Comment by trimethylpurine
2 years ago
I'm trying to understand; it sounds like you feel that an AI selecting targets and letting some live is just as bad and indiscriminate as a group forming a charter that reads "exterminate all Jews." (Paraphrasing, but the meaning is not disputed.)
That's hard to agree with. I'd rather the group that tries to save some civilians over one that targets all civilians intentionally.
Wouldn't you?
That said, we can criticize. But we should do it constructively. Provide a better option, militarily, or otherwise. (I don't have one. And anyway I believe this article is baseless.)
Short of offering options, we're just picking sides, and to me it looks like you're picking the wrong one.
And, that is bias.
The criminal that hides under color of law while killing far more innocents is more odious on multiple fronts. Dead children and austere serious men walking through their blood reeking of offal and rightiousness is a disturbing contrast.
The US ought to disassociate ourselves forever from such undepentant criminals.
So the one that kills openly against the law prescribed by democracy is better? Do continue. The world is listening.
>ourselves
Please don't call yourself American. Your immorality is embarrassing me.
Israel: 10% acceptable civilian casualty as defense against Gaza. (An unsubstantiated claim without a source. But let's pretend it's true since that's what we're commenting on.)
Gaza: 100% intentional civilian casualty as defense... Uh wait, they weren't even defending anything. They were trying to uproot 12 million residents in a neighboring country. That is literally their stated goal.
How is the second one more moral? Don't bother answering because if you can explain that, you belong in prison, or you at least need a psych evaluation.
This post doesn't make any sense no matter how many times I try to parse it. You are part of the 10% I mention who lash out at anything anyone else says. Be well.
34 replies →