That’s a good note. Although you can of course use a condom, but yeah.
I think Tupperware makes glass containers with silicon lids as well though, so again… just shape and size, really.
Like would you consider farming corn to be a different industry than farming potatoes? Some of the machines are probably different yeah, but it’s all “agriculture”, innit?
I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.
Based on… what exactly?
The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”
And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.
No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.”
“Brought it on himself brought it on himself”
You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.
You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.
You’re genuinely pathetic enough to try and imply that none of the victims are innocent?
I loathe “people” like you.
Hey @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org, you were saying that “these were extremely surgical strikes, people in the vicinity weren’t harmed”?
Thousands of people injured, all guilty of something ofc, because Israel would never do an attack which might harm innocents. Right? /S
Also, it’s just about the size and shape of the machines basically and they’re in the same industries.
So is it really that different of an industry, or two sub-industries of like… plastics, in general?
Yes, that’s why you can’t respond with more than two words, but still have to reply, despite having to also avoid the topics of our language skills and what your comment at the start of this thread meant.
It really is weird that you have this pathological avoidance yet obsess over replying here.
We both know you read it. We both know which of us has more language skills, and we both know what you meant at the start of the thread.
You started this with “thats why it’s important to have a lot of cameras”, to which someone responded “so the cops can shut them off, like they did Afroman’s?”, to which you responded “cops wouldn’t…”
Then I entered the conversation, because you’ve asserted what cops would and wouldn’t do, showing just how much faith — wrongly, though — you have in the justice system.
You’re just really hard trying to ad hoc what you said, but unlike in real life, what has been said is actually on record, so bullshitting your way out of this doesn’t work as easily as with your mates in the pub.
Weird how you yourself commented on the “language barrier” and what you thought was an incorrect use of the English language, yet now have completely shut up about it, almost as if you’re avoiding comparing your language skills to mine. Perhaps because you don’t like feeling stupid?
Ah, so… what exactly is the reason that you think having video of cops makes you safe?
You’re trying to avoid seeming foolish. Like when you tried to correct my English.
So… how many languages do you speak?
You use “being on camera” to imply that since they’re on camera, they’ll face consequences for whatever they might do.
With law enforcement, that isn’t nearly as probable as you think. I hope you have those feeds recording to a server that isn’t located on the same premises, at the very least. Even if you have the material though, it usually doesn’t mean a thing. Cops can justify pretty much anything in the US, and the justice system tends to go their way. Sure, you can show a few examples of cops actually sentenced, but for each one, there’s at least a dozen cases of officers who got off scot-free or with a warning, and a hundred more who weren’t even investigated.
And as to your pitiful attempts at insults with your assumption that your English is better than mine? I’ve more than likely used English longer than you. More than you. In addition, I speak another language on a native level and several others on a customer service level. How many do you speak?
He specifically mentioned “in the context of the US”.
If he had been talking about any other English-speaking country, I’d say it would be somewhat irrelevant.
But it most certainly isn’t when talking about the US, especially southern US.
Well written. To add: “Boy” coming from a white person to a black man is even more offensive, what with all the chattel slavery history and whatnot.
Dude.
As a third-party to this conversation, I have to say that the dude writing “There is often a gap between common-use language, and the academic function of words (see “racism”). This is why I emphasized the relation of the definitions I provided to the fields of anthropology and sociology, as well as why I stated it is a use almost exclusively found, in my experiences, in academia.” seems a tad more credible than the one writing “I’m not superior just because I used a dictionary to quash the logical fallacy of your call to authority.”
I seriously think you just missed the nuance he was trying to emphasise, and you started mansplaining something he already implicitly had agreed on. Now you’re going for these rather immature “logical fallacy” arguments. Just a tip for that, btw, to up your game in that aspect. Naming fallacies to implicate that the other person is wrong is actually something called “the fallacy fallacy”, ie "because their logic contains a fallacy, the conclusion must be false. That in itself is a fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
So yeah. You’re not wrong, but you’re also not right in correcting him in any way, and he’s not wrong to say that he is right.
I do believe he’s an English teacher. Just use your imagination a bit and think of how many of the things your English teacher told you didn’t seem to make sense, but when you actually dug into the material, you got an “aaa this is what he meant” - moment.
John Oliver sort of did it.
But it doesn’t even need a LLM.
They just used predictive text.
What you have is shitty slogans and zero thought. You’re a trumpet for NRA propaganda and you’re too dumb to even realise it.
The whole “security for liberty” shit you’re referring to? Actually means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say.
SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it’s a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.
WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it’s almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
Now which is a more real risk to the collective security of Americans, daily mass shootings or some fantasy where the government is “coming to take muh guns” and you end up living in some hills fighting a guerrilla fight against a military made up of your fellow nationals?
Gee, idk, should we ask the kids who survived Sandy Hook how they feel about it? (They’re old enough to vote now.)
I’m not trying to change th3 subject mr “cops won’t get away with anything in my house”
Now I realise it’s a different country, but here’s my personal experience.
https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000009654524.html
In Finland. And no-one fucking believes me here. Despite having supreme court documents to show. And that’s only a part of the illegal shit I got them on, as they forcibly prevented me fron filming.
I’d say nice try, but it isn’t.
I keep making the same point. You can’t let go and stop replying out of like… spite, or something?
Nothing to it. I’m not trying to insult you, but guess you are me.
Good, some doubt. Now apply that towards the justice system.
You’re seriously saying “they deserve the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ treatment” while Israel is actively escalating the conflict?
Oh okay. So where have I done that? In assuming that 3000 civilians who were harmed weren’t exclusively Hezbollah? Which would be an utterly ridiculous claim seeing how many literal children there are involved.
So… you’ve never defended genociders. Then let’s see if you will. Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?
I’ve actually been in the military and have had training on what is and isn’t legal to do in armed conflict. Have you?
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12
Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks
Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
© which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.