Because you're going to spend the next six months bogged down in exactly this kind of technicality, just like the whole discussion around Gaza got bogged down in the exact legal definition of "genocide," and that wasted a lot of energy that might otherwise have gone to, you know, actually helping the people of Gaza.
Do policy discussions normally go well when "legal scholars" start citing legal language about things and everything devolves into a courtroom back and forth?
"the United States committing a fucking war crime."
I care about the fact that the United States is killing civilians, whether it's technically a war crime or not.
"No, I don’t—but that shouldn’t fucking matter"
Good to know. So now countries (and likely people) can be guilty of violating laws that don't actually exist? That's an excellent argument in this world. "Well, no, he's not technically guilty of anything, but we just know it's not a good thing "
"lawyering to justify Trump ordering the United States Armed Forces to commit a war crime"
I'm not trying to justify Trump in anything because he's an appalling piece of shit. I am trying to make the point that trying to get "legal scholars" to announce something that's badly wrong is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Make the argument that Trump is being an appalling and evil person by bombing civilians. You don't need the legal part of it, and it just gets you into the kind of trouble you are now. "Well, no, it's not actually a war crime but it's a war crime in my feels" is just embarrassing.
Oh, god, dude, I stopped responding to you because you were hyperventilating about whether a news outlet had responded quickly enough to an AI issue, and now you're bringing it into a discussion about war crimes. Yes, buddy, Ars Technica not figuring out their AI policy is definitely the same thing as to whether Trump is going to commit a war crime.
Also, how long have you been waiting to keep complaining about a news outlet policy issue? Jesus, stalker much?
So, no, you don't actually have a law the US agreed to that it's going to violate. Good to know.
And the reason I mention this is because you get so caught up in litigating these kind of arguments (yes it is! no, it is isn't!) that you fail to actually win the issue. You can argue about war crimes all you want but no judge is going to come rule for you in any useful way. Just say that Trump is an appalling piece of trash who kills civilians and avoid the lawyering.
I mean Trump's definitely a moron, but the United States is not a signatory to the treaty that the "legal scholars" are citing, so it's not a war crime by legal standards.
(Moral standards? Of course).
They disappeared the article and its comments
Yes, they took down an article that was falsified and then, quite rapidly by the standards of this kind of thing put up an explanation and apology. They're not going to keep the original article up -- it was, as I mentioned, falsified. The level of expectations in some of these commentaries is just ridiculous.
No wonder Total’s so defensive of hallucinations. That seems to be all they have
My hallucinations were mostly about the humanity of some other folks in this comment section. They've been debunked.
So wait, you don’t need much an explanation but you do and it better be soon or else? That’s definitely useful.
Hey, I’m still holding the fire extinguisher, here, and I'm glad to know you don’t need a white paper but also, how about if you just see if the pets got out in time, hmm?
happening again is necessary for that goal
But not immediately necessary, which is what I said. It's been less than a week -- they may not yet know exactly what happened, who besides the reporter fucked up, and what they're going to do about it.
Again, the house is still smoldering and you're whining about lack of repair plans. Come back in a month and if they still haven't said something further, I'll be critical.
They held themselves accountable for the fuck-up
Yes, which is what they needed to do. Yes, it would be good for them to figure out how to avoid a repeat, but that's not immediately necessary. You're yelling at the homeowner who put the fire in their house out because they don't have architectural drawings of the repaired house done.
Well, don’t
Yes, I will.
mean, aside from not describing the article, what it was about, who wrote it, or what other steps Ars will be taking, if any, yeah, super fucking specific.
It linked to a page with the title of the article, thus handling most of what you're whining about, outlined the problem, and outlined what they were doing at the moment. That's entirely specific enough. I would like them to do more of a dive on how the editorial process broke down but they did what they needed to do right then. That's perfectly reasonable.
I’m sorry, you seem to have me confused with someone who’s made of straw
I confused you with a human being. My bad.
for a truck driver
You mean a truck driver, pressured to make impossible timelines and thus go without sleep, who ended up driving his truck off the road? Yes, I would have sympathy for him and find someone who is not to be kind of horrible.
I’ll have some sympathy for their situation, but not their bad decisions.
That was a really long-winded way to essentially agree with the article's point.
"The US does not have to have signed anything" So you know nothing about international law, do you?
Because you're going to spend the next six months bogged down in exactly this kind of technicality, just like the whole discussion around Gaza got bogged down in the exact legal definition of "genocide," and that wasted a lot of energy that might otherwise have gone to, you know, actually helping the people of Gaza. Do policy discussions normally go well when "legal scholars" start citing legal language about things and everything devolves into a courtroom back and forth? "the United States committing a fucking war crime." I care about the fact that the United States is killing civilians, whether it's technically a war crime or not.
"No, I don’t—but that shouldn’t fucking matter" Good to know. So now countries (and likely people) can be guilty of violating laws that don't actually exist? That's an excellent argument in this world. "Well, no, he's not technically guilty of anything, but we just know it's not a good thing " "lawyering to justify Trump ordering the United States Armed Forces to commit a war crime" I'm not trying to justify Trump in anything because he's an appalling piece of shit. I am trying to make the point that trying to get "legal scholars" to announce something that's badly wrong is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Make the argument that Trump is being an appalling and evil person by bombing civilians. You don't need the legal part of it, and it just gets you into the kind of trouble you are now. "Well, no, it's not actually a war crime but it's a war crime in my feels" is just embarrassing.
I'm never going to date you, Thad, so let it go.
Oh, god, dude, I stopped responding to you because you were hyperventilating about whether a news outlet had responded quickly enough to an AI issue, and now you're bringing it into a discussion about war crimes. Yes, buddy, Ars Technica not figuring out their AI policy is definitely the same thing as to whether Trump is going to commit a war crime. Also, how long have you been waiting to keep complaining about a news outlet policy issue? Jesus, stalker much?
So, no, you don't actually have a law the US agreed to that it's going to violate. Good to know. And the reason I mention this is because you get so caught up in litigating these kind of arguments (yes it is! no, it is isn't!) that you fail to actually win the issue. You can argue about war crimes all you want but no judge is going to come rule for you in any useful way. Just say that Trump is an appalling piece of trash who kills civilians and avoid the lawyering.
The US is not a signatory to that treaty so what law, exactly, makes it a war crime?
I mean Trump's definitely a moron, but the United States is not a signatory to the treaty that the "legal scholars" are citing, so it's not a war crime by legal standards. (Moral standards? Of course).
They disappeared the article and its comments Yes, they took down an article that was falsified and then, quite rapidly by the standards of this kind of thing put up an explanation and apology. They're not going to keep the original article up -- it was, as I mentioned, falsified. The level of expectations in some of these commentaries is just ridiculous.
No wonder Total’s so defensive of hallucinations. That seems to be all they have My hallucinations were mostly about the humanity of some other folks in this comment section. They've been debunked.
I made myself clear. Yes, you did. Thus my comments. The rest of your post was way too long to bother reading. Did you say anything useful?
So the pets didn’t make it, I’m guessing? If you don't like what your words mean, you shouldn’t say them in the first place.
So wait, you don’t need much an explanation but you do and it better be soon or else? That’s definitely useful. Hey, I’m still holding the fire extinguisher, here, and I'm glad to know you don’t need a white paper but also, how about if you just see if the pets got out in time, hmm?
No, I made a reasoned assumption in response to your utterly mendacious conclusion.,.but, also, bye! Don’t let the door..etc.
Did the article kill an innocent person?
happening again is necessary for that goal But not immediately necessary, which is what I said. It's been less than a week -- they may not yet know exactly what happened, who besides the reporter fucked up, and what they're going to do about it. Again, the house is still smoldering and you're whining about lack of repair plans. Come back in a month and if they still haven't said something further, I'll be critical.
They held themselves accountable for the fuck-up Yes, which is what they needed to do. Yes, it would be good for them to figure out how to avoid a repeat, but that's not immediately necessary. You're yelling at the homeowner who put the fire in their house out because they don't have architectural drawings of the repaired house done.
Well, don’t Yes, I will. mean, aside from not describing the article, what it was about, who wrote it, or what other steps Ars will be taking, if any, yeah, super fucking specific. It linked to a page with the title of the article, thus handling most of what you're whining about, outlined the problem, and outlined what they were doing at the moment. That's entirely specific enough. I would like them to do more of a dive on how the editorial process broke down but they did what they needed to do right then. That's perfectly reasonable. I’m sorry, you seem to have me confused with someone who’s made of straw I confused you with a human being. My bad.
for a truck driver You mean a truck driver, pressured to make impossible timelines and thus go without sleep, who ended up driving his truck off the road? Yes, I would have sympathy for him and find someone who is not to be kind of horrible.
I’ll have some sympathy for their situation, but not their bad decisions. That was a really long-winded way to essentially agree with the article's point.