1. yes, the blockade, after the election of hamas. Though that wasn't an instigation, that was more of a... 'well you just elected an organization that literally calls for our deaths.'
Hamas' charter calls for an end to the Israeli state (a political organization). This is only nominally different than Israeli foreign (domestic?) policy that calls for the destruction of Hamas (a political organization). Neither side is openly calling for genocide (although there are individuals on both sides doing just that).
you forget that gaza shares a border with egypt...
which is currently pissed off that hamas has been smuggling things under their border too. and wants to build a big-ass wall.
why hasn't hamas shot rockets into egypt? same instigation after all.
This is speculation, but I'd guess it's got a lot to do with sharing [to some extent] a common social and religious identity. Or, in other words, bigotry against Jews. But, again, this is speculation. Besides, you seem to be drawing Egypt into the discussion for reason other than to say "well, look, Egypt shits all over these people too, so why are they angry at Israel?", which I don't find particularly insightful.
2.... guided is different than aimed is different than random. if you're toward a city, that's a choice and it doesn't matter if it's guided or aimed, it's targeting civilians.
you've got a direction, and you've got range. Any munitions that are aimed outside gaza are basically a war crime. and they've been trying to kill civilians for the better part of a decade over in gaza. just not terribly successful.
Thank you for personally demonstrating the double-standard I'm talking about. Israeli bombs dropped on Gaza are all gravy, but "any munitions that are aimed outside Gaza are basically a war crime." Fantastic.
The reason is that Hamas is not setting a target for the missiles, and therefor doesn't care whether they hit it or not. Claiming that they are not targeting military targets because their weapons are not accurate enough is simply repeating propaganda. They are not targeting military targets because they don't really care whether they hit military or civilian targets. They are firing in order to disrupt Israel's civilian routine.
You have not cited any evidence that Hamas could set a target for their missiles. If you do some reading, you'll find that Qassam rockets are their most advanced, and these rockets don't even have canted nozzles, and really are not capable of being targeted even in theory. If you believe this claim is merely propaganda, I invite you to provide any sort of evidence to the contrary.
Not only that, we have seen, in the past, that when Hamas is interested in where weapons fall, they can exert at least some control. When Hamas is after making a show of firing at Israel, but not actually dragging the region into another war, they target their firing at open fields. When they do that, they manage the hit those fields just fine.
Due to the population distribution in Israel, it is more likely than not for unguided rockets to hit open fields, as open fields make up a majority of the land area in western Israel. See for yourself on Google Maps. There is no reason to attribute to intention that which can be adequately explained by random chance, as it is evident that simply firing off a rocket in an arbitrary direction is likely to have it hit an open field.
And what's even stranger to me is this. Why so willing to give Hamas a pass? Suppose that they do, indeed, run an extremely high risk of hitting civilians whenever the shoot. I would expect moral liberals to claim that that means they need to be extremely judicious about what constitute acceptable reason to pull the trigger. You, however, seem to suggest that absolves them from all responsibility. Care to explain that discrepancy?
That's precisely the double standard I'm talking about. First of all, I'm not giving Hamas a pass on this -- I want them held to the same standard as Israel. At no point did I defend the actions of Hamas (or Israel). In fact, I explicitly called them out as despicable, but for some reason you see this as a pass for Hamas. Well, why is everyone so willing to give Israel a pass? Suppose that they do, indeed, run an extremely high risk of hitting civilians whenever they shoot. I would expect moral liberals to claim that that means they need to be extremely judicious about what constitute acceptable reason to pull the trigger. You, however, seem to suggest that absolves them from all responsibility. Care to explain that discrepancy?
it is retaliatory. There were no rockets, israel pulled out of gaza, there was a period where people weren't dying, the gazans elected hamas into power, blockade went up, rockets started firing. meanwhile egypt is also blockading gaza... because hamas is a dick.
It's not clear what you mean when you say "it" is retaliatory. What is "it"? Hamas' rocket fire into Israel, which as you point out, is a retaliation for the blockade? Israel's blockade of Gaza, which as you point out, is a retaliation for the election of Hamas? You seem to be agreeing with my point that both sides' own actions are perceived by the actors as retaliatory and justified, but always perceived by the other side as instigation.
hey if hamas rockets were shooting back at israeli forces, nobody would say shit.
Then it's a surprise that Israel is complaining about these unguided rockets instead of providing Hamas with guided munitions that actually have the capability to target IDF with precision, right?
You should probably read the very article you linked. Particularly the part that explains the Qassam doesn't even have canted nozzles. Not only is the Qassam not a guided rocket, it couldn't be a guided rocket. You talk about "their intended target", when these rockets literally can not be targeted with any precision greater than "North". If Israel's blockade is preventing Hamas from having access to guided munitions, then Israel doesn't have much justification in complaining about where these unguided rockets fall.
Yes, it is a little different. But, on the other hand, the core principle is the same.
If I issue a general threat, say, that I will take any opportunity I can find to punch you, does that then make it okay if I proceed to attack you in the future? Of course not. So, what if I warn you that I'm going to punch you in the face in a few minutes, does that then make it okay when I punch you in the face in a few minutes? Is this more acceptable, since the warning was more specific, in terms of time and place? Of course not.
Both sides have issued warnings of violence. Both sides commit the violence that they have warned the other party about. One side points to their previous warnings in an attempt to deflect criticism.
One counter argument to your second point is that Hamas intentionally targets civilians; it is not an accident due to the inability to target military targets. [...] they are always against civilians to my knowledge, with the intent to cause the maximum number of civilian casualties.
Now, regarding suicide-bombings, this is at least a somewhat valid point. The typical suicide bombing is perpetrated against a large group of civilians. However, to simply assume that they're being targeted because they are civilians might not paint a complete picture. Is it not equally plausible that civilians appear to be targeted simply because it's more likely to find a large group of civilians congregated than a large group of military assets? I mean, practically speaking, would suicide bombing a military checkpoint be as effective? The IDF is well aware of the threat facing them, and isn't likely to allow a crazed Palestinian wearing bulky clothing to come anywhere near a military checkpoint. While it's easy to say that Palestinians should limit their attacks to military targets even in the case of suicide bombings, is that a realistic expectation, knowing that such attacks would rarely, if ever, be effective? I'm not suggesting that this justifies targeting civilians. I'm just pointing out that, from what I imagine their point of view must be, they're choosing to undertake these despicable actions as a last resort. That they'd be attacking the IDF directly if such attacks had any chance of being effective. Nobody thinks of themselves as evil incarnate. Even Hitler and Stalin thought they were doing what must be done for some perverted view of what the greater good is. Is it not overwhelmingly likely that the Palestinians view their struggle in a similar light? In my opinion, I think it's much more reasonable to assume that such attacks are conducted against civilians not to maximize the number of civilian casualties, but to maximize the number of total casualties (civilian or other).
Also, you might be on to something with the terraforming project! I think (hope) you were joking about nuking the region (as this would certainly cause more deaths than the current situation).
I'm not advocating for genocide. Naturally, we could drop leaflets for the year before the nukes fall, giving people relocation assistance if needed. I suggest this plan in jest, but seriously, I can't imagine an end to the bickering over the "holy land" for as long as it's holy and land.
There's a double standard that's applied here, and nobody seems to mind.
Muslims launch rockets at Jews, killing civilians. This is bad, because killing civilians is bad.
Jews launch rockets at Muslims, killing civilians. This is seen as different than the aforementioned case bacause:
a) Israeli rockets are "retaliatory", whereas Hamas is the instigator here, so it's okay. Of course, Hamas has been explicitly retaliating for Israel's annexation of Palestinian territory (and for the British/UN interference circa ~48 that enabled subsequent annexation), but $excuses.
b) These are guided rockets, so it's okay. Of course, Israel denies Gazans the right to guided munitions, but $excuses.
c) Israel warns Gazans about pending attacks. Of course, Hamas has been warning Jews in Israel for a long time too, but $excuses.
Regarding the first point, it's disingenuous to paint either side as taking any "retaliatory" actions but not the other side. Both sides have been spinning this conflict as "retaliation" for decades, and neither side has a stronger claim to "retaliation" than the other. Both sides see their actions as retaliatory, and both sides see the other as the instigator. In other words, both sides are biased, and neither side is being objectively reasonable here.
Regarding the second point, I'm not saying that Hamas is "right" for shooting rockets into Israel. I'm merely pointing out that there's some degree of disingenuousness to blame Hamas for Palestinian civilian casualties because of where they launch their rockets from while at the same time refusing to blame Israel for Jewish civilian casualties because of where their rockets are launched from. If it is acceptable for Israel to kill Palestinians as collateral damage due to the inherent limitations of their weapons platforms, then that should equally apply to Hamas. There is no evidence that Hamas actually has the capability for guided missile strikes against valid military targets in Israel but is intentionally avoiding its use.
Regarding the third point, I'm not even sure how to approach this issue. What if Hamas "dropped leaflets" all over Israel saying "we're going to attack now -- leave or be killed"? Would Hamas then be absolved of any subsequent Jewish civilian casualties when Israel discourages its citizens from capitulating to the demands of the enemy? Now, I understand that this isn't an entirely fair analogy, as Israel's attacks are much more targeted than Hamas', and furthermore, Hamas has actually forced Palestinians to stay, not merely discouraged them from leaving. However, it's not clear to me how Hamas' despicable actions can serve as justification for Israel's despicable actions. Are we to hold the two up against the same standard? Is the bar for Israel really set that low?
They kill 100-300 Palestinians for every Israeli that's killed on account of...
Let's not even get into the fact that Hamas' rockets kill more Muslims than they do Jews. That sure as shit isn't going to help the ratio. Let's just be honest with ourselves: this conflict has gone on for so long that it's no longer to expect any sense of humanity on either side. I propose a novel solution in the form of a massive terraforming project. Let's turn the land that made up the British Mandate of Palestine into the Israeli-Palestinian Sea. The engineering doesn't matter. Dredge it, nuke it, whatever. But once it's underwater, we'll finally have peace. Or suicide-bombing scuba-divers. Either way, win-win.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Who exactly do you plan to have pay for that?
Society.
Thanks, but I'm not much interested in working hard, paying taxes, just so 20 million people can sit at home and do nothing.
So, based on the context of this discussion, you'd be more interested in working hard, paying taxes, just so 2 million people can be paid to do non-productive busy-work? Or, phrased another way, you'd rather pay 10 times as much in taxes to have 20 million people doing busy-work instead of sitting home and doing nothing?
If that becomes an option, perhaps I'll do that too. Then everyone does it, and no one works.
Exactly! Utopia!
THAT is the point you're missing. You assume that the rest of us are happy to pay for all those people not working. We're not.
I don't understand what point you're talking about. I assume that people are not willing to pay higher taxes simply to ensure that people are denied leisure time. Clearly you disagree, but I'm still not able to understand why you'd be willing to pay more just to prevent people from sitting home and doing nothing.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Consider that if we do what you suggest, replace those labors with machines for $1/hr and pay people $9/hr to stay home, then they might just stay home forever. If you give people the option to stay home and watch TV for $9/hr or go get a private job for $15/hr, many people will take the $9/hr and sit at home.
Yes, that is my point exactly.
The point of the "busy work" is not to be productive, it is to make it less desirable than getting a private sector job. The thinking goes, "well crap, if I have to work anyway, I might as well get $5/hr more for it, I'll go get a private job".
So, if the point of "busy work" is to make people's lives less enjoyable, why do you consider it a good thing?
If the option becomes, "gosh, I can do NOTHING and get $9/hr, or go get a job for $15/hr, hell, I'll take the $9/hr for NOTHING".
At $10/hr for busy work, you might have 2 million people doing it, at $9/hr for sitting at home, you might have 20 million people doing it.
Yes, exactly! instead of 2 million people whose lives are made less enjoyable, you'd have 20 million people whose lives are made more enjoyable!
That is the reasons for it, not to "make them work for it".
You've lost me. Are you saying that actively working to make more peoples' lives worse is a reason to do something? Is that not a bit sadistic?
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
And if you look at government taxation and spending, you'll find that the only income group that pays substantially more than they receive in government benefits is the top 20%.
How does that study quantify the value of the government benefit that the wealthy receive in terms of having a modern stable society to extract profits from?
Or are they just saying that this lack of anarchy isn't the result of government?
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
But no one has ever adequately explained to me how, if society values a certain form of labor at $x, but we legislate to be $x*1.2, prices won't eventually inflate by x1.2; leaving the minimum wage earner with a larger bank account, but the same buying power; and society still paying equivalently the same in buying power for the labor that it had before.
Allow me to be the first. In the case of goods and services where 100% of costs stem from minimum-wage labor, prices will inflate by x1.2. However, most goods and services have a non-labor cost associated with them (materials cost, for example). Furthermore, even the labor costs rarely (if ever) rely solely upon minimum-wage labor.
Perhaps a contrived example will help: let's talk about [hypothetical] sprockets!
A sprocket costs $1 to make. Half of this cost goes towards materials, capital expenses, etc., and the other half of it goes towards human labor. If we look closer at the labor costs, half of them are for minimum-wage labor (maybe the people that are actually working on the sprocket assembly line), and the other half are for higher-wage labor like management, executives, sales staff, etc. For simplicity's sake, let's say that this higher-wage labor is, per hour, "very much" more costly than minimum-wage labor (to minimize any effect that raising the minimum wage would have on these higher-wage laborers, as such an effect [on laborers that make only slightly more than minimum wage] has very undeniably been demonstrated in real labor markets).
So, that sprocket, $0.50 of its cost is for non-labor costs, $0.25 of it is for minimum-wage labor, and $0.25 is for higher-wage labor. Now, let us imagine that minimum wage is doubled. Now the portion of the sprocket's cost that stems from minimum-wage labor is doubled, from $0.25 to $0.50, and the total cost of the sprocket becomes $1.25. Minimum wage has been increased by 100%, and yet the total cost of the sprocket has only increased by 25%.
Of course, had the sprocket's $1 cost been solely due to minimum-wage labor, then indeed, doubling the minimum-wage would double the total cost. However, minimum-wage labor is really never the sole cost of any goods or services (although it may still be much greater [or much lower] than 25% of the total cost as in our contrived example). So, it stands to reason that, necessarily, the increase in costs will always be lesser than the increase in the minimum wage, as long as minimum-wage labor is not the sole contributor to the cost of goods and services.
I hope you consider my explanation adequate. If not, I'd be eager to supplement it.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Make the government the "employer of last resort". If you do not have a job, and you are hungry, poof, the government will employ you to do... something... for $10/hr.
That is your incentive to not stay working for the government, you'll make more if you can find a private sector job. Maybe the government can employ you to clean up trash, dig ditches, stack books at the library, etc. If you find a part time job for 20 hours a week at $15/hr, great... you may continue working for the government for the other 20 hours at $10/hr, giving you an incentive to take ANY private work you can find, it won't cost you your existing "welfare" as it does today.
Unemployment would be shortened to 1-3 months max, a short time to find another job, but not the year or more it is in some places now. Right now, we're paying a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE to sit at home and do nothing. This is stupid.
I'm happy to provide for those who are hungry, but I do think they should work for it. It doesn't have to be fancy work, or even all that productive, it just has to be something. It is a way of saying, "no worries, we will not let you starve, here is work, here is food (maybe $3/hr of the $10/hr could be paid via food stamps)
I must be blunt: this is stupid.
Perhaps not surprising in a culture heavily influenced by Protestant Christian ideals, but stupid nonetheless. You assume some inherent goodness in human labor, that all other things aside, working is better than not working. I see no basis to accept such a premise.
You suggest that the government can employ people to "clean up trash, dig ditches, stack books at the library, etc." at $10/hr., but you don't consider that this may not be (and likely is not) an optimal allocation of resources. Merely creating busy-work for the unemployed, regardless of the fact that this work could be done for a lower cost by machines (if not today, then in the near future). If paying $1/hr for a machine to do a job is an option, why would it be better for our tax dollars to be spent paying a person $10/hr to do it instead? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pay for the machine and give that person a $9/hr salary to stay home instead? In a sense, your proposal isn't too different from the parable of the broken window. You support suboptimal policies, simply to satisfy your need to see people "work for it", even despite the increased societal costs.
You suggest that paying people to "sit at home and do nothing" is stupid. Why do you think that paying them to replace their leisure time with non-productive work isn't?
I'm having a hard time getting the linked page to load. The article text progresses rapidly from black-on-white to progressively lighter shades of gray as one looks down the page. By the start of the second paragraph, it's barely legible. The remainder of the article appears to be cut off entirely.
I see it's true. Aspies really can't recognize sarcasm.
Indeed, it is true that while the Egyptian Cobra can recognize moving objects and sources of heat, it really can't recognize sarcasm. I didn't think people still called them Asps or Aspis, though.
Me too. My comment was made in jest. But, after reflecting on it, maybe OP really did mean to censor witch, and not bitch. Which would really make no fucking sense.
I have reasonable posting history, but if that's not enough for you, then you might prefer a link to their source repository, which in turn links out to their production instance at threatbutt.com.
But in my opinion, it's their attribution map that's truly la crème de la crème.
No, not really. According to this NY Times article, and reports I heard on NPR earlier:
The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.
So, they're classified *now* after the fact but were not earlier. From what I know, and is noted in the article itself, this is not that uncommon. Furthermore:
No. Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. It is not clear from the quote you provided that they were not classified earlier. You made that part up; it is fiction.
From that quote, it is clear that they were not "marked at any level of classification" earlier, but that has no bearing on whether or not they were classified. It is entirely possible for classified documents to not be "marked at any level of classification". Simply stripping the classification markings from classified documents has no bearing on their classification.
you stupid cunt ima fucking rape you all the way to 2069.
But I sure am glad that slashdot isn't twitter. Our society has grown too soft if such incredible threats are causing people terrible grief. Hyperbole is hyperbole, and I don't see any value in pretending that it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
1. yes, the blockade, after the election of hamas. Though that wasn't an instigation, that was more of a... 'well you just elected an organization that literally calls for our deaths.'
Hamas' charter calls for an end to the Israeli state (a political organization). This is only nominally different than Israeli foreign (domestic?) policy that calls for the destruction of Hamas (a political organization). Neither side is openly calling for genocide (although there are individuals on both sides doing just that).
you forget that gaza shares a border with egypt...
which is currently pissed off that hamas has been smuggling things under their border too. and wants to build a big-ass wall.
why hasn't hamas shot rockets into egypt? same instigation after all.
This is speculation, but I'd guess it's got a lot to do with sharing [to some extent] a common social and religious identity. Or, in other words, bigotry against Jews. But, again, this is speculation. Besides, you seem to be drawing Egypt into the discussion for reason other than to say "well, look, Egypt shits all over these people too, so why are they angry at Israel?", which I don't find particularly insightful.
2. ... guided is different than aimed is different than random. if you're toward a city, that's a choice and it doesn't matter if it's guided or aimed, it's targeting civilians.
you've got a direction, and you've got range. Any munitions that are aimed outside gaza are basically a war crime. and they've been trying to kill civilians for the better part of a decade over in gaza. just not terribly successful.
Thank you for personally demonstrating the double-standard I'm talking about. Israeli bombs dropped on Gaza are all gravy, but "any munitions that are aimed outside Gaza are basically a war crime." Fantastic.
The reason is that Hamas is not setting a target for the missiles, and therefor doesn't care whether they hit it or not. Claiming that they are not targeting military targets because their weapons are not accurate enough is simply repeating propaganda. They are not targeting military targets because they don't really care whether they hit military or civilian targets. They are firing in order to disrupt Israel's civilian routine.
You have not cited any evidence that Hamas could set a target for their missiles. If you do some reading, you'll find that Qassam rockets are their most advanced, and these rockets don't even have canted nozzles, and really are not capable of being targeted even in theory. If you believe this claim is merely propaganda, I invite you to provide any sort of evidence to the contrary.
Not only that, we have seen, in the past, that when Hamas is interested in where weapons fall, they can exert at least some control. When Hamas is after making a show of firing at Israel, but not actually dragging the region into another war, they target their firing at open fields. When they do that, they manage the hit those fields just fine.
Due to the population distribution in Israel, it is more likely than not for unguided rockets to hit open fields, as open fields make up a majority of the land area in western Israel. See for yourself on Google Maps. There is no reason to attribute to intention that which can be adequately explained by random chance, as it is evident that simply firing off a rocket in an arbitrary direction is likely to have it hit an open field.
And what's even stranger to me is this. Why so willing to give Hamas a pass? Suppose that they do, indeed, run an extremely high risk of hitting civilians whenever the shoot. I would expect moral liberals to claim that that means they need to be extremely judicious about what constitute acceptable reason to pull the trigger. You, however, seem to suggest that absolves them from all responsibility. Care to explain that discrepancy?
That's precisely the double standard I'm talking about. First of all, I'm not giving Hamas a pass on this -- I want them held to the same standard as Israel. At no point did I defend the actions of Hamas (or Israel). In fact, I explicitly called them out as despicable, but for some reason you see this as a pass for Hamas. Well, why is everyone so willing to give Israel a pass? Suppose that they do, indeed, run an extremely high risk of hitting civilians whenever they shoot. I would expect moral liberals to claim that that means they need to be extremely judicious about what constitute acceptable reason to pull the trigger. You, however, seem to suggest that absolves them from all responsibility. Care to explain that discrepancy?
it is retaliatory. There were no rockets, israel pulled out of gaza, there was a period where people weren't dying, the gazans elected hamas into power, blockade went up, rockets started firing. meanwhile egypt is also blockading gaza... because hamas is a dick.
It's not clear what you mean when you say "it" is retaliatory. What is "it"? Hamas' rocket fire into Israel, which as you point out, is a retaliation for the blockade? Israel's blockade of Gaza, which as you point out, is a retaliation for the election of Hamas? You seem to be agreeing with my point that both sides' own actions are perceived by the actors as retaliatory and justified, but always perceived by the other side as instigation.
hey if hamas rockets were shooting back at israeli forces, nobody would say shit.
Then it's a surprise that Israel is complaining about these unguided rockets instead of providing Hamas with guided munitions that actually have the capability to target IDF with precision, right?
You should probably read the very article you linked. Particularly the part that explains the Qassam doesn't even have canted nozzles. Not only is the Qassam not a guided rocket, it couldn't be a guided rocket. You talk about "their intended target", when these rockets literally can not be targeted with any precision greater than "North". If Israel's blockade is preventing Hamas from having access to guided munitions, then Israel doesn't have much justification in complaining about where these unguided rockets fall.
Yes, it is a little different. But, on the other hand, the core principle is the same.
If I issue a general threat, say, that I will take any opportunity I can find to punch you, does that then make it okay if I proceed to attack you in the future? Of course not. So, what if I warn you that I'm going to punch you in the face in a few minutes, does that then make it okay when I punch you in the face in a few minutes? Is this more acceptable, since the warning was more specific, in terms of time and place? Of course not.
Both sides have issued warnings of violence. Both sides commit the violence that they have warned the other party about. One side points to their previous warnings in an attempt to deflect criticism.
International law prohibits targeting civilians. Hammas is doing just that, in violation of international law.
Please cite evidence that Hamas' weapons have targeting capabilities with precision sufficient to target civilians and not military assets.
International law does not prohibit hitting civilians, so long as they were not targeted.
In light of the fact that Hamas' rockets have no guidance systems, I approve of your internally-contradictory argument.
So, no, there is no double standard at play here.
Have you ever heard the expression "leap of logic"?
One counter argument to your second point is that Hamas intentionally targets civilians; it is not an accident due to the inability to target military targets. [...] they are always against civilians to my knowledge, with the intent to cause the maximum number of civilian casualties.
Now, regarding suicide-bombings, this is at least a somewhat valid point. The typical suicide bombing is perpetrated against a large group of civilians. However, to simply assume that they're being targeted because they are civilians might not paint a complete picture. Is it not equally plausible that civilians appear to be targeted simply because it's more likely to find a large group of civilians congregated than a large group of military assets? I mean, practically speaking, would suicide bombing a military checkpoint be as effective? The IDF is well aware of the threat facing them, and isn't likely to allow a crazed Palestinian wearing bulky clothing to come anywhere near a military checkpoint. While it's easy to say that Palestinians should limit their attacks to military targets even in the case of suicide bombings, is that a realistic expectation, knowing that such attacks would rarely, if ever, be effective? I'm not suggesting that this justifies targeting civilians. I'm just pointing out that, from what I imagine their point of view must be, they're choosing to undertake these despicable actions as a last resort. That they'd be attacking the IDF directly if such attacks had any chance of being effective. Nobody thinks of themselves as evil incarnate. Even Hitler and Stalin thought they were doing what must be done for some perverted view of what the greater good is. Is it not overwhelmingly likely that the Palestinians view their struggle in a similar light? In my opinion, I think it's much more reasonable to assume that such attacks are conducted against civilians not to maximize the number of civilian casualties, but to maximize the number of total casualties (civilian or other).
Also, you might be on to something with the terraforming project! I think (hope) you were joking about nuking the region (as this would certainly cause more deaths than the current situation).
I'm not advocating for genocide. Naturally, we could drop leaflets for the year before the nukes fall, giving people relocation assistance if needed. I suggest this plan in jest, but seriously, I can't imagine an end to the bickering over the "holy land" for as long as it's holy and land.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, or how it's related to my comment. Did I imply that Israel was indiscriminately killing civilians?
Muslims launch rockets at Jews, killing civilians. This is bad, because killing civilians is bad.
Jews launch rockets at Muslims, killing civilians. This is seen as different than the aforementioned case bacause:
a) Israeli rockets are "retaliatory", whereas Hamas is the instigator here, so it's okay. Of course, Hamas has been explicitly retaliating for Israel's annexation of Palestinian territory (and for the British/UN interference circa ~48 that enabled subsequent annexation), but $excuses. b) These are guided rockets, so it's okay. Of course, Israel denies Gazans the right to guided munitions, but $excuses.
c) Israel warns Gazans about pending attacks. Of course, Hamas has been warning Jews in Israel for a long time too, but $excuses.
Regarding the first point, it's disingenuous to paint either side as taking any "retaliatory" actions but not the other side. Both sides have been spinning this conflict as "retaliation" for decades, and neither side has a stronger claim to "retaliation" than the other. Both sides see their actions as retaliatory, and both sides see the other as the instigator. In other words, both sides are biased, and neither side is being objectively reasonable here.
Regarding the second point, I'm not saying that Hamas is "right" for shooting rockets into Israel. I'm merely pointing out that there's some degree of disingenuousness to blame Hamas for Palestinian civilian casualties because of where they launch their rockets from while at the same time refusing to blame Israel for Jewish civilian casualties because of where their rockets are launched from. If it is acceptable for Israel to kill Palestinians as collateral damage due to the inherent limitations of their weapons platforms, then that should equally apply to Hamas. There is no evidence that Hamas actually has the capability for guided missile strikes against valid military targets in Israel but is intentionally avoiding its use.
Regarding the third point, I'm not even sure how to approach this issue. What if Hamas "dropped leaflets" all over Israel saying "we're going to attack now -- leave or be killed"? Would Hamas then be absolved of any subsequent Jewish civilian casualties when Israel discourages its citizens from capitulating to the demands of the enemy? Now, I understand that this isn't an entirely fair analogy, as Israel's attacks are much more targeted than Hamas', and furthermore, Hamas has actually forced Palestinians to stay, not merely discouraged them from leaving. However, it's not clear to me how Hamas' despicable actions can serve as justification for Israel's despicable actions. Are we to hold the two up against the same standard? Is the bar for Israel really set that low?
They kill 100-300 Palestinians for every Israeli that's killed on account of ...
Let's not even get into the fact that Hamas' rockets kill more Muslims than they do Jews. That sure as shit isn't going to help the ratio. Let's just be honest with ourselves: this conflict has gone on for so long that it's no longer to expect any sense of humanity on either side. I propose a novel solution in the form of a massive terraforming project. Let's turn the land that made up the British Mandate of Palestine into the Israeli-Palestinian Sea. The engineering doesn't matter. Dredge it, nuke it, whatever. But once it's underwater, we'll finally have peace. Or suicide-bombing scuba-divers. Either way, win-win.
Now what about providing the 500+ million Indian citizens with basic services, like electricity, running water and sewage?
If there's one thing India already has an abundance of, it's sewage.
I want one Givenchy and two Ralph Lauren, please.
Who exactly do you plan to have pay for that?
Society.
Thanks, but I'm not much interested in working hard, paying taxes, just so 20 million people can sit at home and do nothing.
So, based on the context of this discussion, you'd be more interested in working hard, paying taxes, just so 2 million people can be paid to do non-productive busy-work? Or, phrased another way, you'd rather pay 10 times as much in taxes to have 20 million people doing busy-work instead of sitting home and doing nothing?
If that becomes an option, perhaps I'll do that too. Then everyone does it, and no one works.
Exactly! Utopia!
THAT is the point you're missing. You assume that the rest of us are happy to pay for all those people not working. We're not.
I don't understand what point you're talking about. I assume that people are not willing to pay higher taxes simply to ensure that people are denied leisure time. Clearly you disagree, but I'm still not able to understand why you'd be willing to pay more just to prevent people from sitting home and doing nothing.
Consider that if we do what you suggest, replace those labors with machines for $1/hr and pay people $9/hr to stay home, then they might just stay home forever. If you give people the option to stay home and watch TV for $9/hr or go get a private job for $15/hr, many people will take the $9/hr and sit at home.
Yes, that is my point exactly.
The point of the "busy work" is not to be productive, it is to make it less desirable than getting a private sector job. The thinking goes, "well crap, if I have to work anyway, I might as well get $5/hr more for it, I'll go get a private job".
So, if the point of "busy work" is to make people's lives less enjoyable, why do you consider it a good thing?
If the option becomes, "gosh, I can do NOTHING and get $9/hr, or go get a job for $15/hr, hell, I'll take the $9/hr for NOTHING".
At $10/hr for busy work, you might have 2 million people doing it, at $9/hr for sitting at home, you might have 20 million people doing it.
Yes, exactly! instead of 2 million people whose lives are made less enjoyable, you'd have 20 million people whose lives are made more enjoyable!
That is the reasons for it, not to "make them work for it".
You've lost me. Are you saying that actively working to make more peoples' lives worse is a reason to do something? Is that not a bit sadistic?
And if you look at government taxation and spending, you'll find that the only income group that pays substantially more than they receive in government benefits is the top 20%.
How does that study quantify the value of the government benefit that the wealthy receive in terms of having a modern stable society to extract profits from?
Or are they just saying that this lack of anarchy isn't the result of government?
But no one has ever adequately explained to me how, if society values a certain form of labor at $x, but we legislate to be $x*1.2, prices won't eventually inflate by x1.2; leaving the minimum wage earner with a larger bank account, but the same buying power; and society still paying equivalently the same in buying power for the labor that it had before.
Allow me to be the first. In the case of goods and services where 100% of costs stem from minimum-wage labor, prices will inflate by x1.2. However, most goods and services have a non-labor cost associated with them (materials cost, for example). Furthermore, even the labor costs rarely (if ever) rely solely upon minimum-wage labor.
Perhaps a contrived example will help: let's talk about [hypothetical] sprockets!
A sprocket costs $1 to make. Half of this cost goes towards materials, capital expenses, etc., and the other half of it goes towards human labor. If we look closer at the labor costs, half of them are for minimum-wage labor (maybe the people that are actually working on the sprocket assembly line), and the other half are for higher-wage labor like management, executives, sales staff, etc. For simplicity's sake, let's say that this higher-wage labor is, per hour, "very much" more costly than minimum-wage labor (to minimize any effect that raising the minimum wage would have on these higher-wage laborers, as such an effect [on laborers that make only slightly more than minimum wage] has very undeniably been demonstrated in real labor markets).
So, that sprocket, $0.50 of its cost is for non-labor costs, $0.25 of it is for minimum-wage labor, and $0.25 is for higher-wage labor. Now, let us imagine that minimum wage is doubled. Now the portion of the sprocket's cost that stems from minimum-wage labor is doubled, from $0.25 to $0.50, and the total cost of the sprocket becomes $1.25. Minimum wage has been increased by 100%, and yet the total cost of the sprocket has only increased by 25%.
Of course, had the sprocket's $1 cost been solely due to minimum-wage labor, then indeed, doubling the minimum-wage would double the total cost. However, minimum-wage labor is really never the sole cost of any goods or services (although it may still be much greater [or much lower] than 25% of the total cost as in our contrived example). So, it stands to reason that, necessarily, the increase in costs will always be lesser than the increase in the minimum wage, as long as minimum-wage labor is not the sole contributor to the cost of goods and services.
I hope you consider my explanation adequate. If not, I'd be eager to supplement it.
Make the government the "employer of last resort". If you do not have a job, and you are hungry, poof, the government will employ you to do... something... for $10/hr. That is your incentive to not stay working for the government, you'll make more if you can find a private sector job. Maybe the government can employ you to clean up trash, dig ditches, stack books at the library, etc. If you find a part time job for 20 hours a week at $15/hr, great... you may continue working for the government for the other 20 hours at $10/hr, giving you an incentive to take ANY private work you can find, it won't cost you your existing "welfare" as it does today. Unemployment would be shortened to 1-3 months max, a short time to find another job, but not the year or more it is in some places now. Right now, we're paying a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE to sit at home and do nothing. This is stupid. I'm happy to provide for those who are hungry, but I do think they should work for it. It doesn't have to be fancy work, or even all that productive, it just has to be something. It is a way of saying, "no worries, we will not let you starve, here is work, here is food (maybe $3/hr of the $10/hr could be paid via food stamps)
I must be blunt: this is stupid.
Perhaps not surprising in a culture heavily influenced by Protestant Christian ideals, but stupid nonetheless. You assume some inherent goodness in human labor, that all other things aside, working is better than not working. I see no basis to accept such a premise.
You suggest that the government can employ people to "clean up trash, dig ditches, stack books at the library, etc." at $10/hr., but you don't consider that this may not be (and likely is not) an optimal allocation of resources. Merely creating busy-work for the unemployed, regardless of the fact that this work could be done for a lower cost by machines (if not today, then in the near future). If paying $1/hr for a machine to do a job is an option, why would it be better for our tax dollars to be spent paying a person $10/hr to do it instead? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pay for the machine and give that person a $9/hr salary to stay home instead? In a sense, your proposal isn't too different from the parable of the broken window. You support suboptimal policies, simply to satisfy your need to see people "work for it", even despite the increased societal costs.
You suggest that paying people to "sit at home and do nothing" is stupid. Why do you think that paying them to replace their leisure time with non-productive work isn't?
I'm having a hard time getting the linked page to load. The article text progresses rapidly from black-on-white to progressively lighter shades of gray as one looks down the page. By the start of the second paragraph, it's barely legible. The remainder of the article appears to be cut off entirely.
Who the fuck submitted this shit?
Assault rifles have been effectively banned in the United States since 1986, thirty years ago.
You're probably thinking of assault weapons, also known as "guns with the wooden parts replaced by black plastic ones".
I see it's true. Aspies really can't recognize sarcasm.
Indeed, it is true that while the Egyptian Cobra can recognize moving objects and sources of heat, it really can't recognize sarcasm. I didn't think people still called them Asps or Aspis, though.
Me too. My comment was made in jest. But, after reflecting on it, maybe OP really did mean to censor witch, and not bitch. Which would really make no fucking sense.
being accused of being a *itch
and i actually one Halloween day had a nice discussion on the merits of Brooms for the purpose of Flying.
Why would you censor the 'w' in "witch"?
I have reasonable posting history, but if that's not enough for you, then you might prefer a link to their source repository, which in turn links out to their production instance at threatbutt.com.
But in my opinion, it's their attribution map that's truly la crème de la crème.
Fear not, SOC monkey! I have a replacement attribution map for you! Behold! [SFW, but there is audio]
None of the information was labeled as classified or classified when she received it. It later became classified.
The first statement you made is true. The second is not supported by the facts.
Whether a document is marked classified has no bearing on whether or not it is classified.
The right wing is ultra dangerous and are trying to overthrow the US government.
Bernie 2016.
No, not really. According to this NY Times article, and reports I heard on NPR earlier:
The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.
So, they're classified *now* after the fact but were not earlier. From what I know, and is noted in the article itself, this is not that uncommon. Furthermore:
No. Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. It is not clear from the quote you provided that they were not classified earlier. You made that part up; it is fiction.
From that quote, it is clear that they were not "marked at any level of classification" earlier, but that has no bearing on whether or not they were classified. It is entirely possible for classified documents to not be "marked at any level of classification". Simply stripping the classification markings from classified documents has no bearing on their classification.
you stupid cunt ima fucking rape you all the way to 2069.
But I sure am glad that slashdot isn't twitter. Our society has grown too soft if such incredible threats are causing people terrible grief. Hyperbole is hyperbole, and I don't see any value in pretending that it's not.