There are material differences pointed out by ComradeCmdrPiggy that you conveniently ignored to make a blanket statement like "making apologisms for violence against teenagers you've lost the plot." Turns out, you just draw the line at the killing of children in different material circumstances than both I and ComradeCmdrPiggy do. And your lines have more to do with some vague future potential than the actual immediate threat to those fighting for the liberation of their people. You can say I'm missing the forest for the trees, but by your own admission, you're the one contradicting yourself.
Keyword, semantic contradiction. If you're going to take my good grace acknowledgement of unspecificity as inherently contradictory in my intent then you're not engaging in good faith and I invite you to fuck off. I'm not interested in re-litigating the entire Romanov struggle session. Accept my 'mea culpa' and move on to matters affecting actual children today instead of literally events from over 100 years ago please. Put your guns away comrade, we're on the same side today.
Consider this a response to both your comments under mine and @a_blanqui_slate@hexbear.net's contributions so far. I endorse their good humor and recognition of the futility of resorting to debate-broism in this moment/place.
Likewise. But while you're at it, I'd also invite you to do some self crit and examine the contradiction and the "mea culpa" you correctly admitted to.
move on to matters affecting actual children today instead of literally events from over 100 years ago please.
This is more than just an academic question for some of us, even though it may be just that for you. And please don't pretend like I'm the one focusing on what happened 100 years ago when everything I've said is about what's going on right now.
But fine, I am taking the above comment as a "disengage" so I'm doing the same.
Uncritical support to the Palestinian resistance freedom fighters against the genocidal occupation.
I acknowledge the implication of your objection and implied contradiction on my part, I simply recognize what I actually intended with my original statement and don't care to trudge through the entire matter of the Romanovs again because I failed to put a, what I take to be, unnecessary carve out to my concise line above. This isn't an oversight on my part, it's a product of not typing a thesis. Our primary struggle today is not with kings/queens/their successors. My day job also literally pertains to evaluating these matters of culpability in, not exactly the same, but similar, circumstances. Self-defense law, just-war theory, and other matters of similar philosophical/legal significance are not something I have a coarse understanding of. You and I have a difference of opinion on an empirical matter (practical importance of executing a monarchy's line), and one which neither of us are in a real position to provide the evidence to back up. Such is the way of history sometimes
And I did not say disengage because I did not intend it. I meant it as a shot across the bow about reading into statements too literally, debate-bro technicalities, and picking fights where they don't need to be. I'd rather not walk away with the verbal equivalent of PPB on the table.
There are material differences pointed out by ComradeCmdrPiggy that you conveniently ignored to make a blanket statement like "making apologisms for violence against teenagers you've lost the plot." Turns out, you just draw the line at the killing of children in different material circumstances than both I and ComradeCmdrPiggy do. And your lines have more to do with some vague future potential than the actual immediate threat to those fighting for the liberation of their people. You can say I'm missing the forest for the trees, but by your own admission, you're the one contradicting yourself.
edit: fixed a word (blanket, not blatant).
Keyword, semantic contradiction. If you're going to take my good grace acknowledgement of unspecificity as inherently contradictory in my intent then you're not engaging in good faith and I invite you to fuck off. I'm not interested in re-litigating the entire Romanov struggle session. Accept my 'mea culpa' and move on to matters affecting actual children today instead of literally events from over 100 years ago please. Put your guns away comrade, we're on the same side today.
Consider this a response to both your comments under mine and @a_blanqui_slate@hexbear.net's contributions so far. I endorse their good humor and recognition of the futility of resorting to debate-broism in this moment/place.
Likewise. But while you're at it, I'd also invite you to do some self crit and examine the contradiction and the "mea culpa" you correctly admitted to.
This is more than just an academic question for some of us, even though it may be just that for you. And please don't pretend like I'm the one focusing on what happened 100 years ago when everything I've said is about what's going on right now.
But fine, I am taking the above comment as a "disengage" so I'm doing the same.
Uncritical support to the Palestinian resistance freedom fighters against the genocidal occupation.
I acknowledge the implication of your objection and implied contradiction on my part, I simply recognize what I actually intended with my original statement and don't care to trudge through the entire matter of the Romanovs again because I failed to put a, what I take to be, unnecessary carve out to my concise line above. This isn't an oversight on my part, it's a product of not typing a thesis. Our primary struggle today is not with kings/queens/their successors. My day job also literally pertains to evaluating these matters of culpability in, not exactly the same, but similar, circumstances. Self-defense law, just-war theory, and other matters of similar philosophical/legal significance are not something I have a coarse understanding of. You and I have a difference of opinion on an empirical matter (practical importance of executing a monarchy's line), and one which neither of us are in a real position to provide the evidence to back up. Such is the way of history sometimes
And I did not say disengage because I did not intend it. I meant it as a shot across the bow about reading into statements too literally, debate-bro technicalities, and picking fights where they don't need to be. I'd rather not walk away with the verbal equivalent of PPB on the table.