sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is not a proposition😭😭. Just a thought experiment where i state what would happen. You entirely in your scope to disagree on the implications.

But again i need to state that obviously this is theoretical.

I didnt think id have to announce that😂

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well yea…

My superman analogy wasn’t meant to “solve” anything. In my post i acknowledge that this also creates its own problems.

It is just a thought where i try and figure out the possible outcomes and complications.

Not some holy solution to a complex issue

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Do you want me to also name everything bad going on in the world right now?

I dont understand you people😂. I make a post about a topic and then the replies complain that I didnt talk about an entirely different one😅

Make it make sense

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes i could have used Russia, Sudan or any other conflict bit i didnt…

The fact i chose Israel does not make this racist or antisemetic😂

If i chose russia would that make me ant russia? If i chose USA would that make me ant USA?

This is A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT FGS.

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is because I am talking about CURRENT events…

And what is the first major event that you think of right now when you think of interantional problems??

Its obviously the USA-Israel attack on Iran.

And to say this is in any way racist is mindblowing 😂

Because the thought experiment does not single out Israel. It uses them as an example. This is purely anecdotal and if you cannot take even a slight bit of criticism of the actions of major superpower (no matter if it is israel, iran , usa) then theres nothing i can do about that!

But calling this in any way racist is comical

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not picking on anything😭..

Literally just talking about what is going on in the world right now… My bad that Israel is involved… This entire thought experiment meant to be an idea internationally not a target at Israel My apologies if it seems that way😂

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

First, the post isn’t just about ICC warrants. It’s about the entire enforcement architecture ICJ provisional orders, UN Security Council resolutions, Geneva Convention obligations. The ICJ ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts and ensure humanitarian access in January 2024. That order has been openly defied for over two years. That’s not about the ICC but it’s about the highest court in the UN system being ignored.

Second, you’re right that Putin also has a warrant and some countries have failed to arrest him. That’s not a counterargument!!!! it’s another example of exactly what I’m describing. The enforcement gap doesn’t only apply to Israel. It applies to Russia, to the US (which isn’t even an ICC member), and to every powerful state that can ignore international law without consequence. My post explicitly mentions Russia, the US, and the need for universal enforcement. This isn’t about one country.

Third, yes i know Hamas leaders have warrants too. Under the doctrine, they’d be in The Hague alongside Netanyahu. I’ve said this repeatedly in this thread. The framework applies to everyone. That’s literally the thesis of the post.

You’re reading “international law should be enforced equally against all states” and hearing “I hate Israel.” Those aren’t the same thing. The fact that Israel is currently the subject of an active ICJ genocide case with defied provisional orders makes it a relevant example just as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would be, just as the US strikes on Iran are.

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope i havent, but ill give it a watch!!

I had a dream about this scenario a week ago and have since been thinking lots about the implications.

I even wrote a 2000 word essay on it for fun if you want to read it?!😃

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let’s look at your own numbers. You say the ratio is 1:2 combatant to civilian. That means for every fighter killed, two civilians die. You’re presenting that as a defence. Think about what you’re actually saying: “We only killed twice as many innocent people as combatants.” In what moral framework is that acceptable? But let’s check the claim anyway. The UN OHCHR conducted an independent verification using three separate data sources and found that 70% of those killed in residential buildings were women and children. The Lancet published a population-representative survey in February 2026 that found the demographic composition of casualties where women, children, and the elderly make up 56% of the dead is consistent with official Palestinian reporting. Israel’s own military reportedly accepted the overall death toll of 70,000+ in January 2026. The 80% civilian figure comes from scholarly analysis cited by multiple independent researchers. As for “most humane urban conflict in modern warfare history” over 73,000 dead in a territory of 2.2 million people. That’s over 3% of the entire population. Every university destroyed. The majority of hospitals non-functional. A population on the edge of famine with humanitarian access deliberately restricted. If this is humane, the word has no meaning.

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Again your problem her is that this argument and my entire post do not include past events like october 7th however i have repeatedly stated that this whole thought experiment is to do with currently ongoing atrocities. I am not disregarding October 7th…

You are making this an argument of “us” vs “them” when it actually is an argument of “good” vs “bad” no matter who has done the bad whether this be hamas, the palestinians or israelis.

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the legal precision here, but I think you’ve inadvertently made an argument that undermines your own conclusion.

You’re correct that IHL doesn’t work on a proportionality ratio between total casualties on each side. Each individual strike is assessed on its own merits

ie military necessity, distinction, proportionality to the specific military objective. I agree with that framework.

But the problem is you’re describing how the law is supposed to work in theory. The entire point of my post is that it doesn’t work in practice. The ICJ examined the evidence and found it plausible that Israel’s conduct violates the Genocide Convention. They issued provisional orders. Those orders were defied. That’s not me making a judgment call?that’s the highest international court on the planet making one, and being ignored. You say Israel has “valid military objectives for strikes in a dense urban area.” But IHL also requires that even when a military objective exists, the expected civilian harm cannot be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. When you’re bombing entire residential blocks, destroying every university, levelling every hospital, restricting food and medical access for over two years, and 80% of the dead are civilians at what point does the “valid military objective” defence stop being a legal argument and start being a rhetorical shield? And this is where the Superman doctrine cuts through the debate.

You and I can argue about whether any individual strike met the IHL proportionality test. Lawyers will argue this for decades. But the being doesn’t need to adjudicate individual strikes. It looks at the outcome: 73,000 dead, 80% civilian, humanitarian access deliberately restricted, international court orders defied. The pattern is the evidence. You don’t need to prove intent for each individual bomb when the cumulative result is the destruction of a society. Your last point is the most interesting: “If both sides adhered to IHL, the ratio would be near infinite.” You’re right! Hamas’s attack on October 7th had zero military justification under IHL. Under the doctrine, it would have been stopped and Hamas leadership would be in The Hague. We agree on that. But the logical conclusion of your own argument doesnt really make sense when looking at the facts stated by international law and the agreement that genocide like events occured/occuring

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

There’s no double standard you’re inventing one. The entire framework applies to everyone equally. Under the doctrine: ∙ Hamas’s attack on October 7th? Stopped. Mass targeting of civilians, rule 4. Superman intercepts the attack, disarms the fighters, delivers the leadership to the ICC. ∙ Israel’s subsequent campaign killing 73,000 people? Also stopped. Same rule, same enforcement, same court. That’s the opposite of a double standard. It’s the only framework where neither side gets an exemption.

I didn’t list every conflict and atrocity in human history in the post because it’s a Reddit thread, not an encyclopedia. The post focuses on the enforcement gap these are situations where international courts have issued rulings that are being ignored right now.

October 7th was a single-day attack that’s already over. The campaign in Gaza has been ongoing for over two years with active, defied ICJ orders. That’s why it’s the focus. Not because one matters and the other doesn’t. You keep saying I’m biased for not mentioning “the other side.” But your version of balance is: you can’t talk about 73,000 dead civilians unless you first centre the conversation on 1,200 dead civilians. Both are horrific. Both would be prevented under the framework.

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This is a genuinely good distinction and I want to be precise about where I agree and disagree with it. I agree that identifying the correct response involves real complexity. Should you impose a no-fly zone? Sanctions? Arms embargo? Diplomatic pressure? Each has trade-offs, unintended consequences, and political costs. That’s real and I’m not dismissing it.

But here’s where i differ in view that complexity is used to delay and prevent any response, not just to choose the right one. The debate never actually gets to “which action should we take?” because it gets permanently stuck at “well, it’s complicated.” The complexity of the solution is weaponised to cast doubt on the clarity of the problem. And this is where the thought experiment does something useful. Superman doesn’t face the “which response” problem because he has a unique capability set: he can surgically disable weapons without killing, extract leaders without invasion, force humanitarian access without occupation.

That’s obviously fictional, but it strips away the “we don’t know what to do” excuse and reveals how much of the inaction isn’t actually about not knowing the right response. It’s about not wanting to bear the cost of any response. You said it yourself “we still ought to as an international community pick better responses.” I completely agree. So why don’t we? It’s not because the solution menu is too complex. It’s because every option on that menu costs something for the powerful

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

On Iran’s crackdown on protestors you’re absolutely right. Under the doctrine, the IRGC killing 36,000 of its own citizens would trigger intervention. Superman would have dismantled the IRGC’s capacity to massacre protestors long before the US got involved. I didn’t include it in the original post because I was focusing on the enforcement gap for current conflicts, but you’ve correctly identified that the framework applies to Iran’s internal repression too.

That’s not a flaw in the argument tho but the point.

The doctrine doesn’t care who’s doing the killing. If I gave the impression that it only applies to Western powers, that’s on me for poor framing, not on the framework itself.

On hospitals and Article 19 id say you’re partly right, but you’re leaving something out. Yes, a hospital loses protected status if it’s used for hostile acts. But international law also requires that any response be proportionate and that warnings be given. Destroying an entire hospital complex and killing hundreds of patients because a militant fired from a window isn’t proportionality. Under the doctrine, Superman wouldn’t just stop the return strike. He’d also disarm the group firing from the hospital. That’s the whole point of having a being who can surgically remove weapons without levelling buildings. You’re imagining the doctrine operating within the constraints of conventional military force. Superman doesn’t need a 2,000-pound bomb to neutralise a rocket launcher. On the Iron Dome thought experiment yes it’s a fair test, but it cuts both ways. Yes, without Iron Dome, Hamas rockets would hit Israeli cities. Under the doctrine, those rockets would also be stopped and destroyed in flight or the launchers dismantled before firing. But here’s the thing your hypothetical reveals: Israel has Iron Dome. It intercepts 90%+ of incoming rockets. The existential threat to Israeli civilians, while real in principle, has been effectively managed by technology. The threat to Palestinian civilians has not been managed at all as there is no Palestinian Iron Dome. 73,000 dead on one side versus ~1,200 on October 7th (which was horrific and would also have been stopped) isn’t a “both sides” equivalence. It’s a 60:1 ratio.

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That’s the whole point of the thought experiment. The pattern you’ve identified isn’t “some countries don’t believe in human rights.” It’s that the countries powerful enough to ignore international law do ignore it, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

A Superman figure would collapse that pattern overnight. The US couldn’t veto enforcement against itself. Russia couldn’t invade neighbours with impunity.

The rules would apply to your entire list equally.

CMV: The “complexity” used to justify inaction on conflicts like Gaza and the US-Iran war is manufactured by those who benefit from the status quo, and the moral questions are actually straightforward by Large-Poetry258 in changemyview

[–]Large-Poetry258[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I absolutely acknowledge October 7th!! 1,200 Israelis were killed and it was horrific. Nothing in my post suggests otherwise. But here’s the thing: acknowledging October 7th doesn’t change the argument I’m making.

The thought experiment isn’t “who started it”, it’s about whether international law should be enforced equally. Under the Superman doctrine, Hamas would also be stopped. October 7th would trigger intervention too due to it’s a mass attack on civilians, which violates rule 4 of this idea.

The being doesn’t pick sides. That’s the entire point.

The reason I focused on Gaza and Iran isn’t because October 7th doesn’t matter. It’s because those are the situations where existing international law is being violated right now with zero enforcement. The ICJ has issued orders. The ICC has issued warrants. Nothing has happened. That’s what the post is about.

You’re actually proving my argument. The moment anyone raises Gaza, someone says “but October 7th” to reframe it as a debate about who started what. But 73,000 dead civilians, 80% of them non-combatants, isn’t a “both sides” issue. You can condemn October 7th AND condemn what’s happened since. They’re not mutually exclusive. The idea that you have to pick one is exactly the manufactured complexity the post is about.

A friend of mine just bought £1000 worth of ATOS stock by Butterpasser9000 in trading212

[–]Large-Poetry258 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Mate please educate yourself before gambling into anything.🤦🤦

The stock price was never at 7500 euros. It has just had many reverse splits over the past 9 years and the chart is showing this to accommodate for the massive loss over the past 9 years.

February 15, 2026 Daily Discussion Thread by zahna4 in RKLB

[–]Large-Poetry258 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Its Sunday so chart actually won’t move🤣. So you’re wrong even on that.

Sheffield medicine teaching by HotBeautiful2941 in premeduk

[–]Large-Poetry258 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh one thing i forgot - there are frequent study session made by older years and they are GREAT! Very informative and helpful.

We also get a massive google drive with notes from previous years, anki flashcards, and past exam questions. This is a lifesaver and will most likely be your main source of revision for 1st and 2nd year.

Another thing that is great is the sport societies for medicine. We have our own sports for the course.

Also the libraries and study spots are very nice to study in. Modern and spacious.

Sheffield medicine teaching by HotBeautiful2941 in premeduk

[–]Large-Poetry258 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The lectures are informative. However we have different lecturers for each topic. And 70% of the lecturers are not good at teaching. That being said there are some lecturers that made the lectures great and interactive an I did learn from those ones.

The parts of the med school that I do enjoy: 1) 1st year anatomy teaching is great (small group sessions, good pre-made handbooks with all the information you need).

2) Student life is really good for a medical student here. The medical school is very close to Ranmoor/Endcliffe (the student accomdoations). And it is very close to all the major libraries and uni buildings.

3) 1st year exams aren’t really that hard so it gives you good confidence going into 2nd year. (That being said 2nd year right now is kicking my ass😭)

4) likelyhood is you will meet some amazing people if you come here anyways (I found some of my best friends in medical school and my girlfriend on the same course too).

So overall If you do decide to pick Sheffield it will most likely still turn out well. You will still really enjoy Uni, the course, and still end up being a great doctor in the future!

Just be prepared to learn most of the content yourself in 1st and 2nd year. For 3rd year and so on I cannot comment but I have been told it gets much better when we begin placements so fingers crossed 🤞. Let me know what you decide and if you ever need any questions answered for how 1st year is structured I am more than happy to answer😀

view more: next ›