Give your home to a Native American, and make a video for us all to see. If you wont then I see how you really feel about Israel too. — Vaskane

I'd be for a Native American state that is completely independent and not just reservations. If you remember, the Middle East was largely just districts within the Ottoman Empire, not their own nations. Nationalism, was instilled by Westerners. But if we were to inject the same 19th century notion of "nation for a state", just like Liberia was created for ex-slaves by the US prior to the Civil War, if there was a "Nation of First Nations of the American Continent", taken from public lands (there's plenty of that in the US and much more fertile than anything Israel was given in the Negev), then sure why not.

Differences of course are that the Middle East, being occupied by the Arabs since the Arab Conquest in the 600-700s, could be representative of the Americans.. Just like Israel was willing to accept at one point, even the tiny Peele Commission enclave, being that they are not going back to perfectly aligned ancient lands (like "Judea and Samaria" which is technically in the West Bank), and knowing that it is reconstituted, for modern notions of nationalism, sure, why not? Not sure if that would be something the Native American tribal nations would want per se.

I think you answered your own question. Britain didn't want it to be their issue.

Their need to play god started with preventing Germany from obtaining that Berlin to Baghdad Rail Road. — Vaskane

No doubt, imperial ambition was part-and-parcel of the British (and French) Empire's way of dominating the world (prior to WW2 basically). You control a region through soft power (sphere's of influence in China for example.. and all European nations including Germany had their sphere), or directly ruling a region (Africa, Middle East, and parts of Asia). You control ports of entry (Persian Gulf, Suez Canal, Red Sea, etc.), trade routes, and resources, and you gain the glory and riches from this in an interconnected globalized economic system.

Obviously you're inability at analysis comes from the rigidness of your mind in the word play of "legitimate military target," which is just a distraction from the actual laws. Your "focus" is more like tunnel vision. — Vaskane

You're like bound to definitions, which is cool, but causing you to think very rigidly. — Vaskane

Well if you wanna put it in these terms, then I’ll repeat my point once again: “NOWHERE Michael Schmidt made the claim that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine. He is always talking about the usage of human shields by Israeli’s enemies, namely Hamas, see examples [1]. So this article offers no evidence to support the truth of your conditional: “Since Israel disregards 51-7 and feels the land is protected by the people they funnel into it. Then Israel uses people as human shields”.
The same holds true for the quotes you reported, because NOTHING in those quotes is even remotely in conflict with what I said, repeatedly, in my earlier posts. Those quotes insist on the definition of “human shields” which, to my understanding, apply VERY WELL to the case of HAMAS, but not so well to the case of Israel, and most certainly do not apply in the case of the October massacre.
Since it’s your interpretation against mine over a legal point, and since I assume we are no legal experts, I told you: “feel free to cite others ‘West Point leading scholars’ arguing that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine or in the massacre of October. Now you made me curious”. So if you can’t, don’t waste your time lecturing me about your understanding of the international law. Get it now, dude?

If I take land from you and put civilians in it to protect the area so if you come in and kill them I can call you a terrorist in the news media so people take my side and call you a terrorist, even though I stole your land and moved my own people onto it, onto disputed land in order to make it harder for you to reclaim. Guess what you're doing? Using humans to make enemy objectives harder to achieve. It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory. Russia's doing the same thing with Crimea. If you want to capture land in todays warfare -- take it, then move your people onto it. — Vaskane

Again your point is referring to illegally occupied territories. And I wrote: “One might want to argue that Israel may use illegal settlers (ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW) as “human shields”. I doubt that even in this case the accusation would hold unless it is proven that the principle of distinction (https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/distinction) has been intentionally violated by Israel as Hamas has been accused to do (https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/amnesty-international-breach-principle-distinction). In any case, the point is that the civilian targets in the attack of Hamas weren’t illegal settlers under international law.”
And yes “It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory” (legal point) and moving people in disputed land by Israel (BTW Israel doesn’t need to move anything, Israeli settlers move and Israel legalises them) is considered illegal (legal point) and Israel would do this in order to make it harder for Palestinians to reclaim land, as much as Russia is doing in Crimea (warfare point). So fucking what? Would the notion of “human shield” as understood in international law apply? To me, no unless the principle of distinction has been violated on the Israeli/Russian part.
As I told you and now repeat: “There is no need to muddle semantics of international law (as far as I've understood it, of course) to make your point”. I was making a legal point not a warfare point. And your warfare point is really nothing I wasn’t already aware of or that deserves three posts to clarify or to brag about. But if you feel the overwhelming urge to embarrass yourself for another round, pls bore me some more as if I didn’t have enough already.

That's right.

How more right wing could they become?

I mean, Israel only has the strong backing if the US, and to a lesser but still substantial degree, Germany.

If not for them, Israel would be alone. You cannot do what they are doing and expect the world to say nothing about it. I mean the barbarity of this is unprecedented. Or at least, not seen in many years.

Why exactly did Britain give Palestinian land away is the real question. — Vaskane

Britain did not give anything away, they just ended their mandate and fucked out of there. Britain, having at that point still various muslim subjects, did not want to be associated with the jewish state so blatantly.

Israel had to belong where its roots were and this is the problem, there was no other solution for Israel either. — Vaskane

There were other solutions. Zionism was not always the majority opinion in jewish communities, there was a lively debate. But then the debate, along with the people participating in it, died. And in the aftermath of that, Zionism suddenly seemed the only logical conclusion.

Interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_F321Gx5k5E

Britain did not give anything away, they just ended their mandate and fucked out of there. Britain, having at that point still various muslim subjects, did not want to be associated with the jewish state so blatantly. — Echarmion

The Balfour declaration was the British solution to the "Jewish problem", which Jews they wanted to fuck off our of the UK. It was heavily debates against by Jewish parliamentarians for the obvious racist crap it was at the time. So the British gave them permission to establish a national home for Jews in Palestine when that mandate wasn't even in place - that happened three years later and was ended in 1947.

The Balfour declaration probably tried to balance a lot of interests at once, in typical British imperial fashion. It played the Zionist card to gain influence with Jewish factions and position Britain as the caretaker of the region. It also pointedly did not include any actual provisions about creating a jewish state and Britain thereafter studiously avoided making any such moves so as to not antagonise the Muslims. It may also have been seen as a convenient way to get rid of Jews in Britain.

The ongoing power struggle between France and Britain in the region makes it difficult to establish intentions accurately, since both tried to play all kinds of local interest off against each other. "A line in the Sand" by James Barr gives an interesting account of the conflict, though since I'm not a historian I cannot vouch for it's accuracy.

It may also have been seen as a convenient way to get rid of Jews in Britain. — Echarmion

There's no "may" about it.

It also pointedly did not include any actual provisions about creating a jewish state and Britain thereafter studiously avoided making any such moves so as to not antagonise the Muslims — Echarmion

This too is false. The zionist movement was clear wel as the phrase "national home". National already meant what it does today as belonging to a nation-state.

What's your point about pretending this is all less clear than it really was?

The point is that the narrative "Britain gave Palestine to the Jews with the Balfour declaration and thus Israel was created" is simplistic and doesn't reflect the actual history of the region.

You're simply assuming that Lord Balfour's personal opinions about Jews - as reported - were British official policy. But there's no actual evidence for this that I can see. If you're certain this was the case I'd like to hear your argument.

It also seems odd to claim that "national home" had a clear meaning when it doesn't refer to any established concept, then or now. It's precisely the kind of phrase you would use if you wanted people to read into it what they like to hear, without actually being committed to anything.

And the facts are that Britain did not actually ever create a Jewish state, nor did it allow unchecked jewish immigration and ultimately refused to even implement the UN plan for the mandate.

As Montagu in the British cabinet (I eronneously said parliament before) and other like-minded Jews argued at the time:

...I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test. — Montagu

On the prevalent anti-semitism in Britain:

and I am not in the least surprised that the non-Jews of England may welcome this policy. I have always recognised the unpopularity, much greater than some people think, of my community. We have obtained a far greater share of this country's goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach on the whole maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us. — Montagu

On the meaning of "national home":

I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race. The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related through the ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they certainly do not belong to the same nation. — Montagu

It's clear that everyone understood what was meant by "national home". Just because it wasn't previously used in international legal documents, does not mean that it had no then-current, common sense meaning.

Here's the full memo: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/montagu-memo-on-british-government-s-anti-semitism

And the facts are that Britain did not actually ever create a Jewish state, nor did it allow unchecked jewish immigration and ultimately refused to even implement the UN plan for the mandate. — Echarmion

Because it was not Britain's place to create it and in any case as an empire did not wish to relinquish what it thought it was its right to Palestine. That didn't happen until decolonalisation started in 1947.

It's clear that everyone understood what was meant by "national home". — Benkei

So the opinions of a single prominent person are indicative of "everyone"? I think not. I mean your quote literally starts with the words "I assume"...

Edit: and actually the sentence immediately preceding your quote is "I don't know what this involves".

Just because it wasn't previously used in international legal documents, does not mean that it had no then-current, common sense meaning. — Benkei

You can't turn absence of evidence into an argument for your preferred interpretation.

Because it was not Britain's place to create it — Benkei

Why not? If, as you claim "everyone understood" that "national home" meant nation state and the Balfour declaration became part of the official British mandate, then it would follow that Britain was thereby obligated to create a jewish nation state.

as an empire did not wish to relinquish what it thought it was its right to Palestine. — Benkei

And yet you're claiming that Britain nevertheless promised to do exactly that.

Why would Schmitt put a target on himself like that?
I don't need his opinion to interpret the law. Schmitt's paper is to show Israel's targeting practice, silly, and the tyranny of context in which it's applied. Two of the Corpus of Laws relevant specifically state "MOVING CIVILIANS INTO AREAS TO IMPEDE MILITARY OPERATIONS," as war-crimes relevant to human shielding — Vaskane

.

This line you quote does not refer to the condition of being ILLEGAL settler (which BTW is not the case of the massacre of October the 7th), but to military objectives to be distinguished by non-combatant civilians according to the principle of distinction. See the examples and the explanation:

Definition of human shields
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97

It’s NOT the land the military target of Hamas strikes and which Israel hides behind civilians, it’s the civilians. They have to be massacred. The legal point you are making it is something different: namely that legitimizing settlements prohibited by international law and therefore exposing its own citizens to retaliations for which Israel can not advocate the right of self-defence is legally imputable against Israel. And I think this accusation has been already leveled against Israel.

Trying to base your judgement off of if Schmitt said so or not is fallacious to the point of fact of you appeal to authority -- ignoring the wording of the law . Which is exactly what I said I was using to interpret the law, remember? Try not to lose "focus" as you would say . — Vaskane

First, the accusation of fallacious appeal to authority doesn’t make any sense, since the authoritative interpretation of the law is not what you or Hamas claim it to be, but what results from the authority, namely domain-specific legal expertise and practice. You, not me, brought Schmitt up as “one of West Point leading scholars” and I also invited you to cite other relevant sources in support of your claims. BTW, you can find plenty of human rights organizations that are notoriously very critical of Israel illegal settlements or Israel killing Palestinian civilians or denying that Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields, see here:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/15/israel/palestine-unlawful-israeli-airstrikes-kill-civilians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas
But I couldn’t find any relevant source arguing that Israel is using its own citizens as human shields in general, or in the case of the October massacre, or in the illegal settlements, in the specific sense in which it is understood in international law. While they do not have problems to report Israel of using Palestinians as human shields: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/mde151432002en.pdf
Since I’m a layman, if you find one relevant source, you are welcome to let me know, of course.

Bro, and let me put it to you again, I was bitching at you about the law of proportionality, and how obtuse and effed up it is. I wasn't bitching at you about anything else you said. And my complaint was with the Law of Proportionality, not with what you said. But you took what I said as an attack against you, and you tried challenging how Israel uses Human Shielding. My B for not specifying that I wasn't attacking you. But I thought since I was bitching solely about how stupid and effed up ambiguous the laws are that surround the law of proportionality, and not about what you said in particular, I figured the subject in which the bitching was directed at was obviously that of the Law of Proportionality. So effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets. — Vaskane

Bro, I’m complaining about you complaining about the Law of Proportionality as being so ambiguous that “Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets”. International law as understood by the International Criminal Court is not based on Hamas’ interpretation of the Law of Proportionality or the legal notion of Human Shield, so iI doubt that it would make sense for Hamas to plan its strikes based on its own interpretation of International law. They may plan their strikes having in mind what Israel has been ALREADY accused of by ICC and human rights ONGs.
In short, my understanding is that the law of proportionality and the legal notion of human shield in international law are not as ambiguous as you claim it to be, reason (but maybe not the only one) why Israel may show reluctance in accepting international law investigations as it does. But also reason why there is nobody (like ICC and human rights ONGs) claiming that Israel is using its own citizens as human shields, as far as I can tell. And this accusation of Israel using its own citizens as human shields would sound more plausible in strikes against illegally occupied territories (according to international law), more than in the case of the massacre of the 7th October.
It would be more interesting to support your complaint if you could AT LEAST find Hamas/Palestinian sources claiming that Israel is using its own citizens as human shields. But, even in this case, I would take it as infowar (i.e. as instrumentally messing with the poor understanding of international law by laymen, not because the law is that ambiguous per se) as much as accusing Israel of violating the law of proportionality based on a comparison between Israeli and Palestinian casualties among civilians.

And yet you're claiming that Britain nevertheless promised to do exactly that. — Echarmion

The British empire has always consisted of several countries, kingdoms to be exact. See also the treaty of westphalia which speaks of "Princes and States of the Empire" from 1848, which describes how empires were understood.

So the opinions of a single prominent person are indicative of "everyone"? I think not. I mean your quote literally starts with the words "I assume"...

Edit: and actually the sentence immediately preceding your quote is "I don't know what this involves". — Echarmion

This just underlines you're illiterate when it comes to writings of that time. Marx wrote extensively about nationalism decades before these idiots drafted this document. It's right there in the "internationale". Bentham requested to a Committee for the Reform of Criminal Law, "I will be the gaoler. You will see ... that the gaoler will have no salary—will cost nothing to the nation." - who died in - checks notes - 1832. It's in Theodore D. Woolsey's Introduction to the Study of International Law from 1864.

But don't let history get in the way of actually interpreting a text in light of the times. What a "national home" meant was crystal clear nationalism, nations, etc. were established words used by everybody with an education at the time.

As to a "single prominent person" they got organised in the League of British Jews. Anti-zionist Jewish movements were common at the time.

It's not enough to just repeat what you read about the balfour declaration on wikipedia, which seems your source as every point you make is made there.

The British empire has always consisted of several countries, kingdoms to be exact. See also the treaty of westphalia which speaks of "Princes and States of the Empire" from 1848, which describes how empires were understood. — Benkei

I didn't expect someone to bring up the treaty of Westphalia as an argument... Anyways this is just undermining your own argument, as your explanation for why Britain didn't simply establish a Jewish state was "because they wanted to retain Palestine". Yet now you're arguing they could have done this with a Jewish state in Palestine. So which is it?

This just underlines you're illiterate when it comes to writings of that time. Marx wrote extensively about nationalism decades before these idiots drafted this document. It's right there in the "internationale". Bentham requested to a Committee for the Reform of Criminal Law, "I will be the gaoler. You will see ... that the gaoler will have no salary—will cost nothing to the nation." - who died in - checks notes - 1832. It's in Theodore D. Woolsey's Introduction to the Study of International Law from 1864.

But don't let history get in the way of actually interpreting a text in light of the times. What a "national home" meant was crystal clear nationalism, nations, etc. were established words used by everybody with an education at the time. — Benkei

Well, if I'm so illiterate it should be no problem for you to make a convincing argument against me. Obviously I don't claim people in 1917 didn't know what a nation or nationalism is. What I'm claiming is that the phrase "national home" was chosen intentionally to allude to the concept of a nation state without actually committing Britain to one.

Hence why your own source (the only actual part of "everybody" you have so far relied on for your argument) doesn't know what it means and has to assume.

It's not enough to just
A repeat what you read about the balfour declaration on wikipedia, which seems your source as every point you make is made there. — Benkei

If Wikipedia agrees with my assessments, that's an argument in my favour, unless you additionally want to establish that the Wikipedia page contains false claims.

Sure buddy. They waived their magic wand "national home" and all of a sudden nobody understood what they meant!

It kinda feels like a hard determinism all the way down the chain that this shit was bound to happen anyways. — Vaskane

And it wouldn't if we could all just have a Rodney King-like epiphany. HIm who said, "I just want to say – you know – can we, can we all get along? Can we, can we get along? Can we stop making it horrible for the older people and the kids?"

Apply that everywhere and the world becomes a paradise for all who live in it. Those who do not or will not the real criminals and enemies.

Hence no Heaven.

Just to be clear, Jews do believe in heaven/a good afterlife for the righteous. When Jesus says the righteous will be rewarded and the wicked punished after death/in the world to come he is in accordance with Jewish thought.

Everyone else is shit to Jews — Vaskane

You should either talk with a rabbi or read the Hebrew Bible in its entirety. Read Book of Ruth, especially. Consider that there are many examples of righteous gentiles in the Hebrew Bible as well as Jewish tradition.

I am literally 100% excluded from ever belonging to their ethnoreligion I can never be a Jew. — Vaskane

Not technically, but if you reject God and objective values then you will certainly not be allowed in. You wouldn't be a Christian or a Muslim with those beliefs either.

If you changed your beliefs you'd be eligible to convert Judaism does accept converts, but being Jewish is not a requirement for a good afterlife so Jews don't go around trying to convert everyone.

Hence why Jews created Christianity, for the non Jews.

Christianity is a minority offshoot of Judaism. A breakaway movement. Slave morality may have been "birthed" with the Israelites, but imo it reaches its peak in Jesus. If I'm not mistaken, Nietzsche would emphasis the Jewishness of Jesus to anti-Semites - i.e. how he magnifies certain concepts that were originally present in Judaism/Jewish thought. Evangelical Christians like John MacArthur will sometimes make this point as well.

Indian media sharing footage of the attack that took place on a Greek-owned cargo ship that took place today.

This might give people an idea of the type of ordnance the Houthi are using.

Obviously, these aren't Taliban-style IEDs strapped together with duct tape, but actual weapons of war that pose a serious threat to civilian and military shipping.

Military vessels are generally able to withstand multiple impacts of this kind. For frigate/destroyer-sized vessels, three impacts would be a conservative estimate. Civilian ships, depending on size and age, may perish to fire and flooding after even one.

OK, who do you prefer should have won WW2, the Allies or Axis? — RogueAI

I'm not able to prefer anything other than the current situation, as it is the one in which I exist. Therefore, I prefer the Allies won because it results in my existence.

From a God's-eye view, I would ahve the innate knowledge of which course would have been 'just'. So, there's no reason for these questions or reasonable way to answer them. Which i've insisted on.

What a weird line of thought about this.

I'm not able to prefer anything other than the current situation, as it is the one in which I exist. Therefore, I prefer the Allies won because it results in my existence. — AmadeusD

That's the only reason you prefer the Allies win? Because of reasons of your own existence? Stopping Nazi Germany doesn't factor into your preferring the Allies won? Let me then ask you: was is it a good thing that Nazi Germany was stopped? Was the world better off for that happening?

What a weird line of thought about this. — AmadeusD

Indeed. Most people would just say, "Yeah, the Allies should have won WW2. Thank God they did. What are you, nuts?" But here we are, having to deconstruct the question you refuse to answer because you think it's some "gotcha".

Let me then ask you: was is it a good thing that Nazi Germany was stopped? Was the world better off for that happening? — RogueAI

Just as stupid as the previous question. We are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else. It actually doesn't matter what I think about all you're trying to 'gotcha' me with - ironic, as below...

But here we are, having to deconstruct the question you refuse to answer because you think it's some "gotcha — RogueAI

No. I am unable to answer it. If you're not going to accept that, then just stop replying. You're not a psychic and your assumptions betray a lack of humility or even want of a decent exchange. You are exactly looking for a "Gotcha, you're a Nazi supporter".

That you think it wise to project that on to someone who is literally refusing certain propositions, and asking nothing of you, is bizarre.

We are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else. — AmadeusD

Of course you can. Pretend you're behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and you're looking at two possible worlds you might find yourself in: one is a world where the Axis won, and one is a world where the Allies won. Which world would you prefer to be in?

e are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else. — AmadeusD

You're unable to prefer any other situation than the one you exist in? Suppose your kids died horribly in a fire. You're telling me it would be impossible for you to prefer an alternate timeline where you died rescuing your kids from the fire? Or suppose you exist and you live in unremitting pain and lack the ability to kill yourself. You couldn't prefer a situation where you were never born?

Of course you can. Pretend you're behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and you're looking at two possible worlds you might find yourself in: one is a world where the Axis won, and one is a world where the Allies won. Which world would you prefer to be in? — RogueAI

Understood, and I'm happy to answer the TE after a disclaimer: We have an actual result here. Any other result (other the course of events leading to this exchange) is utterly preposterous to imagine, for any reason other than fancy, to my mind. The TE isn't an experiment - it's a counterfactual - one which seems to be purely set out for the purpose of trapping someone who is attempting not to take something preposterous seriously.

I would prefer the Allies won. But i am actually IN this world, so I may not have the intellectual capability of truly imagining another.

You're unable to prefer any other situation than the one you exist in? Suppose your kids died horribly in a fire. You're telling me it would be impossible for you to prefer an alternate timeline where you died rescuing your kids from the fire? Or suppose you exist and you live in unremitting pain and lack the ability to kill yourself. You couldn't prefer a situation where you were never born? — RogueAI

I bite the bullet. Yes. I am unable to prefer that world.
I also bite that bullet. I am unable to prefer that world.

However, I'm an anti-natalist so I think its best if people weren't born at base anyway. But once alive, that goes out hte window entirely. And i'm trying to restrict myself to the actual - not speculative nonsense about things that cannot possibly happen.

I would prefer the Allies won. — AmadeusD

So, behind the veil, you would prefer the Allies won even knowing they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in indiscriminate bombing raids?

So, behind the veil, you would prefer the Allies won even knowing they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in indiscriminate bombing raids? — RogueAI

I wont play 'gotcha' games. Particularly not with someone who accused me of the same.

I just said: I would prefer the Allies won - I didn't try to change the realities of WWII.

But this is a ridiculous thing to imagine and so i place no seriousness on that answer. If you want a "why" you wont get one. It's an intuition. Which is my point.

I wont play 'gotcha' games. — AmadeusD

It's not a gotcha game. It's exploring your preference for an Allied victory knowing they killed untold numbers of innocents. I suspect your reasoning is similar to mine: yes, the Allies did terrible things, but the alternative of an Axis victory would have been so much worse. A "lesser of two evils" thing. Am I right?

"Particularly not with someone who accused me of the same."

I never accused you of gotcha games. I said "Who should have won WW2?" is not a gotcha question. I'm right on this. It's not. It's easily answerable.

But this is a ridiculous thing to imagine and so i place no seriousness on that answer. If you want a "why" you wont get one. It's an intuition. Which is my point. — AmadeusD

Of course not. God forbid we explore this intuition you have. It's obviously a "gotcha". :roll:

I'll leave you with some words of wisdom: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”