Gender Apartheid

[ImmortalFlame]

Again Israel is justified in responding in kind to Hamas. It's that includes killing then that's how.

No, committing war crimes. Is committing WAR CRIMES and the MASS DELIBERATE KILLING OF CIVILIANS justified in these circumstances, yes or no?

I bring up hamas's lack of concern for their own citizens to remind people why Hamas is a band of rabid dogs.

We all agree they're bad. Nobody has said otherwise. And since you acknowledge it's irrelevant, you admit it's a diversionary tactic to avoid the actual debate about your position that justifies the mass deliberate killing of civilians.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's an objective observation that hamas doesn't care about it's civilians or anyone else's. It's also an objective observation that hamas publicly and explicitly wants to eliminate Israel and Jews from the face of the earth. That makes them rabid dogs. Your offended feelings over those objective observations are as relevant to me as the mating habits of dung beetles.

That is not an objective, logical and valid reasoning or justification. But you are really hung up on your feelings and they really matter to you. I do understand that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's like you work at not comprehending. Its fascinating to watch you people.

Gee, it's almost like we keep asking your questions to gain some sort of clarity about what your position actually is, and you just keep tapdancing around and refusing to offer any clarification. Then you accuse the rest of us of being idiots.

It's not my logic. That has nothing to do with it.

It is indeed, your logic that you've shared here with us.

I even pointed out to you how it justifies the allied forces committing genocide during WWII because, well, HItler did it and they're just responding in kind, right? Well, you didn't even respond to that. It's rather obvious why, I think.

Hamas does not care about civilians either their own or anyone else's.

Everybody knows this.

Some of us do care about civilians, though you don't seem to unless they're Israeli. I care about all civilians, on both sides.

That's why hamas is a band of rabid dogs. Humans should not be expected to live among rabid dogs but if they just turn the rabid dogs need to be restrained.

And how about the innocent Palestinians that are being slaughtered? What about them? They deserve it because Israel is just responding "in kind?"

 

[Ignatius A]

That is not an objective, logical and valid reasoning or justification. But you are really hung up on your feelings and they really matter to you. I do understand that.

Sure it is. You don't like it. You're feelings are hurt. If only that mattered to me. I wish it did but it doesn't. Remember I'm not your mother

 

[Ignatius A]

Gee, it's almost like we keep asking your questions to gain some sort of clarity about what your position actually is, and you just keep tapdancing around and refusing to offer any clarification. Then you accuse the rest of us of being idiots.



It is indeed, your logic that you've shared here with us.

I even pointed out to you how it justifies the allied forces committing genocide during WWII because, well, HItler did it and they're just responding in kind, right? Well, you didn't even respond to that. It's rather obvious why, I think.

Everybody knows this.

Some of us do care about civilians, though you don't seem to unless they're Israeli. I care about all civilians, on both sides.

And how about the innocent Palestinians that are being slaughtered? What about them? They deserve it because Israel is just responding "in kind?"

My position is quite clear. You don't seem to like it. Ok

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure it is. You don't like it. You're feelings are hurt. If only that mattered to me. I wish it did but it doesn't. Remember I'm not your mother

You are really about feelings. That explains a lot about how you can't make a logical, valid, objective justification. It is the feelings that does it for you.

 

[Ignatius A]

You are really about feelings. That explains a lot about how you can't make a logical, valid, objective justification. It is the feelings that does it for you.

If you say so. Your ramblings are yours but the only one offended here is you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you say so. Your ramblings are yours but the only one offended here is you.

Right out of the far-right playbook.

When losing a debate, just accuse your opponents of being "offended". It's easier than coming up with a rational justification for all the incredibly wrong things you say and believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you say so. Your ramblings are yours but the only one offended here is you.

Sorry, that I am hurting your feelings. But that is just me being reflexively polite. Don't read anything more into that.

 

[icehorse]

So you are a we that include the International Court of Justice as per this: The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. The ICJ mandated Israel to end its occupation, dismantle its settlements, provide full reparations to Palestinian victims and facilitate the return of displaced people.

Now I agree that there are different opinions on this, but you are not with a solid, logical foundation a we as you use it.

The UN and its branches have been quite corrupt for decades now. Of all people, you should take notice when you make an appeal to authority as you've done here. Consider this idea from Hitchens (that I copy and pasted from my taglines ):

"Don't take security in the false refuge of consensus." - Hitchens

Think for yourself! Do YOU think this is a case of genocide? Use your own logic, don't make an appeal to a corrupt authority.

 

[icehorse]

That's not how a strawman argument works.

Also, it's literally what you did. I presented dozens of Wikipedia pages citing war crimes carried out by the IDF and Israeli government in Gaza and the West Bank, and (LESS THAN TWO MINUTES LATER) you wrote that you dismissed them all because, as you implied, they "misused the term genocide" (despite the fact that you couldn't possibly have read any of them in that time, so you have no idea if they did or did not).

You're bad at debates. And stop misusing logical fallacies.

When you tell your opponent what they are thinking are are almost certainly using a strawman.

As for your gish gallop of links, you can tell by the titles that these articles are all based on similar contexts for the situation that are too limited to be useful.

 

[icehorse]

What about accurate claims like "war crimes"?

Do you think committing war crimes is a good solution to the problem?

As I've said before, we will not solve this problem as long as we accept flawed assumptions going in.

 

[icehorse]

That's not a strawman argument.
Rather, it's an observation.

You're wrong.

Go back and read the exchange again, copy and paste it if you like, and I'll show you why it WAS a strawman.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When you tell your opponent what they are thinking are are almost certainly using a strawman.

No, that's not what a strawman is.

It's perfectly reasonable to make inferences about someone's position, even if they haven't explicitly stated that position. I have seen you do that very thing on these forums yourself.

A strawman is substituting an opponent's argument with another weaker or unrelated one.

As for your gish gallop of links,

Not a gish gallop to provide a large amount of evidence.

you can tell by the titles that these articles are all based on similar contexts for the situation that are too limited to be useful.

Wow. You can do that by THE TITLES of these Wikipedia pages?

Does it make you feel good to openly admit that you just dismiss all sources without even reading them?

Great logic. Most reasonable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I've said before, we will not solve this problem as long as we accept flawed assumptions going in.

Flawed assumptions like "widely reported war crimes are happening"?

On the logic, we can't assume literally anything is going on at all. Hamas don't even exist. What is Israel? There's no such place as the Middle East.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're wrong.

Go back and read the exchange again, copy and paste it if you like, and I'll show you why it WAS a strawman.

Nope.

You can just explain it now if you want. But you didn't so .... yeah.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Rather than having me read 516 posts, could someone briefly outline what is being argued? Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The UN and its branches have been quite corrupt for decades now. Of all people, you should take notice when you make an appeal to authority as you've done here. Consider this idea from Hitchens (that I copy and pasted from my taglines ):

"Don't take security in the false refuge of consensus." - Hitchens

Think for yourself! Do YOU think this is a case of genocide? Use your own logic, don't make an appeal to a corrupt authority.

Well, I said there are different opinions. And the quote I gave was about apartheid, not genocide.
So we have different opinions even what the post I made, was about.

 

[Ignatius A]

Sorry, that I am hurting your feelings. But that is just me being reflexively polite. Don't read anything more into that.

Youre so offended it's oozing out of you. You've abandoned the topic which proves just much you need a saf space.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Youre so offended it's oozing out of you. You've abandoned the topic which proves just much you need a saf space.

Here is something fun. See if you can figure out the relevance:

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from infancy to adulthood. According to Kohlberg, these stages are grouped into three separate levels known as preconventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality.

www.simplypsychology.org