And how long do we talk about an US lead occupation in Germany? That ended in 1949, as you yourself said, the occupation wasn't forever. Even with this example, the difference is quite stark between the US lead occupation (and West Germany) and the Soviet occupation (and formation of East Germany).

The West Germans remember quite well how the US assisted West-Berlin with the airlift and Marshall Plan: — ssu

As I see it, you’re reiterating my points, not countering them. If you’re trying to say America responsibly reintegrated Germany and Japan and Israel should do the same, I agree.

The only known bombing of a Palestinian hospital was by a stray Hamas rocket, which hit the parking lot, but was first reported by Hamas and on this thread as a direct attack by Israel on the hospital itself. — Hanover

Untrue btw.

''The New York Times published a report by its Visual Investigations team contradicting claims by the Israeli Defense Forces that civilian deaths and damage at the al-Shifa Hospital had been caused by stray Palestinian projectiles.[305] The report concluded instead, "some of the munitions were likely fired by Israeli forces", based on video and satellite evidence and an examination of weapons fragments collected and verified by The New York Times and analyzed by experts.[305] Moreover, two of the most severe strikes analyzed by The Times hit upper floors of the maternity ward and did not appear to be aimed at underground infrastructure.''

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war

Now, please justify the firing of missiles at a maternity ward and how that is self defence.

Well and had Hamas not attacked Israel, they'd have been replaced by some other fanatical islamist organisation. As Baden has repeatedly pointed out, all these arguments work both ways. — Echarmion

But they don't work both ways. The IDF doesn't livestream itself committing atrocities on civilians and raping women to death. Hamas fighters behave like animals. They revel in the sadism. They think they have a divine mandate to kill Jews. They want to wipe them all out.

There is not a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. The argument doesn't work both ways. Israel's Arab neighbors are culturally inferior to Israel. Their Islamic-based values are abhorrent. The world would be a better place if Israel conquered it's Arab neighbors, occupied them, and forced a constitutional republic on them where women and LGBTQ people are given equal rights. Can you imagine the rejoicing that would take place from tens of millions of women and girls if that happened?

But they don't work both ways. The IDF doesn't livestream itself committing atrocities on civilians and raping women to death. Hamas fighters behave like animals. They revel in the sadism. They think they have a divine mandate to kill Jews. They want to wipe them all out.

There is not a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. — RogueAI

And, I suppose the implication is, whoever has the moral advantage is the good guy, and the good guy can do whatever it takes.

To me this is just as risible as the parallel argument where whoever is most oppressed is the victim and the victim can do whatever it takes. A parody of a moral argument.

Israel's Arab neighbors are culturally inferior to Israel. Their Islamic-based values are abhorrent. The world would be a better place if Israel conquered it's Arab neighbors, occupied them, and forced a constitutional republic on them where women and LGBTQ people are given equal rights. Can you imagine the rejoicing that would take place from tens of millions of women and girls if that happened? — RogueAI

I can also imagine the abject carnage that would precede the rejoicing. And maybe we would find that the people don't take all that kindly to our civilising mission.

If only we had some good, recent evidence to judge this proposal. Perhaps if some massive military power had invaded some middle eastern states and attempted to turn them into liberal democracies we could look how that went.

I can also imagine the abject carnage that would precede the rejoicing. — Echarmion

Yes, here's an accounting of Israeli war crimes, just so far, in this conflict, again to highlight the absurd lie that they are a respectable force. It includes attacks on churches, schools, hospitals, execution of prisoners, sexual humiliation of prisoners, attacks with white phosphorous, collective punishment, the murder of journalists, and more.

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

Scroll to 2023 conflict.

It's hard to argue, given this litany of abuses, for the moral superiority of the IDF over Hamas.

@BC, please ignore the ad hoc ravings of certain posters here regarding my argument. They can’t bother to understand the argument, they mislabel it to poison the well. I’m ignoring the poster, as he’s bad faith arguing, not arguing any of the actual substance of the argument. Just thought you should be informed.

Anyhow, I'm going to let @Hanover have the final say in our debate if he wants it and bow out of the thread for a while. I'm saying this here to make it harder for me to be tempted to post more because I think I've said enough for now.

Now you are misconstruing my point which was AFTER they were bombed to hell they made sure that the countries were liberal democracies, friendly to the Allies, and demilitarized. — schopenhauer1

Right, so is the argument that, through an occupation of the Gaza strip, Israel might be able demilitarise it and then develop occupation policies that'll lead to a long-term rapprochement?

In that case yeah, that might be possible. It'd be very hard and costly but at least it'd be a plan. It doesn't seem to be the current plan though.

Explain how that works. Hamas attacks and you pick up the phone and call their leadership and you discuss how they ought stop raping concert goers?

Are you under any illusion that had Israel not responded as they did that the Hamas attack would not have ended? — Hanover

The attacks won't stop until Israel ceases to exist in its current form it seems to me. And it shouldn't exist in its current form. It's a colony isn't it? And not just an imposition of political power, but also a displacement of existing established population. Military action by Israel is just going to create more terrorists, no? A political solution is the only serious option. In terms of the phone call, informing whatever leadership Palestine has of Israel's intention to dismantle their colony and then actually doing it might help stop the violence, if it is believed.

I was more or less asking about the principles of the problem and how a path can be created for future generations.

I meant in something like 50-100 years at least! The leaders will change on either side but things will continue to repeat unless there is a common world view as far as I can see. If you agree then what kind of measures could move things in that direction do you think?

A moderate Palestinian state would not have these human rights abuses:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestine-state-of/report-palestine-state-of/ — RogueAI

Even a 'moderate Palestinian state', if by meaning that democratic elections are held and political opposition isn't persecuted, I guess there's much in the insurgency that human rights organizations won't look as to be OK.

And there surely is loads of evidence of warcrimes, human rights abuses and so on October 7th, even if Israel has now degraded the number of killed during that day. But it's not good either how Israel is fighting this war.

TEL AVIV, Israel — In a text message to journalists on Friday, a spokesperson from Israel's Foreign Ministry said "around 1,200" is now what he called "the official number of people" killed by Hamas militants on Oct. 7. That's about 200 fewer victims than Israel had been citing for more than a month.

* * * * *

As I see it, you’re reiterating my points, not countering them. If you’re trying to say America responsibly reintegrated Germany and Japan and Israel should do the same, I agree. — schopenhauer1

Hopefully you have noticed, that I'm not disagreeing with everything you say.

But there's the real problem, which makes me so pessimistic about this conflict: How can Israel do this?

Does it have the urge to do this? What is dominant view now is that the other side only understands lead. This goes also with the Palestinian side. The PA is sidelined and the West Bank surely isn't now a tranquil sea of modesty and respect. And Gaza? Well, what is there to talk? Who is there to talk to?

The only reason, in my view, is that Bibi and IDF go too far with the military operation of destroying Hamas and aren't prepared to take care of the 2,2 million people in which a lot more than just now children and civilians die. A lot more that finally it looks bad in the US. So bad that the question goes beyond the general culture war lines of being pro-Israeli or not, and something has to be done. And then it's so embarrassing to Israel, that they have to do something. People will die if they don't get food and water, hence the issue has to be solved.

There are hints that this could happen as the mood is starting to change in the US.

WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - U.S. public support for Israel's war against Hamas militants in Gaza is eroding and most Americans think Israel should call a ceasefire to a conflict that has ballooned into a humanitarian crisis, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Some 32% of respondents in the two-day opinion poll, which closed on Tuesday, said "the U.S. should support Israel" when asked what role the United States should take in the fighting. That was down from 41% who said the U.S. should back Israel in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Oct. 12-13.

The share saying "the U.S. should be a neutral mediator" rose to 39% in the new poll from 27% a month earlier. Four percent of respondents in the poll said the U.S. should support Palestinians and 15% said the U.S. shouldn't be involved at all, both similar readings to a month ago.

Of course, one solution is to try to keep the whole issue out of sight.

Or then declare that Hamas is finished and try to stick to that line and hope people don't question it. :roll:

What a disgusting and pathetic display of political opportunism by Washington:




First giving Netanyahu a blank check to commit his evil, blocking UN resolutions calling for a cease-fire, and with the Israel lobby appeased now going back to whinging about a two-state solution which will never happen anyway (and they know it) to avoid dropping too much in the polls.

:vomit:

So, what's the plan? Starve everybody? Just had an acquaintance from Gaza confirm his cousins were killed yesterday, parents and children, just like that.

Hezbollah so far has not escalated, Iran said they weren't going to get involved for now. So, what gives? Biden not going to do anything? Just let them all die?

The survivors of one of the worst massacres in history will reply in kind to others? Great.

Anyhow, I'm going to let Hanover have the final say in our debate if he wants it and bow out of the thread for a while. I'm saying this here to make it harder for me to be tempted to post more because I think I've said enough for now. — Baden

I too will bow out for the time being, leaving with this final comment to ponder: quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.

Right, so is the argument that, through an occupation of the Gaza strip, Israel might be able demilitarise it and then develop occupation policies that'll lead to a long-term rapprochement? — Echarmion

Yes.

Well then we're probably in agreement that Israel's stated intention to not occupy Gaza likely means things will be much worse for whoever is left there, since it seems to imply Israel will destroy all the "Hamas infrastructure" (which probably means just all all the infrastructure) and then just leave.

Here's some other views on the conflict instead of the myopic western bullshit being peddled in this thread.

South Africa

https://www.dirco.gov.za/south-africa-has-maintained-a-consistent-position-on-the-israel-palestine-question/

"unfinished decolonisation struggle"

India

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/palestine-israel-conflict-india-unsc-jerusalem-clashes-aqsa-7320652/

"Hours after Hamas' first attacks on Gaza on October 7, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on a post on X, expressed shock at the Palestinian offensive, and conveyed “solidarity with Israel”. He wrote, "“Deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour." However, five days later, in its first official statement on the Israel-Hamas war, New Delhi has sought to nuance this. Ministry of External Affairs’ official spokesperson Arindam Bagchi, in response to questions at the weekly briefing, said that there is a “universal obligation to observe international humanitarian law,” and there is also a global responsibility to fight the menace of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. In addition, Bagchi further cleared that India advocates for "the resumption of direct negotations towards establishing the sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine living within secure and recognised border side by side with Israel."

China

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202311/1302191.shtml

China urged an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, expressed opposition to any forced displacement and relocation of Palestinian civilians and emphasized that any arrangement concerning the future and destiny of the Palestinian people must have their consent, Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi told visiting Arab and Islamic foreign ministers on Monday.

Brasil

https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2023/nov/14/brazils-lula-says-israel-committing-equivalent-of-terrorism-in-gaza-2632858.html

Lula: Israel is committing the "equivalent of terrorism" in Gaza by killing innocent women and children in its war on Hamas

& other south american countries

Have cancelled arms deals with US and other Israeli supporters for their unrepenting support of Israel.

None of these "non-Western" countries (except for Paraguay) designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation other than via the OAS, which is of course dominated by the northern American countries. That aside, no Asian country but Japan and no African country. In other words, the favoured position here is a minority position in the world. Posters would do well to acquaint themselves with other narratives instead of the implicitly racist assumptions in the Western narrative where the more people look like us the more support they get (Ukrainian refugees vs others, Israel vs Palestine etc.) or because of historic guilt trips for crimes committed by our grandfathers. My country doesn't owe Israel allegiance or support just because a bunch of Jews live there.

how a path can be created for future generations.

I meant in something like 50-100 years at least! — I like sushi

No problem! In 100 years the world will be in the midst of a 3ºC - 5ºC overheating crisis; the stormy chaotic weather will be hot; the oceans will be rising rapidly; food production will be disrupted; coastal cities will be regularly or chronically inundated; many millions of climate refugees will be on the move if thy have not died already... We are living in the "good old days"! Israel who?

The folk-singer Billy Bragg used the phrase "the vanity of nations" in his version of the International. Nationalism, religion, ethnocentrism (whether it's black, white, Palestinian, Jewish, Han Chinese. English, Mestizos, etc.). All the specificities that occlude our common, unitary species-relatedness are a piece of the problem. Unfortunately, BOMFOG (the Brotherhood Of Man under the Fatherhood Of God) went out of style years ago. and I don't see anything similar on the horizon.

Maybe a global heat crisis will help us drop our focus on specificities, but I would be surprised if that helps.

I do not look for a cessation of conflict on earth, no matter how good the climate is or how bad, because "whatever it is that people want or need" won't be distributed equally. and therein lies an insoluble problem.

Does there have to be a resolution to ethnic conflict? There does if the relevant ethnics want a decent future, but...

How about an ethnographic and ethnological analysis of the state of affairs in that particular region then? :D

Just looking for some productive discussion :)

Like I said, the IRA managed to cease terrorist attacks but I am largely convinced the common traditions of peoples involved were common enough. In the middle east what kinds of commonalities exist because the various factions, and what apart than my broad statement might I have been neglecting?

I do not for a second believe it is almost entirely due to ONE point. What can we learn here? What information can we glean from these constant hostilities that can better equip us to avoid them elsewhere or help us understand conflicts of this type?

In addition, Bagchi further cleared that India advocates for "the resumption of direct negotations towards establishing the sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine living within secure and recognised border side by side with Israel." — Benkei

Yeah right, that will happen.

From: Wartime-Poll-Results-of-an-Opinion-Poll-Among-Palestinians-in-the-West-Bank-and-Gaza-Strip
"Do you support the solution of establishing one state or two states in the following formats:"

One-State Solution for Two Peoples: 5.4%

Two-State Solution for Two Peoples: 17.2%

A Palestinian state from the river to the
sea: 74.7%

At least for now Hezbollah and Iran has been out of the conflict... apart a few rockets.

There's two ways to look at this. On the other side, one could say that the Israeli response has deterred from Hezbollah joining the attack (and the two US carriers on the Mediterranean). From the other perspective, Iran's unconventional deterrent Hezbollah has kept Israel and the US from attacking itself (unlike Syria, which is a free range for bombing).

But then there's the Houthi hijack of a ship that has an owner that is Israeli. Bibi is accusing the Iran of terrorism.

Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

I've made this point before, but as an (imperfect but sufficiently apt) analogy, the IRA engaged in a long guerilla war with the British army in which it committed atrocities against British civilians. It had widespread support among the Catholic population in Northern Ireland and in certain cities, such as Derry, it dominated politically as does Hamas in Gaza. The British government wanted to eliminate and defeat the IRA but no one in their right mind ever suggested bombing Derry and slaughtering masses of Irish civilians as a means to kill IRA operatives because you cannot "eliminate" an embedded guerilla force without committing war crimes against the civilian population in which they are embedded. And trying to do so simply creates more extremism among the remaining population. The British and anyone with any common sense knows this and they remained within international law in dealing with the conflict. But by the logic of the apologists on here, their reaction could excusably have been "Oh well, it's a war" and they could have sent the bombers over Derry. — Baden

The moment that the Royal Air Force would have started bombing villages or houses in North Ireland, it would have been over. There would have not been the appetite for a new civil war in Ireland at all and the insurgency couldn't have been hided. Now the UK government achieved a huge victory in the discourse of the conflict: it was "The Troubles", not an insurgency (even if now the British Army openly says that it indeed was an insurgency. And the assassination attempt of Prime Minister Thatcher, didn't make "the gloves to come off". Yes, you had even British tanks deployed in Northern Ireland, but I don't think they ever used their main armamnet.

What is very telling is that in the conflict more British soldiers and policemen died than IRA terrorists. This ratio favoring the IRA terrorists doesn't tell about them being superior, but the British government sticking to the laws it had and using that restraint. And the British officials have later admitted that there have been killings by it's proxies and has made apologies for this.

The reality that having less restraint and using more firepower usually inflicts less casualties for you at the moment, but those actions can make you lose the war.

Here's some other views on the conflict instead of the myopic western bullshit being peddled in this thread. — Benkei

The US backing anything that Israel does isn't anything new. And It should be noted that not all in the West take the line of Biden.

Speaking the day after a humanitarian aid conference in Paris about the war in Gaza, Mr Macron said the "clear conclusion" of all governments and agencies present at that summit was "that there is no other solution than first a humanitarian pause, going to a ceasefire, which will allow [us] to protect... all civilians having nothing to do with terrorists".

"De facto - today, civilians are bombed - de facto. These babies, these ladies, these old people are bombed and killed. So there is no reason for that and no legitimacy. So we do urge Israel to stop."

Ireland is once again an outlier in the West, home to some of the loudest criticism of Israel and support of Palestinian rights, as the Middle East conflict rages.

After Hamas launched an assault in Israel on October 7, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varakdar decried the deadly incursion, during which about 1,200 people were killed and 240 were taken captive.But less than a week later, he became one of the few European officials to raise alarm.

“Israel doesn’t have the right to do wrong,” he said in something of a play on words as most European leaders were stressing Israel’s “right” to self-defence during its bombing campaign on Gaza, the enclave ruled by Hamas.

In just 41 days of war, more than 11,400 Palestinians have been killed by Israel.

Varadkar has also said Israel’s bombardment “amounts to collective punishment”, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.

Varadkar has also said Israel’s bombardment “amounts to collective punishment”, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.

If your enemy isn't abiding by the Geneva Conventions, why should you? Does a nation have a moral duty to take the "high ground" in a conflict? Even if it increases their chances of losing the conflict? What about if their existence is truly at stake? If the Axis had used chemical weapons, wouldn't the Allies have been justified using them in retaliation? Or suppose Germany had gone through with Sea Lion and invaded Britain after the fall of France. Would the Brits have been justified in using gas against the German invaders? Doesn't the British high command have a duty to its people to fight a Nazi invasion with every means at their disposable? If the British generals decide that chemical weapons will give them a decisive edge against Nazi soldiers, don't they have a duty to use those chemical weapons in defense of their citizens?

If your enemy isn't abiding by the Geneva Conventions, why should you? Does a nation have a moral duty to take the "high ground" in a conflict? — RogueAI

Generally, nations are not moral subjects, individuals are.

But yeah I'd say you have the moral duty to take the high ground, always and in every situation. That is
what moral philosophy is ultimately about, isn't it? To have a framework that applies over and above what your current desires or interests are.

If we can throw it by the wayside when it doesn't suit us, why have it in the first place?

Even if it increases their chances of losing the conflict? What about if their existence is truly at stake? — RogueAI

Morality in war is a tricky business, especially since there's not necessary a good argument to treat your enemy at large differently than your allies. You might have taken extra obligations towards your allies, but those could hardly result in your enemies having less moral standing.

I think we would need to employ the logic of self defense, expanded to groups since against an organised attacker, only an organised defense could succeed. And in that context we could argue that, in a justifiable cause, one does not need to accept undue risks. Since those that are fighting for the aggressor have by this act placed themselves outside the moral framework themselves, and thus cannot demand for themselves it's full protection.

But it's a difficult argument to carry forward without contradiction, as obviously not all victims of war really chose to be on either side in a meaningful way.

If the Axis had used chemical weapons, wouldn't the Allies have been justified using them in retaliation? — RogueAI

I think you could make the case that a counterattack is justified if it has a plausible military objective that you judge you could not meet any other way.

Or suppose Germany had gone through with Sea Lion and invaded Britain after the fall of France. Would the Brits have been justified in using gas against the German invaders? Doesn't the British high command have a duty to its people to fight a Nazi invasion with every means at their disposable? If the British generals decide that chemical weapons will give them a decisive edge against Nazi soldiers, don't they have a duty to use those chemical weapons in defense of their citizens? — RogueAI

They probably have that duty, but I do think they'd also have to weigh their duty towards humanity in general, which even includes the enemy soldiers.

If the use of a gas weapon provides the decisive edge, and you have also considered the probable long term consequences, maybe such use could be justified. At the same time we can probably conclude that lobbing gas grenades at starving and undersupplied Germans who are barely holding their perimeter might be a step too far.

If we can throw it by the wayside when it doesn't suit us, why have it in the first place? — Echarmion

But to many, the point of morality IS to suit us (us being the larger picture, humanity as a whole - morality exists to improve our lives).

So if some moral rule is making lives worse and not better, would it not be a worthwhile argument that we should put it to the side?

I'm not saying this particular situation is necessarily like this, but it COULD be.

Israel uses Civilians as shields too. That you have no idea what the definition of a Human Shield is ... I mean why talk about something you don't even know what the definition is?

"Individuals who intentionally leverage their civilian status to impede the enemy’s operations are directly participating in hostilities and, therefore, lose these protections from attack for such time as they so participate. This is the position of the United States, Israel, and many prominent scholars (DoD Law of War Manual, § 5.12.3.4 ; here, p. 118-19; Dinstein, p. 209). The distinction between involuntary and voluntary shields makes sense, for the latter act to deprive themselves of their LOAC protections, whereas the former are being victimized. To the extent that voluntary shields can de facto (cause the attacker to hesitate) or de jure (render the attack disproportionate if they do not lose civilian protections) make an attack impossible, it would seem clear that they are “participating” in the hostilities very directly. However, although attacks on direct participants technically are permissible under the law of armed conflict, Israel does not conduct them. Instead, the direct participation status of voluntary shields only affects the application of the proportionality and precautions in attack rules during Israeli operations (see here, p. 118).

There is an important caveat that bears directly on the situation in Gaza. Many Gazans have ignored the IDF warnings to move south. If they have done so because they are hoping to complicate IDF operations, they qualify as voluntary human shields; the IDF need not consider them when conducting its operations. But everyone else retains full civilian protection regardless of motivation for staying. Some may be unable to move because of infirmity, some may not wish to move (as is often the case with the elderly), and some may sympathize with Hamas. In all these cases, they should, in my opinion, be treated as involuntary human shields by the IDF (accord, ILA Study Group Report, p. 360).

Now I don't know if you know this, but when you illegally occupy parts of "Greater Israel" (Greater Israel is any land not recognized by international law to currently be under Israel's control) and purposefully develop the area, and funnel hundreds of thousands of WILLING civilian occupants to that area then you are using VOLUNTARY Human shields to defend the legitimate military target of Palestinian Land from being reclaimed. And just like "there is an important caveat that bears directly on the situation in Gaza. Many Gazans have ignored the IDF warnings to move south. If they have done so because they are hoping to complicate IDF operations, they qualify as voluntary human shields" and that IDF need not consider the Voluntary Gazan Human Shields, Hamas too need not consider the Voluntary Israeli Human Shields now shielding a legitimate military target.

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/what-is-and-is-not-human-shielding/

Well that would the the utilitarian perspective. My problem with that is that "improving our lives" is subjective and utilitarianism doesn't itself provide any framework to reconcile the different positions people might have on "the greater good". Hence I prefer the deontological approach.

I would still say that the purpose of moral philosophy is to make the world better, just not in the sense of trying to optimise any particular metric.

This is a gross misinterpretation of IHL.

It is unsurprising one might find terms like 'voluntary human shield' in a DoD manual, but please refrain from using such terms in a serious discussion about IHL.

To make a long story short, Israel has no right to order Gazans to move, and forcing Gazans to move would in many cases constitute war crimes under the articles pertaining to forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. Resisting foreign occupation, and resisting war crimes, does not make a civilian population a legitimate military target or 'voluntary human shields'.

I feel a sudden urge to wash after having to explain this on a philosophy forum.

Please refrain from being an emotional idiot. I specifically use one of Westpoint's leading scholars, Michael N. Schmitt, who is discussing the Policy of the United States and Israel. So guess what genius, that means this "GROSS MISINTERPRETATION OF IHL" (which I fucking agree with you by the way, I'm reporting what these ass clowns are doing UTILIZING THE TYRANNY OF CONTEXT, Hence why it's a source in my post ISRAEL USES HUMAN SHIELDS TOO) is used to Justify the killing of Palestinians but also to Demonize Hamas.

All I am doing here is pointing out that BOTH sides are equally immoral and that no side has the moral high ground. And that through the Policy of the US and Israel both, Hamas can easily be cleared of accusations thrown at them due to this inconsistency and hypocrisy.

And if some cheesedick like me can figure it out on the internet, I bet you dedicated scholars can too.

Please refrain from being an emotional idiot. — Vaskane

An ironic statement, considering the content of your post. :chin:

It wasn't clear to me you were disagreeing with Schmitt. You could have just said so and taken my post as an argument in support of your position.

But to each their own.

True, and perhaps I should work on that being less directly aggressive. I don't actually think you're an idiot. It was me being merely average (etymology of mean). So I apologize for saying such a thing.