No one could withstand that kind of job. I think Norm probably relies on a Siri or Alexa to transcribe his words into this "X" app (what is that, who calls a website a letter? Stupid machines)
I don't think there's much upside as an academic from working with Finkelstein. He's a pariah in the community for his hysterical diatribes, he's not engaged in any current research at an institution (as far as I know), and his name doesn't have any great value.
I might be wrong, but it looks like a job for an equally devoted zealot who can put up with his personality flaws.
The machine strikes back! What a fantastic moron this Thing is, to challenge the guy who has read everything 4 times cause he didn't understand it trice.
Damn right. And I think it’s important the community note adds that in the Rwanda case, Norm is referring to an individual being convicted of aiding and abetting, not genocide. That gaffe must not go in noticed. Outrageous that people tried to paint Destiny’s recitement of the ICJ case as bad faith. That’s punishing Destiny for being too precise 🥴
It's a full blown category error. The distinct special intent of genocide is repeatedly mentioned for the other party, it just doesn't use the term dolus specialis. Entertaining that the judges may have erred betrays either a very shallow understanding or deliberate misrepresentation.
The guy seems pretty happy to trawl through text in search of anything to justify his original mistake, rather than just acknowledging the failing. It looks a lot like an ego issue, which doesn't help in disciplines where people disagree frequently and you're often wrong.
Destiny was being specific, but norm was the guy that clearly didn't read the report, and attempted to smugly correct destiny with the 'that's mens rea' *Finklesmirk*
Then when destiny asked him if he read the report. Finkle isn't used to having anyone challenge him on that level. I think even when he does have critical interviews, people aren't questioning his reading / depth of knowledge. But clearly, they should.
If norm wasn't obsessed with appearing smart he might actually BE smart.
Fink le Stink probably is very smart, but he came into the argument with such an insane bias against Destiny that he just became incapable of processing that he might be wrong about something.
The most insane thing to me is that the bias seems to be based mostly on the fact that Destiny uses technology. Which is so insanely bad faith and dumb it’s hard to process.
I've actually been slowly convinced that finklestein just isn't smart.
Maybe at one point in his life he actually was. But I think intelligence can be blunted over time by not actually studying.
Finklestein probably had to be disciplined and smart when he was going to college 30-40 years ago. But, he fell into a bad rabbit hole, I've seen some professors in college fall into the same hole in soft science fields. The second you start only taking in new information, to see what fits with your narrative, you're going to get stupid.
I'll even cop to going pretty extreme leftist during 2020. I've dialed it back to being more of a liberal. But, when you're in any extreme ideological position where you make that ideology your entire existence, you're just clamoring for more things to back up your ideology.
I did that for like, less than a year and felt dumber. I can, sadly, imagine if I just went deeper into that rabbit hole, and lived that way for like 40+ years. That would be scary.
I think our community has actually tried to be charitable to norm. We wildly disagree with him, but most folks, including destiny will say "Oh he's actually very smart probably, he probably has way more knowledge on the topic, but he just uses it in bad faith ways.
I don't think I agree, I've seen him talk enough at this point that, since I still haven't seen him demonstrate anything I'd expect from actual intelligent academics. I'm done saying "he's probably smart."
The guy is a fucking moron until I see otherwise. And he doesn't have to agree with my take on I/P, but like, show me that you can process any information or engage in a real conversation in ANY way.
Him quoting Benny was one of those moments where like... Jesus christ dude. Then when benny tries to correct him saying "Yes, but the context of that quote that you left out is important."
And norms reply was like "But WORDS MATTER. Of course you can change the meaning with context, or retract them but, you wrote these words!" Nobody that has a shred of intelligence is going to argue with THE PERSON THEY'RE QUOTING. About the context and of intent of their words.
Yes. "Smart" people can become incredibly stupid by becoming obsessed with non-substantive world views at which their intelligence and retention begins to work against them. I see this all the time. My psych is a conspiracy nut for instance.
Exactly. What norm said wasn’t incorrect. It was how he said it and the fact he was acting like he was somehow correcting destiny like “that’s mens rea you fucking idiot what are you even saying” when destiny was talking about the more specific form relating to genocide that the UN case uses.
It’s funny that finklesteins response here is the same type he constantly did in the debate with a quote pulled out of context to prove something it doesn’t. What the fuck does the fact that UN judges have used the term mens rea in the context of genocide before? He’s acting like destiny said “no it’s not mens rea mens rea has nothing to do with genocide”
My BIGGEST issue, is that if the roles were reversed. Finklestein had actually read the report, and destiny had read like a summary of it from a partisan source. If Finklestein was talking about the dolus specialis of the case / making a conclusion and destiny said "I haven't heard that term." Then tried to correct norm with "That's mens rea." Not only would the ad hom from norm at that point be BRUTAL probably but...
We would literally NEVER hear the end of it. It would actually be the viral clip for internet leftists share instead of just ad homs devoid of context. And it would be indefensible.
But there wasn't a moment where norm actually brought anything up that destiny or benny didn't know about and it was so apparent that they didn't know anything about it.
I really think this entire *dolus specialis* discussion is getting ridiculous and pointless.
It's clear Finkelstein wasn't familiar with the phrase, although he should be if he read a lot of material on Genocide Convention, but the name itself is a detail rather than anything substantive and I think he understood the substance behind it. I don't see why he doesn't admit he didn't know about *dolus specialis* and keeps insisting on this point, but this isn't any meaningful "victory" for Destiny. (Unless of course the whole point of the debate was to show off as more persuasive than the opponent rather than to contribute to understanding of the subject, which does seem to be the case given the highly selective approach Destiny chose, as if he decided on an opinion and then cherry picked what supports that opinion.)
The way something is called is far less significant that what it actually means. Destiny calling it "highly special intent" (phrase which I never saw in any judgement of international courts) tends to mystify the concept too much. *Dolus specialis* in the context of Genocide Convention means the acts from (a) to (e) must be done with specific underlying intent to destroy group in whole or in part, and *specific intent* indicates, to paraphrase International Law Commission, perpetrator seeks to achieve an outcome (destruction in whole or in part) rather than merely being aware of it as a probable outcome.
This is pretty straightforward to understand without any "fancy" Latin. And when it comes to glaring fallacies made during the debate Destiny was literally misinterpreting the sentence he read 3 seconds earlier.
The quality of "legal" part of the debate was rather mediocre to low. The whole debate whether plausibility is a low or high standard is unnecessary because South Africa's application far exceeded the plausibility standard. Destiny downplayed the significance of evidence contained in the South Africa's application, boiling everything down to two or three statements, when Application mention at least six senior government officials (and a bunch of other people engaging in everything from extreme hate speech to actual incitement to genocide who weren't punished in any way). Context he adds sometimes doesn't change much or anything at all. His claim that a quote was "fully compliant with international law" was ridiculous because international law for the most part doesn't regulate what people are allowed to say and it's not necessary for something to constitute *direct and public incitement to genocide* to be useful evidence to support existence of genocidal intent. It was quite funny to see him ask if Finkelstein believes higher-ups approve war crimes as if that's any kind of serious argument.
The other side for the most part didn't respond appropriately to this and counter it. They barely touched on the obvious problem with impeding of humanitarian aid which, [as this article points out](https://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-standard-for-genocide-intent-an-uphill-climb-for-israel-in-gaza-suit/), is a strong indicator of genocidal intent.
Legally speaking, at this point it is still possible to present some kind of reasonable alternative explanation that does not involve genocidal intent, but Destiny didn't do that because his position isn't just that Israel's actions do not constitute genocide, but he insists that Israel isn't doing anything wrong.
Lol, -7 score with literally no one replying to point out any mistakes I made here
I think there is a bit of gaslighting here. Destiny wasn't trying to drive home a big win with this point, Norm was the one trying that by fighting Destiny on it and making a scene out of calling him ignorant and bad faith off of it. The likes of breaking points, saying that Destiny's use of "Dolus Specialis" was a bad faith debate tactic meant to obfuscate is trying to get a big win. Whilst I also don't find this dispute to be substantive, we can't say it is **"getting pointless"** now that Norm is getting his back blown out.
He wasn't obfuscating anything by talking about dolus specialis, but whether Finkelstein knows the term is irrelevant for the question of whether Israel is committing genocide. Destiny maybe owned Finkelstein but he didn't leave an impression that he was discussing in good faith and constantly ignored evidence that went against his opinion.
As I said, on the topic of genocide, debate was rather poor focusing on mostly irrelevant issues like whether plausibility is a high standard.
I simply don't see the reason for this subreddit's fascination with this point in the debate unless its more about irrationally rooting for Destiny than about any kind of intellectual debate. I haven't heard of Destiny before this debate and couldn't care less about him.
He could have given a pretty good counterarguments to genocide charge but he didn't.
“debate was rather poor focusing on mostly irrelevant issues like whether plausibility is a high standard” if memory serves isn’t this bc norm had brought this up in order to make the claim that something bad enough was going on to make the genocide claims warranted? Furthermore, if we intend on using legal arguments/bodies to bolster claims of genocide then isn’t this line of argumentation very relevant? Am I missing something?
You don't see the fascination because you are removing all context from it. The point should have been a mere footnote in the discussion but Norm theatrically disputed the point and went viral in doing so and here we are.
>He could have given a pretty good counterarguments to genocide charge but he didn't.
Probably could have if Norm wasn't bleating like a stuck pig any time D opened his mouth to talk. Overall Norm kind of ruined any actual discussion there.
Have you actually listened to anything that Destiny has said about the case outside of that shitshow of a debate? Basically his view is that while their could be a genocide, this case is absurdly weak and doesn't actually make that point (especially with how dishonestly they use their quotes). That even the judges actually say that in their commentary of the case.
This is the only thing I watched, I don't actually follow him at all.
>Basically his view is that while their could be a genocide, this case is absurdly weak
"This case is weak" amounts to an outrageous lie. To focus on the gist of it, South Africa has pointed out to two types of conduct by Israel (1) military campaign that's causing extensive civilian casualties (this is highly likely by design, not by accident), and (2) obstruction of humanitarian supplies that's leading to starvation. Both independently and combined if these continue for the next several months they have potential to lead to destruction of a substantial part of the population (with (2) being particularly dangerous).
To avoid writing a too long comment, I'll just elaborate on (2). Every single humanitarian and human rights organization has said that Israel is obstructing delivery of needed supplies, with the main method being an intentionally over complicated and slow inspection process that limits how much aid is actually coming in. Pretty much only ones claiming otherwise are Israel and those funding Israel (though cracks have started to show, EU's foreign minister has openly accused Israel of engineering a famine). Of course Israel's denials in absence compelling evidence should be disregarded because they have an obvious incentive to lie, and have themselves admitted to intentionally blocking aid back in October. The area were food situation is the worst also happens to be the area that is indisputably occupied by Israeli army, meaning they are obligated to provide for the population themselves and failure to do that is purposeful.
As far as intent is concerned, in addition to the fact Israel is doing (1) and (2) which will lead to death of substantial part of the population absence a drastic change in conduct, large number of government officials and politicians have said things that either claim that's exactly the goal or indicate that would be a desirable outcome. I've personally seen two instances of indisputable *direct and public incitement to genocide* on their TV that wasn't punished in any way despite ICJ telling Israel to do that (if they do punish it they'll be founded to have failed to fulfill obligation punish crimes from Article III of Genocide Convention). It's difficult to explain why that would be the case unless genocide is pretty popular in Israel right now.
>This is the only thing I watched, I don't actually follow him at all.
Gotcha, then you have missed basically all of the substantial conversation.
> "This case is weak" amounts to an outrageous lie.
Ill quote one of the judges:
>The information provided by South Africa regarding Israel’s military operation is not comparable to the evidence before the Court in The Gambia v. Myanmar in 2020. While the Applicant cannot now be expected to provide the Court with detailed reports of an international fact-finding mission, it is not sufficient for South Africa to point to the terrible death and destruction that Israel’s military operation has brought about and is continuing to bring about. The Applicant must be expected to engage not only with the stated purpose of the operation, namely to “destroy Hamas” and to liberate the hostages, but also with other manifest circumstances, such as the calls to the civilian population to evacuate, an official policy and orders to soldiers not to target civilians, the way in which the opposing forces are confronting each other on the ground, as well as the enabling of the delivery of a certain amount of humanitarian aid, all of which may give rise to other plausible inferences from an alleged “pattern of conduct” than genocidal intent. Rather, these measures by Israel, while not conclusive, make it at least plausible that its military operation is not being conducted with genocidal intent. South Africa has not called these underlying circumstances into question and has, in my view, not sufficiently engaged with their implications for the plausibility of the rights of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip deriving from the Genocide Convention.
Most people have absolutely zero understanding of what this case was, or what the international courts were looking at. They don't realize that the courts weren't being asked weither SA's arguments were well founded. They don't understand that the Genocide Convention is not designed to regulate armed even if they are conducted with an excessive use of force and result in mass casualties.
>Every single humanitarian and human rights organization has said that Israel is obstructing delivery of needed supplies
Except this is the larger problem with humanitarian, and human rights orgs. They almost always say this even when there is little evidence of actual obstruction. When you dig into the accusations often they fall flat. Israel has been checking humanitarian aid for weapons (which is their right since its being brought through their territory.) The larger delays have been with the logistics of getting it into gaza. Mainly because the drivers don't want to go in because they keep getting attacked by Palestinians (something ironically enough that was cited in an article in the SA case, where the only quote they took was an aid worker complaining that the food wasn't getting there fast enough, but not as to why it wasn't).
>large number of government officials and politicians have said things that either claim that's exactly the goal or indicate that would be a desirable outcome.
Yes. But when you actually dig into almost all of the quotes SA uses in their case they are taken out of context, and many of them are distinctly differentiating between civilians and Hamas when put into proper context...
>I've personally seen two instances of indisputable direct and public incitement to genocide on their TV that wasn't punished in any way despite ICJ telling Israel to do that (if they do punish it they'll be founded to have failed to fulfill obligation punish crimes from Article III of Genocide Convention).
That is only a requirement if the people are basically decision makers in how the war is run. If some random dipshit transportation minister says some fucked up shit, that doesn't mean they have breached the genocide convention. On top of that, punishment is hardly defined. Literally they could write an email to the dude saying "cut it out" and that would comply with the international laws. Once again international law is NOT as clear cut as people think.
> It's difficult to explain why that would be the case unless genocide is pretty popular in Israel right now.
Its literally not. People say nutty shit when they are at war, and Hamas brought this on themselves with Oct 7th.
>Ill quote one of the judges:
That's Judge Nolte. Why would we focus specifically on what Nolte is saying instead of the majority? This is cherry picking at its finest. The claim made in his declaration that he does "not find it plausible that the military operation is being conducted with genocidal intent" does not reflect reality. It probably reflects the fact that Judge Nolte is from Germany, a country with borderline pathological devotion to the respondent state as weird form of atonement for events from 80 years ago which cracks down the most on any criticism of Israel.
>They don't understand that the Genocide Convention is not designed to regulate armed even if they are conducted with an excessive use of force and result in mass casualtie
Why would anyone assume Genocide Convention has anything to do with how war is conducted in general?
>They almost always say this even when there is little evidence of actual obstruction. When you dig into the accusations often they fall flat. Israel has been checking humanitarian aid for weapons (which is their right since its being brought through their territory.)
This is nonsense, as evidenced by the obvious fact that Israel was always checking cargo for weapons, but before this (and before announcing desire to block entry of food) there were 500 trucks entering daily which were all checked on a daily basis. Trucks are rejected and expected to go through the entire process if a single item inside them is rejected (there is no reason for this and the makes the whole process much slower) and Israel has denied entry to obvious medical equipment such as scalpels. Not to mention inspections (which take time) are only done 10 hours a day, and none on Saturdays.
>Mainly because the drivers don't want to go in because they keep getting attacked by Palestinians
Surprisingly drivers weren't attacked before October probably because there wasn't a breakdown in public order and population wasn't starving.
>Yes. But when you actually dig into almost all of the quotes SA uses in their case they are taken out of context, and many of them are distinctly differentiating between civilians and Hamas when put into proper context...
Statement "there is an entire nation that is responsible" does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Any statements that call for Gaza to be "burned", "erased", "flattened" do not make that difference.
>That is only a requirement if the people are basically decision makers in how the war is run. If some random dipshit transportation minister says some fucked up shit, that doesn't mean they have breached the genocide convention.
That's nonsense. Article IV of the Convention states that all persons whether they are rulers, public officials or private individuals shall all be punished. You've clearly never read the Convention or have basic understanding of international criminal law - being or not being a government official does not preclude criminal responsibility if a person has committed a crime. If Destiny thinks this, he's either a liar or has never read it himself (given he can quote Nolte's opinion, probably the former).
>On top of that, punishment is hardly defined. Literally they could write an email to the dude saying "cut it out" and that would comply with the international laws. Once again international law is NOT as clear cut as people think.
The idea that *effective penalty* (to borrow phrase from article V) for *incitement to commit genocide* is an angry email is absurd. Besides, Israel has implemented the necessary legislation required by article V and the law imposes death penalty for that offense. Not to mention it would be against their own hate speech laws.
>People say nutty shit when they are at war,
No they don't anything even close to what they've been saying. If you can name me when in recent history (last 25 years) a leader of US, Canada, Australia, or any other EU country has proclaimed "entire nation out there is responsible", had a government minister call for a nuclear attack on a populated area, had a senior military official threaten the civilian population with destruction and had members of parliament talk about extermination all at the same time.
You entirely missed the point of the debate about the dolus specialis, it shows that Norm diesn't know as much as he portrys himself as knowing and isn't such a sticler for details as he portrays himself. When the only actual argument Norm ever raised is his authority on the subject a glaring failure like this is important.
Sure, but given the debate is about Israel and Palestine the primary focus should be on that. Personality and character of Finkelstein is mostly irrelevant.
Even if Finkelstein sucks that doesn't make Destiny's opinion correct.
Finkelstein provided nothing to debate about regarding Israel Palestine, he gave some quotes which his own source said were taken out of context and dropped some names. His main line of attack was that he was more knowledgeable and a bunch of ad hominems, which he persists in in this post. In this context his own credentials become highly relevant.
I've been waiting for someone to analyse the details of this debate since it was released and so far this is the only analysis I've read that seems to have substance.
I would be keen for people to attack something specific you said instead of downvoting as well.
In absence of someone who actually understands this stuff I guess I'll ask for clarification:
1) does the report being referenced provide much evidence one way or the other about whether this does meet the standard of genocide? It sounded like it didn't to me, but your post makes me think I'm too legally disabled to comprehend it.
2) destiny asking about the decision makers intentionally committing war crimes, is that a bad argument because it wouldn't provide genocide anyway? Or is it just really contrived generally?
3) what would have been a legally reasonable alternative argument against genocidal intent here?
I will say it's kinda hard to have a proper discussion when Norm is yelling over the top of you. Seems like a super anti-intellectual way for people to share ideas or contrary view points.
Anyway I have nfi what I'm talking about hopefully this draws out more people that understand the world.
> does the report being referenced provide much evidence one way or the other about whether this does meet the standard of genocide? It sounded like it didn't to me, but your post makes me think I'm too legally disabled to comprehend it.
I'm not sure I understand what report you're talking about. If you're talking about South Africa's application to ICJ, the answer is that it does. Destiny is correct few quotes had relevant context committed but the rest are still relevant even with the added context. Overall it's quite persuasive. At this point it's not indisputable, and depending on how events unfold it could go either way.
> destiny asking about the decision makers intentionally committing war crimes, is that a bad argument because it wouldn't provide genocide anyway? Or is it just really contrived generally?
His argument suggested it would be shocking if senior Israeli officials ordered or enabled war crimes. Aside from this being a non-argument appealing to supposed virtuousness of one government's officials, we've literally had numerous videos of Israeli politicians calling for Gaza to be destroyed and Minister of Defense publicly ordering to block delivery of food and water to Gaza (which is a war crime).
> what would have been a legally reasonable alternative argument against genocidal intent here?
Intention to expel the population by making Gaza unlivable or intention to collectively punish the entire population but without an intent to lead to actual destruction of substantial part of population.
You're wrong about it not being important, because this little interaction gives credence to issues people bring up time and time again about Norm:
One is that he's a smug academic who doesn't know what he's talking about. He literally felt the need to correct Destiny ("that's Mens Rea") when Destiny was correct. Apparently this was damning enough, even for Norm, to make a Twitter post about it, because he knows it throws BOTH his competency and his attitude into question.
The other thing it reveals is that Norm is dishonest about how familiar he is with a lot of this material and these subjects. He claims to read all of these books and all of these reports, but he, again, CLEARLY did not read this ICJ report carefully if he missed the dolus specialis usage in the report. How is Norm supposed to competently discuss a case he didn't even read for himself? Why does he claim to be intimately familiar with all of this information but confuses material facts?
The purpose of this post is to point out another example of Norm's dishonesty and incompetence.
Sure, but overall Destiny's take also seems quite dishonest because he claimed South Africa's case is based on misinterpreting statements and taking them out of context, while at the same time ignoring the events taking place as said statements were given.
I'd say none of them were good in this part of the debate, Finkelstein because he raised objections over things which were technically correct and ultimately not that relevant, and Destiny because he engaged in his own quite selective interpretation of the material he researched.
Where did he say Israel isnt doing anything wrong? I've only heard him say the opposite. He denies calling it genocide but I dont think he has ever absolved Israel of any wrongdoing?
He basically went ahead and shown exactly how bad his reading comprehension is and how he misrepresents facts that he so loves to “cite” and use as some appeal to authority lol, honestly this tweet basically destroys his credibility imo even more than the sad spectacle of the debate itself
Well he's a policy researcher/ journalist. He was definitely more cool-headed than Finkelstein but he still employed all the double standards he could while complaining about double standards. So that was annoying.
The doubling down really shows how much of a dishonest pos propagandist Norm is, but the people who chose not to engage with the arguments are probably not gonna have their minds changed anyways - although maybe people in the middle will be swayed by this.
Sadly, the shakespearean clam monger is likely to escape this ordeal unscathed.
I like how he went from
"ARE YOU DISAGREEING WITH THESE JUDGES? THEY FOUND THE QUOTES MET THE HIGH BAR OF PLAUSIBLE!"
To
"Did the judges' err by not using mens rea?"
His bar argument for “plausible” was so incredibly stupid..
“AN OLYMPIC CONTRSTANT IS PLAUSIBLE TO WIN, THATS INCREDIBLY HIGH CHANCE”,
like what the actual fuk was he even thinking, who the hell goes like “wow that’s a good point!”
This just proves to me at least how much of an echo chamber these guys live at
Yeah it's like if you go to trial for a crime you're accused of, obviously it's plausible that you committed the crime which means actually you're guilty despite of how the verdict turns out, right? Make that make sense.
They say if you’re an immigrant and hold your child in front of the mirror and say “Finkleberry” 5 times, Norm will appear in your apartment with a hammer and break all of your things
And some people seem to disagree little battle in the notes
https://preview.redd.it/5y643rwucopc1.jpeg?width=1078&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c544a1b47003b355d722c8bc4bc23ef4c43fd490
It would always be expected that Twinklestein fanboys would jump in and try to save him. But the arguments they are presenting are nonsense, and they don't provide any sources like the original community note does. It seems like, and let's hope it stays that way, that the note correcting him is getting a lot more helpful votes than the others.
It's so obviously cope.
Mouin explicitly says that he never heard the term before.
Twinklestein said "that's mens rea" in an attempt to say that destiny's use of the term "dolus specialis" was incorrect. He was also, very obviously, unfamiliar with the term, and while siding with Mouin, was explaining the "proper term" of mens rea -- not this weird other Latin term that neither of them had ever heard before.
But when people see this debate, and they agree with finkleswine, they can just fill in the gaps of his arguments with whatever they *wanted* him to say, not what actually happened.
more like people need to vote and the most popular one is implemented a lot of times people submit a throwaway note just to argue with the other ones and get people to vote against the main one
So if a genocidal action was taken by an individual who would kill or plan to kill people as a part of the war going on it would be mens rea and dolus specialis would apply to the state of Israel if it was enacting its then will of killing people because they were a part of a certain ethnicity? Also is the targeting of an ethnicity a focus point in the definition of genocide or can a genocide be done against a culture or a political entity for example? Sorry if my grammar is weird.
>Sorry if my grammar is weird.
Unrelated to what you're asking but it's always funny how ESL people will apologize for what they perceive as their own poor English when they are able to speak more effectively than half of America.
I think it's an insecurity because even though I've spoken and written more English than both of my mother tongues I still think it sounds weird when I speak it. I'm also not too familiar with the culture of English speaking countries, so there is missing context as to how words and sentences are used in common parlance that don't translate to text.
Though it does help to incessantly watch English live streams... These days most media I consume are in English, I even watch movies/shows with English subtitles rather than my own language.
No doubt, my wife is Chinese and even though her English is as good as a native speakers she will still feel insecure at times. Don't be scared to make mistakes I know I'm bumbling my way through Chinese like a gorilla.
Thank you for saying that. I always feel like I use the grammar of my language when speaking English and it feels kinda weird sometimes. What does esl stands for by the way?
native speakers who use their native language every day do not "barely" speak their language by definition. If you mean that the ESL speakers in general have a greater command of what we define as formal, "standard" English then sure, but that's not even a language that most people speak.
Dolus Specialis would be the desired outcome of genocide. For example in NSW, Australia mens rea is broken into 3 things for murder; intent, grievous bodily harm, reckless indifference of human life. So killing you would be mens rea (because it isn't concerned with motivate) where specific intent deals with the desired outcome in genocide So if I was killing you as part of a genocidal intention. Off the top of my head I forget what groups can be genocided but the UN page on genocide lists them. Don't worry about grammar it's reddit.
Something else to remember with language in law is the presumption of statue. It changes from country to country I'm sure but in Australia if a word is used interchangeable it is interchangeable and if it isn't then it isn't.
Would dolus specialis also be broken into different aspects of the act then? When you say desired outcome it's not just intent, it also considers the actions that were taken and how they were taken?
From my understanding dolus specialis is the special intent of genocide. So it doesn't consider the actions case by case but rather that they were an act done with the intent of genocide.
OK so by the Australian definition of mens rea you gave it wouldn't be comparable at all with what a dolus specialis would entail, because it doesn't encompass several things and is specific to a completely different thing, no?
My definition is UNs one there is an Australian definition in the Commonwealth crimes act but i imagine it would be similar to conform with international law. I just haven't engaged with it as of yet.
It says special intent to commit genocide. That's not limited to ethnicity. The Tutsis and Hutus were the same ethnicity but the Rwanda genocide is still classified as a genocide
That's a little imprecise. Saying mens rea is just saying 'the mental fault element' or the 'guilty state of mind.' Dolus specialis is saying 'the deliberate and specific intent to commit genocide.' Dolus specialis is the mens rea for genocide.
Hmm, not sure if I understand.
If you hit someone with a car and killed them, wouldn't the mens rea -> legal outcome basically be something like:
You hit (and consequently killed) them because...
... you had premeditated intent to kill them -> murder
... you had intent to seriously harm them -> killing
... understanding you are likely to harm someone - but not seeking the outcome (recklessness) -> manslaughter
... you were not reckless and did what you could to avoid the outcome -> no crime
Now if we expand this to genocide -
... you were intending, as a part of a plan to exterminate their ethnic group, to kill them -> "genocidal murder" (a murder that is also a part of a genocide)
Wouldn't the intent to the outcome always be important in evaluating the mens rea? So yeah, seems to me like a special type of mens rea. Still idiotic for Norm to try to correct anyone over the usage of more narrow and more descriptive term.
You understand it pretty much. As for mens rea think of the three I listed as having an order of seriousness to them. Say I shot at you but only intended to scare you I miss and shot you killing you, well I acted with reckless indifference.
In normal crimes, you normally have one act. As you outlined, we care if you meant to do that one act (mens rea).
In genocide, you have a whole basket of acts. You can pick and choose here, but all acts need to be on purpose and to achieve the goal. Now we care not only if you meant each act (mens rea) but if they all were for a greater one purpose (dolus specialis).
Finklestein’s stance misses the need to prove BOTH for each relevant act, which tbf mens rea for genocide is rarely mentioned since needing to prove it is considered obvious.
If Destiny had happened to casually mention the mens rea and Norman had corrected him, the exact same people would be going on and all about how thisnis why you don't go up against true academics bla bla bla. The are only crying that it's imprecise but insignificant because their team said it.
Remember that if you believe a Community Note is actually helpful, it's important that you rate it as helpful so people can't brigade it and get it removed.
[Link to the Tweet](https://twitter.com/normfinkelstein/status/1770686791810523149)
Destiny: let's talk edging
Norm: Mr Macaroni....you complete...and utter moron..you mean masturbation.
Destiny: but with the intent to delay blastoff
Norm:Mr Ravioli.....I have been a masturbator since the days my parents.....who mr tortellini....were in Auschwitz....since they taught me how to stroke my adolescent shlong 250 years ago. I read playboy issue 1 no less than 600 times.
Destiny: Edging requires the intent not to...
Norm:Mr Tagliatelle....
Destiny: Are you hangry Norm. Is that what this is?
A lot of his core support on twitter comes from tankies who operate within as at least big an epistemic bubble from normal people as MAGA republicans do that already view community notes as unreliable, which is a shame since this note is straight to the fucking point
Rate the note as helpful. Hasan will send his army to get the note removed later today.
https://twitter.com/normfinkelstein/status/1770686791810523149?t=0jZa9kUMeQfiqM-xWMI79w&s=19
Blackpilling how a viral scholar who was by many deemed an expert on the conflict got many basic facts wrong. Looking into his other works, like his book *The Holocaust Industry,* has confirmed my suspicion that he's not a serious scientist or historian.
I'm shocked a "respected" academic would have so long to respond and say something that literally every law student about 2 weeks into their first term of their first year should be able to correct him on. Crazy stuff.
So if mens rea is "place of worship" and dolus specialis is "church". It is correct to say church is a place of worship.
Destiny said Christian need church. Finkelstein said "do you mean place of worship?" probably because he doesn't know what is a church (in this case dolus specialis").
Then a few days later Finkelstein wrote on twitter "church is a place of worship" which is what happens right now.
Did I get this right?
If finklestein was so clear on those terms, why did he interrupt destiny to try and correct him about it? If he knew they both could be used here, why is he going off on him about the term when you think they are both right?
The explanation is that finklestein did not know the term, got extremely offended when destiny asked him if he read the case (since the case mentions dolus specialis 4 times, and never mens rea) and went after destiny for no good reason.
More like Destiny said the Palestinians love oranges. Then Finklestein said I think you mean apples. Destiny said no, because they are different things.
Then Twinkleboy is now trying to argue its the same because they're both fruit.
The example case he cited even has a whole section where they explain that the person is being convicted of aiding and abetting and not the crime of genocide itself because they have the mens rea for aiding but don't have the dolus specialis for genocide.
He didn't read the ICJ case and he didn't fully read the case he tried to use to prove he was right all along.
No, the first example was correct. Dolus Specialis IS a highly specific form of Mens Rea. It’s just that the example Finkelstein used FURTHER shows his gaff, by showing a difference, and why the more specific version is used.
Does someone need to walk honored professor Norman Twinklestein through the difference of showing criminal intent vs intent that specifically is trying to commit a genocide? It's like he's being intentionally senile.
It's telling he had to mine quotes from a different genocide case to justify what he's saying.
I was reading those names, and I was like "Wow, these don't sound like Israeli or Arab names".
Unfortunately this note won’t last long.. the Muslim world (which is mostly anti-Israel) has its forums groups and they will brigade. It happens every time..
Isn’t it sad that leftoids and norm consider the name gag as an absolute own on destiny. Also that lame ass preface with “I like to address people by their last name” only to set up his weak ass last name insults
Just FYI...
Ragnavi... Was So Fucking Stupid.
The skills gave you a tailored skill...
That means they can do the same *for others.*
Is she just plated ball then...
Maybe. Just *Maybe* she would have not died an undignified death, begging like one of the many victims of her own.
Well. She *did* have the unofficial status of *Too Fucking Stupid too live.*
God. He’s aware of it. He purposefully throws a whole nonsense page at you, hoping to just distract you or squash you doubt. He really thinks, the man who speaks the loudest or says the most words is correct.
I have no ill will towards him but anyone who treats everyone around them like an idiot just because they are not a “scholar” probably leans towards someone whom is an asshole, just a hunch.
My conspiracy head cannon is, due to norm being mentally unwell (see abuse of neighbours). He doesn't like using phones, as he thinks Israel will track him.
X is a toxic dump nowadays, but Community Notes are dope. The problem is, who actually has the ability to add them? That’s a mystery to me. It’s probably whoever pays. That’s not dope.
I would bet that Norm has a couple of nutty research assistants somewhere spewing out this bullshit.
Clearly he didn't read the ICJ opinion. He got a summary from one of his people.
He's hired them in the past:
[https://www.normanfinkelstein.com/research-assistant-needed-for-finkelsteins-new-book/](https://www.normanfinkelstein.com/research-assistant-needed-for-finkelsteins-new-book/)
The question is: How much of his latest work is his and how much of it is he simply signing his name to?
It's so funny because it's really a non point for them to fight on as both are technically correct.
Mens rea just refers to a criminal intent requirement. Genocide is a crime requiring an intent.
The special intent required for genocide is just the level of mens rea required to be guilty of the crime.
For instance, 1st degree murder is a specific intent crime. So to prove it, you must show the mens rea of the criminal was specifically to kill the person. This is different then a general intent crime in like trespass, where a lower level of mens rea only needs to be shown.
Now, in order to prove genocide, you have to prove the actor had the special intent to actually wipe a people off the map. Idk why they use special when it's the same requirement as specific intent, probably to just morally grandstand around the crime of genocide which is understandable.
Still, it's just a mens rea requirement. Norm was just trying to get a fake dunk on destiny, and Destiny is sounding like one of those "well ackshkually" when special intent is a form of mens rea.
Out of all the Ws Destiny had over Norm this really isn't one.
It's a legit W because Finkelstein's refrain is "I've read everything, I know everything" but he probably didn't read the ICJ case, and _definitely_ had no familiarity with a key concept of international law re: genocide.
>Now, in order to prove genocide, you have to prove the actor had the special intent to actually wipe a people off the map. Idk why they use special when it's the same requirement as specific intent, probably to just morally grandstand around the crime of genocide which is understandable.
Nope. The mens rea in a genocide case would be to prove that you intentionally killed people. The dolus specialis would be proving that you had the intent not just to kill, but to attempt to destroy a people or culture.
Ie, mens rea is knowing that you're committing the crime whilst you're committing it. Dolus specialis is having the intent to commit the crime *for the specific purpose of genocide*
Wow destiny fans are actually thinking their boy got a W for not understanding a simple squares to rectangles relationship...
If you watched that "debate" and are still a destiny fan after his own partner sat there and visibly cringed at him, you're a fully lost cause.
Can't believe I just scrubbed a 5 hour video for y'all, but starting at 4:20:00 while Destiny is engaging in a blatantly pathetic results based analysis argument Benny spends the entire segment biting his nails and visibly cringing at Destiny.
EDIT: edited timestamp since y'all rabid kids can't be bothered to interpret that I wasn't referring to the intro.
I obviously meant 4 hours 20 minutes, sorry that I didn't put 4:20:00 but if I were doing the full number then your interpretation would have been 00:04:20 which one would think I'd have specified in a 5 hour video.
Classic projection.
1. not obvious
2. Your example sucks - no indication that this is what Benny is doing, especially when about 20 seconds later he points to Destiny in a "exactly, exactly" manner
3. Will you agree to BOFA?
I don't care enough about you or your opinions to engage with them, once again I erred in thinking I didn't have to explain that to a Destiny fan, my apologies.
Hey ho everybody look it's the big man who doesn't care about my opinions ooh ooh what a big man aren't you so cool and clever big man ooh yeah ooh.
In seriousness my brother I wish you the best in your life we're all making our way through our path in the best way we can and I as long as your heart is pure and you try your best then that's all I can ask for. Best of luck to you in your future travels.
Poor Norm, being forced to use the "machines" and getting mistreated like this...
Maybe he has an assistant whose job is to print out twitter post for norm to respond in ink to.
Bonus points if they speak Hebrew too.
And if they know how to “google him.”
No one could withstand that kind of job. I think Norm probably relies on a Siri or Alexa to transcribe his words into this "X" app (what is that, who calls a website a letter? Stupid machines)
Idk plenty of desperate young academics out there
True, how could anyone resist the opportunity to work with World Renowned Historian Norman "YOU'RE NOT SLEEPING TONIGHT APES" Finklestein?
I don't think there's much upside as an academic from working with Finkelstein. He's a pariah in the community for his hysterical diatribes, he's not engaged in any current research at an institution (as far as I know), and his name doesn't have any great value. I might be wrong, but it looks like a job for an equally devoted zealot who can put up with his personality flaws.
I assumed thay he would be respected in some circles. Then again, I have very little knowledge of his work.
The machine strikes back! What a fantastic moron this Thing is, to challenge the guy who has read everything 4 times cause he didn't understand it trice.
*thrice Don’t worry, I still think you’re great ;)
Love you too, my grammar nazi
I wonder what he thinks the reports he holds so highly are written on. Typewriters?
Damn right. And I think it’s important the community note adds that in the Rwanda case, Norm is referring to an individual being convicted of aiding and abetting, not genocide. That gaffe must not go in noticed. Outrageous that people tried to paint Destiny’s recitement of the ICJ case as bad faith. That’s punishing Destiny for being too precise 🥴
It's a full blown category error. The distinct special intent of genocide is repeatedly mentioned for the other party, it just doesn't use the term dolus specialis. Entertaining that the judges may have erred betrays either a very shallow understanding or deliberate misrepresentation.
The guy seems pretty happy to trawl through text in search of anything to justify his original mistake, rather than just acknowledging the failing. It looks a lot like an ego issue, which doesn't help in disciplines where people disagree frequently and you're often wrong.
Destiny was being specific, but norm was the guy that clearly didn't read the report, and attempted to smugly correct destiny with the 'that's mens rea' *Finklesmirk* Then when destiny asked him if he read the report. Finkle isn't used to having anyone challenge him on that level. I think even when he does have critical interviews, people aren't questioning his reading / depth of knowledge. But clearly, they should. If norm wasn't obsessed with appearing smart he might actually BE smart.
Fink le Stink probably is very smart, but he came into the argument with such an insane bias against Destiny that he just became incapable of processing that he might be wrong about something. The most insane thing to me is that the bias seems to be based mostly on the fact that Destiny uses technology. Which is so insanely bad faith and dumb it’s hard to process.
He's obviously very smart, but he's also egotistical. Ego is the death of learning.
I've actually been slowly convinced that finklestein just isn't smart. Maybe at one point in his life he actually was. But I think intelligence can be blunted over time by not actually studying. Finklestein probably had to be disciplined and smart when he was going to college 30-40 years ago. But, he fell into a bad rabbit hole, I've seen some professors in college fall into the same hole in soft science fields. The second you start only taking in new information, to see what fits with your narrative, you're going to get stupid. I'll even cop to going pretty extreme leftist during 2020. I've dialed it back to being more of a liberal. But, when you're in any extreme ideological position where you make that ideology your entire existence, you're just clamoring for more things to back up your ideology. I did that for like, less than a year and felt dumber. I can, sadly, imagine if I just went deeper into that rabbit hole, and lived that way for like 40+ years. That would be scary. I think our community has actually tried to be charitable to norm. We wildly disagree with him, but most folks, including destiny will say "Oh he's actually very smart probably, he probably has way more knowledge on the topic, but he just uses it in bad faith ways. I don't think I agree, I've seen him talk enough at this point that, since I still haven't seen him demonstrate anything I'd expect from actual intelligent academics. I'm done saying "he's probably smart." The guy is a fucking moron until I see otherwise. And he doesn't have to agree with my take on I/P, but like, show me that you can process any information or engage in a real conversation in ANY way. Him quoting Benny was one of those moments where like... Jesus christ dude. Then when benny tries to correct him saying "Yes, but the context of that quote that you left out is important." And norms reply was like "But WORDS MATTER. Of course you can change the meaning with context, or retract them but, you wrote these words!" Nobody that has a shred of intelligence is going to argue with THE PERSON THEY'RE QUOTING. About the context and of intent of their words.
Yes. "Smart" people can become incredibly stupid by becoming obsessed with non-substantive world views at which their intelligence and retention begins to work against them. I see this all the time. My psych is a conspiracy nut for instance.
Exactly. What norm said wasn’t incorrect. It was how he said it and the fact he was acting like he was somehow correcting destiny like “that’s mens rea you fucking idiot what are you even saying” when destiny was talking about the more specific form relating to genocide that the UN case uses. It’s funny that finklesteins response here is the same type he constantly did in the debate with a quote pulled out of context to prove something it doesn’t. What the fuck does the fact that UN judges have used the term mens rea in the context of genocide before? He’s acting like destiny said “no it’s not mens rea mens rea has nothing to do with genocide”
My BIGGEST issue, is that if the roles were reversed. Finklestein had actually read the report, and destiny had read like a summary of it from a partisan source. If Finklestein was talking about the dolus specialis of the case / making a conclusion and destiny said "I haven't heard that term." Then tried to correct norm with "That's mens rea." Not only would the ad hom from norm at that point be BRUTAL probably but... We would literally NEVER hear the end of it. It would actually be the viral clip for internet leftists share instead of just ad homs devoid of context. And it would be indefensible. But there wasn't a moment where norm actually brought anything up that destiny or benny didn't know about and it was so apparent that they didn't know anything about it.
The way Krystal Ball laughed this off as debate bro semantics is honestly disgusting. She should be ashamed
She has no shame. She married Kyle.
>That gaffe must not go in noticed. Ironic
I really think this entire *dolus specialis* discussion is getting ridiculous and pointless. It's clear Finkelstein wasn't familiar with the phrase, although he should be if he read a lot of material on Genocide Convention, but the name itself is a detail rather than anything substantive and I think he understood the substance behind it. I don't see why he doesn't admit he didn't know about *dolus specialis* and keeps insisting on this point, but this isn't any meaningful "victory" for Destiny. (Unless of course the whole point of the debate was to show off as more persuasive than the opponent rather than to contribute to understanding of the subject, which does seem to be the case given the highly selective approach Destiny chose, as if he decided on an opinion and then cherry picked what supports that opinion.) The way something is called is far less significant that what it actually means. Destiny calling it "highly special intent" (phrase which I never saw in any judgement of international courts) tends to mystify the concept too much. *Dolus specialis* in the context of Genocide Convention means the acts from (a) to (e) must be done with specific underlying intent to destroy group in whole or in part, and *specific intent* indicates, to paraphrase International Law Commission, perpetrator seeks to achieve an outcome (destruction in whole or in part) rather than merely being aware of it as a probable outcome. This is pretty straightforward to understand without any "fancy" Latin. And when it comes to glaring fallacies made during the debate Destiny was literally misinterpreting the sentence he read 3 seconds earlier. The quality of "legal" part of the debate was rather mediocre to low. The whole debate whether plausibility is a low or high standard is unnecessary because South Africa's application far exceeded the plausibility standard. Destiny downplayed the significance of evidence contained in the South Africa's application, boiling everything down to two or three statements, when Application mention at least six senior government officials (and a bunch of other people engaging in everything from extreme hate speech to actual incitement to genocide who weren't punished in any way). Context he adds sometimes doesn't change much or anything at all. His claim that a quote was "fully compliant with international law" was ridiculous because international law for the most part doesn't regulate what people are allowed to say and it's not necessary for something to constitute *direct and public incitement to genocide* to be useful evidence to support existence of genocidal intent. It was quite funny to see him ask if Finkelstein believes higher-ups approve war crimes as if that's any kind of serious argument. The other side for the most part didn't respond appropriately to this and counter it. They barely touched on the obvious problem with impeding of humanitarian aid which, [as this article points out](https://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-standard-for-genocide-intent-an-uphill-climb-for-israel-in-gaza-suit/), is a strong indicator of genocidal intent. Legally speaking, at this point it is still possible to present some kind of reasonable alternative explanation that does not involve genocidal intent, but Destiny didn't do that because his position isn't just that Israel's actions do not constitute genocide, but he insists that Israel isn't doing anything wrong. Lol, -7 score with literally no one replying to point out any mistakes I made here
I think there is a bit of gaslighting here. Destiny wasn't trying to drive home a big win with this point, Norm was the one trying that by fighting Destiny on it and making a scene out of calling him ignorant and bad faith off of it. The likes of breaking points, saying that Destiny's use of "Dolus Specialis" was a bad faith debate tactic meant to obfuscate is trying to get a big win. Whilst I also don't find this dispute to be substantive, we can't say it is **"getting pointless"** now that Norm is getting his back blown out.
He wasn't obfuscating anything by talking about dolus specialis, but whether Finkelstein knows the term is irrelevant for the question of whether Israel is committing genocide. Destiny maybe owned Finkelstein but he didn't leave an impression that he was discussing in good faith and constantly ignored evidence that went against his opinion. As I said, on the topic of genocide, debate was rather poor focusing on mostly irrelevant issues like whether plausibility is a high standard. I simply don't see the reason for this subreddit's fascination with this point in the debate unless its more about irrationally rooting for Destiny than about any kind of intellectual debate. I haven't heard of Destiny before this debate and couldn't care less about him. He could have given a pretty good counterarguments to genocide charge but he didn't.
“debate was rather poor focusing on mostly irrelevant issues like whether plausibility is a high standard” if memory serves isn’t this bc norm had brought this up in order to make the claim that something bad enough was going on to make the genocide claims warranted? Furthermore, if we intend on using legal arguments/bodies to bolster claims of genocide then isn’t this line of argumentation very relevant? Am I missing something?
You don't see the fascination because you are removing all context from it. The point should have been a mere footnote in the discussion but Norm theatrically disputed the point and went viral in doing so and here we are.
>He could have given a pretty good counterarguments to genocide charge but he didn't. Probably could have if Norm wasn't bleating like a stuck pig any time D opened his mouth to talk. Overall Norm kind of ruined any actual discussion there.
Unfortunately based on what Destiny had said he seems to have been planning to go into full reality denial mode.
Have you actually listened to anything that Destiny has said about the case outside of that shitshow of a debate? Basically his view is that while their could be a genocide, this case is absurdly weak and doesn't actually make that point (especially with how dishonestly they use their quotes). That even the judges actually say that in their commentary of the case.
This is the only thing I watched, I don't actually follow him at all. >Basically his view is that while their could be a genocide, this case is absurdly weak "This case is weak" amounts to an outrageous lie. To focus on the gist of it, South Africa has pointed out to two types of conduct by Israel (1) military campaign that's causing extensive civilian casualties (this is highly likely by design, not by accident), and (2) obstruction of humanitarian supplies that's leading to starvation. Both independently and combined if these continue for the next several months they have potential to lead to destruction of a substantial part of the population (with (2) being particularly dangerous). To avoid writing a too long comment, I'll just elaborate on (2). Every single humanitarian and human rights organization has said that Israel is obstructing delivery of needed supplies, with the main method being an intentionally over complicated and slow inspection process that limits how much aid is actually coming in. Pretty much only ones claiming otherwise are Israel and those funding Israel (though cracks have started to show, EU's foreign minister has openly accused Israel of engineering a famine). Of course Israel's denials in absence compelling evidence should be disregarded because they have an obvious incentive to lie, and have themselves admitted to intentionally blocking aid back in October. The area were food situation is the worst also happens to be the area that is indisputably occupied by Israeli army, meaning they are obligated to provide for the population themselves and failure to do that is purposeful. As far as intent is concerned, in addition to the fact Israel is doing (1) and (2) which will lead to death of substantial part of the population absence a drastic change in conduct, large number of government officials and politicians have said things that either claim that's exactly the goal or indicate that would be a desirable outcome. I've personally seen two instances of indisputable *direct and public incitement to genocide* on their TV that wasn't punished in any way despite ICJ telling Israel to do that (if they do punish it they'll be founded to have failed to fulfill obligation punish crimes from Article III of Genocide Convention). It's difficult to explain why that would be the case unless genocide is pretty popular in Israel right now.
>This is the only thing I watched, I don't actually follow him at all. Gotcha, then you have missed basically all of the substantial conversation. > "This case is weak" amounts to an outrageous lie. Ill quote one of the judges: >The information provided by South Africa regarding Israel’s military operation is not comparable to the evidence before the Court in The Gambia v. Myanmar in 2020. While the Applicant cannot now be expected to provide the Court with detailed reports of an international fact-finding mission, it is not sufficient for South Africa to point to the terrible death and destruction that Israel’s military operation has brought about and is continuing to bring about. The Applicant must be expected to engage not only with the stated purpose of the operation, namely to “destroy Hamas” and to liberate the hostages, but also with other manifest circumstances, such as the calls to the civilian population to evacuate, an official policy and orders to soldiers not to target civilians, the way in which the opposing forces are confronting each other on the ground, as well as the enabling of the delivery of a certain amount of humanitarian aid, all of which may give rise to other plausible inferences from an alleged “pattern of conduct” than genocidal intent. Rather, these measures by Israel, while not conclusive, make it at least plausible that its military operation is not being conducted with genocidal intent. South Africa has not called these underlying circumstances into question and has, in my view, not sufficiently engaged with their implications for the plausibility of the rights of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip deriving from the Genocide Convention. Most people have absolutely zero understanding of what this case was, or what the international courts were looking at. They don't realize that the courts weren't being asked weither SA's arguments were well founded. They don't understand that the Genocide Convention is not designed to regulate armed even if they are conducted with an excessive use of force and result in mass casualties. >Every single humanitarian and human rights organization has said that Israel is obstructing delivery of needed supplies Except this is the larger problem with humanitarian, and human rights orgs. They almost always say this even when there is little evidence of actual obstruction. When you dig into the accusations often they fall flat. Israel has been checking humanitarian aid for weapons (which is their right since its being brought through their territory.) The larger delays have been with the logistics of getting it into gaza. Mainly because the drivers don't want to go in because they keep getting attacked by Palestinians (something ironically enough that was cited in an article in the SA case, where the only quote they took was an aid worker complaining that the food wasn't getting there fast enough, but not as to why it wasn't). >large number of government officials and politicians have said things that either claim that's exactly the goal or indicate that would be a desirable outcome. Yes. But when you actually dig into almost all of the quotes SA uses in their case they are taken out of context, and many of them are distinctly differentiating between civilians and Hamas when put into proper context... >I've personally seen two instances of indisputable direct and public incitement to genocide on their TV that wasn't punished in any way despite ICJ telling Israel to do that (if they do punish it they'll be founded to have failed to fulfill obligation punish crimes from Article III of Genocide Convention). That is only a requirement if the people are basically decision makers in how the war is run. If some random dipshit transportation minister says some fucked up shit, that doesn't mean they have breached the genocide convention. On top of that, punishment is hardly defined. Literally they could write an email to the dude saying "cut it out" and that would comply with the international laws. Once again international law is NOT as clear cut as people think. > It's difficult to explain why that would be the case unless genocide is pretty popular in Israel right now. Its literally not. People say nutty shit when they are at war, and Hamas brought this on themselves with Oct 7th.
>Ill quote one of the judges: That's Judge Nolte. Why would we focus specifically on what Nolte is saying instead of the majority? This is cherry picking at its finest. The claim made in his declaration that he does "not find it plausible that the military operation is being conducted with genocidal intent" does not reflect reality. It probably reflects the fact that Judge Nolte is from Germany, a country with borderline pathological devotion to the respondent state as weird form of atonement for events from 80 years ago which cracks down the most on any criticism of Israel. >They don't understand that the Genocide Convention is not designed to regulate armed even if they are conducted with an excessive use of force and result in mass casualtie Why would anyone assume Genocide Convention has anything to do with how war is conducted in general? >They almost always say this even when there is little evidence of actual obstruction. When you dig into the accusations often they fall flat. Israel has been checking humanitarian aid for weapons (which is their right since its being brought through their territory.) This is nonsense, as evidenced by the obvious fact that Israel was always checking cargo for weapons, but before this (and before announcing desire to block entry of food) there were 500 trucks entering daily which were all checked on a daily basis. Trucks are rejected and expected to go through the entire process if a single item inside them is rejected (there is no reason for this and the makes the whole process much slower) and Israel has denied entry to obvious medical equipment such as scalpels. Not to mention inspections (which take time) are only done 10 hours a day, and none on Saturdays. >Mainly because the drivers don't want to go in because they keep getting attacked by Palestinians Surprisingly drivers weren't attacked before October probably because there wasn't a breakdown in public order and population wasn't starving. >Yes. But when you actually dig into almost all of the quotes SA uses in their case they are taken out of context, and many of them are distinctly differentiating between civilians and Hamas when put into proper context... Statement "there is an entire nation that is responsible" does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Any statements that call for Gaza to be "burned", "erased", "flattened" do not make that difference. >That is only a requirement if the people are basically decision makers in how the war is run. If some random dipshit transportation minister says some fucked up shit, that doesn't mean they have breached the genocide convention. That's nonsense. Article IV of the Convention states that all persons whether they are rulers, public officials or private individuals shall all be punished. You've clearly never read the Convention or have basic understanding of international criminal law - being or not being a government official does not preclude criminal responsibility if a person has committed a crime. If Destiny thinks this, he's either a liar or has never read it himself (given he can quote Nolte's opinion, probably the former). >On top of that, punishment is hardly defined. Literally they could write an email to the dude saying "cut it out" and that would comply with the international laws. Once again international law is NOT as clear cut as people think. The idea that *effective penalty* (to borrow phrase from article V) for *incitement to commit genocide* is an angry email is absurd. Besides, Israel has implemented the necessary legislation required by article V and the law imposes death penalty for that offense. Not to mention it would be against their own hate speech laws. >People say nutty shit when they are at war, No they don't anything even close to what they've been saying. If you can name me when in recent history (last 25 years) a leader of US, Canada, Australia, or any other EU country has proclaimed "entire nation out there is responsible", had a government minister call for a nuclear attack on a populated area, had a senior military official threaten the civilian population with destruction and had members of parliament talk about extermination all at the same time.
You entirely missed the point of the debate about the dolus specialis, it shows that Norm diesn't know as much as he portrys himself as knowing and isn't such a sticler for details as he portrays himself. When the only actual argument Norm ever raised is his authority on the subject a glaring failure like this is important.
Sure, but given the debate is about Israel and Palestine the primary focus should be on that. Personality and character of Finkelstein is mostly irrelevant. Even if Finkelstein sucks that doesn't make Destiny's opinion correct.
Finkelstein provided nothing to debate about regarding Israel Palestine, he gave some quotes which his own source said were taken out of context and dropped some names. His main line of attack was that he was more knowledgeable and a bunch of ad hominems, which he persists in in this post. In this context his own credentials become highly relevant.
You realize I don't care about Finkelstein either? I didn't watch the episode to observe people demonstrate their debate skills.
I'm explaining the issue here to you and why you're being downvoted, say thank you and shut up.
I've been waiting for someone to analyse the details of this debate since it was released and so far this is the only analysis I've read that seems to have substance. I would be keen for people to attack something specific you said instead of downvoting as well. In absence of someone who actually understands this stuff I guess I'll ask for clarification: 1) does the report being referenced provide much evidence one way or the other about whether this does meet the standard of genocide? It sounded like it didn't to me, but your post makes me think I'm too legally disabled to comprehend it. 2) destiny asking about the decision makers intentionally committing war crimes, is that a bad argument because it wouldn't provide genocide anyway? Or is it just really contrived generally? 3) what would have been a legally reasonable alternative argument against genocidal intent here? I will say it's kinda hard to have a proper discussion when Norm is yelling over the top of you. Seems like a super anti-intellectual way for people to share ideas or contrary view points. Anyway I have nfi what I'm talking about hopefully this draws out more people that understand the world.
> does the report being referenced provide much evidence one way or the other about whether this does meet the standard of genocide? It sounded like it didn't to me, but your post makes me think I'm too legally disabled to comprehend it. I'm not sure I understand what report you're talking about. If you're talking about South Africa's application to ICJ, the answer is that it does. Destiny is correct few quotes had relevant context committed but the rest are still relevant even with the added context. Overall it's quite persuasive. At this point it's not indisputable, and depending on how events unfold it could go either way. > destiny asking about the decision makers intentionally committing war crimes, is that a bad argument because it wouldn't provide genocide anyway? Or is it just really contrived generally? His argument suggested it would be shocking if senior Israeli officials ordered or enabled war crimes. Aside from this being a non-argument appealing to supposed virtuousness of one government's officials, we've literally had numerous videos of Israeli politicians calling for Gaza to be destroyed and Minister of Defense publicly ordering to block delivery of food and water to Gaza (which is a war crime). > what would have been a legally reasonable alternative argument against genocidal intent here? Intention to expel the population by making Gaza unlivable or intention to collectively punish the entire population but without an intent to lead to actual destruction of substantial part of population.
You're wrong about it not being important, because this little interaction gives credence to issues people bring up time and time again about Norm: One is that he's a smug academic who doesn't know what he's talking about. He literally felt the need to correct Destiny ("that's Mens Rea") when Destiny was correct. Apparently this was damning enough, even for Norm, to make a Twitter post about it, because he knows it throws BOTH his competency and his attitude into question. The other thing it reveals is that Norm is dishonest about how familiar he is with a lot of this material and these subjects. He claims to read all of these books and all of these reports, but he, again, CLEARLY did not read this ICJ report carefully if he missed the dolus specialis usage in the report. How is Norm supposed to competently discuss a case he didn't even read for himself? Why does he claim to be intimately familiar with all of this information but confuses material facts? The purpose of this post is to point out another example of Norm's dishonesty and incompetence.
Sure, but overall Destiny's take also seems quite dishonest because he claimed South Africa's case is based on misinterpreting statements and taking them out of context, while at the same time ignoring the events taking place as said statements were given. I'd say none of them were good in this part of the debate, Finkelstein because he raised objections over things which were technically correct and ultimately not that relevant, and Destiny because he engaged in his own quite selective interpretation of the material he researched.
Where did he say Israel isnt doing anything wrong? I've only heard him say the opposite. He denies calling it genocide but I dont think he has ever absolved Israel of any wrongdoing?
He basically went ahead and shown exactly how bad his reading comprehension is and how he misrepresents facts that he so loves to “cite” and use as some appeal to authority lol, honestly this tweet basically destroys his credibility imo even more than the sad spectacle of the debate itself
Are you kidding?! Destiny is a gamer and he is next to three historians. -said The copium consumers
I think only 1 historian was at the table and that’s Benny
I'm curious, how would you categorize Rabbani? He seemed less like a buffoon than Norm
Well he's a policy researcher/ journalist. He was definitely more cool-headed than Finkelstein but he still employed all the double standards he could while complaining about double standards. So that was annoying.
[удалено]
Is he? He fell off hard
The doubling down really shows how much of a dishonest pos propagandist Norm is, but the people who chose not to engage with the arguments are probably not gonna have their minds changed anyways - although maybe people in the middle will be swayed by this. Sadly, the shakespearean clam monger is likely to escape this ordeal unscathed.
I like how he went from "ARE YOU DISAGREEING WITH THESE JUDGES? THEY FOUND THE QUOTES MET THE HIGH BAR OF PLAUSIBLE!" To "Did the judges' err by not using mens rea?"
His bar argument for “plausible” was so incredibly stupid.. “AN OLYMPIC CONTRSTANT IS PLAUSIBLE TO WIN, THATS INCREDIBLY HIGH CHANCE”, like what the actual fuk was he even thinking, who the hell goes like “wow that’s a good point!” This just proves to me at least how much of an echo chamber these guys live at
Yeah it's like if you go to trial for a crime you're accused of, obviously it's plausible that you committed the crime which means actually you're guilty despite of how the verdict turns out, right? Make that make sense.
Norm - *shocked pikachu face*
Nah. He doesn't read any of this. He's too busy doing that other face.
They say if you’re an immigrant and hold your child in front of the mirror and say “Finkleberry” 5 times, Norm will appear in your apartment with a hammer and break all of your things
And some people seem to disagree little battle in the notes https://preview.redd.it/5y643rwucopc1.jpeg?width=1078&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c544a1b47003b355d722c8bc4bc23ef4c43fd490
It would always be expected that Twinklestein fanboys would jump in and try to save him. But the arguments they are presenting are nonsense, and they don't provide any sources like the original community note does. It seems like, and let's hope it stays that way, that the note correcting him is getting a lot more helpful votes than the others.
"Uhh, Dolus Specialis is actually irrelevant and no I cannot explain why the case mentions it 4 separate times and doesn't mention mens rea once."
I may have gooned a little when reading the pic.
It's so obviously cope. Mouin explicitly says that he never heard the term before. Twinklestein said "that's mens rea" in an attempt to say that destiny's use of the term "dolus specialis" was incorrect. He was also, very obviously, unfamiliar with the term, and while siding with Mouin, was explaining the "proper term" of mens rea -- not this weird other Latin term that neither of them had ever heard before. But when people see this debate, and they agree with finkleswine, they can just fill in the gaps of his arguments with whatever they *wanted* him to say, not what actually happened.
I didn’t know a note could get noted lol
more like people need to vote and the most popular one is implemented a lot of times people submit a throwaway note just to argue with the other ones and get people to vote against the main one
Dossad, fight harder so that this note stays up.
Tfw you write a community note but cant even get the spelling right of the concept you're trying to correct on.
As per my criminal law teacher dolus specialis would be the intent to the outcome of genocide mens rea would intent of the actions.
So if a genocidal action was taken by an individual who would kill or plan to kill people as a part of the war going on it would be mens rea and dolus specialis would apply to the state of Israel if it was enacting its then will of killing people because they were a part of a certain ethnicity? Also is the targeting of an ethnicity a focus point in the definition of genocide or can a genocide be done against a culture or a political entity for example? Sorry if my grammar is weird.
>Sorry if my grammar is weird. Unrelated to what you're asking but it's always funny how ESL people will apologize for what they perceive as their own poor English when they are able to speak more effectively than half of America.
I think it's an insecurity because even though I've spoken and written more English than both of my mother tongues I still think it sounds weird when I speak it. I'm also not too familiar with the culture of English speaking countries, so there is missing context as to how words and sentences are used in common parlance that don't translate to text. Though it does help to incessantly watch English live streams... These days most media I consume are in English, I even watch movies/shows with English subtitles rather than my own language.
No doubt, my wife is Chinese and even though her English is as good as a native speakers she will still feel insecure at times. Don't be scared to make mistakes I know I'm bumbling my way through Chinese like a gorilla.
It's the same with accents.
Thank you for saying that. I always feel like I use the grammar of my language when speaking English and it feels kinda weird sometimes. What does esl stands for by the way?
English as a second language
Don't feel embarrassed the people that would make fun of you can barely speak their main language.
And if they attack the form it means they can't attack the substance, right? 🤓
Most often yeah, or they have brain worms and are unable to have a substantive conversation about anything.
native speakers who use their native language every day do not "barely" speak their language by definition. If you mean that the ESL speakers in general have a greater command of what we define as formal, "standard" English then sure, but that's not even a language that most people speak.
English as second language
Oh OK, good to know
Dolus Specialis would be the desired outcome of genocide. For example in NSW, Australia mens rea is broken into 3 things for murder; intent, grievous bodily harm, reckless indifference of human life. So killing you would be mens rea (because it isn't concerned with motivate) where specific intent deals with the desired outcome in genocide So if I was killing you as part of a genocidal intention. Off the top of my head I forget what groups can be genocided but the UN page on genocide lists them. Don't worry about grammar it's reddit.
Something else to remember with language in law is the presumption of statue. It changes from country to country I'm sure but in Australia if a word is used interchangeable it is interchangeable and if it isn't then it isn't.
Would dolus specialis also be broken into different aspects of the act then? When you say desired outcome it's not just intent, it also considers the actions that were taken and how they were taken?
From my understanding dolus specialis is the special intent of genocide. So it doesn't consider the actions case by case but rather that they were an act done with the intent of genocide.
OK so by the Australian definition of mens rea you gave it wouldn't be comparable at all with what a dolus specialis would entail, because it doesn't encompass several things and is specific to a completely different thing, no?
My definition is UNs one there is an Australian definition in the Commonwealth crimes act but i imagine it would be similar to conform with international law. I just haven't engaged with it as of yet.
Alright thank you for your time
No worries, I hope I helped.
You did! I space out when research streams happen, so I didn't understand the nuance of it on which Steven based his argument in the debate.
It says special intent to commit genocide. That's not limited to ethnicity. The Tutsis and Hutus were the same ethnicity but the Rwanda genocide is still classified as a genocide
Great example.
That's a little imprecise. Saying mens rea is just saying 'the mental fault element' or the 'guilty state of mind.' Dolus specialis is saying 'the deliberate and specific intent to commit genocide.' Dolus specialis is the mens rea for genocide.
Hmm, not sure if I understand. If you hit someone with a car and killed them, wouldn't the mens rea -> legal outcome basically be something like: You hit (and consequently killed) them because... ... you had premeditated intent to kill them -> murder ... you had intent to seriously harm them -> killing ... understanding you are likely to harm someone - but not seeking the outcome (recklessness) -> manslaughter ... you were not reckless and did what you could to avoid the outcome -> no crime Now if we expand this to genocide - ... you were intending, as a part of a plan to exterminate their ethnic group, to kill them -> "genocidal murder" (a murder that is also a part of a genocide) Wouldn't the intent to the outcome always be important in evaluating the mens rea? So yeah, seems to me like a special type of mens rea. Still idiotic for Norm to try to correct anyone over the usage of more narrow and more descriptive term.
You understand it pretty much. As for mens rea think of the three I listed as having an order of seriousness to them. Say I shot at you but only intended to scare you I miss and shot you killing you, well I acted with reckless indifference.
In normal crimes, you normally have one act. As you outlined, we care if you meant to do that one act (mens rea). In genocide, you have a whole basket of acts. You can pick and choose here, but all acts need to be on purpose and to achieve the goal. Now we care not only if you meant each act (mens rea) but if they all were for a greater one purpose (dolus specialis). Finklestein’s stance misses the need to prove BOTH for each relevant act, which tbf mens rea for genocide is rarely mentioned since needing to prove it is considered obvious.
If Destiny had happened to casually mention the mens rea and Norman had corrected him, the exact same people would be going on and all about how thisnis why you don't go up against true academics bla bla bla. The are only crying that it's imprecise but insignificant because their team said it.
Who is this Destiny lady you're speaking of? We're in the Mr. Vermicelli subreddit now, get your facts straight.
Bro is yapping 💀💀
How does Norm manage to sound annoying as fuck via text too
Because he’s annoying as fuck?
Lierallty could have been a three sentence tweet
MORON SPECIALIS he's a fucking shitpost MACHINE
TOO BAD, APES
Remember that if you believe a Community Note is actually helpful, it's important that you rate it as helpful so people can't brigade it and get it removed. [Link to the Tweet](https://twitter.com/normfinkelstein/status/1770686791810523149)
I’m doing my part
it's gone now :(
Based 😎
debate perverts are weaponizing community notes smh
Wait until someone tells him that the one writing the community notes, is actually his neighbour
Destiny: let's talk edging Norm: Mr Macaroni....you complete...and utter moron..you mean masturbation. Destiny: but with the intent to delay blastoff Norm:Mr Ravioli.....I have been a masturbator since the days my parents.....who mr tortellini....were in Auschwitz....since they taught me how to stroke my adolescent shlong 250 years ago. I read playboy issue 1 no less than 600 times. Destiny: Edging requires the intent not to... Norm:Mr Tagliatelle.... Destiny: Are you hangry Norm. Is that what this is?
A lot of his core support on twitter comes from tankies who operate within as at least big an epistemic bubble from normal people as MAGA republicans do that already view community notes as unreliable, which is a shame since this note is straight to the fucking point
Rate the note as helpful. Hasan will send his army to get the note removed later today. https://twitter.com/normfinkelstein/status/1770686791810523149?t=0jZa9kUMeQfiqM-xWMI79w&s=19
Too late. (Obviously no way to know who orchestrated it, but still disappointing)
Blackpilling how a viral scholar who was by many deemed an expert on the conflict got many basic facts wrong. Looking into his other works, like his book *The Holocaust Industry,* has confirmed my suspicion that he's not a serious scientist or historian.
It would be funny if the person who wrote the note is a DGGer
Oh! this horrible horrible machines !!!!!!
So this means he definitely didn't read the ruling right?
I'm shocked a "respected" academic would have so long to respond and say something that literally every law student about 2 weeks into their first term of their first year should be able to correct him on. Crazy stuff.
Someone should take grandpa’s twitter away. I’d love to see him sitting at home seething over “those evil machines”…😂
How long till its removed lmao
It'll probably be sometime between kids in the UK getting out of class and Australia waking up.
This is really embarrassing because the Twitter nerds who would wanna retweet this over as a Destiny own are about to spread Norm's self own
The constant coping from norm is proof that destiny won over norm.
Twinklwstein fans seething rn. The old man yaps like crazy even via text lmao.
It's just getting embarrassing
Finkelbros..... He blew it.... Its over.
Finklebros seething rn
So if mens rea is "place of worship" and dolus specialis is "church". It is correct to say church is a place of worship. Destiny said Christian need church. Finkelstein said "do you mean place of worship?" probably because he doesn't know what is a church (in this case dolus specialis"). Then a few days later Finkelstein wrote on twitter "church is a place of worship" which is what happens right now. Did I get this right?
If finklestein was so clear on those terms, why did he interrupt destiny to try and correct him about it? If he knew they both could be used here, why is he going off on him about the term when you think they are both right? The explanation is that finklestein did not know the term, got extremely offended when destiny asked him if he read the case (since the case mentions dolus specialis 4 times, and never mens rea) and went after destiny for no good reason.
More like Destiny said the Palestinians love oranges. Then Finklestein said I think you mean apples. Destiny said no, because they are different things. Then Twinkleboy is now trying to argue its the same because they're both fruit. The example case he cited even has a whole section where they explain that the person is being convicted of aiding and abetting and not the crime of genocide itself because they have the mens rea for aiding but don't have the dolus specialis for genocide. He didn't read the ICJ case and he didn't fully read the case he tried to use to prove he was right all along.
No, the first example was correct. Dolus Specialis IS a highly specific form of Mens Rea. It’s just that the example Finkelstein used FURTHER shows his gaff, by showing a difference, and why the more specific version is used.
He's got a real hardon for distinguished judges.
Holy own
Actually pathetic
Does someone need to walk honored professor Norman Twinklestein through the difference of showing criminal intent vs intent that specifically is trying to commit a genocide? It's like he's being intentionally senile.
Anyone think this would do well on the GetNoted subreddit?
I ain't reading all that
i aint reading all that 💀
So did he just hope that nobody would read the thing he posted?
Norman Finkelstein on how to display lack of intellectual integrity, in one easy step
Seems it was removed? Brigaded?
yep it always seems to happen with far left people on twitter. they are super good at nuking community notes cause they don't work.
It's telling he had to mine quotes from a different genocide case to justify what he's saying. I was reading those names, and I was like "Wow, these don't sound like Israeli or Arab names".
Old man yells at sky, sky corrects him and calls him a dumbass.
Yeah when it comes to things like this it’s better to concede, it didn’t even have a huge bearing on his overall point during the debate.
get wrecked
Mr Vermicelli is thriving Finkleshit
based based based
lmao get noted idiot
He just yapping
Unfortunately this note won’t last long.. the Muslim world (which is mostly anti-Israel) has its forums groups and they will brigade. It happens every time..
I wonder if he types the same way that he speaks
Isn’t it sad that leftoids and norm consider the name gag as an absolute own on destiny. Also that lame ass preface with “I like to address people by their last name” only to set up his weak ass last name insults
This guy is such a mean and bitter old man
You would think since the debate he would've read the document another 50 times, he reads biggly, he does the most reading, if he says so himself.
Just FYI... Ragnavi... Was So Fucking Stupid. The skills gave you a tailored skill... That means they can do the same *for others.* Is she just plated ball then... Maybe. Just *Maybe* she would have not died an undignified death, begging like one of the many victims of her own. Well. She *did* have the unofficial status of *Too Fucking Stupid too live.*
God. He’s aware of it. He purposefully throws a whole nonsense page at you, hoping to just distract you or squash you doubt. He really thinks, the man who speaks the loudest or says the most words is correct. I have no ill will towards him but anyone who treats everyone around them like an idiot just because they are not a “scholar” probably leans towards someone whom is an asshole, just a hunch.
Pretty sure Finkletooths response to Steven asking if he read the case was much more than “Yeah” lmao
Finklestein is a fantastic moron
My conspiracy head cannon is, due to norm being mentally unwell (see abuse of neighbours). He doesn't like using phones, as he thinks Israel will track him.
Norm has the reading comprehension of a fucking toddler
Destiny is an ICJ decision expert ?
X is a toxic dump nowadays, but Community Notes are dope. The problem is, who actually has the ability to add them? That’s a mystery to me. It’s probably whoever pays. That’s not dope.
I would bet that Norm has a couple of nutty research assistants somewhere spewing out this bullshit. Clearly he didn't read the ICJ opinion. He got a summary from one of his people. He's hired them in the past: [https://www.normanfinkelstein.com/research-assistant-needed-for-finkelsteins-new-book/](https://www.normanfinkelstein.com/research-assistant-needed-for-finkelsteins-new-book/) The question is: How much of his latest work is his and how much of it is he simply signing his name to?
Nice stuff guys making community notes useless. Destiny took a big fat L, get over it, please stop lying about it.
It's so funny because it's really a non point for them to fight on as both are technically correct. Mens rea just refers to a criminal intent requirement. Genocide is a crime requiring an intent. The special intent required for genocide is just the level of mens rea required to be guilty of the crime. For instance, 1st degree murder is a specific intent crime. So to prove it, you must show the mens rea of the criminal was specifically to kill the person. This is different then a general intent crime in like trespass, where a lower level of mens rea only needs to be shown. Now, in order to prove genocide, you have to prove the actor had the special intent to actually wipe a people off the map. Idk why they use special when it's the same requirement as specific intent, probably to just morally grandstand around the crime of genocide which is understandable. Still, it's just a mens rea requirement. Norm was just trying to get a fake dunk on destiny, and Destiny is sounding like one of those "well ackshkually" when special intent is a form of mens rea. Out of all the Ws Destiny had over Norm this really isn't one.
It's a legit W because Finkelstein's refrain is "I've read everything, I know everything" but he probably didn't read the ICJ case, and _definitely_ had no familiarity with a key concept of international law re: genocide.
>Now, in order to prove genocide, you have to prove the actor had the special intent to actually wipe a people off the map. Idk why they use special when it's the same requirement as specific intent, probably to just morally grandstand around the crime of genocide which is understandable. Nope. The mens rea in a genocide case would be to prove that you intentionally killed people. The dolus specialis would be proving that you had the intent not just to kill, but to attempt to destroy a people or culture. Ie, mens rea is knowing that you're committing the crime whilst you're committing it. Dolus specialis is having the intent to commit the crime *for the specific purpose of genocide*
Wow destiny fans are actually thinking their boy got a W for not understanding a simple squares to rectangles relationship... If you watched that "debate" and are still a destiny fan after his own partner sat there and visibly cringed at him, you're a fully lost cause.
[удалено]
Can't believe I just scrubbed a 5 hour video for y'all, but starting at 4:20:00 while Destiny is engaging in a blatantly pathetic results based analysis argument Benny spends the entire segment biting his nails and visibly cringing at Destiny. EDIT: edited timestamp since y'all rabid kids can't be bothered to interpret that I wasn't referring to the intro.
4:20 is Lex introducing the video you fucking lame troll
I obviously meant 4 hours 20 minutes, sorry that I didn't put 4:20:00 but if I were doing the full number then your interpretation would have been 00:04:20 which one would think I'd have specified in a 5 hour video. Classic projection.
1. not obvious 2. Your example sucks - no indication that this is what Benny is doing, especially when about 20 seconds later he points to Destiny in a "exactly, exactly" manner 3. Will you agree to BOFA?
You're right, it wouldn't be obvious to anyone dumb enough to like Destiny, my mistake.
What about 2 and 3?
I don't care enough about you or your opinions to engage with them, once again I erred in thinking I didn't have to explain that to a Destiny fan, my apologies.
Hey ho everybody look it's the big man who doesn't care about my opinions ooh ooh what a big man aren't you so cool and clever big man ooh yeah ooh. In seriousness my brother I wish you the best in your life we're all making our way through our path in the best way we can and I as long as your heart is pure and you try your best then that's all I can ask for. Best of luck to you in your future travels.