Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[downnola]

And then the mods banned the discussion, so maybe save that argument for a venue that allows both sides.

There isn't a legitimate other side to the argument over ethnostates. One position is openly racist and directly opposed to human rights, the other isn't.

You keep making up shit about Israel's culpability in war crimes etc. You masquerade skepticism like your raised eyebrow is equal to other debater's arguments. Do better. Please.

You don't really have an argument. You haven't tried to substantiate anything you've said in this thread once. Like Elegiac pointed out, you mostly rely on hearsay and conjecture. I'm also not going to waste my time with you if you're going to keep accusing me of lying without explaining how I'm lying. Demonstrate how I'm being dishonest or I just won't bother engaging with your posts.

[uuuhname]

why would governments disclose classified information to the press? wtf...

omg. why does it need to be classified is the question I have, just saying "why would they give out classified information" does nothing to justify WHY it is. Jesus Christ.

like I can't imagine any of you thinking a country like China just blowing up a building in Hong Kong and saying "well we can't exactly justify why we did it because we can't tell you why." as acceptable behavior, but it is here, for some reason.

[Endus]

why would governments disclose classified information to the press? wtf...

Nobody's saying they should.

We're pointing out the public has absolutely zero reason to take the government's word as to what that classified information means, without being able to verify it for ourselves. If you're expecting "we know, but we won't tell or show you" to work as an argument, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Would you take me seriously in a thread about, say, a potential hate crime, if I told you the guy was definitely super guilty but I'm not allowed to tell you how I know that?

Classified information functionally does not exist to the public discourse. It cannot be considered, because there's nothing there to consider. It's a black void of nothing, and does not contribute to discussion.

[uuuhname]

a lot of stuff that get classified is because it could hurt the countries reputation, allies, cause security issues or otherwise cause harm to long-term goals...

I don't care... the whole point here is to HELP their reputation by explaining why they needed to destroy a building, but they aren't doing that, so it makes them look bad! logic hard! logic make brain hurted.

[Endus]

why would you trust any evidence they would provide to not be fabricated if your starting point is that they're lying? doesn't really make sense...

Because you can verify evidence, checking its origin, the methodology of how it was produced, etc.

"I can't tell you, it's classified" isn't evidence of anything. It has no business even being brought up in discussion. If it's classified, it isn't evidence that anyone can consider, and has nothing to contribute. As far as the discussion goes, it does not exist. If the government doesn't like that, they're free to declassify any time they wish to.

[Specialka]

You didn't "help" anything. Your "corrections" did not improve upon the analogy in any practical way whatsoever. Nor did they affect the conclusion I drew from it.

It's like if I said "an apple is like an orange, they're both fruit and taste sweet", and you jumped in with "a RED apple!" Yeah? How does that affect anything? It's a meaningless interruption that doesn't contribute to the point. You're just wasting people's time.

I guess you never went to a tribunal and present your case to a judge then. You would have some surprise.

[Endus]

I guess you never went to a tribunal and present your case to a judge then. You would have some surprise.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Particularly because a tribunal like that would rely on the facts of the case and the law itself, not an analogy.

[Specialka]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Particularly because a tribunal like that would rely on the facts of the case and the law itself, not an analogy.

And yet, you are the one that brought the tribunal in the discussion. Make up your mind.

[Endus]

And yet, you are the one that brought the tribunal in the discussion. Make up your mind.

I never claimed you should use an analogy as part of your defense in a court proceeding. Why are you making shit up?

[Specialka]

I never claimed you should use an analogy as part of your defense in a court proceeding. Why are you making shit up?

"Try using that defense in any courtroom and see how far it gets you. "

Is that not you ? Are you going to weasel your way out of it by arguing about semantics ?

[Elegiac]

that's just asinine... people aren't knowledgable enough about the dealings of states for it to even be useful that they know what's going on behind the scenes... not domestically... much less foreign...

This is elitist horseshit. Democracy is contingent on an informed public, which is fundamentally irreconcilable with antiquated notions of cabinet government - so no, "I can't tell you, it's classified, give us all your tax money and stop complaining when we kill brown people for fun and profit" continues to be unacceptable policy by any government.

[JohnBrown1917]

why would governments disclose classified information to the press? wtf...

Good enough to know they cant be trusted.

[Specialka]

This is elitist horseshit. Democracy is contingent on an informed public, which is fundamentally irreconcilable with antiquated notions of cabinet government.

You think the population would be better overall if they knew everything that is happening in the country or its foreign policy etc... ?

[Endus]

"Try using that defense in any courtroom and see how far it gets you. "

Is that not you ? Are you going to weasel your way out of it by arguing about semantics ?

Ahh, I see the problem.

You don't understand the difference between an analogy about a court case, and using an analogy in as a defense in court. Somehow.

I'd think the difference would be clear, but here you are, conflating the two.

No "weaseling". Just literally what I actually said, and which you're either deliberately misrepresenting or demonstrating that your reading skills are the real problem.

[uuuhname]

that's just asinine... people aren't knowledgable enough about the dealings of states for it to even be useful that they know what's going on behind the scenes... not domestically... much less foreign...

so governments get to do whatever they want and the rest of us are too dumb to understand why? what? what the hell kind of appeal to authority nonsense is this?

[Specialka]

Ahh, I see the problem.

You don't understand the difference between an analogy about a court case, and using an analogy in as a defense in court. Somehow.

I'd think the difference would be clear, but here you are, conflating the two.

Called it you are so predictable.

[Elegiac]

You think the population would be better overall if they knew everything that is happening in the country or its foreign policy etc... ?

Yes, actually, I do think society would be significantly better if government was a lot more transparent.

People tend to be a lot more invested in systems when they can see exactly where their civic efforts and tax dollars are being spent. When they aren't invested government becomes the plaything of scoundrels and idiots. See: the US.

[uuuhname]

You think the population would be better overall if they knew everything that is happening in the country or its foreign policy etc... ?

yeah because they would probably want that to stop, because any normal person seeing or knowing what they do would be rightly horrified or angry.

[Endus]

that's just asinine... people aren't knowledgable enough about the dealings of states for it to even be useful that they know what's going on behind the scenes... not domestically... much less foreign...

Never said they were.

Just said that evidence that isn't public knowledge can't be used by the public in coming to any conclusion on any matter. It doesn't exist, as far as that public is concerned.

The government can keep their secrets. Because they're secret, the public cannot consider them in their analyses, and the government has to accept that. Or it can declassify. That's how this stuff works.

[Elegiac]

we wouldn't even have a society if everyone got to know what's going on behind the scenes...

Correction: we wouldn't have the kind of society you want.

Whether or not that kind of society is one that is worth preserving is a separate issue. (Hint: It isn't worth it, please watch your George Carlin as to why that's the case.)