[threatofrain]

When we design data structures do we not say that the sum of all things are intended tradeoffs? It doesn’t make sense to say that you intended to buy milk but you didn’t intend to spend money. Nothing in life works like that.

[gruez]

You guys are talking past each other. "intend" in this context is means two things:

1. a goal in and of itself (ie. they want civilians dead)

2. being aware of the costs (ie. they only want hamas dead, but don't mind if some civilians are killed)

tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1, whereas HDThoreaun claims it's only #2.

[tuyguntn]

> tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1

No, I didn't, I only asked a question by replacing words Hezbollah with IDF, pager with building. When pagers got blown up, there were civilians near by

[HDThoreaun]

buying bombs to kill civilians is not the same as buying bombs and accidentally killing civilians.

[threatofrain]

One must embrace the sum of the decision. You don't choose to drive your car without expending energy. You choose both. You don't blow up thousands of bombs in streets and marketplaces and only choose to kill the people you want — you choose it all.

Recently we had what may have been a targeted hit in crowded public space in Alabama. When those individuals are caught, I hope it is understood that you don't choose to open fire in a crowd and only choose to shoot one person. You choose it all.

In such a world how do we make a decision? By judging that the price is right. Why did innocent people die when thousands of bombs blew up in public spaces? Because the price was right. That should be the center of discussion, not whether we'd like to blow up thousands of bombs in public places without paying the price.