Hacker News Reader

Comment by pasquinelli | Hacker News Reader

it's always good to consider people's words and feelings in the context of material facts, things that can be meassured objectively, like, for instance, counting dead bodies.

View on HN

Yes let's keep posts on twitter that say "Death to the Jews". Your body count number isn't objective without context. Saying they killed 20 and the other side killed 2 so the one that killed 20 is bad. And what if of that 20 some were killed by their own misfire or that part of that body count are also militants or that the only reason that only 2 killed was because defensive measures that if weren't in place would drastically increase casualties.

> And what if of that 20 some were killed by their own misfire or that part of that body count are also militants or that the only reason that only 2 killed was because defensive measures that if weren't in place would drastically increase casualties.

Well unless you have specific evidence, that seems to be a reality we don't live in, so not really something we need to worry about. The point of the GP was to point out the power differential. That seems to remain the consant even in your hypothetical world.

There are plenty of evidence the militants are part of the count, that's what the health ministry in Gaza publish and that misfired rockets and mortars land in Gaza killing Gazans. As for the Israeli side, just take into account the number of intercepted rockets (those that would land in a populated area) and assume one death per rocket, the death toll would be in the hundreds.

You mean if Israel takes down their Iron Dome and suicide themselves for 10x extra casualties, this will be a material fact to decide whom to support ?

It seems like a disastrously bad idea for Twitter to make moderation decisions based on how many dead people they think are on some particular tweet's side. "Sorry, we've only assigned you 5 bodies - only movements with 20 or more bodies are allowed to send this tweet."

the context of my remark is:

1. ban people for threatening violence

2. what if both sides are?

3. then consider which side is killing people

But in this case, both sides are killing people and acknowledge that they're doing so. Your comment seemed to suggest that we could further resolve the dispute with something like

4. count up how many people each side is killing, and only ban sides with a large number

and that's what doesn't make sense to me.

in my research i've found that no israelis have died thus far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com