10-21-2023, 11:58 AM
(10-21-2023, 09:47 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL So THAT'S how you "easily debunk" a "lie"? First of all, I said "a" cause, not "the." But let's take a closer look at those posts I "clearly don't read." In post #1 Luvnit said "the squad" used their bad reporting and CAUSED a "ton of harm."
"Then the squad used their bad reporting and caused a ton of harm, not only in the US, but the world. We know Talib hates Jewish people so know her motivation."
Why would he use the term "caused" if he meant "influenced"? But I'm "LYING" If I say he said "caused" because he said "caused"?
In his post #17, he says people think Israel attacked the hospital BECAUSE of what a "US Congress woman" said. That's asserting a causal relation, not "influence."
"My guess is they still think Israel attacked the hospital because CNN and NYT said they did as well as a US Congress Woman."
On the home front, he doesn't say she "influenced" rioting here in post #45. He says she IGNITED it. That's a CAUSAL relation, different from "pouring gas" on a fire ignited by someone else. Whenever he talks about Tlaib, he positions her as a cause.
So again, I am quoting the posts you say I don't read before responding. That's called SUPPORT or PROOF. And PROOF is not "easily disproven." What you call "addressing disingenuous assertion" is just bald assertion without support or proof. So not "addressing" anything.
Final note--for the argument I was making, it was immaterial whether Luvnit said Tlaib "caused" or "influenced" rioting. My point was that her effect was exaggerated, first by him, now by you. Yet on that immaterial distinction you pile your usual UNSUPPORTED accusations that I lie and am "disingenuous." As if all that had been actually established in some previous post and now you are put out by having to repeat it. This is a tactic you've used on a number of threads. Examples provided upon request.
(10-21-2023, 09:50 AM)Dill Wrote: You were asked to SHOW that the NYT's corrected misreporting and Tlaib's repetition of it have the effect in the ME that you and Luvnit claim for it. That would mean showing how an English language report and Tlaib made a difference in an Arab media environment already saturated with the Hospital story. Your response is that it just "indisputibly" does. So you've SHOWN nothing.
When I suggest US support for Israeli policies ignoring the Palestinian question will pose a greater threat to US lives and interests in the long run than Tlaib and the corrected report, you don't bother offering evidence to the contrary. Dismissing my invitations to offer reasons, you trot out a Klan analogy to explain why I can't be reasoned with. How's that not just policing for ideological conformity--and a dodge?
And if I refuse to jump on the hate bandwagon that lead to a child's death, that cements my "rigid ideologue" status.
In your world, it's the guy reasoning from and asking for evidence who "comes off as an ideological extremist."
So I don't see a real concern about damage to the US in all this or how what might actually be moving events in the ME. You've rejected two chances to substantively discuss that in favor of a Klan analogy and personal attacks.
Do you really think I'm going to continue to address things already addressed that you repeat again and again and again? As is always the case with you, you get answers, twist them and repeat your question.
Here are some indisputable facts. The NYT repeated Hamas propaganda. Tlaib continues to repeat Hamas propaganda, despite it being debunked by US intelligence. Neither of these facts can be disputed. You disagree as to the extent of the damage done by this. Fine. You think a major US paper and a sitting congressperson who gets tons of publicity laundering Hamas propaganda does no damage to US interests and doesn't put US lives in danger. Fine. I find that that to be so obviously untrue that only a pure ideologue would think otherwise. At the end of the day that is the crux of this discussion. Given your posting history I dare say no one is surprised by your position on this. At all.
