The Off Topic Topic

[crazy canuck]

Ok, explain a plausible link to me.

[Josquius]

Ok, explain a plausible link to me.

I already did higher up. The UK absolutely has been running recon flights over Israel and Israel is under investigation for war crimes.

If your friend is arrested for beating someone up and you were in the room together with them then the police will be wanting to speak to you too. The idea you were involved cannot be just swiftly dismissed without evidence. There are questions to be answered there.

[grumbler]

No. The world does not work in such binaries.
The UK is helping Israel do bad shit (FYI it says war crimes, not genocide)- well, Israel almost certainly has been doing bad shit and the UK is running flights over Gaza which the Israelis aren't complaining about....so there is a reasonable suspicion there.
Jewish Space Lasers controlling the weather....well, that just goes against the laws of physics as we know them. Obvious nonsense that doesn't need even thinking about.

This is the Special Pleading Fallacy: Lack of evidence about a claim you wish to be true is evidence that it is true, while lack of evidence about a claim you wish to be false is evidence that it is false.

Your argument that the burden of proof does not fall upon a claimant you like but does fall on a claimant you dislike discredits anything you say on the matter.

[Admiral Yi]

1. UK hostages.

2. War crimes.

3. Profit!

That's nonsensical Squeeze.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, explain a plausible link to me.

I already did higher up. The UK absolutely has been running recon flights over Israel and Israel is under investigation for war crimes.

If your friend is arrested for beating someone up and you were in the room together with them then the police will be wanting to speak to you too. The idea you were involved cannot be just swiftly dismissed without evidence. There are questions to be answered there.

I asked for a link between the flights and the alleged war crimes committed by the Israelis.  You are just asserting one exists, or could exist.

You can see the problem right?

[grumbler]

Ok, explain a plausible link to me.

I already did higher up. The UK absolutely has been running recon flights over Israel and Israel is under investigation for war crimes.

If your friend is arrested for beating someone up and you were in the room together with them then the police will be wanting to speak to you too. The idea you were involved cannot be just swiftly dismissed without evidence. There are questions to be answered there.

The statement that you mare defending, and that we are pointing out needs to be evidenced to have any shred of credibility, is "Britain flies spy airplanes from airbases in Cyprus to help Israel commit war crimes."

You support this statement even though it does not say anything about "suspicions," it makes a bald claim. It could be that it is true, and it could be that Elvis is still alive, but I'd need evidence to accept either claim as anything but crackpot thinking.

[Josquius]

No. The world does not work in such binaries.
The UK is helping Israel do bad shit (FYI it says war crimes, not genocide)- well, Israel almost certainly has been doing bad shit and the UK is running flights over Gaza which the Israelis aren't complaining about....so there is a reasonable suspicion there.
Jewish Space Lasers controlling the weather....well, that just goes against the laws of physics as we know them. Obvious nonsense that doesn't need even thinking about.

This is the Special Pleading Fallacy: Lack of evidence about a claim you wish to be true is evidence that it is true, while lack of evidence about a claim you wish to be false is evidence that it is false.

Your argument that the burden of proof does not fall upon a claimant you like but does fall on a claimant you dislike discredits anything you say on the matter.

I don't wish it to be true at all. I hope my explanation is the one that is true, that the UK actually told Israel to chill and shared intelligence of places not to bomb, though it would be simply ignorant to dismiss the possibility of more nefarious involvement.

The burden of proof falls on the one making the statement.
Say it's not proven that the UK is helping with Israeli war crimes - true.
Say there's no way its true that the UK is helping with Israeli war crimes - prove it.

You usually see this type of fallacy with militant atheists. They proclaim there are no gods so I ask them to prove it - "no it's your job to prove there is a god! Burden of proof! Burden of proof!"
... But... I don't think there are such things as gods. Theres no proof of this. But something not being proven doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue. That needs proving on its own merits if that's your stance. And yes, proving negatives isn't easy... .

I asked for a link between the flights and the alleged war crimes committed by the Israelis.  You are just asserting one exists, or could exist.

You can see the problem right?

The whole Israeli operation, war crimes included, was supposedly about those hostages. It's not like we are linking completely seperate things here.

And no I don't see the problem with saying that given the information we have Britain could have been involved in some dodgy stuff. This is true. There's nothing in the available evidence to suggest it couldn't be the case.

[viper37]

Powers of Darkness (Iceland)

The things you learn sometimes!

Dracula was translated in Icelandic in 1901.  For nearly a century, no one realized it wasn't an exact translation!

Summary:
The translator had a preface to the book that was ignored by international scholarship until 1986, and it was in 2014 that a first scholar noticed the significant difference between this version and the English one.

Most plausible theories:
- based on a early draft from Stroker
- based on a early draft from Stroker and the author's imagination


Interesting read.

[Sheilbh]

Powers of Darkness (Iceland)

The things you learn sometimes!

Dracula was translated in Icelandic in 1901.  For nearly a century, no one realized it wasn't an exact translation!

Summary:
The translator had a preface to the book that was ignored by international scholarship until 1986, and it was in 2014 that a first scholar noticed the significant difference between this version and the English one.

Most plausible theories:
- based on a early draft from Stroker
- based on a early draft from Stroker and the author's imagination


Interesting read.

I love that - and obviously the only reason Nosferatu is Nosferatu is because Stoker's widow sued for copyright infringement.

There's a really fun novel I just read that sort of touches on this a little bit called Shadowplay. One of the character notes is his wife studying copyright law and constantly pushing for him to try and register his novels for copyright (they made no money in his lifetime anyway) as the legal position was a little uncertain then. And regularly noting when his novels were getting translated into say German or Hungarian (which did happen) with no payments or royalties to him. He was indifferent as he didn't earn anything from it anyway but she thought it was disgraceful.

[viper37]

I think I'm going to add Shadowplay to my reading list, this looks like a fun read.

[Barrister]

The Twitter menswear guy has ruined me.

Buying a jumper and just spent about an hour down a rabbit hole about different wool blends

Like I am 100% a bargain suit guy.  I'm sure meanswear guy would weep at the sight of me.  But I find his posts endlessly fascinating.

He can also be a downright savage at times.

Twitter menswear guy (@dieworkwear) posts a fairly innocuous post about some watches he likes.

Some other guy (@Harvard2H) posts about how liking fancy watches means society should be destroyed.

Menswear guy comes back with "Don't lecture me about watches when you're a pedophile" - and follows up with the receipts on how this guy went away for seven years for molesting a minor.

I wish I could find a link, but Twitter search sucks if you aren't logged in, but posting a link from my phone is hard and my desktop isn't logged in to Twitter.

But absolutely savage.