It's saying that it uses terminology that is well-understood, specific and explicit within the field, but depends on a common understanding of the language used. So people outside the field are unable to understand it, even though they would be able to understand the actual concepts.
Yeah that's a fair point wrt non-militant roles, my assumption was that they were primarily used in the military since their purpose was to avoid the issues with mobile networks being used to track them.
But we don't know exactly how the devices were distributed, so you're right that there were potentially a large number of non-military Hezbollah staff.
I mean, yeah. The tragic answer is that civilian casualties are inevitable in war, unfortunately.
According to a UN meeting from 2022, 90% of war casualties globally are civilians. That's not to say that's an acceptable ratio, in fact it's horrifying, but it does show that a ratio of "a handful" to "a bunch" is quite a lot better than the average.
And, frankly, this is one of the least morally concerning things Israel has (presumably) done. The pagers were targeted specifically because they were used almost exclusively by Hezbollah.
I think in general it's supposed to be about decentralisation, but god knows scammers will hop straight onto anything with "point-oh" in the name
We do for the ayatollahs though, because they are the ones who actually make the decisions, same goes for Russian presidents and CCP general secretaries
I have a bit more sympathy for the president, since his decisions can all be vetoed by the ayatollah, and he broadly seems to be trying to move Iran in the right direction
I'm on it lads, booking my flight to Tehran now
Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different
Left your reading comprehension at home?
The argument I was supporting is that you don't have carte blanche to do whatever you want to intolerant people. The argument I am making is that you have a moral obligation to rely on the law first because that IS the social contract. Not because the law would punish you for it.
Not all police are the same everywhere, but regardless, you can't just stab people who are being racist.
Just "because nationalism"
Doesn't mean it's not profitable, though!
There's an important difference between actively pursuing an endorsement and being endorsed. They didn't go to Reagan staffers and beg for their endorsement. You can't make people not endorse you, even if you reeeeeally don't like them.
It's a .ml account crossposting from hexbear and grad 😬
.world is just where this community is
But there's an important difference between allowing intolerance, and letting the legal system be the arbiter of how it should be disallowed.
Vigilante justice not only deprives the perpetrator of their right to a fair trial and proportionate punishment (yes, being intolerant does not deprive you of your human rights) but also denies the victims their right to see the perpetrator receive justice.
YOU do not get to be the arbiter of justice, just because you think someone is a terrible person. Maybe they're mentally ill. Maybe they have dementia. Maybe they're also a victim of abuse.
Document the incident, protect and comfort the victim, contact the police and allow actual justice to take place.
Because in your scenario they are not a threat of imminent violence, and by being a vigilante you prevent society from enforcing consequences in the way the social contract defines - through the justice system.
Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different.
Ah yes, those well known non-radical fascists
You 🤝 Trump
Things I don't like are fascism