Are you willing to give up your life to save the children of those who will thereafter rejoice in your death? Can you answer this simple question which accurately describes the situation in Gaza (and Judea, Samaria and other parts)?

They don't seem happy to you, because you're gullible and believe the theatrics they perform for western media, which is your only source of information on the topic. If you watch Arabic media you'll hear words of praise for their shahid children. And in the cases where they're really sad, it's only because the death of their child didn't result in the death of Jews. Yes, I find genocide revolting thus I find the actions of Hamas, Fatah and all the other "Palestinian" nationalist militant groups to be abhorrent and their supporters in the west to be bottom feeders and low lives. You're not being "decent", you're virtue signalling in the basest possible way

That's a faulty analogy. The correct analogy would be: if the police don't blow up the school, they will be blown up by the guy hiding out in the school. But it doesn't end there: those same children are gladly sacrificed by their families in order for that bad guy to blow up the police. Understand?

It's not obvious at all by the moral symmetry you present between the actions of the IDF and Hamas, Fatah, IJ etc. The minute you equate the IDF and Hamas you've already granted the latter moral legitimacy, which I find revolting.

You don't realize it (or maybe you do but are playing dumb) but to blame Israel for the death of Gazan children is quite literally defending those who are in reality the ones responsible for it (Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, PFLP etc.). You're the one who's gas lighting and deflecting by deliberately ignoring basic questions that would shed light on your motives...

You like to claim that but in actuality you refuse to condemn Hamas and their collaborators for the very thing you portray yourself to be concerned about...

You realize you're accusing me of the very thing you're guilty of, yes?

Hey asshole, You can't even answer two simple questions I posed to you which would demonstrate how flawed the narrative you're trying to present is - and then you go ahead and put words into my mouth to make me look silly. Gtfo

You: Gazans killing kids OK. Israel bad. Me: Think this through You: No. I'll just continue gaslighting

Israel's "absurd" amount of influence on US politics isn't germane to the issue at hand. Why not post a story on Egypt's gross violations of human rights as it is also quite influential on US politics? The fact that you don't, just strengthens the claim that you have a specific agenda to defame Israel (latent antisemitism?).

Self serving or not, the accounts attest to clear facts which you eagerly ignore. Shame on you

So why present a one sided story just showing Arab casualties? And factually the ceasefire was broken by the Gazans. The problem is that you're ignoring facts: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/416480

You forgot to mention that the Gazans had already broken the ceasefire (aka hudna) first, 3 days after it was declared. But don't let such minor details get in the way of your agenda of discrediting Israel.

That's great to have ideas and monetize them, but you can't expect to apply property rights to them. That simply goes against natural law. Ideas by nature are intangible and reproducible at no loss to its originator. I believe in artists' rights to making a living but there are more practical, lucrative and natural law compliant ways to do so without copyright. Copyright law is a net loss to the economy.

Please explain

Copyright is BS. You can't own something nonphysical. How do you, for example, legally possess an idea?

His support for Israel has nothing to do with him being an alleged fraud for violating libertarian principles...

Sure there is, if you're part of a community and there's land/resource that doesn't belong to a particular individual but is shared by all members of the group. Take a park or a body of water (river, lake, sea) for example: if it has no legitimate claimant, no one can simply state "this belongs to me" - it needs to be collectively owned by the group who inhabit that territory. The issue is thay in most modern western countries the "community" as a cohesive homogenous unit has degraded. Most people have very few things in common with their neighbors in today's urban/suburban landscape which makes it practically impossible for a self governing group of a few thousand people at minimum to form. This creates a vacuum in which thugs in suits take power and make rules up for the common man (or at least attempt to). This isn't communism, but rather a hybrid model in which private and public/communal property can exist side by side.

Easy there tiger. Again, I'm talking about a self organizing homogenous group of individuals who create a collective governing body to manage risks and issues that pertain to the group as a whole - a "community" or "commonwealth". So if a group of invaders trespasses on a certain individual's property it will be much easier and more efficient to protect himself by leveraging the power of the collective to resolve his issue. Reality and history show that individuals on their own cannot provide themselves security at scale...there's a reason humans have always organized into groups and created group governing structures. So forget about the state - you need to make a distinction between the modern nation state (which I also believe is a form of thuggery) and self organizing groups...

Who cares? People should be able to freely issue their own tokens without having to ask permission from men in suits and robes. "The Law" is an artificial construct created and exploited by politicians and bureaucrats for their own personal gain. The only law that should be considered is Natural Law (which is sourced in divine law), and issuing your own ecash doesn't violate that.

What about the collective's private property? That's what nation states are meant to represent - a collection of individuals with common culture/ethnicity/heritage. And state lands are property of the collective and thus need to be protected from invaders. No?

It actually makes sense. Trans people are probably the least mentally stable demographic in society. Allowing someone who's disturbed enough to want to surgically remove their sexual organs and/or inject themselves with hormones to own a gun is seemingly a danger to society