|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On August 23 2024 20:42 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 20:34 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 20:23 PremoBeats wrote:On August 23 2024 20:06 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 20:00 PremoBeats wrote:On August 23 2024 19:39 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 19:28 PremoBeats wrote:On August 23 2024 19:17 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 19:10 PremoBeats wrote:On August 23 2024 19:05 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Oh sorry I've edited post 6174 and now it mentions you. Alright. I think it is obvious that you are not interested in discussing this in good faith because of these trolling replies. Good day to you. Good day to you too. If at a later date you want to adress the answer instead of waving it away with silly one-liners and dishonestly pretending that it doesn't exist, remember that it's in post 6174. Are you for real? After you evaded my follow ups and never replied to them multiple times or didn't want to discuss certain topics (not going further into the fact that the Arabs denied partition plans on several occasions, accusing me of being an Islamophob, accusing me of thinking it is good to kill Palestinians, not wanting to talk about uti possidetis juris) you now accuse me of replying with "silly one-liners" or not replying? Nothing of what is written in 6174 mentions why the accusation that I am ok with killing Palestinians is validated. Nothing. There is nothing for me there to reply to. Please quote in that post how you justify that I think it is good to kill Palestinians? I mean yes, there are completely absurd and unsubstantiated point of views in there, but that is not the question. The post is in its entirety an explanation of why I don't think that the arguments that I hear from people on your side are made in good faith, which is the question that you asked. That's me answering the question. You said "It doesn't mention me" and asked the same question again. The answer won't change. You pretending that I didn't answer isn't very interesting to me. Not arguing in good faith and accusing others of "finding it good that a certain kind of people is killed" are completely different things. You can have the perception that I don't argue in good faith... that part doesn't bother me in the slightest as everyone can see the arguments I put forward and decide for themselves. What I have an issue with is this accusation: "We have a disagreement on whether it's good to kill Palestinians, you think it's good and I think it's bad." You accuse me of thinking that it is good to kill Palestinians without any proof or evidence and this is not ok. As explained in post 6176, that's a simple logical connexion. In order to argue in bad faith in favor of Israel's effort to kill Palestinians, you would need to think that, for some reason, killing Palestinians is a good outcome. It's also a view that I must imagine is common, because muslims are dangerous and evil, so it logically follows that a lot of people would want to get rid of those dangerous, evil people. What do you reckon would be a better reason to use dishonest arguments to defend Israel as it kills Palestinians? But you make the assumption that people argue in "bad faith in favor of Israel's effort to kill Palestinians", while there can be numerous other reason why the killing of Palestinians (or more general: in war times) is seen as a necessary step. One does not necessarily have to think it is a good thing to kill Palestinians to explain why innocent victims will occur. One can even add context like every death is horrible and that the civilian population shouldn't suffer as much. You are using a non sequitor fallacy as "killing Palestinians is a good thing" doesn't follow from "civilians being killed is sometimes unavoidable in war". You also make assumptions about the beliefs ("muslims are dangerous and evil") and intent ("a lot of people would want to get rid of those dangerous, evil people") of other persons or groups without knowing their motives. You further use this generalized idea to attribute it to a specific person (in this case me), who told you most definitely that these accusation are not true. Here you use several hasty generalization fallacies as well as a straw man. Well, a better reason would be the ones that have been made by me and others in this thread. Israel has one of the lowest soldier-to-civilian casualty ratios and is engaging in a responsive invasion. The absolute number of victims is so high because the terrorits are hiding in civilian infrastructure and safe zones. I agree, I make the assumption that someone who argues dishonestly in favor of Israel as it kills Palestinians does so because they think killing Palestinians is good. Once again, you don't need to uncover this hidden truth, I say so myself openly in post 6174 and in the post you're quoting. What you could be doing instead of doing that would be giving me a credible reason why someone would argue dishonestly in favor of Israel as it kills Palestinians that is not because they think killing Palestinians is good. You allude to those other reasons existing but you don't provide any example of them, even though that is literally the question I asked at the end of the post you're quoting. I am not arguing dishonestly in favor of Israel as it kills Palestinians. I also mentioned several times how collateral death is unavoidable, especially in densly populated areas. I further pointed out that the soldier-to- civilian casualty rate is very low in comparison to other densly populated war zones. People die in wars. Innocent people die in wars. They die through shells, bad medical infrastructure, accidental wrong targeting, deliberate wrong targeting, collateral.. aren't these reasons "I alluded to" obvious? But in the Israel-Palestine-conflict you have the least amount of civilians killed in comparison to similar war zones. This notion is validated by the numbers. Your perspective if so full of fallacies and bias that you probably can't even begin to see from what perspective I am arguing from. But I still won't let you accuse me of racism and Islamophobia.
So then you were incorrect in the last post, your issue was that I think you're arguing dishonestly, and not that I draw the logical conclusion from thinking that you argue dishonestly.
Now that we've clarified that, we can come back to the reason why I think you argue dishonestly, which is explained in post 6174.
|
Nebu's claim is simply that any defense for Israel, while knowing which kind of government it currently has, cannot both defend Israel and claim killed Palestinians are a bad thing. Because the government is the reflection of fhe people or something.
I can get behind that sentiment, ecause every action Israel undertakes now has an undertone of: kill as many Palestinians, but do a covertly as possible. The 'where's daddy' name also isn't really speaking in their favor.
So I can certainly understand how defending Israel, or even just certain aspects of Israel while claiming killing Palestinians is a bad thing feels like doublespeak.
|
On August 23 2024 20:45 Jockmcplop wrote:
@PremoBeats
Would you say the Israeli casualties of October 7th were more or less justifiable than the Palestinian deaths since.
In my opinnion it is essential to approach this question with a clear recongition of the complexity and deeply rooted nature of the conflict. Both Israeli casualties on October 7th and Palestinian deaths in the aftermath are tragic. Even before that it has happened for decades.
The concept of "justifiability" in the context of violence and civilian casualties is deeply subjective and depends on one's perspective, values, and interpretation of international law. However, from a human rights and international law perspective, violence - especially deliberate - against civilians is generally considered unjustifiable.
One side launched a large-scale attack, deliberately targeting civilians. This is undisputed from international sources, Israel, eye witnesses as well as the attackers who glorified these actions through various channels.
The other conducted a military operation in the sense of a responsive counter-attack with defined goals. The soldier-to-civilian casualty ratio is way lower than in comparable conflict zones, indicating that one cannot speak of deliberate targeting of civilians. Because even in other non deliberate scenarios the ratio was much higher and if there was a deliberate targeting of civilians present the number should logically be even higher than that (thinking about genocides and the numbers that occur in such scenarios).
See post 6165 for reference.
So that is the context from my POV. With this context I give you the straight answer that the Israeli and international victims/casualties to me are much less justifiable than the Palestinian deaths which of course are also horrible and shouldn't occur at all.
@Nebuchad
The mental gymnastics involved here... holy moly.
1. I don't argue dishonestly, thus you can't draw any conclusions from that anyway
2. The reasons in 6174 you give for thinking that I argue dishonestly make no sense/include several fallacies
3. My issue also is that you accuse me of Islamophobia and racism with no evidence (you only did it based on a highly fallacious conspiracy theory in your mind)
@Uldridge
"So I can certainly understand how defending Israel, or even just certain aspects of Israel while claiming killing Palestinians is a bad thing feels like doublespeak."
Feels like, ok. Is so necessarily, no.
|
On August 23 2024 21:06 PremoBeats wrote:
2. The reasons in 6174 you give for thinking that I argue dishonestly make no sense/include several fallacies
Show your work, go ahead.
|
On August 23 2024 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 21:06 PremoBeats wrote:
2. The reasons in 6174 you give for thinking that I argue dishonestly make no sense/include several fallacies
Show your work, go ahead.
Address all points and we can continue. I am tired of you cherry-picking the things where you think you are able to defend your view.
Either respond to everything or I'll focus on people who are actually able to discuss in good faith.
Anyway. That's it for today. See you guys around.
|
On August 23 2024 21:10 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 21:06 PremoBeats wrote:
2. The reasons in 6174 you give for thinking that I argue dishonestly make no sense/include several fallacies
Show your work, go ahead. Address all points and we can continue. I am tired of you cherry-picking the things where you think you are able to defend your view. Either respond to everything or I'll focus on people who are actually able to discuss in good faith. Anyway. That's it for today. See you guys around.
1) I don't believe you.
2) Show your work, go ahead.
3) We've already covered this. Islamophobia is in my opinion the most likely reason why someone would argue dishonestly in support of the killing of a bunch of muslims. Quit stalling and just answer 2).
|
On August 23 2024 21:06 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 20:45 Jockmcplop wrote:
@PremoBeats
Would you say the Israeli casualties of October 7th were more or less justifiable than the Palestinian deaths since. In my opinnion it is essential to approach this question with a clear recongition of the complexity and deeply rooted nature of the conflict. Both Israeli casualties on October 7th and Palestinian deaths in the aftermath are tragic. Even before that it has happened for decades. The concept of "justifiability" in the context of violence and civilian casualties is deeply subjective and depends on one's perspective, values, and interpretation of international law. However, from a human rights and international law perspective, violence - especially deliberate - against civilians is generally considered unjustifiable. One side launched a large-scale attack, deliberately targeting civilians. This is undisputed from international sources, Israel, eye witnesses as well as the attackers who glorified these actions through various channels. The other conducted a military operation in the sense of a responsive counter-attack with defined goals. The soldier-to-civilian casualty ratio is way lower than in comparable conflict zones, indicating that one cannot speak of deliberate targeting of civilians. Because even in other non deliberate scenarios the ratio was much higher and if there was a deliberate targeting of civilians present the number should logically be even higher than that (thinking about genocides and the numbers that occur in such scenarios). So that is the context from my POV. With this context I give you the straight answer that the Israeli and international victims/casualties to me are much less justifiable than the Palestinian deaths which of course are also horrible and shouldn't occur at all.
OK. btw I know short one line questions like that can seem like gotcha questions, that's not my intent.
I'm going to take a few of these points and raise objections or questions:
1: On the concept of justifiability, I agree it can be subjective, but I also think with discussion there are some easy ways to meet in the middle on SOME of the points raised.
2: Your next paragraph sort of morphs between two arguments which are:
a) That Hamas deliberately targeted civilians, and that they glorified the deaths. and then
b) Comparing the conflict to other conflicts.
I'm not ignoring that you call Oct 7th a 'large scale attack' and the Israeli response a 'military operation' (and it hasn't passed me by that this is the exact language Putin used to justify his war). This is a false distinction, especially since you could easily describe Israel's response as 'an even larger scale attack'.
So
a) I don't see any meaningful distinction between deliberately targeting civilians, and bombing a whole neighborhood because AI told you it thinks there's a terrorist somewhere in there. Mass murder on purpose and mass murder through apathy are equally bad imo.
This isn't to even take into account the deliberate siege tactics and blocking of aid to cause famine and mass starvation, which are equal to Hamas in terms of deliberately targeting civilians.
When it comes to 'glorifying deaths' you only have to look at the Israeli ministers and some of their statements, including calling a cop who shot a Palestinian child in the West Bank in the head for playing with fireworks a 'hero'
b) That casualties are less based on comparisons to other cherry picked conflicts is not an argument that Israel hasn't deliberately targeted civilians. Starving an entire population as a strategy is deliberately targeting civilians. There is no possible argument against this.
Given all this I don't see any reason to count one set of mass murder as any more or less justifiable than the other.
|
Do you also think that the "mass murder" of Germans by the allies during World War 2 is morally the same as the Nazis' death camps?
|
On August 24 2024 05:53 Elroi wrote:
Do you also think that the "mass murder" of Germans by the allies during World War 2 is morally the same as the Nazis' death camps?
Talk about going from zero to 100 in the space of one post.
Hamas is not systematically executing millions of civilians, and the allies weren't fighting an aggressive war. I didn't realize I'd have to point out something that obvious to someone on here.
btw you don't need to bother responding. I'm not discussing this further with you as you are way, way beyond reason on this topic.
|
On August 24 2024 05:53 Elroi wrote:
Do you also think that the "mass murder" of Germans by the allies during World War 2 is morally the same as the Nazis' death camps?
This is certainly one of the comparisons of all time.
|
On August 24 2024 05:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 05:53 Elroi wrote:
Do you also think that the "mass murder" of Germans by the allies during World War 2 is morally the same as the Nazis' death camps? Talk about going from zero to 100 in the space of one post. Hamas is not systematically executing millions of civilians, and the allies weren't fighting an aggressive war. I didn't realize I'd have to point out something that obvious to someone on here. btw you don't need to bother responding. I'm not discussing this further with you as you are way, way beyond reason on this topic.
You don't see the irony of calling his analogy beyond reason when you've made one with students protesting for more democracy run over by tanks two pages ago?
|
On August 23 2024 21:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 21:10 PremoBeats wrote:On August 23 2024 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 21:06 PremoBeats wrote:
2. The reasons in 6174 you give for thinking that I argue dishonestly make no sense/include several fallacies
Show your work, go ahead. Address all points and we can continue. I am tired of you cherry-picking the things where you think you are able to defend your view. Either respond to everything or I'll focus on people who are actually able to discuss in good faith. Anyway. That's it for today. See you guys around. 1) I don't believe you. 2) Show your work, go ahead. 3) We've already covered this. Islamophobia is in my opinion the most likely reason why someone would argue dishonestly in support of the killing of a bunch of muslims. Quit stalling and just answer 2).
1. Ok. So why don't we simply stop then?
2. You make the assumption that people argue in "bad faith in favor of Israel's effort to kill Palestinians", while there can be numerous other reasons why the killing of Palestinians (or more generally: in war times) is seen as a necessary step.
One does not necessarily have to think it is a good thing to kill Palestinians to explain why innocent victims will occur. One can even add context like every death is horrible and that the civilian population shouldn't suffer as much. You are using a non sequitur fallacy as "killing Palestinians is a good thing" doesn't follow from "civilians being killed is sometimes unavoidable in war".
You also make assumptions about the beliefs ("muslims are dangerous and evil") and intent ("a lot of people would want to get rid of those dangerous, evil people") of other persons or groups without knowing their motives. You further use this generalized idea to attribute it to a specific person (in this case me), who told you most definitely that these accusations are not true. Here you use several hasty generalization fallacies as well as a straw man.
3. So you have no evidence? You accusing me of racism and Islamophobia simply stems from an opinion you have in general about people's motives?
Do you realize that you build in #1 in #3? You assume from the start that people who argue in support of the killing of Muslims are dishonest/you don't believe them without taking any other factors into account. So there basically is no space for anything besides your opinion and everything is dependent on you believing the other person that they are not dishonest. On top, there can be several other reasons like wrong targeting, collateral, humanitarian crises, etc. for Muslim deaths.
This is such an incredible amalgamation of inherently biased argumentation combined with fallacious thinking that we should create a new fallacy and name it after you to be honest.
On August 23 2024 21:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
OK. btw I know short one line questions like that can seem like gotcha questions, that's not my intent.
I'm going to take a few of these points and raise objections or questions:
1: On the concept of justifiability, I agree it can be subjective, but I also think with discussion there are some easy ways to meet in the middle on SOME of the points raised.
2: Your next paragraph sort of morphs between two arguments which are:
a) That Hamas deliberately targeted civilians, and that they glorified the deaths. and then
b) Comparing the conflict to other conflicts.
I'm not ignoring that you call Oct 7th a 'large scale attack' and the Israeli response a 'military operation' (and it hasn't passed me by that this is the exact language Putin used to justify his war). This is a false distinction, especially since you could easily describe Israel's response as 'an even larger scale attack'.
So
a) I don't see any meaningful distinction between deliberately targeting civilians, and bombing a whole neighborhood because AI told you it thinks there's a terrorist somewhere in there. Mass murder on purpose and mass murder through apathy are equally bad imo.
This isn't to even take into account the deliberate siege tactics and blocking of aid to cause famine and mass starvation, which are equal to Hamas in terms of deliberately targeting civilians.
When it comes to 'glorifying deaths' you only have to look at the Israeli ministers and some of their statements, including calling a cop who shot a Palestinian child in the West Bank in the head for playing with fireworks a 'hero'
b) That casualties are less based on comparisons to other cherry picked conflicts is not an argument that Israel hasn't deliberately targeted civilians. Starving an entire population as a strategy is deliberately targeting civilians. There is no possible argument against this.
Given all this I don't see any reason to count one set of mass murder as any more or less justifiable than the other.
1.
I agree about there being a middle way. But I honestly think that the way I present it is already a pretty good middle road. Because a Zionist would frame this much more heavily pro-Israel to begin with. The same is true for a Palestine supporter as can be seen here quite obviously.
2
I totally agree that Israel’s response was even larger. But the large-scale was rather a reference to the usual attacks of Hamas, which didn’t have this kind of impact. The rest is simply describing what happened. An attack by one side with deliberate targeting of civilians and a military counter-invasion by the attacked. And Putin won’t be the only comparable narrative. Many wars are because of invasion and counter-invasions, so no surprise there (Although a notable difference would be that Vlad justified his invasion of another country without being attacked first).
a. Which incident(s) do you refer to with bombing whole neighborhoods?
Notice that you directly attribute the motive “cause starvation and famine”. I think the weapon narrative is much more plausible especially taking into consideration the humanitarian aid Israel provided, as well as the death toll by starvation, when looking at the blockade.
When you talk about glorifying deaths you compare the statement of a far right minister - which drew heavy criticism even from within Israel - to thousands of Palestinians collectively celebrating October 7th. With civilians spitting on/hitting victims whose disfigured bodies were carried into Gaza and with people cherishing the actions on social media. Do you think this is a fair comparison?
Is the incident you described neutrally reported? Because if we mean the same incident I would hardly call a 22/23 year old (depending on the sources) a child. If we indeed mean the same case, you can watch the video where this 22 year old “child” is fighting with a soldier, hitting him and trying to grab the rifle of the soldier before the soldier - after trying to shove/slap the man away - grabs his gun and shoots.
And again: Was he justified in shooting to kill? Probably not, but as I said several times already: Put him under arrest and he should be held responsible. But the comparison of one dumbass statement by a far right Israeli figure to the glorification of October 7th by the Palestinians lacks massively in my opinion.
b. I didn’t cherry pick conflicts. These are conflicts that have the most similarity with Gaza. Although one could weigh in that there were no terrorists hiding in civilian infrastructure, which makes the difference in how Israel is maintaining such low soldier-to-civilian casualty ratios even more commendable.
But if you think I cherry picked these conflicts you can naturally provide other data for comparison that you think are more fitting.
And sorry that I have to do this, but in this forum there are so many people arguing in bad faith that I simply have to ask for acknowledgements of the reality that is measurable: Can you acknowledge that the casualty rate for fighting in such a densely populated area is immensely low? That it is around/below the percentage of WW II which shouldn’t even be a comparison because of the obvious differences and tougher difficulties in Gaza that Israel faces?
I never said that deliberate attacks by Israel NEVER happened and I don’t use the soldier-to-civilian casualty ratio as evidence for such a notion as I don’t believe it. I said several times that for each of those incidents, the respective people or the state itself should be held accountable. All I am saying is that - while there of course will be instances of Israeli soldiers attacking civilians deliberately or taking them in account as collateral in air strikes to take out targets - the narrative that Israel is deliberately attacking civilians en masse is bogus according to the data. The numbers don’t add up.
If you look at famous famines (that sometimes were not even carried out with evil intentions - under Mao for example), the death counts are way higher absolutely and in relation to the population size. Gaza and the West Bank have been growing in population size since decades. While it is a severe humanitarian concern, less than 40 deaths attributed to malnutrition, not starvation (as you also were pretty precise with words before) have been documented. Perhaps I remember this wrong and there might be some more incidents… but not on a scale to speak of deliberately targeting the civilian Palestinians with starvation as a means of killing them. In my opinion this would be a bit of a stretch, especially taking into consideration that starvation and malnutrition have been reported in many conflict zones and children simply by the nature of things are more susceptible to it. It is a horrifying thing and every death caused by malnutrition or starvation is one too many, but again: We have to look at the big scope of things. These numbers represent 0,1% of the total casualties and 0,0018% of the overall population. These numbers further are seriously no surprise in any conflict zone and especially in Gaza with all the surrounding context like Hamas operating from hospitals and destroyed medical infrastructure because of that.
It also seems to be the case that some people here think that the blockade means that Israel isn’t letting anything in at all. This is untrue, as the deliveries are simply delayed, because of security checks. And it can also be argued that these checks are indeed necessary as Israel has reported finding explosives, firearms and other components that could be used to manufacture weapons. If all of this wouldn’t happen, then the goods could enter Gaza much easier and faster.
As I said before: From a human rights and international law perspective, violence - especially deliberate - against civilians is generally considered unjustifiable and I agree with that.This is exactly what Hamas was doing.
It also doesn’t help to simply use the word mass murder for both sides to hide the fact that deliberate attacks on civilians and civilians as collateral are simply different things. Are you playing devil’s advocate here or do you seriously believe that Israel is on a broad scale targeting civilians deliberately? If so, how does that add up with the numbers that can be googled/that I posted here?
|
On August 24 2024 15:06 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 05:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 24 2024 05:53 Elroi wrote:
Do you also think that the "mass murder" of Germans by the allies during World War 2 is morally the same as the Nazis' death camps? Talk about going from zero to 100 in the space of one post. Hamas is not systematically executing millions of civilians, and the allies weren't fighting an aggressive war. I didn't realize I'd have to point out something that obvious to someone on here. btw you don't need to bother responding. I'm not discussing this further with you as you are way, way beyond reason on this topic. You don't see the irony of calling his analogy beyond reason when you've made one with students protesting for more democracy run over by tanks two pages ago?
One of the main issues with his analogy is also that Israelis would be the "mass murdered" Germans and Palestinians would be in the death camps.
|
On August 24 2024 16:07 PremoBeats wrote:
1. Ok. So why don't we simply stop then?
I did, you insisted that I answer to everything you said. I agree that it would be better if I only answer when it's interesting.
On August 24 2024 16:07 PremoBeats wrote:
2. You make the assumption that people argue in "bad faith in favor of Israel's effort to kill Palestinians", while there can be numerous other reasons why the killing of Palestinians (or more generally: in war times) is seen as a necessary step.
One does not necessarily have to think it is a good thing to kill Palestinians to explain why innocent victims will occur. One can even add context like every death is horrible and that the civilian population shouldn't suffer as much. You are using a non sequitur fallacy as "killing Palestinians is a good thing" doesn't follow from "civilians being killed is sometimes unavoidable in war".
You also make assumptions about the beliefs ("muslims are dangerous and evil") and intent ("a lot of people would want to get rid of those dangerous, evil people") of other persons or groups without knowing their motives. You further use this generalized idea to attribute it to a specific person (in this case me), who told you most definitely that these accusations are not true. Here you use several hasty generalization fallacies as well as a straw man.
This is not what I asked you to do. You said that the reasons I give in post 6174 for thinking that you argue dishonestly make no sense and include fallacies. Show your work, go ahead.
On August 24 2024 16:07 PremoBeats wrote:
3. So you have no evidence? You accusing me of racism and Islamophobia simply stems from an opinion you have in general about people's motives?
Do you realize that you build in #1 in #3? You assume from the start that people who argue in support of the killing of Muslims are dishonest/you don't believe them without taking any other factors into account. So there basically is no space for anything besides your opinion and everything is dependent on you believing the other person that they are not dishonest. On top, there can be several other reasons like wrong targeting, collateral, humanitarian crises, etc. for Muslim deaths.
This is such an incredible amalgamation of inherently biased argumentation combined with fallacious thinking that we should create a new fallacy and name it after you to be honest.
This is all settled facts, we've been through all of this. You're just trying to have other conversations in order to hide the fact that you're not answering point 2, and it's a little more obvious than you're picturing.
|
On August 24 2024 15:06 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 05:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 24 2024 05:53 Elroi wrote:
Do you also think that the "mass murder" of Germans by the allies during World War 2 is morally the same as the Nazis' death camps? Talk about going from zero to 100 in the space of one post. Hamas is not systematically executing millions of civilians, and the allies weren't fighting an aggressive war. I didn't realize I'd have to point out something that obvious to someone on here. btw you don't need to bother responding. I'm not discussing this further with you as you are way, way beyond reason on this topic. You don't see the irony of calling his analogy beyond reason when you've made one with students protesting for more democracy run over by tanks two pages ago?
If you read the context I was talking about the difference in power levels and how much of a threat Hamas are to the existence of Israel, Elroi is talking about the morality of Israel's aggressive war in Gaza.
@Premo I'll respond later...
|
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower.
|
On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower.
Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote?
|
The death cult of islamism just claimed the murder of 3 people in solingen germany was "revenge" for Gaza.
.. Fuck death cults!
|
On August 25 2024 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower. Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote?
Reading through it again, your only argument is 'Israel is killing civilians'. So are the Palestinians. This happens in every war. They're also avoiding more killings by telling Palestinians to leave areas, which is uncommon in a war.
Then there's some background story about the evil leader of the Israeli. And the rest is just stuff like "I just think I'm right". No shit, you think there many people who think they're wrong? And you introduce some theory about a sentiment, which has no foundation in evidence or logic whatsoever (even though I agree with you on Trump vs Bernie). I dislike jews as much as muslims. No preferences there. So your narrative isn't very argumentative and riddled with insults.
|
On August 25 2024 08:19 aseq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower. Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote? Reading through it again, your only argument is 'Israel is killing civilians'. So are the Palestinians. This happens in every war. They're also avoiding more killings by telling Palestinians to leave areas, which is uncommon in a war. Then there's some background story about the evil leader of the Israeli. And the rest is just stuff like "I just think I'm right". No shit, you think there many people who think they're wrong? And you introduce some theory about a sentiment, which has no foundation in evidence or logic whatsoever (even though I agree with you on Trump vs Bernie). I dislike jews as much as muslims. No preferences there. So your narrative isn't very argumentative and riddled with insults.
I had written something else but it was boring, hopefully I have time to edit. Why do you dislike Jews? That's a weird opinion to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
