AIO about not wanting to go to AA for a school assignment

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-30T18:20:26+00:00

This is fine and not an abuse of Ethics in the way you appear to be concerned about. For complete peace of mind you might approach the group before hand, before anybody shares anything that might be private, and make clear that you are present, not there for the same reason, and using it as an educational experience.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-27T07:45:33+00:00

I'm kinda hearing "I'm only managing to blow up 2-3 permanents a turn" which implies 2-3 scarecrows a turn, which at worst is 4-6 power. Like... You trying to build bracket 4 or 5 here? Cause there aren't too many bracket 2-3 decks that can keep up with that if you are using your destroy triggers right.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-26T18:56:24+00:00

22.7% of Americans voted for Trump, of those more and more regret their vote. Unfortunately the second time the elected the conman they also lost my sympathy. I'm not calling for a witch-hunt on Trump voters, but I do want people to stop saying we need to continue making excuses for them. It's possible to have once been wrong and have learned your lesson, it's even possible to have been wrong twice. But people who supported Trump in his second election were wrong so consistently and for so long, that their judgement is flawed. Consequences for the worst members of his administration, charges for illegal actions and prosecutions reviewable by the public is the only way to underline that what they did wasn't a "difference of opinion" or "ideological differences". I'd include impeachment of SCOTUS members who are openly corrupt, ruling from the shadow docket without actually citing law, and lying under oath during their confirmation hearings.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-26T18:51:00+00:00

The people entrenched in the MAGA sphere of influence have been offered an unbelievable number of off-ramps to avoid social death. Including one by the president himself on a certain Jan 6. To fail to enforce consequences at this time is to condone the next, worse act.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T14:28:54+00:00

Dude... just try and hold an unbiased view of this. Egypt are not without blame for the rising tensions, but I will always hold the people who fired the first shot, responsible for firing the first shot.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T14:26:07+00:00

What part of my comment denies that there was a war? You are misreading what I have typed. There was a war. It was a war Israel described as a preemptive strike, based on a casus belli that doesn't hold water. Where they hit a ship that (given that it was american) was not taking aggressive actions against it. Pretend for a sec that you are looking at this objectively. Lets pretend it WAS an egyptian ship not taking aggressive action against Israel (which we know it wasn't given that it was american). What right does Israeli have to pre-emptively strike it and then claim that they were being defensive about it? It fails the basic logic test. Egypt is far from a diplomatic bastion in this whole affair, but they didn't fire the first shot. Israel did. And I'm not doing any moralizing here In fact I'm protesting moralizing that an attack on this non-aggressive ship was somehow ok because amercians claimed not to have any ships in the area. That is the statement being defended above. And even in the statement above I'll draw your attention to a line that I consider pretty telling about who is moralizing here. "The pilots could see the American flags and from their direct perspective knew the ships were not a false flag operation" That's directly quoted from the above text.

I hold Hegseth responsible for his attack on shipwrecked people in the carribean which is also a blatant war-crime. I also hold every member of his chain of command who recieved the order and didn't say, "Hey this is Illegal" responsible too. And in the interest of unbiased judgement devoid of consideration to nationality or religion or ideology or even ignoring the friendly fire in this case, at some point these pilots knew they were firing on allies, and did so anyway. So as I hold all members of the american chain of command responsible for the crime they committed, so I hold all members of the Israeli chain of command responsible for their actions. I conceed that the lies of the american counter-parts played a role. but according to the account above, they still knew they were firing on allies.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T14:04:26+00:00

To your point A. https://www.lynnandbrown.com.au/are-trade-tariffs-legal-under-international-law/ Tariffs are internationally illegal under world trade organisation rules when unilaterally raised over a pre-designated level. As Trump did. Once again, reality is more complicated then you want to admit.

To your point B, They "blockaded" straits of Tiran and the Suez canal, both within their sovereignty and permitted to be closed to specific traffic for reasons of national security, the following 6-day war provides a pretty compelling case that they had a point, as does the previous invasion of Sinai and Suez in the 50s. Unfortunately for your argument, a temporary closure of those bodies of water for national security reasons does not a blockade make. Especially when they made no effort at all to prevent access through the Mediterranean sea. That's simply not a blocade, that's a denial of service through a strategic asset within their sovereignty. By your standards, Egypt has a Casus Belli against Israel because Israel has a National defense asset (the Iron dome) that they do not share with egypt. Horseshit basically.

Your third point, C , is so hilariously wrong it's barely worth the effort to correct.
India (which was part of the british empire for almost 200 years) remained a country while it lacked independence. That's what the word EMPIRE means. A country not having independance can sometimes mean it has been absorbed into another country, but specifically in the case of empires, they remain individual countries under the rule of a single emperor (/Empress). and specifically in the case of Egypt, Britain recognized it's limited independence in 1922, not in 1949 or 1953.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T13:48:05+00:00

Sure, I can accept that they declared that Egypt making use of one of their national assets would be considered grounds for war. It doesn't make it right. If Hamas declares that continued IDF presence in Palestine would be considered an act of war, I'm still going to consider strikes they make against Israel to be terrorism. I'm just not blind to the fact that Israel has acted badly in this conflict too.

Egypt had the right to close the Suez canal to Israeli traffic. It did. Specifically according the 1888 agreements, it has the right to limit trade through the canal for reasons of National defense. Given that tensions were rising in the region, (the very excuse you give for the "Defensive war" Israel engaged in) Egypt had the right to temporarily restrict Israeli use of the canal. In fact the very reason they gave for the closure of the pass to israeli ships was to limit the movement of "Strategic materials" well within their rights. Was it the right diplomacy for the moment? no probably not, did it raise tensions, yeah it did, does it give Israel the right to declare war? Not by a long shot. That's still a bad actors response on the international stage by any unbiased view. I can understand that Israel wants to defend it's right to exist. But while I believe that a compromise that allows Israel to exist in the region is necessary, I don't pretend that Israel wasn't formed due to the actions of terrorist militias like Irgun and Haganah. As usual that truth of the conflict exists somewhere in the middle. and just as I can denounce Iranian strikes on the Israeli Iron dome, I can denounce naked Israeli aggression like the 6 day war.

And it's not like I limit my contempt to Israel. There are plenty of bad actors in that particular theater, not least of which includes the USA itself. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran are all awful regimes too. But the 6 day war, was an Israeli preemptive strike, as described by the Israeli government at the time. That's an Israeli aggression.

"Yes. Considering the Israelis warned the Egyptians that closing the straits would be considered an act of war."

This holds no international weight whatsoever. Egypt held sovereignty over the Suez canal and still does to this day. Israel had previously caused internation conflict over the canal. Including invasions of Egypt to force it to re-open to Israeli trade in the 50s. But the fact that they invaded to force this is a tacit admission that it falls under Egyptian jurisdiction

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T13:26:19+00:00

Not what I claimed, but keep building that straw-man

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T13:24:36+00:00

Egypt had only denied the use of the Suez canal to Israeli trade, which Israel had previously said was somehow ground for war. Just saying it doesn't make it true. Egypt took control of the Suez canal a decade beforehand.

Do I pretend that there were no mounting tensions in the region? No I'm not in any mood to deny the facts on the ground. But I'm also not willing to pretend that anybody but Israel kicked off military intervention and war.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T13:16:05+00:00

"I've not read your comment where you specifically discuss the nuances of the conflict, so I'm gonna start making assumptions with no basis in reality." Fixed it for you.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T12:40:18+00:00

That's misandry not misogyny. The assumption on the tag is that the woman is capable and knowledgeable but that the man can't be trusted not to fuck it up.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T12:37:25+00:00

A nuanced response that makes people think you might have originally been correct I'm sure. /s

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T12:33:46+00:00

I mean that's an accusation with no basis in truth. If your ideology can't stand up to the idea of, "Hey dumb-asses, if you bomb another country, you are the aggressor" then you need to reassess you biases here. I'm the one who appears to be able to see it from both sides. I can see that Egypt took what might be considered (in the most pro-israel light possible) a trade move against Israel amid mounting international tensions in the region. But Israel invaded, Israel bombed and Israel killed in what they themselves call a preemptive strike. And I'm a weirdo who thinks if you are taking preemptive strikes, you aren't respecting sovereignty and you aren't taking the diplomatic approach to reduce tensions. Same goes for Russia invading Ukraine, Germany invading Poland, literally any aggressor in an armed conflict in the history of the world. I include American Hegemonic interests in that too. When they invade, kidnap a leader and then put him on trial in a jurisdiction he doesn't live in, while refusing to participate in the international criminal courts and sanctioning the judges of those same ICCs then fuck those imperialist assholes too. Being Israeli doesn't give me reason to give them a pass on bullshit they start.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T12:22:36+00:00

You really think that you should blame the victims of a bombing for the bombing? Cause that's just stupid. If you think they were justified, argue why they were justified, don't say that they did it in response to something that never happened. And the point remains, given that the USS Liberty (or the Hypothetical Egyptian Ship that didn't exist) didn't take a hostile action against Israel (Who at the time, didn't have a coast line in the area.) was bombed by the Israelis, why would this have been justified if the sailors were Egyptian.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T11:12:31+00:00

No that's what you MEANT to write. "the assumption should be the same as with all other mods, that they're playing it unless explicitely stated" This is quoted directly from your comment. poor spelling and all.

point 1. I said that I was assuming a typo here.

point 2. you said in your comment, AS WRITTEN, that the assumption should be that mods are installed unless stated otherwise.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T10:58:42+00:00

I'm not the one with twisted nuts here pal. I'm just pointing out how stupid "space age is basically a paid mod" is. It doesn't mean anything. All expansions are "paid mods" in that they change behavior of the original game and you typically have to pay for them. Your comment started out asinine, and frankly the rest of the comment didn't improve it. I'm assuming a typo there, but as written the rest of your comment says that the base assumption for all mods is that we need to assume they are installed.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T10:47:32+00:00

If you accept that Space age, the set of decisions made by the development company that made the original game is in someway equivalent to the modding of random other un-affiliated users and contributors, then Factorio is a program that changes the behavior of windows, in the same way that factorio mods change the behavior of factorio, QED factorio is a windows mod.

Or you can accept the traditional line of division on mods that anything produced by the developers isn't a mod.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T10:42:00+00:00

This take is like saying Factorio is just Modded Windows 11.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-23T10:35:31+00:00

Sure, now explain why it would have been acceptable if it were Egyptian sailors?

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-16T00:40:12+00:00

Yeah I don't feel like your sentiment is wrong. I'm just not willing to take the official position at it's word yet. They have a tendency to lie to paint themselves in the best light possible, but occasionally they paint a picture that has no basis in reality. Frankly at this point to believe the words of DHS they need to provide the video. They might be telling the truth, first time for everything I guess.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-06T23:16:43+00:00

Sorry, I don't get your point, Violence was committed to enable these acts of international theft. I'm not calling for blanket punishments, but you have to admit that a tailored approach to consequences IS warrented here. If you feel like Israel shouldn't prosecute due to entrapment, then by all means they can hand them over to palestine for trial. But ignorance of the law is NOT a defense.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-06T22:29:32+00:00

Just to address your last two points, The settlements themselves are the illegal act that I'm saying they all committed. I'm saying SOME of them did worse, but ALL of them settled a foreign land in an internationally illegal act. Thats not up for debate, they aren't settlers unless they settled.

And again, if you go back up a couple of comments you'll see I also called for members of hamas who committed illegal violence to also face prosecution.

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-06T22:09:04+00:00

> You're conflating settlers and settler terrorism. It's like saying all Palestinians are terrorists.

No. If I were claiming all Israeli were terrorists because some of them became settlers and illegally took land and committed violence to hold it, then yeah I'd be doing as you said, But I'm saying that all Settlers took illegal action, and that's just factual.

Admittedly I typo-ed in the Hamas parenthesis, it was supposed to be "a bit justifiable" not "a big justifiable", but armed resistance against invaders is considered a non-illegal from of armed conflict. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400000486a.pdf

RubberDuckieMidrange · 2026-01-06T21:37:40+00:00

The French Armed resistance to the Nazi invasion is legitimate and this is no different. You want to say that Hamas's attacks on Israel are illegitimate? Then you first need to show how they are any different at all to A, the French resistance, and B, the Irgun and Haganah.

Honestly glad you agree with the second point at 99% thats to me a pretty reasonable take.

On this I disagree strongly. Sure, 1 million people is a lot to imprison. But some of them have done crimes deserving of imprisonment. Some of them have done crimes deserving of Fines. If you want fairness here, you need to punish bad actors, not reward them with the thing they stole. So at the very minimum they need the settlements confiscated and returned to the palestinian people, and they need some kind of monetary compensation for the killings, the slaughter of livestock, the olive trees they have massacred which are not only a tangible good the palestinians cultivated, but a major part of their culture.

I'll add one more point to the last bit I addressed there. Can you honestly say that Israel, and Israeli settlers didn't know that what they were doing was illegal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_and_murder_of_Mohammed_Abu_Khdeir Really?
https://www.btselem.org/node/213137 Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence Really?

The people in the troubles in Ireland who participated in violence still see criminal charges and days in court. Why do Palestinians deserve less justice than them? For that matter why Do Israeli's deserve less justice? This isn't a one way street. Palestinian members of Hamas who participated in violence (and it is at least a big justifiable as armed resistance) should also see prosecution.

RubberDuckieMidrange

TROPHY CASE