Daeron the Daring

You're free to do so. Class struggle is the most important conflict of our age.

Well, to be fair, it was on me too for doubling down on this (pointless) debate. However, the original point made was "How can palestinians be a subject of genocide while growing in numbers?", and not wether the actions of Israel in the past weeks is genocide or not.

I'm guessing we shouldn't even be allowed to use the term for actual situations then, because people get triggered by the word? That genocide can mean much worse things as well doesn't make a lighter version of it not that. And the Holocaust doesn't disqualify the term from moving on a spectrum. I admit, you're right. The word does have a reputation, and it does have an ability to trigger people, hence why it can be impedimental to a conversation, but that doesn't make the usage of it incorrect. it was baiting from my side, but I didn't mean it to be that way. Misrepresenting the meaning of the word is a wrong stance though, just as discrediting the opinion of people who's job is it to arbitrate wether it is genocide or not we're talking about.

I have not. Or maybe, I did, consciously. The original point the post I answered to claimed genocide has not happened (and continues not to happen) because the population of gaza is a growing number. Debating wether the atrocities are severe enough to get labeled as genocide won't be something I'll do, I simply reflected on what I percieve as a fact that the severety of actions doesn't draw a line that would make anything genocidal not genocide. Good for you if you think Israel's treatment of Gaza haven't met the requirements of genocide.

Just as there is a distinction between a group of 2 and 2 million. It does not. It's not an absolute requirement to genocide. A yearly timeframe is an arbitrary measurement like any other timeframe, because then I can come in and say that "Well, actually, in the X'th minute of the Y'th hour of the Z'th day of the year W, the number of palestinians declined, hence why it's genocide.", and it would be a dumb argument, altough I could most certainly find a minute of the past decades that would fall into this category. I'm not sure if that's why the reduction of the population in a given timeframe isn't a requirement or not, but it's not a must have. Period. 'Genocide' is simply a much broader term than what you imply.

I find this a weak counter argument against genocide denial. Funny how you feel the constant need of redirecting conversations towards truths that seemingly nobody objects against.

So if two people have 4 kids, and one gets killed (before the person reproduces), it's not murder, because their level of reproduction results in population growth, even in light of the early death of said person? I strongly recommend you look up the definition of genocide, moreso because Israel's illegal actions projected at the palestinians of Gaza had been formally coined as genocide by the UN.

I lack a Twitter account to be roaming Twitter, but I regularly follow the work of political Twitch streamer HasanAbi. (It's my go-to source of information) Very vulgar on occasions, but I think he makes a really good job at giving an insight in just about everything he talks about. Just saying this because any information I gather from Twitter is through his streams/videos, @Ran. https://www.twitch.tv/hasanabi

They (an official israeli Twitter page) also showed footage of another incident claiming to be this one, but edited the video out from the tweet. There was electricity in Gaza in that footage.

Obviously they must have. What other possible explanation exists besides?

I guess I've made my point, you made yours. I disagree, and I would have stuff to disagree with that I haven't expressed yet, but let's just leave this behind.

I think the overwhelming majority of people do agree that Hamas should not/must not stay in power. The question is how can we stop the people of Gaza sympathising with radical ideas that give enough support to terrorist organizations to thrive or at least survive and operate. Maybe if there was any actual hope for the people of Gaza for an improvement in their quality of life, and Israel, on who the Gaza strip entirely depends on, would show willingness of actual reconciliation. They have a whole country to demonstrate this willingness, it's called the West Bank. But you simply can't expect a better outcome with the same or worse conditions.

I mean, it is possible for Hamas to go away, but the violent struggle of the palestinians in Gaza won't. With conditions similar to the present one.

I think the illusion of the solution is that eliminating any, many or all Hamas members is, in fact, a solution. It is not, because terrorist groups of any name or form will gain enough public support to act as such as long as people are pushed far enough to symphatise with the violence they inflict upon the subjects of the political entity that unjustly hold them as prisoners. You can cross out Hamas' name from the list, but that won't stop violence and injustice. It won't even de-escalate the situation. And Hamas doesn't have the capability to conscript his entire adult male population. I assume.

The problem doesn't stop with the elimination of Hamas, though, does it? Will people stop being radicalised, if they continue to endure the same (or even worse) conditions they had been for the past decades?

You're right. I wasn't paying enough attention to realise Netanyahu wasn't the subject.

It's the revisionism of our perception of what the Holocaust was. Either by denying more or less of it, or shifting the blame away from nazis in an apologetic style towards the people that the supporters of it think actually did it.

I mean, I'm not running around saying "Hitler didn't want to kill jews.", but he had been doing it. Also, leave behind the implications and explain to me what my comment explains to you, I'm genuienly curious, because I don't want to put words in your mind and mouth.

I mean, what are you expecting from a Holocaust revisionist.

Which is, in part, because of his early death and the competence of his potential Targaryen pretender. Let's nor make Viserys a high bar to jump. I think sugarcoating the insane amounts of debt Robert made for the Crown is a bit dishonest. We are explicitly told that the money he spent was insanely much more than what anyone spent before, and also that the Lannisters indebted the crown for generations. This is not 18th-19th century aristocracy to have it be common for the upper strata to live indebted from generation to generation, taking blind loans on the basis of their ownership of land (which resulted in a class-wide financial struggle for them (poor folks)). He had been given insanely more to work with than any other king before him, we are told. An unimaginable and unorecedented potential. I think it's fair to look at what he accomplished in contrast to that. Which is nothing. Well, yes, that's true, I just fail to see how he contributed to this prosperity. You can make the very same argument for Aerys II or Aegon IV. Well, now you're just running unnecesarry circles around the issue. But okay, let's not make it bare minimum. Did he at least try? Or was he just lucky to have his tutor and best friend be decent enough? (Not as if this authority of him appointing the beurocrats of his state should only extend to the Hand of the King) Name me the efforts Robert made. Well, at least she made an effort, unlike Robert. Don't get me wrong, Cersei is the worst candidate for motherhood, but she did do something. I mean, there was that one time Robert did too, but yea, that's not one of his finer moments. Well, in case of a 12 year old boy, and a completely absent father, that extent is...very extensive. I mean, Ned himself is shocked by the fact that Jon Arryn allowed so much in his presence. Perhaps he changed, perhaps he tought he has no right to deny his king what's his. Either way, Ned clearly had a moral highground compared to him, that's shown on the very first days of his handshil. I tend to make my opinion about him based on that, but if Robert was a better than average king, Jon Arryn was a great Hand.

I honestly like the character of Maekar, but you could certainly make the argument that he bears responsibility for his older brother not becoming king, hence why he might not deserve to sit on it in return. If we're willing to accept the concept of the Iron Throne having a parameter by which it judges people that sit on it, it's definitely not any harder to swallow the concept that all kinslayers are doomed (and deserve to pay for it), even those who do it unintentionally, since it's the greatest sin known to the society of Westeros. A deeply flawed man, one you would call a grey character and a terrible king. It's easy to see why: He bankrupted the crown, failed to groom a worthy heir of any talent, and threw away any opportunity (his whole kingship was one) to mend the internal brewing conflicts of the realm. His reign was literally a feast for crows. The bare minimum you should expect from a king is to find able men to run their kingdom without self interest. He failed to do that too, and the presence of Jon Arryn was pure luck for him to begin with, because if the old man suddenly decided to exploit as much for himself as he wanted, he would've gotten away with it, as long as he'd continue providing Robert enough wine, food and whores for the day to not hear him complain.

By that logic, Aenys I, Aegon II, Aemond, Aegon IV or Maekar I were all worthy to sit on it, according to the IT.

I just noticed the other day, that if Lysa and Petyr had a kid together, it would've ideally (for Petyr) became Lord/Lady of the Riverlands, while also being a Tully. However, Sansa, or the kid Petyr plans with her, could also become his heir, if he plans to lead things down that road.

Ser Pounce will jump/switch allegiance once the Others reach south. His name will be Ser Bounce afterwards, for bouncing around the light and dark side of the force. He is the chosen one.

It can be anything, but a reason to denying people their basic human rights. We agreed on that. Hence why it is insignificant as a reason to denying people what they deserve as human beings, because just about everything is. The "there is no justification for violation of human rights" is a clear cut stance, and applies to all scenarios, including that of this weekend. Violence is a (by)product of violence.