this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
27 points (88.6% liked)

worldnews

2377 readers
1 users here now

Welcome! This community is constantly upgrading and is a current work in progress. Please stay tuned.

/c/[email protected] strives for high-quality standards on the latest world events.

The basis of these standards comes from the MBFC, which uses an aggregate of methodologies, including the IFCN and World Freedom Indices, to rate the Bias and Factual Reporting of News.

These are non-profit organisations with full transparency of their funding and structure. Likewise, this community is also transparent – Please feel free to question its staff and the overall content of this community.


Does your post fit the standards? Check this thread!



Rules:


Disallowed submissions

Commenters will receive one public warning with only one strike if violating any of the following rules:

Thank you.

todo list:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Using a human shield is abhorrent. Shooting the human shield is also bad.

[–] pastermil 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We can easily say that in a peaceful place, but it may be different for somebody who's being shot at.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We can easily say running over children in a pickup is bad, but if you are drunk, it may be different.

Still objectively bad, even if you justify it with a state of mind argument.

[–] pastermil 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Wow. Did you just compare drunk driving by choice with having one's life endangered and completely left with no choice?

And you were preaching about the value of life? What a joke.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I did: your argument that mental state and the situation surrounding the use of human shields was critical to their morality. I lampooned it.

Left with no choice? The article calls out specific uses of noncombatants as impromptu ablative shields and bomb squads, but the well equipped IDF "has no choice"?

I'm failing to find any mention of the value of life, though...

[–] pastermil 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Shooting the human shield is also bad.

In case I wasn't being clear, I was refering to the Palestinians who are left with no choice but to shoot back.

[–] stringere 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Using a human shield is a choice. I think they were making the point that what you said is garbage justification for using a human shield.

[–] pastermil 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I was refering to the Palestinians, who had to defend themselves.

[–] stringere 2 points 3 weeks ago

Then I think the other person and I both misunderstood. It looked like you were defending Israel's use of human shields.

I still won't justify using a human shield.

[–] mindbleach 4 points 3 weeks ago

Human shields don't work when snipers freely shoot children.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Always human shields, never human swords

[–] mindbleach 2 points 3 weeks ago

Frankie Boyle: "Humans generally make terrible shields. That's why we invented... the shield."