Part of it is that I see Hamas apologia often on here, people saying shit like “October 7 was legitimate resistance!” and “Hamas doesn’t target civilians!”
Part of it is that phrasing things in stark terms forces examination of the issue - people can brush off “I think your estimate is too low” and then continue peddling the same nonsense elsewhere - or even in the same conversation - without ever bothering to actually consider the implications of their position.
Hmmm. What I see here is that the person disagreed with you because they depend on the Gaza ministry as a source (whose numbers are considered accurate since before the war) and you depend on some other third party source only provided later on to me (and not the person you were having the discussion with).
It’s good to consider when one is right and when one is assuming too much about other people.
My problem, though, as I mentioned, wasn’t with their numbers. It was a fundamental disagreement on concepts
I ask again, what is the lowest civilian casualty ratio that suggests genocide to you? How many of the attacked locations have to be civilian targets in which only civilians were killed before you’ll admit that maybe Israel’s response of wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity does not retroactively justify Hamas’s attempts at the wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity?
I ask again, what is the lowest civilian casualty ratio that suggests genocide to you?
Your question (at least to me as a reader) seems to imply that you regard that person as a genocide-denier. It doesn’t sound like a question based on good faith, more like a question that would have an incorrect answer no matter what they say because the implication seems to be that they are a genocide-denier, not that you are actually trying to understand their point better.
You also said:
How many of the attacked locations have to be civilian targets in which only civilians were killed before you’ll admit that maybe Israel’s response of wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity does not retroactively justify Hamas’s attempts at the wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity?
I am yet to see where @[email protected] even does that in the slightest… It’s almost like with this question, the discussion shifts from “can we identify this as a genocide” to “Ahh, so you seem to think this is an excuse for Hamas’ actions!”
Your question (at least to me as a reader) seems to imply that you regard that person as a genocide-denier.
The poster denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas on the grounds of ‘only’ 67% civilian casualties. They’re more of a ‘genocide desire denier’
It doesn’t sound like a question based on good faith, more like a question that would have an incorrect answer no matter what they say because the implication seems to be that they are a genocide-denier, not that you are actually trying to understand their point better.
It does lack a correct answer. By claiming 33% military casualties is too few for genocide, any answer they give can be used against them, because that’s a ridiculous claim. If they claim something lower, they contradict themselves. If they claim something higher, they run the risk of having to answer the question of whether other genocides with that criteria weren’t then, genocides - knowing that the only viable answer is not genocide denial, but acquiescence to the point that that’s a stupid fucking criteria to use.
It lacks a correct answer because the position it is addressing, whether the proportion of soldiers to civilians killed can invalidate genocidal intent, is ridiculous.
Answering does not inherently imply genocide denial.
I am yet to see where @Linkerbaan even does that in the slightest… It’s almost like with this question, the discussion shifts from “can we identify this as a genocide” to “Ahh, so you seem to think this is an excuse for Hamas’ actions!”
The commenter literally denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas, and uses Israel’s current genocide as an excuse for that position.
It does lack a correct answer. By claiming 33% military casualties is too few for genocide, any answer they give can be used against them, because that’s a ridiculous claim.
At least we agree on the this. This is disingenuous discussion.
Part of it is that I see Hamas apologia often on here, people saying shit like “October 7 was legitimate resistance!” and “Hamas doesn’t target civilians!”
Part of it is that phrasing things in stark terms forces examination of the issue - people can brush off “I think your estimate is too low” and then continue peddling the same nonsense elsewhere - or even in the same conversation - without ever bothering to actually consider the implications of their position.
Part of it is just frustration.
Hmmm. What I see here is that the person disagreed with you because they depend on the Gaza ministry as a source (whose numbers are considered accurate since before the war) and you depend on some other third party source only provided later on to me (and not the person you were having the discussion with).
It’s good to consider when one is right and when one is assuming too much about other people.
Edits: typos from autocorrect
My problem, though, as I mentioned, wasn’t with their numbers. It was a fundamental disagreement on concepts
Gonna be honest here, I think this sounds disingenuous.
Considering they said
I really don’t think it’s a disingenuous question to ask what the lowest civilian casualty ratio they’d accept for genocide was
Your question (at least to me as a reader) seems to imply that you regard that person as a genocide-denier. It doesn’t sound like a question based on good faith, more like a question that would have an incorrect answer no matter what they say because the implication seems to be that they are a genocide-denier, not that you are actually trying to understand their point better.
You also said:
I am yet to see where @[email protected] even does that in the slightest… It’s almost like with this question, the discussion shifts from “can we identify this as a genocide” to “Ahh, so you seem to think this is an excuse for Hamas’ actions!”
The poster denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas on the grounds of ‘only’ 67% civilian casualties. They’re more of a ‘genocide desire denier’
It does lack a correct answer. By claiming 33% military casualties is too few for genocide, any answer they give can be used against them, because that’s a ridiculous claim. If they claim something lower, they contradict themselves. If they claim something higher, they run the risk of having to answer the question of whether other genocides with that criteria weren’t then, genocides - knowing that the only viable answer is not genocide denial, but acquiescence to the point that that’s a stupid fucking criteria to use.
It lacks a correct answer because the position it is addressing, whether the proportion of soldiers to civilians killed can invalidate genocidal intent, is ridiculous.
Answering does not inherently imply genocide denial.
The commenter literally denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas, and uses Israel’s current genocide as an excuse for that position.
At least we agree on the this. This is disingenuous discussion.
If I ask a question, in which any answer points out the ridiculousness of the claim, that’s disingenuous?