cristo71

We have a few posters who value quantity over quality.

Then I’m not sure what your excuse is for imagining what by all appearances is a nonsense, weed induced hypothetical. Produce actual, real life people’s views to demonstrate how my pithy comparison is completely off base. Or we can merely agree to disagree and leave it at that.

They didn’t mention a trial in the OP.

Sure, Professor Non Sequitur.

They claim to believe in the US legal system, but they want to skip past the indictment, trial, verdict and go straight to the death penalty.

I’d call that person unique.

Probably not, but they do offer a delightful cracker:

No concession on my part has been offered or is necessary as I was never arguing that it was morally justified in the first place. That was YOU putting words in MY mouth.

This would be my argument on the subject of moral justification in territorial disputes:

It’s really just Savant’s post 13 in syllogistic form. Note that no one even attempted to answer his question.

So my posts have been relevant to the thread topic?

In your post 57, you claimed (without real basis actually) that moral justification is the only relevant aspect of territory disputes. How is this so?

You claimed the relevance of moral justification when it comes to seizing or holding territory. How is moral justification relevant to the efficacy of holding or acquiring territories historically?

Please explain how territory is defended purely via moral justification.

*crickets*

Your concession by silence to the inefficacy of moral justification is noted. If you are ever carjacked— or bicycle or tricycle jacked as the case may be— you will no doubt be shouting “Hey, this is theft! You are NOT morally justified in doing this!!” Yes, you will no longer have your ride, but you will have the deep satisfaction of knowing that the thief was clearly not morally justified.

Oh, you get to define the topic now? How convenient for you, not even being the OP and all. At BK, you can have it your way!

Do you think the allies won WWII because they were morally justified?

Yet you insist that you aren’t twisting my words. That is the laughable bit. I never, anywhere used the words “morally justified.” That’s your twist.

As you refuse to get it, I will spell it out for you: I am describing the world as it IS in reality, not as you, me, nor anyone WISHES it were. Do you see the difference?

How do you propose to debunk that? Snarkiness does not a refutation make…

Yes, even when he twists one’s words (which is almost all of the time), the strawman is STILL an undeniable truism in this case.

“The pen is mightier”

However, when one tries to cut up that paper with scissors, then the rock inevitably rears its ugly head…

If I wanted a Whopper, I would have ordered one from you, Burger.King.

The native peoples of this continent (and it’s not the only one) had intertribal battles over land and resources. There is also evidence that the native peoples of recent history took land from even earlier inhabitants in much more distant history.

So, how IS land owned? There’s a song which lays out the concept quite simply. It is titled “This Land Is My Land”:

This land is my land

It isn’t your land

I’ve got a shotgun

And you don’t got one

I’ll blow your head off

If you don’t get off

This land is private property.

There’s also another universally recognized rule:  once within sight of a certain spot, the first person to call “Shotgun!” gets to sit in the front seat of that land.

Yes, and I’m pretty sure that “law” still applies today… and it isn’t even limited to the human race!

Doesn’t this sound a bit circular to you? “Land belongs to a group when other groups recognize that the land belongs to that group.”

It seems that you simultaneously maintain the opposite: “Land belongs to a certain group even when another group neglects to recognize its ownership.” This is merely a meaningless assertion.

What makes land belong to a given group?

It appears that President Biden has already commented on the verdict:

“Biden acknowledged that the verdict in the trial “will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included.” He said that everyone “must acknowledge that the jury has spoken.””

Wow, that is a surprising response! Oh, wait… that was Biden’s take on the Rittenhouse “not guilty” verdict from years ago. Hopefully, he chooses his response more carefully on this one— no response at all would be ideal for his sake.

Ok guys, I simply have too many nicknames to go to waste. So… due to a distinct lack of popular demand, I’m doing a total nickname dump:

Lex Luthor, Double L, Double (S)tandards, Double (D)ouche, Douchus Maximus

Captain Queeg (from “The Caine Mutiny”), Captain Oveur (from “Airplane” and “Airplane II”)

Professor Non Sequitur aka Fellow Lacking Relevant Witticisms

Snidetalker aka White Guilt Walking

Brit Middler aka zitvector4

Unagi

HistoryBoof

IrrationalMadblocker aka “The cat that always comes back”

GayPurr-ee or The Libertarian Cynic

smugash3x

effedbuc

TheUnderboob

ADreamOfBestiality

ShitRaiser

Benjamin Yahoo

BK at the Mall

Masterb-8-a-bull

5CRU3ALL

criticAI-tim 

WhamBamAmber

Bingo Baggins

While a guy should really never self nickname, in the interest of fair play I will suggest (drumroll):  pissto71

That’s a fair point— the UN does not seem to specify numbers at all. It seems to be simply assumed that a genocide involves large numbers because of the intent to eliminate (or severely reduce the population of) a people group. The point I’m making is that intent is key here. Is it Israel’s intent to wipe out the Palestinian people? I think not because:

A. Israel could have wiped them out long before now

B. Israel’s intent is to get back hostages

C. Israel’s intent is to neutralize the threat posed by Hamas

D. Hamas could stop this alleged genocide if they so desired

E. Hamas uses the human shield strategy

F. This is in direct response to the actions of Hamas on October 7

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[1][2]

But don’t let this stop ya’ll from merely speculating what the word means and what might constitute a real life example of it…

Thanks, but I cannot take credit for coming up with that wording.

A Republican is one who looks at Mount Rushmore and sees it as a monument to historic leaders who are worthy of respect. A Democrat looks at Mount Rushmore and sees a white supremacist monument built upon stolen land.

It’s possible the tapes show many… eh… awkward… wha?

Not familiar with Alex O’Connor. What are his bonafides, his “claim to fame”? I watched a debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll and came away very impressed with Carroll, for what it’s worth. And he seems like a genuinely nice guy.

I don’t think MLK was that loyal to either party.

LBJ was allegedly behind the Kennedy assassination, and that was within a political party rather than between the two opposing parties.

The proper response to 9/11 would have been to declare a cease fire with Al Qaida and the Taliban.

Good for you! You should be safe from death threats now.

It shouldn’t be difficult if you hold the opinion you claim to hold.

Ask Burger.King a question, get a Whopper for an answer. Hey, don’t forget the fries!

What would you say is bad about the Palestinian side?

Interview discussing Hamas’ complex goals in this conflict:

“A woman for children, a man for love, and a goat for sheer ecstasy”

Remember that it all started by reading “Mein Kampf.”