this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
484 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

58133 readers
4926 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

You can, of course, think differently.

And I do. It's been one argument the entire time, and I don't see how it's worth reframing the parallel when you seem not to (or have chosen not to) understand it the first two times.

Good day.

Edite: I see I typed Hamas when I meant to type Hezbollah in one place. Will correct now. I admit that was potentially confusing.

[–] CerealKiller01@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You: So the pagers were ordered by Hezbollah...

Me: "The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas."

You: "I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances."

Me: asking for clarification.

You: "you seem not to (or have chosen not to) understand [the parallel?] the first two times [...] Edite: I see I typed Hamas when I meant to type Hezbollah in one place"

It seems you've mistyped, then misunderstood me when I fixed it (though I attributed it to a lack of knowledge) and now you're insinuating I might be misunderstanding you willfully? If that's the case, you're making it so easy for me other people might think we're in cahoots[1].

Anyway, Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't understand the argument. And I'm pretty sure I did understand at least one of your points. I've explained why the pagers aren't like landmines and why the rational behind the treaty to ban landmines seems to agree with me. If that's the only argument you made ("It’s been one argument the entire time"), you can simply reply to what I said instead of reframing anything.


[1] Speaking of other people, are people downvoting me as a dislike button, or is there a specific reason? I don't mind the downvotes, just wondering if they're because people don't agree with me or because they think there's something wrong/harmful with my messages.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

“you seem not to (or have chosen not to) understand [the parallel?] the first two times

When I typed that I hadn't spotted my own typo yet. Sorry.

If that’s the case, you’re making it so easy for me other people might think we’re in cahoots

I don't care in the least if anyone thinks I'm in cahoots with anyone; it won't change that I'm in cahoots with no one.

You can, of course, think differently.

Typo notwithstanding, it remains true that I do think differently, and if your argument boils down to what has actually been banned vs an understanding of how absolutely heartless and tragic it is to deploy a bunch of explosive pagers that will randomly move around a populated area because you want to kill a limited set of bad guys in that area, there is nothing left for us to discuss.