I was pointing out the hypocrisy of telling the world they should look away from what's being done in Palestine because war is dirty, but should sympathise with Israel after Hamas's awful attack, because war is dirty.
You don't care about Palestinians but you expect the world to care about Israel, despite committing obvious warcrimes.
I very much want peace for both sides, a stable society and good life for everyone, Arab and Israeli. You clearly don't share that wish. You have no morals, no moral authority, and what you are doing is putting Israel's future at greater risk than Hamas could, but you're so shortsighted and self-centred you're blinded to that.
Again with the arguing against a totemic representation in your own head, rather than reality.
My position[0] is: When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
[0] which may or may not have anything to do with the down-voters you complain about: I didn't vote, I don't know who did or what they think and; as I said earlier, what you wrote initially looks like something each of the big groups on this topic can find something disagreeable with.
I have, in all sincerity, been misunderstood less by GPT-2 than you display with that.
You wrote:
> You don't care about Palestinians but you expect the world to care about Israel, despite committing obvious warcrimes.
False. I thought this was clear from the metaphor I chose to use (which is, of course, why I chose to use it). Hint: who might be the elephants who are fighting, and who might be the grass who is getting trodden on?
(Answer: civilians are the grass, combatants are the elephants — and it case even that was not clear, note that I did not say whose civilians and whose combatants, this is deliberated because the answer to that is simply "yes").
> I very much want peace for both sides, a stable society and good life for everyone, Arab and Israeli. You clearly don't share that wish. You have no morals, no moral authority, and what you are doing is putting Israel's future at greater risk than Hamas could, but you're so shortsighted and self-centred you're blinded to that.
False. That first sentence, before you threw insults at me due to you painting a picture of me in your mind and arguing with that without testing it against reality, is in fact a wish that I share.
But unlike you demonstrate here, I am not — or try not to be — so hubristic to think I can read the inner state of others' minds, especially not those who disagree with me. I suggest reasons that can be investigated, tested, and allow for them to be refuted if false. I will prefer to say "it sounds like you think ${foo}?" rather than a blunt "you think ${foo}". Note the second part of my original response, where I showed you I was unclear which side you were trying to support: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39920847
Furthermore, I know that I know nothing about international geopolitics — an easy thing to determine as I have literally zero political or military education — and thus the free version of ChatGPT is genuinely going to less wrong than me about any possible way to improve this situation. So while I want peace and liberty, I do not presume (any longer) to suggest a way forward:
> So ignore what other people think - make your own point based on facts.
If I ignored what other people think, I would be like you: confused by downvotes, and substituting my own imagination for genuine curiosity as to why.
And that, right there, that is my point. (I wonder if you will read it and gain insight into my mind, or reply in further confusion? Your mind is clearly alien to me, so I do not know).
> Try answering: is Israel's response proportionate and acceptable or not?
I believe not.
You'd already know that if you'd bothered to read what I wrote instead of whinging about it.
I don't know that my beliefs are correct, 'cause I'm not trained in law, politics, or warfare, and the whole thing is surrounded by propaganda. If you call my self-awareness "a lack of clarity", you're hubristic.
Your turn. Answer me this: Who did I call the elephants, and who did I call the grass?
> You'd already know that if you'd bothered to read what I wrote instead of whinging about it.
I'll openly admit that I often don't read things carefully but in this case I don't believe you were making things clear at all. Quoting stuff in Greek to me doesn't actually help comprehension.
> Your turn. Answer me this: Who did I call the elephants, and who did I call the grass?
You said "My position[0] is: When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers" which you then said of "(Answer: civilians are the grass, combatants are the elephants — and it case even that was not clear, note that I did not say whose civilians and whose combatants, this is deliberated because the answer to that is simply "yes")."
And this is a relevant because you are trying to spread the blame among civilians, instead of clearly saying which civilians.
As of yesterday, over 33,000 Palestinians had been killed and 75,000 injured. There is deliberate starvation brewing over there and the hospitals had been mostly or entirely smashed. Israel has committed war crimes. The IDF are turning a blind eye or even helping illegal settlers on Palestinian land. There's more.
Just because there is blame on both sides doesn't mean the blame is equal on both sides.
Debating is difficult enough with the ambiguity in natural languages. If you don't even try and be plain what you're trying to say, difficulty will be compounded. If you were agreeing, why not say "I agree" or "I agree but what about..."? I don't know what a totemic representation is, elephant metaphors were ambiguous (obviously the civilians suffer most, I know it, you know that I know it, so what point are you trying to make?), Quoting stuff in Greek and then telling me to google it instead of saying it plainly – not wise.
You made a simple thing difficult (and yes, doubtless I'm partly to blame as well).
You don't care about Palestinians but you expect the world to care about Israel, despite committing obvious warcrimes.
I very much want peace for both sides, a stable society and good life for everyone, Arab and Israeli. You clearly don't share that wish. You have no morals, no moral authority, and what you are doing is putting Israel's future at greater risk than Hamas could, but you're so shortsighted and self-centred you're blinded to that.