What does modern Israel have in common with 1950's Alabama?

[Asher]

No, but Asher's been taking honesty lessons from Ben Kenobi.

Where am I being dishonest?

[Kuciwalker]

You spent several pages in the other thread fighting tooth and nail against admitting what I had claimed in the first place (though finally doing so), with nary a comment on the fact that you had acceded to every substantive point I made.

[Asher]

You spent several pages in the other thread fighting tooth and nail against admitting what I had claimed in the first place (though finally doing so), with nary a comment on the fact that you had acceded to every substantive point I made.

This has more to do with your inability to discern the central points of conversation than anything else.

My position didn't change from start to finish, your interpretation of my position did. That's a failing on your behalf, not mine. You repeatedly fixated on my simple claim that I didn't think Israel should violate international law, even though I'd also taken issue with many other parts of it. You yammered on and on about how it wouldn't have made any difference WHERE (and consequently WHEN) the ship was boarded -- I disagreed, then you never contested my point. Then you started talking about how you were owning the discussion.

[Asher]

The most perplexing part of the whole conversation was your obsession over the fact that you think it's moronic for countries to abide by laws because they are laws. You never defended that position or explained it in any reasonable way, but you kept repeating it endlessly while at the same time accusing me of never backing up what I was saying about how countries should obey international law.

It was ****ing bizarre.

Then there was that part of the conversation where you asked what the purpose of the law was, I explained the high-level purpose of it, you told me it was wrong and then said something slightly more specific (unsubstantiated) that is not any more or less correct than what I said. It's a recurring theme with you, take something subjective and pretend it's objective then paint anyone who disagrees with you as 'wrong'.

And now you're accusing me of being dishonest, which is pretty dishonest...don't you think?

[Kuciwalker]

The most perplexing part of the whole conversation was your obsession over the fact that you think it's moronic for countries to abide by laws because they are laws.

It's stunningly obvious that countries should obey laws because ignoring the law has bad consequences. When ignoring the law has no such consequences, there is no harm in doing so. If you think the law should be followed just because it is the law, irrespective of its consequences, you are both an idiot and potentially a horrible person.

[Kuciwalker]

And it was only bizarre because you've taken only the most rudimentary steps towards thinking rigorously about issues outside your area of expertise.

[Asher]

It's stunningly obvious countries should obey laws because ignoring the law has bad consequences.

It's stunningly obvious to me that the reasons for obeying a law or not is subjective, not objective. You don't get that.

When ignoring the law has no such consequences, there is no harm in doing so. If you think the law should be followed just because it is the law, irrespective of its consequences, you are both an idiot and potentially a horrible person.

The problem here is you're not seeing how much of an idiot you're being. There was a major consequence here that this thread is evidence of: worldwide backlash and diminishing of foreign support.

That's a direct and obvious BAD CONSEQUENCE of Israel's action here.

And I'll say it again because you still don't understand: Your reasoning for when it's okay to break laws is a SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENT and entirely hinging on your MORALITY. It's no black/white, it's not right/wrong. You're a ****ing moron for arguing about it like it was.

[Kuciwalker]

This has more to do with your inability to discern the central points of conversation than anything else.

No, it's because you consistently try to deflect the issue with pitiful attempts at rhetoric whenever you realize you're at the disadvantage.

[Kuciwalker]

The problem here is you're not seeing how much of an idiot you're being. There was a major consequence here that this thread is evidence of: worldwide backlash and diminishing of foreign support.

That's a direct and obvious BAD CONSEQUENCE of Israel's action here.

Oh really? Those are all consequences of the fact that the killings happened a little outside of Israeli waters, rather than inside? No one would have cared?

note: this is an example of the above post

[Asher]

And it was only bizarre because you've taken only the most rudimentary steps towards thinking rigorously about issues outside your area of expertise.

Kuci, it really pains me to read this because I think it's an indictment of you, not for me.

Here you are, a CS guy who has left a field of problem solving for a number-crunching role, taking an issue with many shades of grey and questions of philosophy and morality and boiling it down to a binary argument. I'm here arguing about the grey area and belief systems.

And you're saying I'm the one taking rudimentary steps outside my area of expertise?

To be honest, Kuci, I'm not even sure what YOUR area of expertise is, aside from playing the arrogant, sheltered nerd we're all used to.

[Kuciwalker]

And I'll say it again because you still don't understand: Your reasoning for when it's okay to break laws is a SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENT and entirely hinging on your MORALITY.

You don't genuinely believe morality is subjective.

[Asher]

No, it's because you consistently try to deflect the issue with pitiful attempts at rhetoric whenever you realize you're at the disadvantage.

I wasn't ever at a disadvantage. My point was one of many things Israel did wrong was break international law. You barged in with your opinion that it doesn't matter if they break international law. Then you went on and on and on ad nauseum defending it like it was fact.

You're fundamentally incapable of having reasoned debates with people because your mind is so narrow that you never are able to see the big picture. Your astounding arrogance compounds the situation, and the end result is you're a shrill, obnoxious poster.

[Asher]

And I'll say it again because you still don't understand: Your reasoning for when it's okay to break laws is a SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENT and entirely hinging on your MORALITY.

You don't genuinely believe morality is subjective.

Holy ****ing ****, how stupid are you?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You've no clue about anything outside numbers.

[Hauldren Collider]

Europe hates on israel whether it breaks so-called international law or not, the law really isn't the issue at hand here, why are you still hung up about this?

[Kuciwalker]

Here you are, a CS guy who has left a field of problem solving for a number-crunching role, taking an issue with many shades of grey and questions of philosophy and morality and boiling it down to a binary argument. I'm here arguing about the grey area and belief systems.

Yet another example of the attempt to deflect the issue with pretty but meaningless rhetoric. You had no interest in shades of gray in your claim - VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW IS BAD, THEY ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED THE LAW, BAD BAD BAD - whereas my point actually respected that there are "shades of gray" wrt violations of the law.