiously pedantic, get it right and source it.

Where is that defined so explicitly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_seas

'Today, the concept of 'Freedom of the Seas' can be found in the 'United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea' under Article 87(1) which states: "the high seas are open to all states, whether coastal or land-locked." Article 87(1) (a) to (f) gives a non-exhaustive list of freedoms including navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables, building artificial islands, fishing and scientific research.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#UNCLOS_III

Even now you're essentially saying "Nope. You're wrong, that's not the PURPOSE of the law" like it's some obvious, documented fact. Then you reply with your OPINION, again stated as fact and unsubstantiated.

It is obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the subject or who's afforded it even a moment's thought.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci, what you said and what Asher said are virtually the same for all intents and purposes. Can you describe a situation in which a law based on one premise would result in a different treatment of a particular situation than a law based on the other reasoning? Or moreso, how it relates to this situation? Are you implying that Israel and Turkey (as it was apparently a Turkish vessel) are at war?

No, they are completely distinct ideas. The right of free navigation is not materially infringed by Israel stopping ships destined for its ports a few miles before they actually enter its waters.

[MOBIUS]

I feel like I'm arguing with a know-it-all sixth grader who has a chip on his shoulder.

Isn't that his brother? He reminds me of what Kuci was like a few years ago - but now it seems he hasn't actually got any wiser...

[Kuciwalker]

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the actual problem here is that 9 people died, not that Israel killed them a few hours early.

[Kuciwalker]

It's fascinating that Asher has been able to develop his specialized skills to the degree he has without learning real critical thinking.

[Asher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_seas

'Today, the concept of 'Freedom of the Seas' can be found in the 'United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea' under Article 87(1) which states: "the high seas are open to all states, whether coastal or land-locked." Article 87(1) (a) to (f) gives a non-exhaustive list of freedoms including navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables, building artificial islands, fishing and scientific research.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#UNCLOS_III

It is obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the subject or who's afforded it even a moment's thought.

Who the hell do you think you're trying to fool here?

That definition doesn't match what you said.

In fact, it is far closer to what I said. The open seas, high seas, international waters are open to everyone. You had a more specific definition with your "neutral nations" claim.

[Asher]

No, they are completely distinct ideas. The right of free navigation is not materially infringed by Israel stopping ships destined for its ports a few miles before they actually enter its waters.

It wasn't destined for an Israeli port, Kuci.

And the right of free navigation IS infringed when Israeli commandos drop on board and shoot people up to prevent it from FREELY NAVIGATING to its destination.

[Asher]

It's fascinating that Asher has been able to develop his specialized skills to the degree he has without learning real critical thinking.

I would say the same to you, but I'm not convinced you have developed any specialized skills. Your CS skills were certainly nothing to write home about.

This kind of gap in your skills is probably why you've drifted away from a problem-solving field to one where you crunch numbers.