Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(05-07-2024, 05:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wow, dude.  I'm speechless.  There's literally no way I can attempt to argue with the solid, fact based, not at all a borderline hysterical screed I just read.  Sincerely, well done.

I guess there was no need to wait to acquire information and assess when it was a story about a counter protestor though?  Damn, I just contradicted myself!

You could certainly "attempt to argue" if you knew how, though then you'd see the risk.

E.g., you could dispute the factual record, demonstrate that you do NOT demand that people condemn groups you've targeted, and then do NOT accuse them of actually supporting said groups if they don't condemn to your satisfaction.  If you are having trouble remembering examples, I can help. In support of that you can explain why repetitive, selective condemnation is a better response to war and protest than the kind of evaluation that follows rather than precedes description and analysis. 

Or dispute my claim that Sharon and Netanyahu destroyed Oslo, making Hamas a valid option for many Palestinians. A bit more nuance in that option, and more targets of condemnation than just Hamas. Simpler if you just stay away from the history.  Make every thread a long series of selective condemnation.

Then there is the logical solecism. Explain why Dino, or anyone, necessarily "chooses" to associate with a group if he doesn't condemn it right away, instead of just claiming that absence of immediate and loud condemnations creates it.   Whyever should that be?  Then explain why that rule, like so many of yours, doesn't apply to you. If you are "speechless," then it's just another of your impressions. 

In terms of logical structure, how is Dino's asserted "choice" not simply an inversion of your claim that in condemning IDF war crimes one chooses to "support Hamas"?  It's the same logical fallacy in each case. In one version failure to condemn creates "association," in the other, actual condemnation.
 
So you could very well "argue" with what I've said. Or you could just pretend refutation is unnecessary. Again.