Contemporary politics is turning every proposition into the most polarized argument conceivable. Which is exactly what this comment is doing. And it is in fact against the HN rules of conduct.
Except this isn’t a political issue, it’s humanitarian and basic empathy. Never said anyone should be removed from earth, that’s quite the projection, but go on.
Basic empathy, except for those folks you disagree with. Maybe they just lack an perspective? Maybe you just need to point out one or two things and they understand?
A few days ago you posted comments where you questioned whether it was appropriate to apply lessons from the Holocaust when interpreting contemporary state policies, and that some Wikipedia "spree" convinced you that it wasn't appropriate.
This likely means that you consider current starvation campaigns with exterminationist aims more defensible than 'der Hungerplan' and Vernichtungskrieg of the Holocaust. To me this makes you "one of the baddies". The attempt to exterminate the palestinians or the attacks on sudanese refugees and civilian infrastructure or the bombing campaigns against civilian targets in Yemen are, in principle, at least as indefensible as the starvation tactics of the german eastern advance during WWII.
Those responsible should ideally be brought to the ICC or related tribunals and tried for their crimes. You disagree, judging from your comments in that thread.
"There are numerous conflicts worldwide where one side is trying to systematically destroy the other population, civilians and all. Whether they are exactly the same or how you define that is pretty secondary to that fact."
To which you responded:
"Whatever. Since my last Wikipedia spree on that topic i feel such comparisons are highly inappropriate."
This was in reply to this specific context:
"It's interesting we always talked about the Holocaust and the Nuremberg trials when talking about accountability, as if similar atrocities aren't currently happening."
Now, what would it take for you to change your mind and to start agreeing that contemporary crimes of deliberate starvation and exterminationist policies should be tried in an international court or tribunal?
To you, what is it that makes the Holocaust so very special? To a large extent it was perpetrated in the same manner as the genocide against the circassians, and to an extent in the same manner as the genocide against the herero and nama peoples. In your mind, was the Holocaust just the killing by poison and that's why you don't see any contemporary cases of similarity?
> Now, what would it take for you to change your mind and to start agreeing that contemporary crimes of deliberate starvation and exterminationist policies should be tried in an international court or tribunal?
Nothing, because that's already my opinion.
> What is it that makes the Holocaust so very special?
The name.
So this has been a trivial misunderstanding on terminology, and you kinda went full flak on me. Someone else got their point proven.
To a lurker scanning this thread, this comes off as “I’m more interested in semantics and winning an argument than condemning abusive and antisocial behavior.”
That's akin to a straw man, as shown by the quotes above. You clearly claimed that contemporary genocidal processes are "highly inappropriate" to compare to the Holocaust. This in response to someone using the Nuremberg trials as a frame of reference for suggesting that contemporary exterminationist criminals should be held accountable.
But it's great that you've changed your mind since then.
Maybe that unhappiness leads to you managing to better keep "garbage interpretations" at bay the next time you engage with a topic that touches on atrocities.
They said that implicitly by choosing to debate a trivial sentence designed to impart the reader with the sense of importance that this principle holds for the OP. This kind of tone policing is a tactic designed to pull you away from the original argument.
Or maybe they just don't think wishing ill upon someone for having a different world view than you or I is an reasonable thought?
I think school meals should be free, I do not wish harm to anyone who disagrees on that. People disagree all the time, I don't start calling them subhuman
When the other side is advocating for children to starve, then yeah, fuck them. There is no point in being charitable to people incapable of the most basic decency.
The OP wouldn't have starved. There appears to have been food in the house the OP could have taken, but the OP didn't because he wanted his father to, in his words, "buy lunch food." You'll note that he says his family could afford food, but that he dad wouldn't pay for school lunch specifically because he thought the government should pay for it.
The previous poster didn't want to bring the food that was in his home because it wasn't "lunch food," so he justifies how he stole from his father, his classmates, and local businesses. And now he's going to judge other people's humanity by whether or not they agree with his stance that he was entitled to the kind of lunch he wanted, and call people subhuman if they disagree.
I'm someone who's in favor of the government providing free lunches, but this discussion shows why caution is needed. To many people will ignore the actually events that happened and start manufacturing catastrophes, then say that because of their fabricated scenario anyone who isn't in favor of what they want is a horrible human being, or that they were justified for harming others.
Why would he resort to scrounging around for food, looking through lost and found, and eventually stealing from the grocery store if there was food available at home for him. Because there was all this amazing food at home that wasn't "lunch food" is your conclusion? Every conclusion that follows is only logical if you go with a completely nonsensical assumption. If OPs Dad was willing to let his kid starve daily I wonder what his punishment would have been for eating his Dad's food.
> Every conclusion that follows is only logical if you go with a completely nonsensical assumption.
He specifically said that his father had enough money, and the issue was specifically paying for school lunches. Unless they literally woke up in the morning and went out for every breakfast before school every single day, and came home and ate a restaurant every single night, and went out to dinner three times a day on the weekends for every meal, and his dad literally didn't even keep a scrap of food in the house for himself and the fridge was completely empty, then there was food in the house.
It should be obvious which of those assumptions is "completely nonsensical."
> If OPs Dad was willing to let his kid starve daily I wonder what his punishment would have been for eating his Dad's food.
He specifically says he stole his dad's cigarettes many times and resold them.
Are you trying to claim that he would have gotten in more trouble for eating food from the fridge than for stealing his dad's cigarettes and reselling them? You're correct that there are many nonsensical assumptions here, but you seem to have missed which ones those are.
Yeah, some people need to be fought, they can't be reasoned with. One clear sign that they aren't open to reason is that they want other children to suffer while they and their children don't.
We don't necessarily have to kill them, we could fight them by other means, like general strike or by destroying their property. Disowning them of their privileges or social status typically causes them to change their positions on policy.
