The numbers were reported by Hamas. The UN merely used those numbers.

Tell me why we should put blind faith into anything published by Hamas?

I can’t see a business reason why Apple would degrade image sending purposefully- it would drive its own users to get third party apps.

Depends on what the majority of people are using.

In markets where iPhone users are not in the majority, that’s exactly what’s happening: iPhone users are switching to third party apps.

If iPhones users are in the majority, though, then people will just default to iMessage, and non-Apple phones get associated with poor messaging quality. Which creates social pressure for non-iPhone users to buy an iPhone.

So it makes perfect business sense for Apple to degrade the messaging quality when a non-Apple phone joins the conversation.

Must eradicate it.

For the safety and security of our users!

Because the IDF reported those numbers, and if the IDF reports those numbers, that means you were right?

Is it intentionally hostile on Apple’s part to bar androids from joining? Yes. But the reactions from Apple users aren’t entirely unjustified

The reaction from Apple users is to blame Android users - which is entirely unjustified.

But of course, post purchase rationalization and brand loyalty play a big part in why people want to externalize blame rather than questioning their own decision or blaming their favorite company for providing a shitty cross-platform messaging experience.

You mean we should believe the numbers when the IDF is reporting them?

These must be those death panels Republicans warned us of when the Affordable Care Act passed…

It really depends on what a Trump reign will look like, right?

Will he be able to round up tens of millions of people and deport them, as he has promised? Will he institute another Muslim ban, as he has promised? Will he stay in office after his next four year term, as he has said he wants to? Will he use the office of the president to persecute political opponents, as he has promised? Will he “root out” all the “vermin” in the United States, as he had promised? And if yes: who will get declared to be “vermin?” How will they be “rooted out?” Will he make torture legal, as he promised? Will he bring back family separation and child detention camps? Will he threaten nuclear war again? And if yes, will some crazy regime take him up on the offer?

And if all of that or even just a fraction of that comes to pass, will you still sleep well, knowing that you might have been able to stop all of that but voting for the lesser of two evils was just beneath you?

Because ultimately, that’s the decision you’re making.

It’s a show about nothing!!

It’s probably just a definition thing.

To me, constructive criticism means that the criticism doesn’t just point out failure, but that it then also shows how to correct that failure.

By itself, “you’re doing it wrong” is just destructive: it takes something apart, it destroys it. Without a subsequent “and here’s how you would do it right,” it doesn’t become constructive, it doesn’t help in putting things back together in the correct way.

Sure, as a first step, “you’re doing it wrong” is completely justified when something is actually wrong.

But without the second step - the constructive part - it just doesn’t constitute constructive criticism. By itself, it’s just criticism.

Is saying “you’re doing it wrong” really constructive?

“Atomstrom wird so billig sein, dass es sich nicht lohnen wird, Stromzähler einzubauen.”

Atomstrom ist halt überall auf der Welt subventioniert. Ob jetzt in den Sicherheitsgarantien, die der Staat trägt, oder in der Kostenübernahme für Rückbau und Endlagerung, oder in direkten Subventionen wie in Frankreich.

Das Irre an der Sache ist, wie viele Leute auf den Strompreis in Frankreich gezeigt haben mit der Behauptung, so günstig wäre doch Atomstrom, ohne auch nur eine Ahnung davon zum haben, wie sehr das in Frankreich subventioniert wurde.

Just because no one said that about America doesn’t mean this one isn’t genocide. Just because one nation got away with it in the past does not make this any less genocide than it is.

That’s right.

However, if incredibly different standards are being used depending on the nation in question, that certainly raises suspicions that people are not actually criticizing the act (a military intervention to combat a terrorist organization), but rather the nation itself.

If two countries can have the exact same experience (a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of its citizens), react to that in the exact same way (a military intervention determined to root out there terrorist organization at any cost, willingly accepting that thousands of civilians are being killed as “collateral damage”), but one gets accused of committing genocide while the other one gets celebrated (remember “Mission Accomplished” or the spontaneous celebrations when bin Laden was killed?), doesn’t that warrant the question why identical actions get treated so differently?

It took decades to build a strong case against genocide in Israel. It’s not a word people toss around lightly.

America occupied Iraq and Afghanistan for decades. Why wasn’t the same “strong case” never built against America? Why are people accusing Israel of genocide for killing thousands, but nobody has ever bothered accusing America of genocide for causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands?

You say that America is to powerful, that nobody could stand in it’s way - but that shouldn’t have stopped human rights organizations from saying that America is committing genocide, that shouldn’t have stopped the UN from accusing America of genocide, that shouldn’t have stopped people to demonstrate in the streets with Iraqi or Afghan flags demanding “free Afghanistan.”

Why did none of that happen?

Would you apply those same standards to Gaza?

Would you say you hate “Gaza” if you hated the government that rules it, but not the millions of Palestinians living there?

Would you say “fuck Gaza” if you had no issues with the majority of Palestinians?

Because to me, it just seems that people apply wildly different standards. People seem to explain “here is my standard” when talking about one side, and then they absolutely refuse to adhere to their own standard when talking about the other side.

They could also apply asymmetric warfare strictly against military targets, and guerilla movements in other conflicts have done exactly that.

Nobody forces Hamas to murder civilians. It’s something they’re doing out of their own volition.

I’m not defending the tactics used by the Israeli military.

At the same time, they’re using tactics that are pretty similar to the tactics used by the United States in Iraq and in Afghanistan - yet even back then, despite all the opposition took America’s military interventions, we didn’t see people around the world claim that America was committing genocide or that America was s terrorist state.

Yet those labels are constantly applied to Israel.

Why do you think there’s this difference?

And I never said that, either. I was asking whether or not somegeek was equating Israel with all Israelis, since they didn’t make a distinction (e.g. by saying “the state of Israel” or “the IDF” or “the Netanyahu administration”).

Seems fair in light of the broad statement made by somegeek.

I’m not the one justifying any mass murder.

Sure. Equating Israel with all Jews is just as wrong as equating the state of Israel with all those living within it.

Yeah, you’re right. If you put it like that, that totally justifies the cold blooded murder of 265 people.