Wow, that is an insanely obtuse interpretation of what I said.

Of course there are always civilian casualties In war. Of course that is why war crimes exist in the first place.

“Massive” literally means “Large in comparison to what is typical”. So when I say massive civilian cassualties forgive me for assuming you’d understand I was using that word for it’s intended purpose.

Bombing a hospital full of civilians is absolutely a war crime.

What argument are you making here? Your first paragraph implies you believe that Isreal is justified in it’s approach based on the US’s failed conflicts with Guerilla warfare. But then your second paragraph implies that Isreal is not justified for exactly that reason, which is like… Yeah… That’s correct lol.

I feel like it shouldn’t be a controversial opinion to say that if you are unable to conduct a war without massive civilian casualties then you shouldn’t be conducting that war. If you do anyway you are, at the very best, a war criminal.

Could you cite that law for me? Because last I checked there is no such law forcing Isreal to shoot back, school or otherwise.

Intentionally bombing civilians is a war crime. I don’t care how many of your “intended targets” you think you’re getting. If you are bombing civilian centers, like, oh let’s say a hospital for instance, then you are a war criminal, Full stop. There is nothing forcing Isreal to do that.

I mean yeah but the point is that technological advancement was still a common occurance. Like, yeah a sensationalized article about self driving cars would blow some minds but to most i think it wouldn’t really make any bigger waves then basic cars already were at the time. How can they be blown away by the concept of self driving when the vehicle itself is so new and interesting you know? AI is so abstract that even today most people don’t understand it, 100 years ago it’d just be “another new thing” just like it is today… We are actually less accustomed to ground shaking new inventions so I’d argue that 100 years ago a lot of our modern tech would be less exciting given the regularity in which things were changing then.

Social upheaval however is ALWAYS a huge deal, especially for the time. Bear in mind that Progressivism is a fairly new ideology in the States. For literally hundreds of years social change came at a snails pace and took serious, concerted effort. Nowadays we are on average much more open to change and accepting of diversity in all it’s forms, but there’s a reason everyone remembers the name Martin Luther King Jr., versus… Ruth Bader Ginsburg I guess?

I have this exact same thing! My dentist reccomended it to me because I drink way too much coffee, which apparently causes like yellow orange film to form on your tongue

This is where we start getting into the realm of philosophy as it relates to science fiction esq “true” Artificial Intelligence.

Taking the post at face value these AI persons that populate your individual pocket dimension would be, for all intents and purposes, sentient artificial minds, or at least controlled by 1 central mind.

So does that AI deserve human rights? Do laws apply to the and interaction had with them? If all they know is humanity then are they also “human”? Is this theoretically infinitely intelligent super computer even capable of truly understanding humanity, emotions, life in all of its facets?

I fully accept that I am getting too deep into this funny internet post but there have been hundreds upon thousands of books, thought experiments, and debates over this EXACT premise. Short answer is there is no answer. It’s Schrodinger’s morality lol

Samurai kinda always bangs though.

In the early years of their existence they were just mercenaries, but they had horses (expensive) and were pretty much only hired by nobility (decent accommodations)

By the end they were automatically nobility themselves, even to this day if you were still a “samurai” you’d either be a descendent of a wealthy family or a famous figure for 1 reason or another. Not a bad life