Your argument assumes we all just agree on what should be a crime and what exactly the severity is. No I don't think fixing cars for a gang is anything like aiding in a genocide and breaking international law. Your "um actually" redditor argument is that crimes against humanity and the crime of armed robbery both are "crimes", I'm not describing anything there, I am using the words we assign to acts of war that breach international law. Stop with the "gottcha" BS, as well as just taking for granted that anyone else agrees that international law/the actions of militaries needs to be consistent with civilian and domestic law.
But (generally) you aren’t going to face the same penalties as someone who is more immediately responsible for the harm.
Yeah cool.....not the same thing as aiding in fucking war crimes.
Fundamentally, we’re talking about viewing these bad acts the same way we view more ordinary crimes, like murder, arson, burglary, etc. There are variations in severity and type (as there are with ordinary crimes), but it’s not some entirely different concept.
That's a really bold and presumptive statement. No those are not fundamentally approached the same way, nor would that mean we SHOULD approach them the same way ideally. But beyond this nonsense "argument" you have decided to have against a stance I didn't even take this is all because I said that the crimes of a gang don't equate with the crimes of a military. How is that fucking objectionable? Or better yet, what does a pencil pusher being as guilty as a bomber pilot have to do with that statement? You just concoct some insane juxtaposition and then try to debate it as if assigning us both stances in debate club.
So yeah you are wrong specifically, but also I dont fucking care about arguing the matter, cause you don't get to just decide someone else is making a certain argument out of one sentence and then debate-team it. You cannot be missing the forest for the trees, you have to be cutting down the forest with white phosphorous before sanctimoniously proclaiming there is no forest just burnt trees. You chose a weak comparison, got called on it, and decided that was an expansive argument on the concept of rehabilitation rite large. Talk to a mirror, that's evidentially what you want
edit: I just noticed the both-sides "non-military actors also irradiate cities", you just nuked the forest. Yeah those actors should be treated as criminals and having committed crimes against humanity as well. But that has no bearing on the fact that a gang is not comprable to an invading army. You somehow jump around from "well other people litter" to "well pencil pushers" in like 2 paragraphs. All because of the idea that being in a gang does not make you responsible for aiding in the destruction of an entire city. Would you try to argue that other actors other than the SS have released toxic fumes on people? Because that is the fucking point. Argue with the actual matter, not abstractions and McCardle-level musings. I get that you don't mean it, but I feel like I'm dealing with that same style right now and I wanna scream a la Matt
If you're going to be a condescending asshole we're not going to get anywhere, and you have no right to whine about anyone acting like a redditor.
I dont fucking care about arguing the matter, cause you don’t get to just decide someone else is making a certain argument out of one sentence and then debate-team it.
Literally every conversation I have with you is like talking to a wall. Condescending? You keep deciding other people's world views for them. You can't even stick to a topic, you go for 5 metaphors of varying effectiveness and then act like there is anywhere to get. Conversations don't have a preset path, nor do they have to "get anywhere", I didn't ask you for a debate team match over rehabilitation, I took objection to your point of comparison.
And then the "I know what you are but what am I" again reddit BS. You um actually everything critical of libleft positions and when facing pushback you either troll or act like this is some discussion on the future of the western left. Point is I criticized your comparison; you decided that meant an argument over prison and rehabilitation and accomplices. That's more reddit debate tactics than anything I've ever seen on this site. All you do is condescend, so if my temper seems short it's because I am tired of being dragged into a debate arena you have decided upon any time we interact.
Stop viewing every interaction as needing to "get anywhere", and stop assuming an entire argument for me based on a sentence. If comparing gangs to militaries is criticized, don't double down and start debating as if the person said anything about the rehabilitation of pencil pushers or accomplices to grand theft auto. That is condescending AF and I am tired of having to argue against points you decided for me any time we speak.
You're not a bad person, you make some good points sometimes; but I am tired of everything being an expansive debate on an entire topic every time someone pushes back on you over one specific point. You gave the game away when you admitted in your prior comment that you are talking about 1 thing, and thus any disagreement with you must be a debate on the entire subject matter and any position you hold. How the fuck is that not disingenuous? To decide that disagreeing with the comparison means that I must take the position of agreeing with the comparison but having the opposite stance on whatever matter. You decide to talk about desk jobs and rehabilitation as if I made any statement on the matter, despite the fact that my only comment and only argument as literally about NOT agreeing with the comparison. Think about that, you decided to argue over the entire matter of soldiers and guilt through the lens of gangs, in response to me disagreeing with the comparison to gangs. You took "gangs don't irradiate cities" to be a statement on the fate of pencil pushers and the rehabilitation policies towards getaway drivers. You are blogging, and dragging me along into it as if its a debate where I take the opposite position of whatever you say. Even when i agree with you, you've already decided we disagree. Of course its going nowhere, I'm talking to a wall that insists that I talk about everything but the point of contention. You'll debate every subject imaginable, except that thing someone pushes back on.
It'd be like responding to someone saying they think your criticism of the CGI in the star wars prequels is ruinous by trying to debate them on the concept of prequels as if that was their argument. It is hostile and frustrating. To say nothing of the fact that previously you responded to earnest arguments with
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
So yeah these little talks are always this way and I really should just explain that I am not interested in your debate club with
Dude you've written multiple page-long screeds deep in the comments that no one will ever read. Maybe work that out before you go tone policing anyone else.
Your argument assumes we all just agree on what should be a crime and what exactly the severity is. No I don't think fixing cars for a gang is anything like aiding in a genocide and breaking international law. Your "um actually" redditor argument is that crimes against humanity and the crime of armed robbery both are "crimes", I'm not describing anything there, I am using the words we assign to acts of war that breach international law. Stop with the "gottcha" BS, as well as just taking for granted that anyone else agrees that international law/the actions of militaries needs to be consistent with civilian and domestic law.
That's a really bold and presumptive statement. No those are not fundamentally approached the same way, nor would that mean we SHOULD approach them the same way ideally. But beyond this nonsense "argument" you have decided to have against a stance I didn't even take this is all because I said that the crimes of a gang don't equate with the crimes of a military. How is that fucking objectionable? Or better yet, what does a pencil pusher being as guilty as a bomber pilot have to do with that statement? You just concoct some insane juxtaposition and then try to debate it as if assigning us both stances in debate club.
So yeah you are wrong specifically, but also I dont fucking care about arguing the matter, cause you don't get to just decide someone else is making a certain argument out of one sentence and then debate-team it. You cannot be missing the forest for the trees, you have to be cutting down the forest with white phosphorous before sanctimoniously proclaiming there is no forest just burnt trees. You chose a weak comparison, got called on it, and decided that was an expansive argument on the concept of rehabilitation rite large. Talk to a mirror, that's evidentially what you want
edit: I just noticed the both-sides "non-military actors also irradiate cities", you just nuked the forest. Yeah those actors should be treated as criminals and having committed crimes against humanity as well. But that has no bearing on the fact that a gang is not comprable to an invading army. You somehow jump around from "well other people litter" to "well pencil pushers" in like 2 paragraphs. All because of the idea that being in a gang does not make you responsible for aiding in the destruction of an entire city. Would you try to argue that other actors other than the SS have released toxic fumes on people? Because that is the fucking point. Argue with the actual matter, not abstractions and McCardle-level musings. I get that you don't mean it, but I feel like I'm dealing with that same style right now and I wanna scream a la Matt
If you're going to be a condescending asshole we're not going to get anywhere, and you have no right to whine about anyone acting like a redditor.
Take a long, hard look in the mirror, comrade.
Literally every conversation I have with you is like talking to a wall. Condescending? You keep deciding other people's world views for them. You can't even stick to a topic, you go for 5 metaphors of varying effectiveness and then act like there is anywhere to get. Conversations don't have a preset path, nor do they have to "get anywhere", I didn't ask you for a debate team match over rehabilitation, I took objection to your point of comparison.
And then the "I know what you are but what am I" again reddit BS. You um actually everything critical of libleft positions and when facing pushback you either troll or act like this is some discussion on the future of the western left. Point is I criticized your comparison; you decided that meant an argument over prison and rehabilitation and accomplices. That's more reddit debate tactics than anything I've ever seen on this site. All you do is condescend, so if my temper seems short it's because I am tired of being dragged into a debate arena you have decided upon any time we interact.
Stop viewing every interaction as needing to "get anywhere", and stop assuming an entire argument for me based on a sentence. If comparing gangs to militaries is criticized, don't double down and start debating as if the person said anything about the rehabilitation of pencil pushers or accomplices to grand theft auto. That is condescending AF and I am tired of having to argue against points you decided for me any time we speak.
You're not a bad person, you make some good points sometimes; but I am tired of everything being an expansive debate on an entire topic every time someone pushes back on you over one specific point. You gave the game away when you admitted in your prior comment that you are talking about 1 thing, and thus any disagreement with you must be a debate on the entire subject matter and any position you hold. How the fuck is that not disingenuous? To decide that disagreeing with the comparison means that I must take the position of agreeing with the comparison but having the opposite stance on whatever matter. You decide to talk about desk jobs and rehabilitation as if I made any statement on the matter, despite the fact that my only comment and only argument as literally about NOT agreeing with the comparison. Think about that, you decided to argue over the entire matter of soldiers and guilt through the lens of gangs, in response to me disagreeing with the comparison to gangs. You took "gangs don't irradiate cities" to be a statement on the fate of pencil pushers and the rehabilitation policies towards getaway drivers. You are blogging, and dragging me along into it as if its a debate where I take the opposite position of whatever you say. Even when i agree with you, you've already decided we disagree. Of course its going nowhere, I'm talking to a wall that insists that I talk about everything but the point of contention. You'll debate every subject imaginable, except that thing someone pushes back on.
It'd be like responding to someone saying they think your criticism of the CGI in the star wars prequels is ruinous by trying to debate them on the concept of prequels as if that was their argument. It is hostile and frustrating. To say nothing of the fact that previously you responded to earnest arguments with
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
So yeah these little talks are always this way and I really should just explain that I am not interested in your debate club with
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
Dude you've written multiple page-long screeds deep in the comments that no one will ever read. Maybe work that out before you go tone policing anyone else.
edit: not worth it. :PIGPOOPBALLS: