Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

An Obvious Hoax

Published by

Clarissa

on

Nobody needed an investigation to prove that  Jews don’t write the plural of “family” with an apostrophe.

7 responses to “An Obvious Hoax”

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Do Palestinian homeowners have a right to defend themselves against this? https://x.com/Issaamro/status/1796595059259044284

    If so, how?

    Like

    Reply
    1. cliff arroyo Avatar
      cliff arroyo

      “Do Palestinian homeowners have a right to defend themselves against this?”

      I have no idea how to answer because I have no idea what’s going on…. there’s a guy poking at a pile of rubble with a pole…. that’s a ‘wall’? There’s an Israeli soldier and some stuff on the ground…

      Who are these people and what are they saying?

      Palestinians framed suicide bombers going off in pizza parlours as ‘self defense’ they framed October 7 as ‘self defense’….

      russia frames all the atrocities it is carrying out in Ukraine as ‘self defense’….

      Find another way to describe things because ‘self defense’ isn’t cutting it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    2. cliff arroyo Avatar
      cliff arroyo

      “defend themselves”

      I bet the buy in the striped sweatpants would describe his actions as ‘defending himself’

      https://x.com/RED_IN_PA/status/1796515607820874006

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Clarissa Avatar
        Clarissa

        In Mannheim! A city with beautiful architecture and calm little streets. The sister city of our Chernivtsi. And this has to happen. How did it possibly occur and why to stay over these people who hate it there and are incapable of adapting?

        Like

        Reply
    3. methylethyl Avatar
      methylethyl

      Lot of “self defense” being brought up here. I’d like to understand your baseline on what *you* think is legitimate self defense.

      Are Americans entitled to defend themselves from criminals?

      I ask because many people making the ‘self defense’ argument about 10/7 in Israel and subsequent military action are also totally against Americans defending themselves from anyone ever. Which puzzles me. I’d like to figure out what the guiding principle is. Is it:

      1. Human persons are entitled to defend their homes, bodies, and/or other people from violent aggressors. It is a universal human right.
      2. Members of victim-groups are entitled to any action against members of oppressor-groups.
      3. The right to self-defense is determined by law in the area in which a person lives.
      4. Principle doesn’t factor into it. The justice or injustice of any action depends on my emotional response to it.
      5. Other. Please explain.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Clarissa Avatar
        Clarissa

        It’s also the question of defending themselves in what way? Unless the nature of self-defense is clarified, this discussion is meaningless.

        Does Trump have the right to defend himself?

        In the court of law, yes. In the press, yes. On social media, yes. But by taking a bazooka and blowing off the heads of his accusers, obviously no.

        Why this simple point is so hard to grasp for some is incomprehensible.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. methylethyl Avatar
          methylethyl

          Yeah, all those things.

          If someone breaks into your house, is self-defense OK, and if so what actions are justifiable as self defense? The law on this is quite variable from state to state. In some states we have castle doctrine, where anybody busting into your house without an invite, you can shoot them. If they turned out to just have a wrong address, well that’s an unfortunate accident but not a crime. In some states there’s an obligation to retreat– you have to try to get away from them first, but if they then keep coming after you, you can shoot them. In some states the law is a bit fuzzy, and if you shoot an intruder, you risk being charged with a crime. Some cities have pretty tight gun restrictions, and even if defending yourself is OK, if you do it with a firearm, you may be charged with unlawful possession/use of a firearm.

          But there are zero states in the US where if someone breaks into your house, it is legal and justifiable to take indiscriminate violent action against residents of that person’s home neighborhood, his friends and family members, or other members of his race or religion. There is no state or municipality where it is OK to rape and/or torture someone who breaks into your house, in self-defense. There was recently a case of that in Australia, and even in Australia that is not justifiable as self-defense:

          https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/29/aus-man-jailed-for-raping-masked-intruder-in-home/

          And in the US, even in places where armed resistance is justifiable, the law gets very very fuzzy when the intruders are from the government, *even if they do not identify themselves* and you have no way of knowing that the people breaking down your door in the wee hours are doing so in an official capacity. See Bryan Malinowski, and the controversy over no-knock raids.

          If we are talking about some sort of group action, such as the members of one country defending themselves against foreign invasion, then self-defense is the wrong term. National defense, perhaps resistance. It would help the discussion immensely if we could start by not using misleading terms.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts