Dont give the meta; give an ARGUMENT
Trolls don’t enagage in dialog. They might have a talking point, or something that defines how they oppose what I say, but they quickly shift to attacks on intelligence or long history lessons riddled with incorrect data, or sources that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Trolls are mostly meta.
Citizen calls highlighting the plight of Palestinians whose choices are limited to ethnic cleansing, apartheid and death is being a drama queen. This is out there now.
I can’t tell what you are referring to. How did CC “highlight” those choices?
I said dadada is a drama queen.
What, got no sense of humor either?
Stop taking yourself so seriously, oh, it might bust the algorithm. 
Why don’t you ever complain about the billionaires driving this insanity with their puppet politicians.
Why do you project this sense of blaming governments for our problems?
Hmmmmmmmmm,
My god what thin shells we have developed.
The horrendous part is the liberties they take for themselves,
Oh but god help ya, if ya poke back.
You obviously didn’t read the link. Nothing new. Same rule as always. If there is a rule against bad behavior and a rule that says you should hit “flag” when you see it, then I should be enforcing them equally.
Currently, if I ban dadada for not using the I&C section, then I should ban you as well. Or, the rules are meaningless and everyone can just fight like children.
Talk of Genocide is funny to you??
How so? We don’t complain that we killed someone’s husband and father when he comes and tries to kill and rob you and you kill him in self-defense.
The analogy is valid.
a) With Israel it is Hamas that came to murder Israeli children, fathers, and mothers.
Israel is responding in defense of their (home)land.
b) With Ukraine it is Russia that came and started killing Ukrainian children, fathers, and mothers.
Ukraine is responding in self-defense of their (home)land.
The question was about nukes. How do you defend yourself with a nuke? Russia has 5,589 of them. How could Hamas make silos? It would mean their own destruction.
There are other choices besides those two. Cheney is a lowlife who brings nothing to the table. Her family probably has financial interests in Ukraine like quite a few political elites – which is only reason the formerly irrelevant country of Ukraine started to matter to America.
1 Like
First, I am not advocating nuclear war, but remember the Cuban missile crisis?
What is the argument then?
Allow Russia to kill all Ukrainians with conventional weapons?
Allow Hamas to kill all Israelis with conventional weapons?
Let me remind you that it is Russia, that mentioned the use of tactical nukes. Do you want to wait until Russia uses them because Putin thinks the US won’t dare retaliate?
Do we allow COVID to kill us all without any counter-measures that kill the virus?
If the existential threat is a human virus, i.e. terrorism, just let them kill all Jews and their friends, one by one with conventional weapons?
And what would that solve?
Nature is a game of survival, by any means. There are organisms nobody dares touch.
Why?
They’ll kill you on contact. And that is how natural organisms evolve to protect themselves from existential enemies.
The price you pay for threatening a living organism must always be worse than the threat itself. Else it is not a deterrent.
Learning from Israel , NATO is now considering furnishing Ukraine with long-range missiles, so that Ukraine can damage Russia itself deep inside Russia, instead of being restricted to wage war on its own soil.
Make Russia pay a greater price for its actions than it is worth.
Make Hamas pay a greater price for its actions than it is worth.
Neither Ukraine, nor Israel started this mess. Are you now saying they do not have the right to self-defense?
Of course I do.
All you answered in was questions and talk about self defense. Nukes are not a defensive weapon, not when there 10,000 of them.
Nature’s self defense mechanisms don’t invovle burning itself down.
But nature does depend on fires ( link ).
I understand clearly your logic, @lausten, and from the perspective of human survival it applies well here.
But from the perspective of nature, perhaps the removal of humans is a good thing. I’m human. I don’t like the thought of my grandkids not having complete lives. But nature could not care less.
Now obviously nukes are not nature’s doing, but climate change might make the distinction moot.
1 Like
To get back on topic, my two cents.
Mike Johnson is one person with political power. Our species has set up various social systems around the globe. Our democratic system relies upon an educated, reasonable, and compassionate population.
Do we have that? Personally, I have strong doubts. But only time will tell. Our system clearly does not filter out despicable persons.
1 Like
Nature is constant destruction and rebirth, but that’s not an analogy to giving nukes to a small countries. A good analogy would be lemmings running off a cliff.
1 Like
First, Nature has no self-defense and it does burn itself down.
Second, Nature can and does burn itself down. We are currently at the beginning of the 6th extinction event on Earth and it is manmade. But that’s a slow process, like smoking cigarettes that kills you slowly.
Invasive species are controlled by exhaustion of food, starvation. They kill everything until they run out of food and undergo a “culling” of their own species.
In the case of living organisms that have to deal with predation, they evolve deadly defense mechanisms.
Self-defence
It refers to the use of force to repel an attack or imminent threat of attack directed against oneself or others or a legally protected interest . Self-defense in international law refers to the inherent right of a State the use of force in response to an armed attack.
Self-defense in international law refers to the inherent right of a State to use of force in response to an armed attack. Self-defense is one of the exceptions to the prohibition against use of force under article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law.
However, whether the armed attack that gives rise to self-defence should originate from another state (as opposed to an armed group) and whether the attack should actually materialize to lawfully invoke self-defense are ongoing conundrums for scholars.
The concept of self-defence and defence of others is also used in criminal law as a defence to justify a necessary and proportionate use of force against an unlawful attack. Such conduct by civilians does not constitute direct participation in hostilities.
You’re the one who made the nuke - nature connection