“No country is without sin” *mentions a civil war*

Wow, yeah, having struggled for our independence more than 100 years ago is what you’re going with with this whataboutism, when we’re discussing WAR CRIMES?

Wow what a great argument, definitely showed me my place, yeah. /S

Why didn’t I answer your garbage attempt at rhetoric? Because you’re ignoring actual international law to defend Israel’s despicable attack on civilians. Something my country has NEVER done.

Which country’s military? Because I’m more than willing to bet your country has killed innocents too, even if by accident

Finland. Go ahead and dig dirt. We have such a cruel and bloody history and we never do what we say or listen to laws. /S

I see you weren’t the reading comprehension guy in the military. But since you need it directly spelled out for your crayon eating ass to understand - yes, the Israeli government is committing genocide

You don’t seem to understand what reading comprehension is, nor understand the existence of people who absolutely refuse to admit to Israel’s warcrimes. Like the war crime they committed with this indiscriminate bombing, which can’t be limited as international law requires.

International law is international law. And Israel is breaking it.

Edit oh and I’m not **ex-**military until I’m 60. Also, I was the company’s quartermaster, which very much is a reading job for the most part.

You’re seriously saying “they deserve the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ treatment” while Israel is actively escalating the conflict?

I have never defended genociders

Oh okay. So where have I done that? In assuming that 3000 civilians who were harmed weren’t exclusively Hezbollah? Which would be an utterly ridiculous claim seeing how many literal children there are involved.

So… you’ve never defended genociders. Then let’s see if you will. Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?

You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?

I’ve actually been in the military and have had training on what is and isn’t legal to do in armed conflict. Have you?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12

Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks

Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

© which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.

Based on… what exactly?

The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”

And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.

No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.”

“Brought it on himself brought it on himself”

You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.

You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.

You’re genuinely pathetic enough to try and imply that none of the victims are innocent?

I loathe “people” like you.

Hey @[email protected], you were saying that “these were extremely surgical strikes, people in the vicinity weren’t harmed”?

Thousands of people injured, all guilty of something ofc, because Israel would never do an attack which might harm innocents. Right? /S

And remember that every second you’re under the hood looking at it, youre afraid of getting caught and sentenced for fiddling with cadavers without permission.

I had to look up the history and while it was illegal at points in history, anatomy theaters became popular in the 16th century.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anatomy

The period I was thinking about was some British history, 17th-19th century, the bodysnatching thing.

OpenAI is arguing “we’re not using copyrighted works in a way which would require us to pay anything, the machine is merely extrapolating patterns”.

But then it does go on to quote materials verbatim, which shows it’s not “just” ‘extracting patterns’.

If I were to put up a service called “quote a book” or something, and it just had a non-AI bot which would — when given the book and pages — quote copyrighted works, would that be okay for me to make money on, without paying anyone I’m quoting? Even if they started to use my service to literally copy entire books?

Why are you defending massive corporations who could just pay up? Isn’t the whole “corporations putting profits over anything” thing a bit… seen already?