|
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. |
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now?
|
On November 16 2025 08:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 07:55 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 07:38 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 07:20 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:
The exchange that you had with KwarK in the last page is all that was needed. You just think it's perfectly moral that zionists took that land and chased the people that were there historically, and the justification that you use is that there wasn't a state there so that makes it fine. By extension we are probably safe to assume that you think it's perfectly fine for settlers to take people's land in Gaza and/or the West Bank today, because there is still not a state there. The problem isn't that we're using the wrong words to describe things and it gives us the wrong impression of Israel, the problem is that this is a set of actions that Kwark and I (and, I would assume, the average person) find immoral, and you don't. It’s absolutely not safe to assume that based on mindjames posting. He has said being critical of settler violence is justified and not antisemitic. He has said the check points are fucking awful. This is just your bias talking my and wanting all Israelis to be awful to justify your hate. And you need to stop. As a non-biased person, how do you reconcile that with what mindjames just said about zionism historically? "Just because people are already living in a house doesn't mean other people suddenly don't get to live there". He described it as immigration but surely you don't think he's dumb enough to think that what happened with historical zionism was immigration, and when KwarK pressed him on that he said that the difference is that there was no state there. There is still no state in the West Bank and in Gaza, as you know. I do not believe that it is very difficult to understand where I'm going with this. On November 16 2025 07:27 mindjames wrote:
Nebuchad, before I engage with you again, grow a spine and answer the questions that I last asked you on the thread and that you weaseled out of answering. If you need a reminder of what that was I'll dig it up.
Otherwise, I'm not really interested in amending your poor understanding of my arguments or giving attention to your cowardly heckles from the balcony seat. I was engaging with you in PM, you stopped. This is a lie. Super easily, all you need to do is read all the words he wrote in the context he wrote them instead of cherry picking out sentences that you think support the conclusion you have already made about him because his location is Israel. So in his house example, the settlers are looking to live in the house with the people, they are looking to kick them all out and take over with violence. Which is not something that mindjames has written he supports. He has written the opposite. It must be very confusing for you that mindjames doesn’t agree with Kwark or myself or the settlers and yet we are all “ pro-Israel” and evil supporters of genocide, in your mind, regardless of the worlds we write. But Jimmi, that is an incredibly silly thing to say (also you got angry and wrote too quickly, so you forgot a negative in one of the sentences). When Israel was established, the settlers also used violence to kick out the people who lived there and take over. Mindjames understands that, KwarK understands that, I understand that. Do you understand that? And no, none of this was confusing to me at all, I knew KwarK's position very well already, it was all stuff that he's already written about in the past. Another bad assumption Steve. I have typos and missed words pretty damn often and they are completely unrelated to my mood, I’m proudly very much not lien you. See I actually understand people’s actual position because I read their words for understanding not to try to hate them or get others too. Cuddly summed up what actually happened during the formation of Israel and it is not what you are insinuating. Might want to actually read all the in depth posts about the history people have taken the time to write. Or go read about it somewhere else. The ignorance at this point is willful, which makes it much worse. There is no content in this post, you're just gesturing at the possibility that something that explains how my logic is wrong exists somewhere else. I'm not somewhere else, I'm here. Bring it here. The formation of Israel starts with immigration and ends with attempted genocide and actual ethnic cleansing (not from the same sides). The path towards it is lined with terrorism, anti semitism, zionism, bad actors on both sides whose actions get protected because of tribalism and a metric fuckton of asshole decisions from all involved actors. The process took decades (probably more like a century) and I agree that calling it "colonialism" undersells the shitshow over time that it actually was. I believe I have posted on the historical events in this thread before but that was a long time ago and I'm to lazy to check.
I believe I agree with all of this, at least in the broad strokes I do. I don't think "colonialism" is a term that undersells the shitshow of anything over time, but obviously there were some bad responses on the other side of the conflict as well, historically and today, so if your point is that they are part of the picture as well, yeah clearly they are.
It also doesn't contradict anything I've said to Jimmi here as far as I can see. Or do you see something that does? My impression is that he ran out of things to say so he just threw your name in there.
|
On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now?
Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one.
Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions.
|
On November 16 2025 08:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 07:55 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 07:38 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 07:20 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:
The exchange that you had with KwarK in the last page is all that was needed. You just think it's perfectly moral that zionists took that land and chased the people that were there historically, and the justification that you use is that there wasn't a state there so that makes it fine. By extension we are probably safe to assume that you think it's perfectly fine for settlers to take people's land in Gaza and/or the West Bank today, because there is still not a state there. The problem isn't that we're using the wrong words to describe things and it gives us the wrong impression of Israel, the problem is that this is a set of actions that Kwark and I (and, I would assume, the average person) find immoral, and you don't. It’s absolutely not safe to assume that based on mindjames posting. He has said being critical of settler violence is justified and not antisemitic. He has said the check points are fucking awful. This is just your bias talking my and wanting all Israelis to be awful to justify your hate. And you need to stop. As a non-biased person, how do you reconcile that with what mindjames just said about zionism historically? "Just because people are already living in a house doesn't mean other people suddenly don't get to live there". He described it as immigration but surely you don't think he's dumb enough to think that what happened with historical zionism was immigration, and when KwarK pressed him on that he said that the difference is that there was no state there. There is still no state in the West Bank and in Gaza, as you know. I do not believe that it is very difficult to understand where I'm going with this. On November 16 2025 07:27 mindjames wrote:
Nebuchad, before I engage with you again, grow a spine and answer the questions that I last asked you on the thread and that you weaseled out of answering. If you need a reminder of what that was I'll dig it up.
Otherwise, I'm not really interested in amending your poor understanding of my arguments or giving attention to your cowardly heckles from the balcony seat. I was engaging with you in PM, you stopped. This is a lie. Super easily, all you need to do is read all the words he wrote in the context he wrote them instead of cherry picking out sentences that you think support the conclusion you have already made about him because his location is Israel. So in his house example, the settlers are looking to live in the house with the people, they are looking to kick them all out and take over with violence. Which is not something that mindjames has written he supports. He has written the opposite. It must be very confusing for you that mindjames doesn’t agree with Kwark or myself or the settlers and yet we are all “ pro-Israel” and evil supporters of genocide, in your mind, regardless of the worlds we write. But Jimmi, that is an incredibly silly thing to say (also you got angry and wrote too quickly, so you forgot a negative in one of the sentences). When Israel was established, the settlers also used violence to kick out the people who lived there and take over. Mindjames understands that, KwarK understands that, I understand that. Do you understand that? And no, none of this was confusing to me at all, I knew KwarK's position very well already, it was all stuff that he's already written about in the past. Another bad assumption Steve. I have typos and missed words pretty damn often and they are completely unrelated to my mood, I’m proudly very much not lien you. See I actually understand people’s actual position because I read their words for understanding not to try to hate them or get others too. Cuddly summed up what actually happened during the formation of Israel and it is not what you are insinuating. Might want to actually read all the in depth posts about the history people have taken the time to write. Or go read about it somewhere else. The ignorance at this point is willful, which makes it much worse. There is no content in this post, you're just gesturing at the possibility that something that explains how my logic is wrong exists somewhere else. I'm not somewhere else, I'm here. Bring it here. The formation of Israel starts with immigration and ends with attempted genocide and actual ethnic cleansing (not from the same sides). The path towards it is lined with terrorism, anti semitism, zionism, bad actors on both sides whose actions get protected because of tribalism and a metric fuckton of asshole decisions from all involved actors. The process took decades (probably more like a century) and I agree that calling it "colonialism" undersells the shitshow over time that it actually was. I believe I have posted on the historical events in this thread before but that was a long time ago and I'm to lazy to check.
You did, it was very well done and appreciated.
Edit: I’m not. Good at necroing posts, so this wasn’t what I was after, but still a good one.
On October 12 2023 05:18 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2023 04:58 KwarK wrote:
Colonized is non consensual. Comparing it with legal immigration is like comparing rape with sex. You’re trying to muddy the waters with “people moving, what’s the issue”. Really? There was a 10 % Jewish minority since the 1800s. When more immigrants arrived buying up less desirable land it was even seen as a positive thing. It wasn't until even more people arrived (considering world events as the trigger) that the problems started. And as this thread has made it abundantly clear it was part of the population on both sides driving the violence. How is that colonisation and not a textbook example of the potential problems with immigration? It was even legal immigration until the Brits stopped it. Potentially it could have ended up being "people moving, what's the issue" if there hadn't been violence followed by a war.
|
I went back and reread some of the back-and-forth just to understand where all these weird assumptions about my positions are coming from.
It seems like I replied too quickly to a post where KwarK snuck in a bunch of things that we weren't even discussing.
KwarK wrote:
I propose we create a new state for Palestinians. And where better to put it that in their ancestral homeland, between the river and the sea. People are currently living there but we can put them in camps. If you disagree with this then please explain why you’re so against immigration. I’m British and I give the Palestinians permission so that makes it all good, nobody else really gets a say.
And my response was:
The difference between your scenario and mine is THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE IN SAID BORDERS. Minor detail.
But given everything KwarK included in his description, what I unwittingly responded is not actually my position.
We were talking about whether it's adequate to call Zionism "colonialist", and KwarK's position was that Jews should not have been allowed to go to Palestine in the first place.
So when he described his scenario, my brain read:
Let's get a bunch of Arabs into Israel and have them declare a new state on top of the old one.
So obviously, my response is that you can't do that once there already is a state with its own autonomy, laws, etc.; and it's a completely different story when there is actually no state there. As long as people are allowed to emigrate to the region and start living there, they are free to petition the local administration to do whatever. No one owes them anything, but they can do that.
KwarK had to of course include displaced Arabs in his description, because in his mind that is an inherent part of the Zionist project (never mind all the inconsistencies with that line of thought). So my response ended up looking like I have no issue with subjecting locals to whatever harm in the process of erecting a state, and that is not my position.
Also, in my recollection, Jews did not simply waltz in and declare independence with no consideration for anyone else, correct me if I'm wrong. Jewish leadership was willing to separate peacefully from the Arabs and go into their own allotted area, and when that proposal fell through, they were attacked from every direction. This resulted in the Jews capturing what was to become the state. I.e. borders through armistice, independence through recognition, you know, like most other countries in existence.
So I'm not quite sure why we need to load our hypotheticals, but guess I wasn't diligent enough and missed it.
I also realized KwarK either misunderstood or possibly maliciously mischaracterized my challenge to his house analogy. I asked him if he was against immigration (in general), since that would be akin to letting people into your home, where they could stay indefinitely. It essentially shows a private property is disanalogous to a state, much less a non-state region.
But KwarK took "immigration" to mean "Jewish immigration into Palestine for the purpose of erecting a Jewish state and literally everything that ended up happening between them and the Arabs".
And I got called bad faith for that. Curious!
As a reminder, here are some of the questions KwarK neglected to answer:
1. Can you tell me what made it illegal (or as I suspect you will do, immoral) for Jews to immigrate to another place where some other people happened to live?
2. If I tell you some of the Muslims entering Europe have a 'desire' to overthrow its style of governance and create their own states, would you then block them entering the continent? I wouldn't, but would you?
3. Let's say this "desire" is intrinsic to your argument, are you totally fine with a mass of Jewish people immigrating to the region assuming they want to live there under British rule (or whatever else)?
4. Are you in favor of another Arab ethnostate? (Context: arguing Jews should not have been allowed into Mandate Palestine)
5. Would you oppose Jordanians and Egyptians moving to the same region? (same context as #4)
|
On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions.
My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring.
|
On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring.
My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people.
At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking.
|
On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking.
I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim:
+ Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here.
|
On November 16 2025 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking. I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim: + Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here.
I do not have to answer your disingenuous questions to know that you are wrong, or show you that. I can simply read mindjames say, that isn't what I believe. Its actually super easy when a major part of your conversation with someone is listening to their words for understanding and not to fite em.
Also, they are stuck in queue behind the questions mindjames asked you and you are busy dodging. Perhaps you will answer and they will be up next, but lets be real, you expect conversations to only go in one direction.
|
On November 16 2025 11:37 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking. I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim: + Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here. I do not have to answer your disingenuous questions to know that you are wrong, or show you that. I can simply read mindjames say, that isn't what I believe. Its actually super easy when a major part of your conversation with someone is listening to their words for understanding and not to fite em. Also, they are stuck in queue behind the questions mindjames asked you and you are busy dodging. Perhaps you will answer and they will be up next, but lets be real, you expect conversations to only go in one direction.
Gotcha, so it's not that you showed that I was wrong, it's that you don't have to show that I was wrong. Glad we cleared that up. See you in a few weeks?
|
On November 16 2025 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 11:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking. I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim: + Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here. I do not have to answer your disingenuous questions to know that you are wrong, or show you that. I can simply read mindjames say, that isn't what I believe. Its actually super easy when a major part of your conversation with someone is listening to their words for understanding and not to fite em. Also, they are stuck in queue behind the questions mindjames asked you and you are busy dodging. Perhaps you will answer and they will be up next, but lets be real, you expect conversations to only go in one direction. Gotcha, so it's not that you showed that I was wrong, it's that you don't have to show that I was wrong. Glad we cleared that up. See you in a few weeks?
It is very obvious that you are wrong, he told you you were. I get that you are so arrogant that you think your presumption based on a couple of posts (and his location) is for sure right. But to most people it takes more than that. He has said nothing that indicates he is a liar. He says that he supports Israel's creation, so there for is lying when he says he does not support a different situation, in a different time? That is simply awful logic. If he supported the settlers he would just say so the same way he did about the creation of Israel. Why would he lie?
And what was the purpose of your post, other than to be mean to the guy? It did not further the conversation at all. You again are not the victim, you're the jerk.
|
On November 16 2025 12:50 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking. I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim: + Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here. I do not have to answer your disingenuous questions to know that you are wrong, or show you that. I can simply read mindjames say, that isn't what I believe. Its actually super easy when a major part of your conversation with someone is listening to their words for understanding and not to fite em. Also, they are stuck in queue behind the questions mindjames asked you and you are busy dodging. Perhaps you will answer and they will be up next, but lets be real, you expect conversations to only go in one direction. Gotcha, so it's not that you showed that I was wrong, it's that you don't have to show that I was wrong. Glad we cleared that up. See you in a few weeks? It is very obvious that you are wrong, he told you you were. I get that you are so arrogant that you think your presumption based on a couple of posts (and his location) is for sure right. But to most people it takes more than that. He has said nothing that indicates he is a liar. He says that he supports Israel's creation, so there for is lying when he says he does not support a different situation, in a different time? That is simply awful logic. If he supported the settlers he would just say so the same way he did about the creation of Israel. Why would he lie? And what was the purpose of your post, other than to be mean to the guy? It did not further the conversation at all. You again are not the victim, you're the jerk.
He isn't necessarily lying, he could have beliefs that are in conflict with one another. Most people have that, it's pretty normal. I then point that out, and he gets to either show that I'm wrong, change his beliefs, or keep his beliefs. And on top of that you get to yell at me for a few pages because that's your mission in life.
|
On November 16 2025 12:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 12:50 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking. I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim: + Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here. I do not have to answer your disingenuous questions to know that you are wrong, or show you that. I can simply read mindjames say, that isn't what I believe. Its actually super easy when a major part of your conversation with someone is listening to their words for understanding and not to fite em. Also, they are stuck in queue behind the questions mindjames asked you and you are busy dodging. Perhaps you will answer and they will be up next, but lets be real, you expect conversations to only go in one direction. Gotcha, so it's not that you showed that I was wrong, it's that you don't have to show that I was wrong. Glad we cleared that up. See you in a few weeks? It is very obvious that you are wrong, he told you you were. I get that you are so arrogant that you think your presumption based on a couple of posts (and his location) is for sure right. But to most people it takes more than that. He has said nothing that indicates he is a liar. He says that he supports Israel's creation, so there for is lying when he says he does not support a different situation, in a different time? That is simply awful logic. If he supported the settlers he would just say so the same way he did about the creation of Israel. Why would he lie? And what was the purpose of your post, other than to be mean to the guy? It did not further the conversation at all. You again are not the victim, you're the jerk. He isn't necessarily lying, he could have beliefs that are in conflict with one another. Most people have that, it's pretty normal. I then point that out, and he gets to either show that I'm wrong, change his beliefs, or keep his beliefs. And on top of that you get to yell at me for a few pages because that's your mission in life.
With my last reply you now have ample information to assess my position and attempt to poke a hole in it. Remember, I reply to you in the same manner that you do. Fair, right?
|
On November 16 2025 18:54 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 12:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 12:50 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking. I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim: + Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here. I do not have to answer your disingenuous questions to know that you are wrong, or show you that. I can simply read mindjames say, that isn't what I believe. Its actually super easy when a major part of your conversation with someone is listening to their words for understanding and not to fite em. Also, they are stuck in queue behind the questions mindjames asked you and you are busy dodging. Perhaps you will answer and they will be up next, but lets be real, you expect conversations to only go in one direction. Gotcha, so it's not that you showed that I was wrong, it's that you don't have to show that I was wrong. Glad we cleared that up. See you in a few weeks? It is very obvious that you are wrong, he told you you were. I get that you are so arrogant that you think your presumption based on a couple of posts (and his location) is for sure right. But to most people it takes more than that. He has said nothing that indicates he is a liar. He says that he supports Israel's creation, so there for is lying when he says he does not support a different situation, in a different time? That is simply awful logic. If he supported the settlers he would just say so the same way he did about the creation of Israel. Why would he lie? And what was the purpose of your post, other than to be mean to the guy? It did not further the conversation at all. You again are not the victim, you're the jerk. He isn't necessarily lying, he could have beliefs that are in conflict with one another. Most people have that, it's pretty normal. I then point that out, and he gets to either show that I'm wrong, change his beliefs, or keep his beliefs. And on top of that you get to yell at me for a few pages because that's your mission in life. With my last reply you now have ample information to assess my position and attempt to poke a hole in it. Remember, I reply to you in the same manner that you do. Fair, right?
Absolutely fair yeah, I have no problem with you.
|
On November 16 2025 12:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 12:50 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking. I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim: + Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here. I do not have to answer your disingenuous questions to know that you are wrong, or show you that. I can simply read mindjames say, that isn't what I believe. Its actually super easy when a major part of your conversation with someone is listening to their words for understanding and not to fite em. Also, they are stuck in queue behind the questions mindjames asked you and you are busy dodging. Perhaps you will answer and they will be up next, but lets be real, you expect conversations to only go in one direction. Gotcha, so it's not that you showed that I was wrong, it's that you don't have to show that I was wrong. Glad we cleared that up. See you in a few weeks? It is very obvious that you are wrong, he told you you were. I get that you are so arrogant that you think your presumption based on a couple of posts (and his location) is for sure right. But to most people it takes more than that. He has said nothing that indicates he is a liar. He says that he supports Israel's creation, so there for is lying when he says he does not support a different situation, in a different time? That is simply awful logic. If he supported the settlers he would just say so the same way he did about the creation of Israel. Why would he lie? And what was the purpose of your post, other than to be mean to the guy? It did not further the conversation at all. You again are not the victim, you're the jerk. He isn't necessarily lying, he could have beliefs that are in conflict with one another. Most people have that, it's pretty normal. I then point that out, and he gets to either show that I'm wrong, change his beliefs, or keep his beliefs. And on top of that you get to yell at me for a few pages because that's your mission in life.
Is the reason you dodge all the tough questions sent your way that you don't want to challenge your beliefs in conflict? I notice you ask for content, get it and then go back to dodging.
Last night after our chat I was thinking, maybe Nebuchad has hidden beliefs he doesn't want share on the message board and that is why he assumes others do, who knows.
As to your last sentence that is just you narcissism acting up again. If someone else was attacking people I would also be responding to them in kind! Have a good one.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 16 2025 09:37 mindjames wrote:I went back and reread some of the back-and-forth just to understand where all these weird assumptions about my positions are coming from. It seems like I replied too quickly to a post where KwarK snuck in a bunch of things that we weren't even discussing. KwarK wrote: Show nested quote +I propose we create a new state for Palestinians. And where better to put it that in their ancestral homeland, between the river and the sea. People are currently living there but we can put them in camps. If you disagree with this then please explain why you’re so against immigration. I’m British and I give the Palestinians permission so that makes it all good, nobody else really gets a say. And my response was: Show nested quote +The difference between your scenario and mine is THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE IN SAID BORDERS. Minor detail. But given everything KwarK included in his description, what I unwittingly responded is not actually my position. We were talking about whether it's adequate to call Zionism "colonialist", and KwarK's position was that Jews should not have been allowed to go to Palestine in the first place. So when he described his scenario, my brain read: Show nested quote +Let's get a bunch of Arabs into Israel and have them declare a new state on top of the old one. So obviously, my response is that you can't do that once there already is a state with its own autonomy, laws, etc.; and it's a completely different story when there is actually no state there. As long as people are allowed to emigrate to the region and start living there, they are free to petition the local administration to do whatever. No one owes them anything, but they can do that. KwarK had to of course include displaced Arabs in his description, because in his mind that is an inherent part of the Zionist project (never mind all the inconsistencies with that line of thought). So my response ended up looking like I have no issue with subjecting locals to whatever harm in the process of erecting a state, and that is not my position. Also, in my recollection, Jews did not simply waltz in and declare independence with no consideration for anyone else, correct me if I'm wrong. Jewish leadership was willing to separate peacefully from the Arabs and go into their own allotted area, and when that proposal fell through, they were attacked from every direction. This resulted in the Jews capturing what was to become the state. I.e. borders through armistice, independence through recognition, you know, like most other countries in existence. So I'm not quite sure why we need to load our hypotheticals, but guess I wasn't diligent enough and missed it. I also realized KwarK either misunderstood or possibly maliciously mischaracterized my challenge to his house analogy. I asked him if he was against immigration (in general), since that would be akin to letting people into your home, where they could stay indefinitely. It essentially shows a private property is disanalogous to a state, much less a non-state region. But KwarK took "immigration" to mean "Jewish immigration into Palestine for the purpose of erecting a Jewish state and literally everything that ended up happening between them and the Arabs". And I got called bad faith for that. Curious! As a reminder, here are some of the questions KwarK neglected to answer: 1. Can you tell me what made it illegal (or as I suspect you will do, immoral) for Jews to immigrate to another place where some other people happened to live? 2. If I tell you some of the Muslims entering Europe have a 'desire' to overthrow its style of governance and create their own states, would you then block them entering the continent? I wouldn't, but would you? 3. Let's say this "desire" is intrinsic to your argument, are you totally fine with a mass of Jewish people immigrating to the region assuming they want to live there under British rule (or whatever else)? 4. Are you in favor of another Arab ethnostate? (Context: arguing Jews should not have been allowed into Mandate Palestine) 5. Would you oppose Jordanians and Egyptians moving to the same region? (same context as #4)
Kwark is Kwark, but I think his position is broadly similar to mine. X was a bad idea at the time, but you can’t fix X without a Time Machine.
As a Brit living in the island of Ireland, I can simultaneously think colonialism and much that was done here to be immoral and egregious, but that kicking Brits out today is going to produce plenty of injustice in the modern day. Or be practically infeasible. I mean you couldn’t return the United States to its native population nowadays even if you wanted to.
As to your questions, well it all depends who, why and under what circumstances. One migrant may simply be fleeing persecution and a pluralistic safe haven. Let’s hypothetically say the EU has designated like, Monaco as the site of a future Islamic state. Some may then come, enthused by that prospect, but fully with the intention of peaceful co-existence with other peoples. You’re also going to attract people who aren’t happy with just starting at Monaco, but want to expand it out further.
I mean Kwark’s analogy wasn’t intended to be 100% applicable I imagine, merely illustrative. I don’t think your follow-ups are 100% analogous either.
It’s not necessarily a simple matter of immigration, it’s one that is tricky to untether from Zionism no? It’s going to change the motivation and possibly the behaviour of the immigrant depending on if that’s a factor for them, or not as the case may be.
One can get into the weeds on such things, although they do have an unfortunate tendency to snag.
|
I mean Kwark’s analogy wasn’t intended to be 100% applicable I imagine, merely illustrative. I don’t think your follow-ups are 100% analogous either.
It was not meant to "illustrate", it WAS his argument. He did not answer the question in any other way other than smugly pose this "super simple" analogy, and noted that if I don't get it, then he doesn't know how to get through to me.
All Kwark does is avoid answering direct questions by either ignoring them or sarcastically reducing them to absurdity.
All Kwark does is avoid answering direct questions by either ignoring them or sarcastically reducing them to absurdity.
All Kwark does is avoid answering direct questions by either ignoring them or sarcastically reducing them to absurdity.
Let him answer my question without introducing jokes or analogies that crumble with 1 question and then we could have a grown up discussion.
|
On November 16 2025 23:28 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 12:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 12:50 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:
Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking. I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim: + Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here. I do not have to answer your disingenuous questions to know that you are wrong, or show you that. I can simply read mindjames say, that isn't what I believe. Its actually super easy when a major part of your conversation with someone is listening to their words for understanding and not to fite em. Also, they are stuck in queue behind the questions mindjames asked you and you are busy dodging. Perhaps you will answer and they will be up next, but lets be real, you expect conversations to only go in one direction. Gotcha, so it's not that you showed that I was wrong, it's that you don't have to show that I was wrong. Glad we cleared that up. See you in a few weeks? It is very obvious that you are wrong, he told you you were. I get that you are so arrogant that you think your presumption based on a couple of posts (and his location) is for sure right. But to most people it takes more than that. He has said nothing that indicates he is a liar. He says that he supports Israel's creation, so there for is lying when he says he does not support a different situation, in a different time? That is simply awful logic. If he supported the settlers he would just say so the same way he did about the creation of Israel. Why would he lie? And what was the purpose of your post, other than to be mean to the guy? It did not further the conversation at all. You again are not the victim, you're the jerk. He isn't necessarily lying, he could have beliefs that are in conflict with one another. Most people have that, it's pretty normal. I then point that out, and he gets to either show that I'm wrong, change his beliefs, or keep his beliefs. And on top of that you get to yell at me for a few pages because that's your mission in life. Is the reason you dodge all the tough questions sent your way that you don't want to challenge your beliefs in conflict?
I wouldn't know, I have never been sent a tough question
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 17 2025 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 23:28 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 12:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 12:50 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:37 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 11:13 Billyboy wrote:On November 16 2025 10:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one.
Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. My name is also top left, who'd have thunk it. Strange I'd always thought ban's kept people off. I did show you were wrong, mindjames doesn't believe the thing you made up, you just continue to believe your awful assumptions of people. At any rate, the discussions on the USpol thread about this topic go way better than here, because you are not participating (not kept off by your thread ban), and attacking anyone who does not hate Israel hard enough for your liking. I missed the part where you showed that I was wrong. As a reminder, here is my claim: + Show Spoiler +On November 16 2025 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Mindjames described a situation in which people are taking land from other people, but justified it by saying it's okay because there wasn't a state there yet.
I presented another situation in which people are taking land from other people, and there isn't a state there yet.
If the first one is okay, then it stands to reason that the second one is okay as well. Very simple logic.
So far your counter has been:
- In my example they use violence and that's bad! Well duh, they used violence in the historical example as well. Absolutely silly thing to say.
You can show me where you answered this, or answer it here. I do not have to answer your disingenuous questions to know that you are wrong, or show you that. I can simply read mindjames say, that isn't what I believe. Its actually super easy when a major part of your conversation with someone is listening to their words for understanding and not to fite em. Also, they are stuck in queue behind the questions mindjames asked you and you are busy dodging. Perhaps you will answer and they will be up next, but lets be real, you expect conversations to only go in one direction. Gotcha, so it's not that you showed that I was wrong, it's that you don't have to show that I was wrong. Glad we cleared that up. See you in a few weeks? It is very obvious that you are wrong, he told you you were. I get that you are so arrogant that you think your presumption based on a couple of posts (and his location) is for sure right. But to most people it takes more than that. He has said nothing that indicates he is a liar. He says that he supports Israel's creation, so there for is lying when he says he does not support a different situation, in a different time? That is simply awful logic. If he supported the settlers he would just say so the same way he did about the creation of Israel. Why would he lie? And what was the purpose of your post, other than to be mean to the guy? It did not further the conversation at all. You again are not the victim, you're the jerk. He isn't necessarily lying, he could have beliefs that are in conflict with one another. Most people have that, it's pretty normal. I then point that out, and he gets to either show that I'm wrong, change his beliefs, or keep his beliefs. And on top of that you get to yell at me for a few pages because that's your mission in life. Is the reason you dodge all the tough questions sent your way that you don't want to challenge your beliefs in conflict? I wouldn't know, I have never been sent a tough question
Oi, I must have posed at least one in my time here lad!
|
I’m sorry, I’ve been trying to catch-up on the thread for the last several pages and I’ve found myself thoroughly confused by the subject matter. Is there a reason to believe that calling someone an anti-Semite actually provides meaningful analysis of that person’s arguments? Because to me it seemed like an ad-hominem intended to discredit the speaker without addressing their points.
If it’s the latter, why are we talking about this? It’s thoroughly uninteresting. I’m more interested in hearing cogent reasons why I shouldn’t believe that slow encroachment from Israel on the West Bank is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
