TWEEEEEET!!!
No more telling other posters what “they” are doing. If you have a fact or a logical argument that actually pertains to the thread, post it, otherwise, this thread is going to be shut down and you folks can go play in the BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Fair enough Tom.
I will point out that Spoke has yet to address any of Blumenthal’s other anti-Semitic lies that I pointed out and rote denial is not rebuttal (let alone addressing specifics)
Like how the National Jewish Council for the Disabled’s exclusive reason for sending people to Israel is to brainwash them. Or how the American Jewish community’s “indoctrination” of its children inevitably leads to bigotry and hatred.
When I point out that Blumenthal can’t even get straight the length of his own raw footage and doubles it depending on what point he’s trying to make, that is distortion on my part. But on his part, it’s just him being unable to tell the difference between 60 and 120 minutes. Because if there’s anything that a documentary filmmaker simply wouldn’t know, it’s how much film he used or what the editing process was like.
Of course, like all the other coincidences, this one too just happens to help his rhetoric. What luck! When Blumenthal wants to make it seem like there was very little footage and the editing was done quickly and right after the interviews so everything was fresh in his mind, why, then it’s only an hour of raw footage and it’s done the very next day. But when he wants to deny the obvious cherrypicking that went into making the film and claim that there was even more anti-Obama sentiments than we saw, why, then the raw film’s length (luckily!) doubles and not one single American Jew said a single positive thing about Obama. When America Jews overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
Yep.
Just one of them thar fortunate coincidences
Here, why don’t you do the math for us. How many randomly selected (you are still claiming this wasn’t cherrypicked, right?) individuals can we expect him to have talked to in one hour. Er, two hours. Er, one hour. (Choose whichever one you’d like). Now, seeing as how he has a 77% chance to meet an Obama supporter and only a 23% chance to meet someone who didn’t vote for Obama, what’re the odds that each and every single person he interviewed just happened to be totally against Obama ? (Assuming, of course, that you’re not going to claim that only that 23% is likely to be found in Jerusalem, what with how conservative most American Jews are)
How many people do you think he spoke with? 10? 20? 50?
Do the math. Whats the chance that a (slightly less than) 1/4 chance event happens 10 out of 10 times in randomly selected sample.
Twenty out of twenty?
Fifty out of fifty?
Your post is quite clear. You stated it as fact.
Nowhere did phrases like “what he believed was” or “what he mistakenly thinks is” or what have you. More to the point, that someone could “expose to the world” their own opinion is nonsensical and jabberwockian.
But that you now won’t support that quote, I take it that you’re going to retract (or tacitly retract) any agreement with Blumenthal’s claims on that front? Which means, you’re agreeing that Blumenthal’s claims about how Israeli politics (and especially American Jewish "indoctrination) driven by bigotry and hatred are untrue… which means you admit he was lying. And that, as the claims were untrue, he was using anti-Semitic slurs when he alleged such “indoctrination” and using that anti-Semitism to support anti-Israel bigotry based on dishonesty fallacies bullshit.
Or do you deny that he voiced an untruth, and contend that he was in fact correct (and thus, you werent actually paraphrasing but agreeing with him).
Can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid. Was he lying about the American Jewish community “indoctrinating” its children to be mindless, hateful drones, which is anti-Semitism, and using that fiction in the service of a claim that his political opponents in Israel evinced the same hateful bigotry, which is anti-Israel bigotry…
Or do you claim he was correct?
Really, you can’t have it both ways. He’s wrong and using fiction to slander people, or he’s right and you’re prepared to defend his comments.
Pick your position.
If AIPAC says it, it must be true. Surely you’re not using their self-promoting PR release because it happens to line up with your rhetoric and you’ll drop AIPAC’s public statements as soon s they don’t agree with your rhetoric.
I look forward to your strong support for everything AIPAC says in the future.
Of course, we’ve had this debate before. Conspiracy mongering aside, the facts show that the US government is quite capable of acting against AIPAC’s wishes. But, of course, the good ol’ “lockstep” charge is a fun one, in that it’s both fictional and alleges that our government simply cannot act on its own or against the nefarious AIPAC influence.
As if our government is unable to act on its own due to Zionist influence.
As if, I don’t know, our Government has been Occupied by Zionists.
I’d point out, yet again, that the US embassy aint in Israel’s capital despite AIPAC’s ardent wishes, but like any good conspiracy theory, holes in it are just used to show how powerful the conspiracy really is. There’s no evidence of explosives being used to bring down the WTC? That just shows how powerful the conspiracy was and that they were able to silence all the experts. AIPAC cant even get more than lip service on one of their major issues? That just shows how much influence they have over our government.
Rather obviously (and rather obviously undeniable since you can’t even address a single fact I brought up and just have to offer this bland bullshit denial) yes he is.
“Nuh unh!!!” is not a factual rebuttal. “Them facts aint facts!” is not a factual refutation. I’ve shown how Blumenthal uses fiction to slander the American Jewish community and uses that to slander the Israeli political participants (except for the lunatic fringe who want Israel to stop occupying the territories immediately which would allow Hamas to start dropping rockets on Tel Aviv without delay… and who want a foreign nation to force their own nation into that to ‘save them from themselves’.)
See, if you’re going to allege that facts aren’t facts, you have to, ya know, rebut them. I actually linked to them, elaborated on them, showed how the logic was faulty, etc…
Obviously you can’t rebut them since they’re true.
You didn’t even try.
So go ahead.
Show a single factual claim I made which is wrong. Just one.
Refute single logical chain I explained. Just one.
I know you can’t, because I know the facts.
But I’d at least like you see you try to rebut the facts if you’re going to keep denying them, rather than, ya know, just denying them.
Speaking of math and methodology… the other possibility is that of course we’re not dealing with a random sample, but a self-selected group who chose to visit Israel. And thus, of course, any attempt to use that non-random, self-selected sample to represent the American Jewish community* (much less represent its educational practices as evil, hateful indoctrination) would be using the fallacies of biased sample and hasty generalization in order to deceive people into a specific conclusion that just-so-happens to be an anti-Semitic one about American Jewish “indoctrination” that inevitably leads to bigotry and hatred.
But your position isn’t that Blumenthal used deceptive fallacies to argue for an anti-Semitic position in the service of anti-Israel bigotry.
So let’s assume it was an actual valid random sample that he could legitimately use to make scientifically valid judgments about American Jewish “indoctrination.”
What are the odds of meeting not one single Obama supporter on an hour (or two hours, whatever story you choose to believe) of raw video?
*just to head off any dodges before they’re put into practice, the sample wouldn’t tell us anything about Jews-who-visit-Israel (let alone Jews-who-support-Israel) either, as it wasnt random or sufficiently sized. But do the math anyways so you can see just how likely it is that Blumenthal really collected a sample that, as he argues could tell us anything about the American Jewish community and yet had not one single American Jewish Obama supporter.
And once again (for the 100th time or so) Finn’s insinuations of anti-Semitism go unremarked and unmoderated. Thanks for the even-handed intervention Tom! Nice modding!
Wait, so you put forward and support someone who claims that the American Jewish community engages in a process of “indoctrination” that inevitably turns its children into hateful drones, and it upsets you that that claim is anti-Semitic but that I’m not saying you are? This, after we’ve all been pointing out, for the entire thread, that Blumenthal is bigoted/dishonest/what-have-you?
What did you expect?
And why do you think you should be able to cite someone who alleges that Jewish “indoctrination” inevitably leads to bigotry and hated and/or has the “exclusive purpose” of turning Jews into “unyielding, unthinking” drones to an ideology, and have the authority you’re citing remain free from a discussion of what he’s saying?
If you don’t want your sources discussed as anti-Semitic, don’t cite anti-Semitic argument about evil Jewish “indoctrination”. If you don’t want your arguments to be pointed out to be conspiracy theories, don’t talk about how the US government does not act freely due to being in “lockstep” with Zionist influence.
If you want to do all those things, you cannot expect to have your cites/arguments go un-critiqued on their flaws. And as we’ve had a very active Pit thread, I certainly could have simply linked to these posts if I felt like calling you an anti-Semite. I didn’t and I don’t. As I said I believed and I believe that your argument simply makes use of anti-Semites like Blumenthal or conspiracy theories about how the US government acts in “lockstep” with Zionist influence because their conclusions are politically useful since you want to argue that Israel’s policy is “hardline” and it’s making peace harder and that the US is totally wrong for agreeing with it… even though the US doesn’t always and is rather publicly and vocally right now opposing Israel’s settlement policy, for example.
You can’t post in a debate and ask that the substance and implications of your sources and the logical errors that prop up your argument all go unremarked. You can’t cite anti-Semitic arguments and then demand that they go totally unidentified. You are entitled to having me not call you an anti-Semite in GD (or directly flame you in other ways), and I haven’t. If you can’t take having your sources challenged, then that’s too bad.
~shrugs~
Wait. Max Blumenthal is anti-semitic now?
This (warning: link leads to a video) Max Blumenthal? Oooooookay.
As did your insinuations that he was lying, which is even more explicitly against the rules than a claim that you simply agree with the opinions of some off-board third party who might be construed as anti-semitic.
However, it appears that the topic is no longer of interest and I am tired of having to read the bickering, this mess is done.
[ /Modding ]