Oh you’re denying that Israel is guilty of anything, just alleged to have been doing naughty things? I’m shocked. Yeah, that’s exactly the point of this whole thread. You’re a pathetic defender of crimes against humanity because you’re too much of a removed to take the stand you know is the moral one, because you have relationships with people whom you’re not brave enough to disagree with.
you: “i believe that the sky is blue”
me: “yeah but it depends on how we define believe, and how we define blue, along with how we classify the concept of “seeing” color.”
you: “well you’re just a fucking removed who doesn’t understand how perception works, you must be denying the concept of blue existing in its entirety”
i’m disagreeing with the shitty way you word your statements, and then reconstructing them to provide my answer to what that question realistically should be.
And to be clear here, you very subtly diverged from using the term “war crimes” and transitioned into using “crimes against humanity” Which are two VERY different things. We agree that there are war crimes taking place. You keep trying to semantically undermine my statements and arguments so that you can say “i agree with you” even though it makes me look hypocritical, specifically through the mechanism of silent semantic corrections. Arguably this is equivocation, because you’re subtly stating that war crimes = crimes against humanity.
There’s not enough money in this world for me to go and read the brainfarts of a person like you.
yet you’ve done it, again, and again, and again, and again. For some reason you keep fucking responding to me, even though you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole for me to classify your argumentative mechanisms into.
you also keep (amusingly) accusing me of being too frail to simply, make my own decision, even though literally all you do is (incorrectly) reiterate what other people have said. Have you been to gaza? Or israel? No? That’s weird.
you: “i believe that the sky is blue”
me: “yeah but it depends on how we define believe, and how we define blue, along with how we classify the concept of “seeing” color.”
you: “well you’re just a fucking removed who doesn’t understand how perception works, you must be denying the concept of blue existing in its entirety”
i’m disagreeing with the shitty way you word your statements, and then reconstructing them to provide my answer to what that question realistically should be.
And to be clear here, you very subtly diverged from using the term “war crimes” and transitioned into using “crimes against humanity” Which are two VERY different things. We agree that there are war crimes taking place. You keep trying to semantically undermine my statements and arguments so that you can say “i agree with you” even though it makes me look hypocritical, specifically through the mechanism of silent semantic corrections. Arguably this is equivocation, because you’re subtly stating that war crimes = crimes against humanity.
yet you’ve done it, again, and again, and again, and again. For some reason you keep fucking responding to me, even though you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole for me to classify your argumentative mechanisms into.
you also keep (amusingly) accusing me of being too frail to simply, make my own decision, even though literally all you do is (incorrectly) reiterate what other people have said. Have you been to gaza? Or israel? No? That’s weird.