• 0 Posts
  • 1.4K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle







  • Why did Netanyahu sacrifice Israelis to refuse multiple ceasefires and hostage exchanges?

    …but more relevantly, for the 4th time, you genocide defending piece of shit, why did Israel fund Hamas’ displacement of the secular moderates with predictable results?

    There’s a reason you’re refusing to answer the question - it’s perfectly clear that Netanyahu is willing to sacrifice Israeli lives if it means that he can kill more Palestinians. You keep stating the obvious in an incredulous tone because you don’t have an alternative explanation - there isn’t one. You tell us you see the truth, then get all shy about it.

    Go cheer for more dead Israelis, ya antisemitic piece of shit.








  • you don’t have a crystal ball.

    Now we’re getting somewhere! Why do you shoot the school shooter - you don’t have a crystal ball - they could drop the gun and surrender at any moment. How about Hitler?

    You using (Stalin) as an example of Western fascism.

    Cool - distinction without a difference - I’m glad we wasted our time on that when your dictionary agrees with me.

    That’s a moral decision, not a legal one.

    Great - let’s stop talking about legal stuff then.

    You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.

    So you don’t agree with killing the school shooter? What if they have their gun pointed at you? Exception after exception.

    it’s not murder, it’s combat

    What’s the moral difference other than scale? State approval?

    The difference between you and I is that I understand moral ambiguity and how to navigate it - you pretend things are absolute, set rigid rules then fall apart the moment you encounter anything that doesn’t neatly fit with your framework.

    I would not support telling random people to (…) open fire on civilians

    …aaaaand we’re back off what I’ve been saying - but this gets a lot more straightforward once we address the crystal ball piece.


  • Man, I’m done. You’re strawmanning hard now. At what point did I say fascism is good?

    The point is that you’re getting bogged down in semantic nonsense for no reason whatsoever - your nitpicking changes nothing, and if it does, it necessarily means you’re supporting fascism.

    You support killing if YOU’RE sure it will prevent suffering. So if you have the opinion that killing Fuentes will prevent suffering, then you’ll go ahead and kill him because as established, you only care about morality not law.

    Fuck it - I’ll do this differently, park the nuance for the minute and say sure - what’s your disagreement? If we know someone’s willful efforts and continued existence will lead to mass death and suffering, and their death is the only way to stop that, why would their death be bad?

    Fascism

    What part of your definition excludes Stalin’s regime?

    You’re looking at the fact that both are dictatorships and ignoring that fascism is hard right authoritarianism and communism is hard left authoritarianism.

    I’m looking at the definition you provided. It’s irrelevant - let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?

    Because I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered that means I support the Holocaust. It’s a huge overreach and a ridiculous take.

    No Nazi court would sentence Hitler, no Nazi court would sentence the SS, no Nazi court would sentence German civilians shooting Jews in the face in broad daylight. You either support this position - i.e. fascism and the Holocaust were legal and fine or your pushback is based in something other than legality. The argument you’re putting forward would excuse all the above. The school shooter, Hitler, the Nazi recruiter, and the German murderer don’t get a trial because the courts are unwilling or incapable of stopping the problem - that doesn’t make the problem disappear or remove your responsibility to do something about that problem.

    Dude, I stopped talking about legality (…) Since then it’s been all about morality

    I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered

    Pick one.


  • You’re back?

    Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people (not even Trump, just podcasters) is going to prevent WW3.

    I can’t make this any simpler - I support it if it does.

    Stalinism

    Get a dictionary. Look up fascism and communism. Look up Umberto Eco’s 14 signs. You’re lost - do you think fascism is good because Stalin wasn’t fascist?

    Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis.

    I’ve pointed out why your arguments do precisely this - tell me what I’ve mischaracterised.

    killing people (…) is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering (at the scale we’re talking about)

    Yep - and you’re saying it’s bad because it’s illegal - a standard that excuses Hitler’s actions after the beer hall putsch.



  • Stalin’s regime wasn’t communist, and it checked all the boxes for fascism. Go look up the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - they only got antagonistic because their expansionism started treading on each-others toes. The ignorance.

    I’m well aware of Mussolini’s kill count - go ahead and scale things to the population and average it all out… Or skip that, and explain me the difference this makes to the point.

    As for Hitler, the numbers you are talking about aren’t his takeover of Germany - they’re WW2.

    …which kicked off because…? Moron.

    You are are saying, over and over, that killing people to stop suffering is right. You are absolutely talking about killing people who are SAYING things you don’t like. Fuentes is not an active shooter - I can’t even find a criminal record for him of any kind.

    Why would this argument not absolve Hitler or Goebbels of all fault for the Holocaust? It doesn’t matter - we’ve already established that you can’t have a moral issue with their actions because they were legal.

    Your arguments amount to straightforward Nazi apologia as you ether lie or paint what I’m saying as my playing judge, jury and executioner. I’m not dishing out death sentences to Fuentes - I’m saying that his death would be good if it prevents more death and suffering. At this point, I think that’s likely, but I don’t think I can know yet. Go spend 5 minutes familiarising yourself with consequentialism or act utilitarianism.

    I spit on the feigned outrage and moralism of someone whose prescriptions excuse the fucking Holocaust, and condemn intervention against it because it was legal - absolutely monstrous and utterly moronic.