Being pro Jew is different to being anti Nazi. Jews are just one of a multitude of peoples who can be targeted as out groups for fascists. A perfect example is what’s happening in Israel. A genocide, perpetrated by Jews. It doesn’t matter who the targeted group is. What matters is nobody should be ganged up on in the way that Jews were by the Nazis. Not Arabs, not Muslims, not Christians. Not men not women not trans. Not blacks, not the left nor the right. Nobody should be treated like that. Ever. Again. So, so many Jews had to die senselessly to teach us that lesson. Best we learn it right.
You don’t have to target Jews to be a nazi.

You defended Musk’s sieg heil by posting a bunch of images of people waving didn’t you?
Fuck.
Off.
Nazi.

“That Thou Art Mindful of Him” is the robot story of Asimov’s that scared me the most, because of this exact reasoning happening. I remember closing the book, staring into space and thinking ‘shit…we are all gonna die’

I still fail to understand what your issue is with the paradox? I can’t see why it would be easier or more effective to explain a social contract than a paradox. It differs from other reciprocal social contracts, such as trust for example, because a) it’s the lack of the commodity itself (tolerance) which dictates whether it should be granted and b) it’s not global, i.e. you can remain tolerant of a bigot’s queerness while not tolerating their hatred. I think a) makes it a paradox, which sets it apart from other social contracts. So why not call it a paradox? I’m still not getting it.

π=3

Choose the first suggested word. Repeat until the sentence is complete. Like this: women are a good girl to me.

deleted by creator

I’ve been an urban pedestrian/cyclist all my life. Unfortunately I chose a career path that means I now have to work far from a city. I just failed my driving test. I don’t even want to drive. I fucking hate this so much.

There’s some faulty reasoning here.
Parent comment challenges the assumption that the marks were made by a female, and you say “you’re the reason the professor felt the need to give this example”, although the example was given in order to challenge assumptions of gender.
OP is actually learning from the example if anything, since they are challenging gender assumptions.
On top of that, your use of “you guys”, and your generalisations about men are evidence of the exact type of biased thinking this example is trying to challenge.

There are better ways of saying this. You know, polite ways, where you don’t come across as an insecure dickhead.

DELETED

Hang on, were you misunderstanding my reference to “the court”? Had you forgotten that we’re discussing a court case? You did mention it in your reply.
Yet you thought I was referring to this forum as a court, is that what you were saying here?
Have another read of it, and take your time by all means.

I’m a weird guy I suppose. Laters!

Oh I’ve hit a nerve. That wasn’t my intention. I’ll leave you to it, mate.

I’ll overlook what appears to be a baseless insult about me fundamentally misunderstanding language for the moment.

It is irrelevant that South Africa might have tried a different case, it’s irrelevant that they may care about some war crimes and not others, irrelevant where the funding might be coming from, what their motivation may be for trying this case and it’s irrelevant that may be experiencing political woe. None of these have any bearing on the credibility of the legal arguments being made. Discrediting the character of the source of an argument does not change the veracity of the argument; it stands or falls on its own merits. While you’ve raised a lot of interesting questions, they are separate and distinct from the question “is Israel committing/has Israel recently committed war crimes”, which is what the court is hearing.

P.s. his confident, yet flawed rhetoric belies the shaky legal ground he stands upon. I thought that would be implicit.

I think the argument goes:

1. Israel is innocent of genocide (of course this is the standpoint of a lawyer defending Israel against accusations of genocide).
2. If the court decides against Israel, it will make provisions which will make it more difficult for Israel to freely execute its military strategies against Hamas (because the argument is that all of the military operations so far have had the sole objective of wiping out Hamas)
3. South Africa is therefore attempting to make it harder for Israel to pursue Hamas
4. South Africa is assisting Hamas, indirectly.

I think that’s right?
So there are a few problems here, firstly the claim that South Africa is the legal arm of Hamas is clearly propagandising. It attempts to paint South Africa and Hamas as collaborators without evidence and it is a stretch to say this from the logic above.
Secondly, there is a fallacy present, it seems to me, in the assumption that if Israel were to be found guilty of genocide, then that would be aiding Hamas, which is unacceptable. This is a fundamentally flawed assumption: censuring Israel for genocide is a goal in itself regardless the consequences; crimes cannot be allowed even if they are perpetrated in pursuit of the goal of stopping other crime; Israel should be able to pursue Hamas without committing genocide.
It’s also an unsound tactic because it does fit so well with the narrative that Israel blames Hamas for everything. When interrogated about questionable Israeli military actions, on many occasions, their representatives have publicly blamed Hamas, often to the point of absurdity. This argument therefore seems like an extension of that tactic.

That this is his chosen, and presumably best available strategy belies the shakiness of the ground he is on, and does not bode well for Israel’s defence. The consensus among impartial academics is hat Israel is guilty of this crime, or is imperceptibly close to it.

It’ll be interesting to see how things unfold, and I stand ready to have my mind changed from my current interpretation of the facts on the ground and the legal definition of genocide which are pointing to Israel’s being guilty.

Sometimes referred to as a “hard start”

Hello.

Fuck The Sun.

Goodbye.

Well it seems you’ve made up your mind. I can’t reason you out of a position you haven’t reasoned yourself into.

You seem to assume that a lot of people should or do have your intellect and education. They do not, and that is not their fault. You also make the mistake of simplifying what was an extraordinarily chaotic political landscape between 2016 and 2019. Finally, and most bizarrely, you seem to think it realistic to expect 90+% turnout in a general election which is, at best, astonishingly naïve.

But look, you do you. Obviously you didn’t come here to scrutinise your own firmly held beliefs. So have a good one.

Let’s assume for a moment that what you say is accurate

Let’s not. Instead of assuming, we can agree that the referendum being advisory is a matter of fact. I can provide thousands of sources for this if you are unsure.

between the referendum and actual Brexit there were TWO general elections.

Two points here. Firstly, an election is not a single issue referendum and the Conservatives winning an election is therefore not equivalent to the voters agreeing on Brexit.
Secondly, in both of these elections the majority of voters voted for anti-Brexit parties. So, if we were to take the elections as referenda, (which, again, we can’t) the results would show that the UK voted subsequently against Brexit. Twice.

As for your last paragraph, the fact that “they lied” (not sure why this is in quote marks: they did) does matter. It’s not reasonable to expect that the whole populace will have the time, inclination, ability or education to be able to understand the full picture and determine which parts of what they’re being told are true and which are lies. This is partly why we elect and pay representatives. A lot of lies were told, some in completely novel ways and some in more traditional ways, but enough to at least confuse the average Joe. Why would you lay the blame at the door of people who made a decision based on the best information that was available to them when that information was bogus?

those lies at the time were constantly debunked in basically all of the media if you just bothered to look.

Outright incorrect here. The majority of the media was pro - brexit in the UK. Owned as it is by disaster capitalists and paid-up Tory supporters. At the very least, the message from the media as a whole was incoherent. I believe it’s fair to say that large parts of the mass media embarked on a targeted misinformation campaign for the very purpose of muddying the waters and convincing people to vote against their own interests.

I’m not sure why you overlook all of this. Perhaps you just didn’t know. Perhaps you’re a Tory supporter. Perhaps you just like nice, neat black-and-white answers. But by doing so, you’re blaming a lot of innocent people and letting a lot of guilty ones off without scrutiny. You’re literally making it worse.