by reliabilityguy | 2025-07-24 00:18:52+00:00
> Intent is impossible to prove, it's unfalsifiable. I can't prove they intend it, you can't prove they don't intend it. It's a worthless data point.

It is absolutely possible to prove intent. This is how prosecutors prove that that homicide was a first degree murder as opposed to reckless manslaughter.

If we are talking about governments and states, you can absolutely prove intent based on the enacted policies. For example, treatment of Uighurs in China is borderline genocide. You have intentional state policy where a specific minority cannot use their language, live according to their traditions and culture, placed into labor/re-education camps, and, as a result, have declining birth rates, which will eventually lead to no Uighurs in China at all. Another example is Red Khmers with their policy of Year Zero. So, you can absolutely prove intent beyond any reasonable doubt.

> All the fatalities are Palestinians. Gaza is a Palestinian region.

Israelis are dying too. When Palestinians launched rockets, some Israelis died. As happens when two sides engage in war. Has nothing to do with genocide.

> Numerous Israeli politicians, military leaders, influencers, and citizens are all echoing exterminationist rhetoric.

Same as Palestinians. If we base our argument on “rhetoric”, then everyone is committed genocide basically everywhere in the world.

> Numerous Jewish activists worldwide condemn Israel's actions as a genocide.

Numerous jewish activists say otherwise. How does identity of an activist determine if something is a genocide or not? There are numerous Palestinians who support Israel’s war in Gaza. So?

Identity politics is very bad argument. I can also mention some Palestinians that are claiming similar things about Palestinian policy. Would you accept their testimonies because they are Palestinians, or you will discard it because it is not aligned with what you believe?

> Is there a document signed by Netanyahu stating in black and white that they seek a genocidal defeat of the Palestinians that's been made public? No. We don't need to wait for it to be.

Ah, so, basically, without any evidence you simply decided it is genocide, and that’s it?

> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays duck eggs, and swims like a duck, you don't need to kill it and examine it's internal organs to verify it was a duck. It's a fuckin duck.

Yeah. I am sure this kind of argument holds, and is not a double-edged sword at all.

> Yeah sure, maybe the Israeli government is run by a race of alien worms who are dying and their sole means of survival is kept in a facility under the Gaza strip. Anything's possible. However the simplest explanation is, in my experience, the closest to the truth.

This is not the simplest explanation. Your explanation is based on a single interpretation of some observed evidence, completely disregarding similar conflicts, military practices, etc. Again, very similar to how religious people believe in their things — they are not interested to hear alternative explanations. Why should they — the book says it all.

> Back in the 80s, figures like Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Yehuda Elkana, one of whom is literally Israeli, have warned about the rise of Zionism and it's comparability to the exerminationist ideology of Nazi Germany.

Identity politics again.

> A rapist, while raping someone, can point to someone else raping someone and be factually correct in their accusation.

Ah :) So, you can rape, but others can’t? ;)

I would say that rapist’s testimony is not trustworthy due to them being rapists. There is a reason why in the court of law the witnesses are better be of good moral character — otherwise, why would anyone believe them?

> You can tease out this ad hominem as much as you like.

It is not an ad hominem. This issue for you is a matter of beliefs and not reason. There is nothing “ad hominem” about acknowledging this fact.