Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[GMDino]

(04-01-2024, 12:33 AM)Dill Wrote: Israel could "do better."  Steady dispossession of Palestinians could be managed without "deplorable conduct." 

Political discussions about the Middle East can be more than a rehearsal of likes and dislikes, followed by policing of the wrong dislikes.


Again, we're not going to get any examples of my alleged "excuses" and "mitigation." Just your word I do this "consistently."

Until we get the evidence, this is just old-style denunciation of witches or the religiously heterodox. or new Trump-style denunciation of "racist" prosecutors 
and the like. It's about creating and deploying emotional hot buttons for ideological policing, not about evidence, or we'd have the evidence. 

And now I'm "pro-Islamist" too. My "support" for ISIS didn't "cement" your opinion? And if I'm smartly "peppering" my posts with calls for Hamas' destruction, why won't that undermine all my "mitigation"? Where's Occam's razor now? 

Trying to make this a black vs. white conflict and discounting any notion of possible shades of grey merely makes the person arguing that look both intentionally disingenuous and a dogmatic adherent.

I acknowledge the regressive force of extremist Islam as a catalyst for misogyny and homophobia throughout the Islam majority world. Not a problem.

But I do have a problem with allowing such acknowledgement to displace critical thinking and contextual analysis with ready made stereotypes deployed for ideological ends.

I'm responding to what you already had in bold:

We just had a huge discussion about labeling groups, not using names meant to provoke or incite, but SSF can call you an antisemite and makes claims about you without a single link to anything to prove what he says.  He calls you a terrorist sympathizer because you don't fall in lock step with what he believes (black and white).

Either put up of shut up.  Just casting aspersions because you disagree is what leads this entire forum in the wrong direction. 

And I'll be charged with "standing up for my buddy" (as if the clicks in here don't do that all the time) whereas I am using this example to talk about the board as a whole.

[Dill]

(03-31-2024, 03:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To second bolded, the way you operate in circular arguments really has me convinced that you focus more on the minutia than the bigger picture. (I apologize for the broad generalization, but I'm a big picture kinda guy)

Sorry I'm late getting back to this Sunset. Didn't want to leave hanging. Will answer your question about the "first bolded" in another post. .

We may be defining the "circular arguments" and the "big picture" differently.  
 
For me a circular argument is one in which the conclusion is surreptitiously used as evidence. Question begging. "The Bible is the word of God, and the proof is right here in the Bible." 
 
SSF sometimes calls my arguments "circular"--when I ask for evidence, don't get it, ask again, and he says he won't "repeat" himself. That may be going in circles, but its not the call for evidence which drives that, but the refusal to provide it. (You see yet another example of that "circle" in our exchange above: #s 88, 91, 95, 98, 100.)

In fact, my arguments are what most people call "linear," proceeding from premises/evidence, systematically, to a conclusion. They're often numbered to facilitate understanding. They build a structure which people can then prove or disprove. 
 
Concerning the second term, in the current Gaza war, for me the big picture is all the history and diplomacy which led up to it, and how it fits into US foreign policy. But I often support my claims about that war with evidence ("minutiae").

I wonder if by "big picture" you mean what I would call "general claims."  Sweeping or comprehensive statements about a subject, but without the minutiae.  I make such statements too. The minutiae doesn't come until I need to prove something. That sort of minutiae, by the way, is what keeps arguments from being circular, going by the definition above.

Anyway, I am very curious as to what you mean by my "circular" arguments. Can you point to an example?

[Dill]

(03-31-2024, 03:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: His primary target is "the modern left," a vague entity which he deems the greater threat, sending him after critics of Trump, to the cheers of many MAGA posters. Sprinkling his posts with occasional reminders of how he thinks Trump an odious person doesn't establish "centrist" credentials for me.

To first bolded, despite his numerous times of explaining that he's essentially Socially Left, and supports the Right on a few key issues,
you don't like that he calls each side out on their ridiculousness?
Am I to gather that from your point of view a person can only be Left or Right, no chance of centrism?

It’s not about what I like or don’t like. It’s about where the preponderance of evidence leads. I’ll mention four points:
 
1.       Does SSF really "call out" each side? I’ve read a ton of his posts on dozens of threads, on the Gaza War, Supreme Court decisions, abortion rights in Ohio, Limbaugh’s death, Hunter's laptop, Trump's defamation trial, the Muslim ban, Rittenhouse thread, it goes on and on. That’s not a few key issues. In none I can remember was he “calling out both sides.” He has produced lengthy posts worrying about how Trump rioters or supporters might be misunderstood or mischaracterized? But how many for BLM?  He has raged against Bush, a Republican, not from a definitively left or centrist angle, but rather to illustrate the MAGA premise that Trump is treated with a double standard. So DEFINITELY not the furthest thing from a Trump supporter, even if not a Trump supporter.
 
2.      Conversely, where's the thread where SSF defends some "left" policy post after post against "the modern right," personally attacking our right leaning posters as "liars" and "hypocrites" or "Communist sympathizers"? I don't read all threads. But I’m not aware of anything close to that. Will consider the evidence if there is such, though. I’m quite aware that SSF sometimes preface’s posts with claims he thinks Trump a terrible person, but that’s before defending his policies and attacking Trump critics. If you gathered all such statements together, the quantity would not match a singe rage post against Joy Reid. Pretty easy to get an overview of the threads he has started, revealing his consistent choice of topic and angle of critique. http://thebengalsboard.com/search.php?action=results&sid=39f941166baae3753050a7ae8bdf8535. 
 
3.       You say he is “socially left,” but the only evidence for that are his CLAIMS he is pro choice and gay marriage and the like. But he only seems to talk about that stuff when someone notices his rightward orientation, or he is about to support right wing critics of laws like "Don't say gay." If he thinks Trump court selections enhance our “freedoms,” then it seems to me he is not so much for pro-choice and gay/trans rights as he doesn’t really care. Could he be unclear as to which movement—progressives or MAGA—poses the biggest threat to those rights?
 
4.       Others notice this overwhelmingly rightward orientation as well, and it’s across the spectrum in this forum, where his posts often elicit cheers from the right. When his energy goes into attacking what he calls “the modern left” and progressives, what else are they, or anyone, supposed to think?
 
So, four different types and levels of evidence. This evidence does not suggest that I close out “centrism”  as a political option. But it certainly does question SSF's claim to "independence" and even handedness. He is not smack between Biden and Trump. And he is getting angrier at "the left" and progressives by the day. The question is, given the discrepancy between SAYS and DOES here, why does he continually present himself as some kind of non-partisan independent? Possibly he imagines the claim alone “proves” his neutrality, a position from which he can then “call out” others for partisanship. He does that frequently. Anyway, I just see this as one more example where his self image and descriptions of political reality don’t fit that reality. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-01-2024, 08:18 PM)Dill Wrote: It’s not about what I like or don’t like. It’s about where the preponderance of evidence leads. I’ll mention four points:
 
1.       Does SSF really "call out" each side? I’ve read a ton of his posts on dozens of threads, on the Gaza War, Supreme Court decisions, abortion rights in Ohio, Limbaugh’s death, Hunter's laptop, Trump's defamation trial, the Muslim ban, Rittenhouse thread, it goes on and on. That’s not a few key issues. In none I can remember was he “calling out both sides.” He has produced lengthy posts worrying about how Trump rioters or supporters might be misunderstood or mischaracterized? But how many for BLM?  He has raged against Bush, a Republican, not from a definitively left or centrist angle, but rather to illustrate the MAGA premise that Trump is treated with a double standard. So DEFINITELY not the furthest thing from a Trump supporter, even if not a Trump supporter.
 
2.      Conversely, where's the thread where SSF defends some "left" policy post after post against "the modern right," personally attacking our right leaning posters as "liars" and "hypocrites" or "Communist sympathizers"? I don't read all threads. But I’m not aware of anything close to that. Will consider the evidence if there is such, though. I’m quite aware that SSF sometimes preface’s posts with claims he thinks Trump a terrible person, but that’s before defending his policies and attacking Trump critics. If you gathered all such statements together, the quantity would not match a singe rage post against Joy Reid. Pretty easy to get an overview of the threads he has started, revealing his consistent choice of topic and angle of critique. http://thebengalsboard.com/search.php?action=results&sid=39f941166baae3753050a7ae8bdf8535. 
 
3.       You say he is “socially left,” but the only evidence for that are his CLAIMS he is pro choice and gay marriage and the like. But he only seems to talk about that stuff when someone notices his rightward orientation, or he is about to support right wing critics of laws like "Don't say gay." If he thinks Trump court selections enhance our “freedoms,” then it seems to me he is not so much for pro-choice and gay/trans rights as he doesn’t really care. Could he be unclear as to which movement—progressives or MAGA—poses the biggest threat to those rights?
 
4.       Others notice this overwhelmingly rightward orientation as well, and it’s across the spectrum in this forum, where his posts often elicit cheers from the right. When his energy goes into attacking what he calls “the modern left” and progressives, what else are they, or anyone, supposed to think?
 
So, four different types and levels of evidence. This evidence does not suggest that I close out “centrism”  as a political option. But it certainly does question SSF's claim to "independence" and even handedness. He is not smack between Biden and Trump. And he is getting angrier at "the left" and progressives by the day. The question is, given the discrepancy between SAYS and DOES here, why does he continually present himself as some kind of non-partisan independent? Possibly he imagines the claim alone “proves” his neutrality, a position from which he can then “call out” others for partisanship. He does that frequently. Anyway, I just see this as one more example where his self image and descriptions of political reality don’t fit that reality. 

Literally could not have made a better post to illustrate that you really don't actually read what the people you disagree with actually write.

(04-01-2024, 09:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm responding to what you already had in bold:

We just had a huge discussion about labeling groups, not using names meant to provoke or incite, but SSF can call you an antisemite and makes claims about you without a single link to anything to prove what he says.  He calls you a terrorist sympathizer because you don't fall in lock step with what he believes (black and white).

Either put up of shut up.  Just casting aspersions because you disagree is what leads this entire forum in the wrong direction.   

And I'll be charged with "standing up for my buddy" (as if the clicks in here don't do that all the time) whereas I am using this example to talk about the board as a whole.

I've literally done exactly that, numerous times.  I will reiterate because apparently you can't be bothered to read.  Among other things, which I have pointed out, Dill said, straight out, that he does not believe Israel has a right to exist in any form it has since its reformation after WW2.  I'll repeat, he does not think Israel should be able to exist.  That's the person you're defending here from "unfounded" judgments.  Put up enough for you?

[Dill]

(04-01-2024, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Literally could not have made a better post to illustrate that you really don't actually read what the people you disagree with actually write.

Literally could not have made a better example of how you substitute claims for demonstration--and cannot refute demonstration.

(04-01-2024, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: but SSF can call you an antisemite and makes claims about you without a single link to anything to prove what he says.  He calls you a terrorist sympathizer because you don't fall in lock step with what he believes (black and white).

Either put up of shut up.  Just casting aspersions because you disagree is what leads this entire forum in the wrong direction.  

I've literally done exactly that, numerous times.  I will reiterate because apparently you can't be bothered to read.  Among other things, which I have pointed out, Dill said, straight out, that he does not believe Israel has a right to exist in any form it has since its reformation after WW2.  I'll repeat, he does not think Israel should be able to exist.  That's the person you're defending here from "unfounded" judgments.  Put up enough for you?

You've done "exactly that" never. Not once.  Your claim is that I "support Hamas" and "mitigate" and "excuse" them, and that I am a "pro-Islamist" antisemite.

So "putting up" would mean showing where I said "I back Hamas in Palestinian elections," or said "Attacking that music festival was not so bad," or "Let's not be too hard on Hamas; after all, life in Gaza is not easy."  That would unambiguously count as proof.  But your charges on the super thread only follow my references to IDF war crimes, not statements about Hamas, which sound more like "Hamas is the Palestinian Right, an obstacle to peace like the Israel right."

So as I've been saying, your charge that I "support Hamas" on the Superthread always everywhere follows my reference to violations of international law.
You are simply saying that criticism of IDF war crimes and the occupation = support for Hamas; the only alternative to not "supporting Hamas"? Don't criticize the IDF. Black/white.

And I have never said anything anti-Jewish, or disparaging about Jews as a people or religion. Proof that I'm anti-semitic would be a statement like "Jews can't be trusted" or "Jews control US banking."  Can you find such?  I think not.  Again, the anti-semitism charge just follows acknowledgement of human rights violations, not anything said about Jews as a people.

Dino is quite correct: you've labeled me an "antisemitic Hamas supporter" numerous times, but proven it not once. Because you cannot. You know that.
The intention is to provoke and incite, to manage forum conflict with labels, without the burden of evidence-based argument. 

So far, the only thing specific that you have "put up"--your one hope--is your claim I do not think Israel "should be able to exist." Horrors!  My actual words: "Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex.   

But this is not evidence of antisemitism or "support for Hamas." It is an affirmation that universal human rights extend to Palestinians, and those depriving them of those rights have an obligation to rectify that violation. It doesn't mean Israeli citizens (or Jews) should not exist. It is an endorsement of a mutual recognition and peace agreement signed by Shamir and Arafat, which Netanyahu and the Israeli right has blocked.  This is not a question of whether Israel meets the criteria for a sovereign state in today's international system.  As far as international law goes, no state has a legal "right to exist." The argument is about how to recognize and protect the rights of everyone now under control of the current Israeli state--protect them equally.  

There is a conversation here you do not want to have, about Palestinian rights, about the legitimacy of any ethnic state, about military occupation, and the annexation of territory seized by violence. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-01-2024, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Literally could not have made a better example of how you substitute claims for demonstration--and cannot refute demonstration.


You've done "exactly that" never. Not once.  Your claim is that I "support Hamas" and "mitigate" and "excuse" them, and that I am a "pro-Islamist" antisemite.

So "putting up" would mean showing where I said "I back Hamas in Palestinian elections," or said "Attacking that music festival was not so bad," or "Let's not be too hard on Hamas; after all, life in Gaza is not easy."  That would unambiguously count as proof.  But your charges on the super thread only follow my references to IDF war crimes, not statements about Hamas, which sound more like "Hamas is the Palestinian Right, an obstacle to peace like the Israel right."

So as I've been saying, your charge that I "support Hamas" on the Superthread always everywhere follows my reference to violations of international law.
You are simply saying that criticism of IDF war crimes and the occupation = support for Hamas; the only alternative to not "supporting Hamas"? Don't criticize the IDF. Black/white.

And I have never said anything anti-Jewish, or disparaging about Jews as a people or religion. Proof that I'm anti-semitic would be a statement like "Jews can't be trusted" or "Jews control US banking."  Can you find such?  I think not.  Again, the anti-semitism charge just follows acknowledgement of human rights violations, not anything said about Jews as a people.

Dino is quite correct: you've labeled me an "antisemitic Hamas supporter" numerous times, but proven it not once. Because you cannot. You know that.
The intention is to provoke and incite, to manage forum conflict with labels, without the burden of evidence-based argument. 

So far, the only thing specific that you have "put up"--your one hope--is your claim I do not think Israel "should be able to exist." Horrors!  My actual words: "Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex.   

But this is not evidence of antisemitism or "support for Hamas." It is an affirmation that universal human rights extend to Palestinians, and those depriving them of those rights have an obligation to rectify that violation. It doesn't mean Israeli citizens (or Jews) should not exist. It is an endorsement of a mutual recognition and peace agreement signed by Shamir and Arafat, which Netanyahu and the Israeli right has blocked.  This is not a question of whether Israel meets the criteria for a sovereign state in today's international system.  As far as international law goes, no state has a legal "right to exist." The argument is about how to recognize and protect the rights of everyone now under control of the current Israeli state--protect them equally.  

There is a conversation here you do not want to have, about Palestinian rights, about the legitimacy of any ethnic state, about military occupation, and the annexation of territory seized by violence. 

Israel was founded post WW2 as an ethnic state, specifically a home for the Jewish people.  To deny its ability to exist as such is to deny its ability to exist.  You're not being clever here.  But honestly, this kvetching is tiresome.  I will cease calling you antisemitic or a Hamas supporter, I'll let your posts speak for themselves.

I will end with this, your exact argument for why you think I'm some far right winger could be used almost verbatim against you and your position on the Jews and Israel.  Consider the matter done for discussion. 

[hollodero]

(03-31-2024, 01:42 PM)Dill Wrote: I wasn't heroicizing Dems. So not ill-advised since that is not what is "advised."  I just don't see why criticism of Trump, without accompanying patter of how Biden and Dems suck too, should be cast as "imbalance" or an implicit "mythologizing" of Dems. Not sure how great my memory is about the Watergate era, but I don't recall people who criticized Nixon regularly adding that Dems, "of course," have their problems too, to avoid "concealing truths." Consider me curious about, and investigating, what has changed in our media environment to make kind of balance seem necessary.     

If Trump is a danger--and you agree he is--and justifying/minimizing/relativizing his behavior is a 24/7 requirement to maintain the danger (my claim; you haven't said you agree), then countering Trump-danger is about addressing that 24/7 justifying/minimizing/relativizing, whose primary tactic is "both sides do it," especially via false equivalence/whattaboutism. (Think of all the "independents" who, when asked to choose between someone who attempted to void democracy and someone who supports it, have trouble figuring out whether that is even the choice.) Making people more conscious of this pattern, of how it is systematic, is what creates my angle of critique and target here.

OK. I get it, I just think this approach runs into problems as soon as you take the step of rather not addressing actual problems on the left side to begin with. Real, existing, non-hyperbolic, non-overblown, non-Trump-relativizing actual bad stuff. That is where the mystification begins, when Trump is deemed so awful that nothing else matters and nothing else should even be brought up, to not enable false equivaliencies or whatever. That might be where you are, and to an extent even me, but it's not where the so-called middle is. When they see Pelosi rip up a Trump speech, they think of something the Trump side would do, except MTG did not even do that. And yeah, when they then talk about the sanctity of norms and institutions and the like after this kind of irreverent actionism, it sounds hollow, and saying that is not akin to being apologetic about Trump. Case in point, I also see several problems with how the democrats and the left-leaning media handled the BLM protests, the violence, the extremes that mixed themselves into the initial objectives and just got talked out of existence. Can I still say that, or do I employ a false sense of balance that only aids Trump and hence rather shut up about it because the Capitol storm was more dangerous to democracy? These are the things where I see problems, with employing counter-doublestandards and pointing to FOX et al. to justify them for example, giving people good examples for calling BS. Not to mention actual policies, not to mention how the left imho played its part in the rise of Trump to begin with, eg. by thinly veiled accusations of racism towards anyone who didn't like Obama and then some. Which not everyone did, but is merely one example of a "smarter, better, more humane and holier than thou" approach that happened constantly and without any blowback from the own side. By behaviour like this, this party gets more and more repellent to more and more people and it's not Trump's fault. Neglecting it won't help.

(04-01-2024, 08:18 PM)Dill Wrote: 3.       You say he is “socially left,” but the only evidence for that are his CLAIMS he is pro choice and gay marriage and the like.

Well, I for one just believe him, and why wouldn't I? Say what you will, you can't say that SSF is shy to voice his own opinion, why would he lie about that?

(04-01-2024, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: So far, the only thing specific that you have "put up"--your one hope--is your claim I do not think Israel "should be able to exist." Horrors!  My actual words: "Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex.   

I mean, without agreeing I kinda get what you're saying here, but at the very least the phrasing, imho, is quite unfortunate.

[GMDino]

(04-01-2024, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Literally could not have made a better post to illustrate that you really don't actually read what the people you disagree with actually write.



I've literally done exactly that, numerous times.  I will reiterate because apparently you can't be bothered to read.  Among other things, which I have pointed out, Dill said, straight out, that he does not believe Israel has a right to exist in any form it has since its reformation after WW2.  I'll repeat, he does not think Israel should be able to exist.  That's the person you're defending here from "unfounded" judgments.  Put up enough for you?

No, no. I've read what you said Dill said. What *I* said was you never provide any proof by showing what he said. We get your interpretation of Dill's words and then you label him.

Hopefully you will stay true to your word and stop with the labeling.

[Dill]

(04-01-2024, 11:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Israel was founded post WW2 as an ethnic state, specifically a home for the Jewish people.  

Sure. Hence the immediate need to correct the demographic imbalance, first within the assigned UN partition lines, then wherever else land could be taken by force. You are ok with the correction. I am not.

(04-01-2024, 11:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To deny its ability to exist as such is to deny its ability to exist.  You're not being clever here.  But honestly, this kvetching is tiresome.  I will cease calling you antisemitic or a Hamas supporter, I'll let your posts speak for themselves.

You continue to confuse value judgements with factual.

Acknowledging that all ethnic states controvert the premise of universal, equal human rights cannot "deny" any such state an ability to exist. 

The question/fact of existence is decided on the ground, often by guns.  
You're just complaining because I don't accord such states the legitimacy of full democracies based on equal human rights.

(04-01-2024, 11:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will cease calling you antisemitic or a Hamas supporter, I'll let your posts speak for themselves.

 
You've not been especially good about keeping your word or following your own rules. So we'll see.

That my posts might "speak for themselves" has been your primary concern. You've been unwilling/unable to address my arguments as arguments, with evidence-based refutation. Hence the anxious jamming of discussion with false and hyperbolic accusation; it diverts discussion from the IDF's record to my character and motivation.   

(04-01-2024, 11:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will end with this, your exact argument for why you think I'm some far right winger could be used almost verbatim against you and your position on the Jews and Israel.  Consider the matter done for discussion. 

Well no, it couldn't. Not without lots of hyperbolic stretching of definitions and dismissal of counter evidence, as you've already shown.
That's why you stopped short of explaining how that could be true, then closed discussion.

Next week remind folks you have demonstrated this "numerous times" and they can look it up for themselves. 

PS I don't have position on "the Jews." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2024, 09:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: No, no.  I've read what you said Dill said.  What *I* said was you never provide any proof by showing what he said.  We get your interpretation of Dill's words and then you label him.

Hopefully you will stay true to your word and stop with the labeling.

There is no interpretation needed.  He flat out said Israel should not be allowed to exist in any form it has since its reformation after WW2.  What exactly is open to interpretation there?

[GMDino]

(04-02-2024, 11:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is no interpretation needed.  He flat out said Israel should not be allowed to exist in any form it has since its reformation after WW2.  What exactly is open to interpretation there?

Again, you say things without present what he said.  You give us your opinion.

But then you said you were done this and here we are...lol.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2024, 12:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again, you say things without present what he said.  You give us your opinion.

But then you said you were done this and here we are...lol.

No, I'm not.  He specifically stated Israel cannot exist as an ethnic state.  Israel was refounded post WW2 as a state for the Jewish people.  Thus, Dill has directly stated Israel cannot exist in any way shape or form that it has since it was refounded post WW2.  It's not complicated, so I'm confusedas to why you're having so much trouble.

[Dill]

(04-02-2024, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I'm not.  He specifically stated Israel cannot exist as an ethnic state.  Israel was refounded post WW2 as a state for the Jewish people.  Thus, Dill has directly stated Israel cannot exist in any way shape or form that it has since it was refounded post WW2.  It's not complicated, so I'm confusedas to why you're having so much trouble.

Lol and now you are calling it "REfounded."  

I doubt you're all that confused about why Dino can't get from what I actually said to what you said I said. He knows why you don't quote me while substituting your version of what I "directly said." So I'll do it for you. Again. (Sunset, you reading this? Remember what I said drives arguments in a circle?)

"Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex." 

There is no "cannot exist" in that statement. Just a recognition that in current international law (and humanitarian ethics), there is no "right" to territory seized in war. (And no "right" for any state to "exist.) Many also agree as I do, that such seizure undermines the legitimacy of any state. But in my referenced two-sate solution, Israel would exist in EXACTLY the same "way, shape or form" as it has since 1948 (as an ethnic state in which full rights are not extended to every ethnicity) just having ceded control of some land it has illegally occupied.  "Cannot exist" is simply your helpful addition to a statement that doesn't say what you want it to, when it "speaks for itself." 
 
Then regarding what's "open to interpretation," there's this: "You continue to confuse value judgements with factual.

Acknowledging that all ethnic states controvert the premise of universal, equal human rights cannot "deny" any such state an ability to exist. 

The question/fact of existence is decided on the ground, often by guns.  
You're just complaining because I don't accord such states the legitimacy of full democracies based on equal human rights."

That is another "directly stated" statement.  You'd find much less resistance from Dino if you put it this way:

"Dill doesn't, in any way shape or form, accord ethnic states the same legitimacy as democracies recognizing universal human rights. He directly said so."   

You've not thought this through very well.  You want to defend Israel as an ethnic state but, even unfamiliar as you are with the history of that debate, you sense it will eventually commit you to denying one human group universal rights based on their ethnicity.  So you don't want discussion/examination/debate; your hope is that by repeating your version of what I "directly said," people will accept the misrepresentation and ignore my evidence and reasons. But you cannot count on lazy, motivated, knee-jerk reactions from everyone. In this forum, there'll always be skeptics checking your work. And mine.

Yow! This morning I meant to address some legitimate and substantive issues raised by Sunset and Hollo instead of this insistent misconstruction.  Now the good faith posters will have to wait, probably till tomorrow given my busy schedule today. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2024, 12:33 PM)Dill Wrote: Lol and now you are calling it "REfounded."  

Yeah, Dill.  Are you claiming Israel hadn't existed in the past?  Hard for me to take a person seriously who isn't aware of that.

[hollodero]

(04-03-2024, 12:33 PM)Dill Wrote: "Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex." 

There is no "cannot exist" in that statement. Just a recognition that in current international law (and humanitarian ethics), there is no "right" to territory seized in war. (And no "right" for any state to "exist.)

Since this debate goes nowhere anyway, I will restate that I understand an uneasy feeling about the underlined part. It's odd to me how one would muse about something like "right to exist" in the first place and then set conditions for said right, like being part of a x-state solution, having the right intents or fufilling conditions for multiethnicity, or not living up to initial ideas. Seems wording like that is not brought up for other states, not even north korea or younger ones. No one would claim Croatia or East Timor doesn't have the right to exist in particular versions. And might values lie as they do, Israel does still exist in its current form and given the surroundings, I too wonder whether statemets like "does not have the right to exist as state which does this and that [aka things they are probably deemed guilty of]" are appropriate under any context.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2024, 02:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: Since this debate goes nowhere anyway, I will restate that I understand an uneasy feeling about the underlined part. It's odd to me how one would muse about something like "right to exist" in the first place and then set conditions for said right, like being part of a x-state solution, having the right intents or fufilling conditions for multiethnicity, or not living up to initial ideas. Seems wording like that is not brought up for other states, not even north korea or younger ones. No one would claim Croatia or East Timor doesn't have the right to exist in particular versions. And might values lie as they do, Israel does still exist in its current form and given the surroundings, I too wonder whether statemets like "does not have the right to exist as state which does this and that [aka things they are probably deemed guilty of]" are appropriate under any context.

I am honestly not trying to bring you into this in any way, as you have said you're a grown man who decides what they comment on and how.  It consistently amazes me that this statement is made and flies completely under the radar of everyone but me, and now you.  My personal opinion is we're only scratching the surface of his true beliefs regarding Israel and every once in a while a little bit more gets shown, and none of it is pretty.  I know you disagree, but I think the evidence has been buried in our bickering, as I understand many people tune out once it starts.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2024, 03:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am honestly not trying to bring you into this in any way, as you have said you're a grown man who decides what they comment on and how.  It consistently amazes me that this statement is made and flies completely under the radar of everyone but me, and now you.  My personal opinion is we're only scratching the surface of his true beliefs regarding Israel and every once in a while a little bit more gets shown, and none of it is pretty.  I know you disagree, but I think the evidence has been buried in our bickering, as I understand many people tune out once it starts.

Say what you mean.  And provide some links of his words to prove it.

[hollodero]

(04-03-2024, 03:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am honestly not trying to bring you into this in any way, as you have said you're a grown man who decides what they comment on and how.  It consistently amazes me that this statement is made and flies completely under the radar of everyone but me, and now you.  My personal opinion is we're only scratching the surface of his true beliefs regarding Israel and every once in a while a little bit more gets shown, and none of it is pretty.  I know you disagree, but I think the evidence has been buried in our bickering, as I understand many people tune out once it starts.

I sure do, and I also have no moral clarity on the Middle East situation to begin with, unlike most people that seem to possess such a thing. But sure, my personal opinion is that Dill does not deserve to be labeled a Hamas supporter, imho not even the most critical stances towards Israel make one such a person. What Dill's true beliefs are, I dare not assess. Overall, however, I  assume that he opts for solutions without violence and bloodshed that do not wipe Israel off the map. Nothing I saw would indicate otherwise to me, and that's imho already where the Hamas supporter label fails.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2024, 04:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Say what you mean.  And provide some links of his words to prove it.

I have, and I have, in this very thread.  Quit trying to goad me into breaking the ToS. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2024, 04:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: I sure do, and I also have no moral clarity on the Middle East situation to begin with, unlike most people that seem to possess such a thing. But sure, my personal opinion is that Dill does not deserve to be labeled a Hamas supporter, imho not even the most critical stances towards Israel make one such a person. What Dill's true beliefs are, I dare not assess. Overall, however, I  assume that he opts for solutions without violence and bloodshed that do not wipe Israel off the map. Nothing I saw would indicate otherwise to me, and that's imho already where the Hamas supporter label fails.

And that's fine, and I get why.