What’s your point? Even if you were right that both sides were evil, should it somehow make me sad they are killing each other?

👍

No I meant moral here.

Ok. But, I care about internet strangers morals about as much as I care what their favourite icecream is. It has no relevance to anything.

Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.

I don’t think ethics have anything to do with law. Ethics is an attempt to create something like objective morals by evaluating how much objective good or harm an action causes. Of course, it is far from universal since it depends how you evaluate seriousness of a harm and good. E.g. is it better to kill one person and save 3. But you would have a hard time creating an ethics system where wearing a Hijab was unethical, since it pretty much does not affect anyone else.

That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.

Exactly.

Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.

I think you mean ethical? On moral grounds, you can take issue with anything, including a woman not wearing a Hijab or speaking in public. Since morals are subjective. It is just unethical to impose such morals on others.

And yes, laws are generally often misaligned with what is ethical, though I am not convinced they are in this particular case.

it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.

I guess, technically yes? Although that is true for pretty much any war, even arguably just ones. Regardless, that is not relevant to the topic as you pointed out.

The Geneva convention is something I appreciate, war crimes is not something I appreciate.

There is nothing in the Geneva convention that says a combatant has to have ammo or a gun to be a combatant.

This is a fallacy: Iran is at war, but that does not mean all Iranians are active combatants.

There is no fallacy, because I am not arguing about them being combatants in my last comment. I am debunking a straight up lie that they are not at war. But sure, not everyone is a combatant. Military personel on a warship are.

I’m not sure bombing the country is a good way to help those people.

Who is saying it is? There is a world of middle ground between something being a good idea and a war crime. I am just saying the people being bombed are hardly innocent bystanders.

who were not at war

And you accuse me of semantics? Is Russia also not at war in your mind, because they did not make some war declaration ritual?

Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.

WTF is this argument? Oh no, they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed. I guess any sniper who kills a general or an assassin trying to kill Hitler should go straight to hell, because their target was not holding a gun at that particular moment.

I find it mind boggling that the part that troubles you is the death of soldiers supporting brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region. However many issues I have with the US military, the US as a whole, and it’s pedophile president, this really isn’t one of them.

Putting aside your other bullshit, you answered the question yourself then. They did not capture it because it did not surrender.

First principles: Even assuming they somehow magically knew there really were no smallarms on the ship, why take the risk of getting stabbed or beaten with a pipe or trapping you and starting a fire or whatever. It would be another thing if the ship surrendered, but no reason to put yourself and your fellow soldiers at risk to go easy on your enemy.

Deeper reason: With long range missiles and drones being the primary threat to a ship, the biggest limitations are actually locating the enemy ship, tracking it and guiding the missile/drones towards it. Even a ship with no ammo can do that by relaying your position to another ship or shore based missiles/drones. So pulling your ship right next to an enemy one and having to stay there while your marines go board it is not a safe thing to do.

that idea failed

Yes. That’s the depressing part.

Saying the internet, the one technology that has the potential to spread education, spread information, transform human discourse, the way we approach politics, and generally push human civilization forward, was driven to state where it should not be taken seriously is not as reassuring as you may believe it to be.

Isn’t that even more reason to make a deal? You don’t get bombed and you don’t have to follow through on it.

If you ever find yourself uttering this sentence you really wanna rethink your stance

I am making fun of your hill ;D Seems it is super effective :D

He supported it. And there probably isn’t just one originator for most stances. Multiple people can form the same ideas.

Laws that recognize life of one group of people as more valuable than other are the exact same logic that was used to defend slavery. Murder is murder. Recognizing one groups life as more valuable then others is wrong, no matter how much you want to dress that pig to look progressive.

I am with Hitler on treating animals better. So what? If you care where a stance comes from rather than what it stands for, you are an ignoramus.

Ok, so I misunderstood and you actually agree we should have an open (mixed gender) division? Just adding we also need to work on preventing harassment and discrimination?

Otherwise, you are adding the logic stating that because harassment exists, we shouldn’t have mixed gender tournaments. Which implies we also need separate transgender tournaments, since they are also at risk for harassment in the existing ones.

So instead of addressing the misogyny, let’s sweep it under the rug by not allowing women to compete in the top tournaments? By your logic, shouldn’t we just make a third transgender category to solve the transphobia?

Who said it would be entirely men? Chess had this format forever and any woman that had the ability to compete in the top level open tournaments was competing in them.

Doesn’t it? I am pretty sure they have authority over everyone. US and other non signatories just do not have to hand them over. But if they ever visit a signatory state, they should be arrested.

What do you mean it’s false? Evidence that does not hold up in court of law is still evidence. There is nothing false about that sentence.

If I take a photo of my car for insurance after a car crash, it is evidence. Even if it is not perfectly provable that it is my car or that it is from that day and not previous accident, it is still evidence. Evidence does not have to be perfect or prove the case on it’s own to be considered evidence.