Of course, since you just spewed google vomit and used several claims which you knew were false (since I already debunked them), others that you simply grabbed out of a hat and have nothing to do with anything I said in the thread, and others where you lied and claimed made-up rhetorical fallacies were actually logical fallacies, you still haven’t proven your point. It’s still funny that you actually think that asking someone to prove their point, if they can’t do it with a snappy answer, is a logical fallacy. Or as your own cite stated, pretty much every question ever asked is a logical fallacy. You are honestly so desperately stupid that you’ll advance the claim that any question at all is a fallacy unless it can be answered in a soundbyte. Maybe you can whine more about how showing that both you and David Duke are racists who say the same racist things and have the same racist conspiracy theories about Jews is a fallacy, because instead of showing how you’re both racists that say the same racist things, it’s really saying that you’re wrong about a factual claim since David Duke shares some of your opinions.
And speaking of your trolling, yet again, I’ll post why you have yet to advance an intellectually honest position on land ownership in Palestine and why you have yet to rebut the facts that show Carter uses agenda-driven lies to advance a bigoted narrative.
And:
Again, the fact that you can’t answer these, for so many days now, shows you have nothing. Nothing at all, other than trying to change the subject, and actual ad hom fallacies, and lies, and distortions, and google vomit lists of fallacies which you either do not understand or choose to use knowing that they’re wrong, as long as you can needle someone with them. I don’t expect you to answer them, but I will post them to show-
A) You cannot support your own position
B) you cannot rebut a position you disagree with
C) you have nothing, literally nothing, other than dishonesty and deception. Oh, and paranoid, racist fear that Traitor Jews are massing to subvert the US in the service of Israel.
Seriously, just shuffle on over to Stormfront. There you can not only support those bigots who lie about Israel, like Carter, but you can also indulge in your paranoid conspiracy fantasies about Traitor Jews lurking behind every shadow. There when you point to the PNAC nobody will point out you’re full of shit, and they actually advised Israel to break its ties of economic aid with the US and to stand on its own with no recourse to US military or financial aid. They’ll just congratulate you for stickin it to the Traitor Jews.
They’re somewhat easy to tell apart. Ivan is an unrepentant ex-burglar and current Jew-hater, with the critical thinking skills of someone on acid and a tendency to embrace conspiracy theories. Ivn has a crush on me and hopes that by being mean enough I’ll notice him and we can go grab coffee together. He’s also not the brightest bulb in the box, but he makes up for it with his retard-strength, arrogant bluster and the delusion that his opinion somehow sets the tone and general rule for pretty much everything.
I wouldn’t take ivn seriously, to be quite honest. He’s been rather obsessed with me ever since he tried to warn folks about the lethality of NutraSweet and about how Carl Sagan’s fictional work, Contact, was really a scientific endorsement of Creationism, and I argued that he was full of shit. At which point he admitted that one of his purposes for posting on this message board was to troll me. If you check, he’s taken to mentioning me in all sorts of Pit threads that I haven’t even posted in.
Seems I got under the boy’s skin a bit.
That he’s now having delusions of multiplicity (after his pretentious showing as a literary critic and internet psychologist :smack:) is somewhat unsurprising.
Actually, I don’t have a crush on you. There are plenty of tools on this board, and plenty of assholes. There are a lot of dumbasses, and a lot of tedious posters.
The thing is, you are far and away the most tedious, repetitive, and smarmy poster on the board, bar none. You actually suck at debating – your points are generally poorly made and depend far more on ad hominems and assuming the premise you’re trying to prove. Your insane (and I mean that literally) obsession with having the last word and never being able to walk away from an argument, combined with your own misstatements (or should I say lies) about other people’s posts makes you hands down the biggest douchebag on the board.
There are plenty of folks I think are dumb, or unfunny, or whatever. But you’re special, both in the retarded sense, and in the sense that you are the most pompous prick on the boards. Seriously, you fucking jizzmopper, you quote your own posts!
I wish to god you’d go to law school, if you could get into one, or do something with your life that would put you into contact with real academia and intelligent debate. I’m sure it would be an eye-opener for you, except that I think you’re too arrogant and thickheaded to realize your classmates would be laughing at you behind your back.
For all your talk about “woo”, you’re as venal and trite as the teabaggers and nutrasweet conspiracy theorists and creationists that you hate with such a passion.
Personally, I’m pretty sure you are so obsessed because you’re a fat, boring dork, and that you don’t have any real relationships – I can’t imagine how you would carry on in one, given your complete inability to admit a mistake or compromise on anything.
Your coping mechanism for your low self-esteem is obnoxious and annoying, but I hold little to no hope that you are even capable of contemplating that fact lest it destroy the fragile shell of perceived intellectual superiority you try to cultivate.
“unrepentant ex-burglar” — I hereby apologise to anybody on this board who I may have burgled during my misspent youth.
“current Jew-hater” — If I hated jews and didn’t just dislike people who refer to themselves as jews - or muslims, or christians or any other religious group that is currently affecting the world I live in negatively - don’t you think there would be a lot more bile and invective in my posts?
“critical thinking skills of someone on acid” — However well you think you are coming across here, the truth is you sound more like someone with far too much time on your hands and an unhealthy fascination with Israeli history. Despite my drug-addled brain, on the streets, where it counts, I’d outthink you at every opportunity.
“a tendency to embrace conspiracy theories” — Now if you’d used the word “consider” instead of “embrace” and added the words “when others would prefer to dismiss them blithely”, you’d have been on the money.
Just in case anybody reading along joined the party late: Ivan hates all Jews, even though now he’s decided that “I only hate those Jews who self-identify as Jews!” is a good dodge. His tendency to embrace lunatic Conspiracy Theories manifests there too, as he thinks that the Mossad is a Jewish organization rather than an Israeli one. He’s also a 9/11 Troofer who operates, just like the Loose Change assholes, by JAQing Off.
As it popped up again, I thought I might throw in although I feel dirty given it is Ivan who bumped.
First, I want to say straight out that I rather detest being ‘on the same side’ (NOT) as Ivan (insofar as one has to be associated with contemptible racists who happen to be attacking the same person as you). He’s a nasty piece of work (and I want to add that having noted his useless intervention pissing on Alessan I perhaps understand Alessan’s sympathy for Finny boy).
Of course it is hard to have sympathy for someone who, for the sole reason that the person is critiquing / opposing him on a message board, writes this:
This is a perfect illustration of the toxic, nasty and entirely disgusting and racist arguments that Finny puts forward.
I don’t even like Lucy. He’s a hard Left git whose politics and posting annoy the hell out of me, on a good day.
However, nothing that he has ever posted rationally merits this weasel worded accusation (as it is clearly) of anti-Semitism and dishonesty.
Jews can’t be trusted… This is a perfect illustration of the toxic behaviour of Finn’s part.
Yes, Lucy is an asshole and his posts - even when one is sympathetic are often unhelpful (although I can’t deny I liked his poking at the Autistic Israel Uber Alles Poster that is Finn) - but Nothing he has posted deserves this kind of nasty argument that is so very typical of Finny.And here I find myself defending a poster I neither care for personally nor ideologically, but out of fair mindedness.
Sidewise, as I wasted … too much time trying to get the posts in here and having it not work properly, relative to Empire decolonisation and pragmatism versus morality:
It is impossible to make a black and white argument on British decolonisation, that is on a pure moral ground. But that is a false proposition. I can’t think of any example of a state taking a significant (relative own economic or substantial political interests) decision where pragmatic concerns were not important. That does not obviate the key moral component of British decolonisation, in particular relative to its style and timing.
However, I would assert that there is a reasonable argument that relative to other colonial powers actual and real choices that the British decolonisation began on as much moral grounds as practical, insofar as there was contemporary serious argument for that could have won the day and we have clear examples of colonies surviving right through the 1970s with the proper degree of nastiess.
I think it was clear in the comments in this thread that I was not making any argument on absolute basis. I was asserting *(relative to something, God knows what now, other than some reaction to an assertion or implication that there was no moral basis on the part of other nations to critique Israeli policy relative to the Occupied Territories - sorry for the long digression but it appears in a Finny thread that this is required, else one is a liar, blah blah) *[, AND given actual and demonstrable influence of morally driven anti-colonialism in the Labour party (see the Malaysia case), that it is clear that the timing and style (aimed an enabling local [yes generally British friendly] elites).
Leaving aside a complicated analysis of European decolonisation, even looking at non British territories, it is very clear that from 1950 forward, we see two clear trends, incorporation based on some territorial validation, with full citizenship rights or independence with full control of territory.
From a moral point of view, 50-70 years ago, the colonial powers recognized the moral - and yes pragmatic and practical, but in reality the two are a piece - problems in colonisation.
On this item, I shall try to be rational and not get prodded.
My actual statement, if one searches this thread, was that I was not pleased with the website as it presented the Mandate as aiming at a Jewish homeland as such, and I wrote the reality was more ambiguous.
Now, not being Finny who apparently has unlimited time to obsess, dream up attacks on anyone perceived as impugning his cause, etc., I was a bit brief.
I think, however, that my comments give throughout this thread give proper context: the site’s phrasing (and perhaps I am wrong in this reading, but I do believe my reaction is justifiable) in context implies a primary goal of the mandate of establishing Israel. As my comment (brief, without Finnesque paragraphs) said, the reality was ambiguous (as to the aims of the mandate, in particular relative to the neglected no harm to the non-Jewish clauses). While my read of that may be incorrect, I felt - and feel - that it was justified relative to the site. At the same time, I wish to be fair to Finny, the site is generally fair (although generally pro Israel, which is not a bad thing as such, but generally its presentation of issues is not beyond criticism.).
Of course as the Captain reaction highlighted, one can read the British weaselling strongly in several directions, and cite side letters as one wants (Finny cited the pro Israel side letter, one can look to the King Faisel letters, notes, etc for a counter weight, the reality was that the British offices were trying to play two sides against a middle for own interests).
One day our Autistic Troll might grow up and get out of his basement, and actually engage his critics rather than creating straw men to attack for whatever masturbatory value he achieves.
I would prefer to be an adult and confirm one can honestly disagree on such a point ( I never said otherwise, although worth noting the bad and fundamentally dishonest habit). As one can confirm, my read on a website was it was skewed and as evidence I cited what I read as an over-read to justify right out Israel.
However, this Mandate was not a LoN drafted mandate, and was not drafted or pre approved by the LoN. The UK position was always that the Transjordan mandate was in accord with LoN but not a LoN creation. Discussions skipping over this are incomplete and in this context likely argumentative. Anyway, arguments over the Mandate seem to always be about pushing a point of view or spinning something for levering an historical argument in a party political fashion.
If there is one thing any British subject with a bit of sense has learned from Northern Ireland, one can spin round and round and round with such historical arguments (or rather political historical arguments). The real question is, do you really want to get beyond that?
The rest of this means fuck all.
A final comment as I don’t see any utility in further engagement here and doubtless this will continue on in rabid exchange:
I find it disappointing (although in looking in GD I see why) that people countenance Finn’s behaviour. (And perhaps taking him as an autistic case, I understand it, as I rather suspect that if he stopped treating any and all disagreement as a sign of Nazism or Wipe Out the Jews/Israelism one could in fact have a useful discussion, even an enjoyable one - although I admit having Ivans around makes that difficult).
A pity that the toxic environment around the subject makes enjoyable, rational and encouraging posters like Alessan cede place to him leaving both sides of the conversation to lunatics like Finnagain (and Ivan).
Well, see, thing is, Bill…can I call you Bill?..No?..Too bad, Bill…the thing is, I don’t come here to be loved or even particularly respected, pretty much got that. I come here to argue and talk, and crack wise.
So, heck, just check the username, and find something better to occupy your mind, won’t bother me none. You’ll be happier, and I’ll never notice the difference. I will find the strength to go on, rest assured! Even better, if you never read them, you won’t get pissed off when I make fun of you.
Well, Cheerios! My best to the nation that used to be Great Britain.
A thesaurus vomited on your keyboard?
Evidently you’re still smarting about the facts (even those certified by the morally upright and unquestionable British Empire) all confirmed that Jewish immigration to and investment in Palestine, on land they bought from its owners, dramatically improved the standard of living. At least, I assume that’s why you need to make shit up about racism in my posts. That or ya know, vomiting thesaurus.
Anyways, Lucy most certainly did say that it wasn’t at all unreasonable to treat Jews as potential traitors the exact same way we were looking for pawns of International Communism.
Just JAQing Off a bit. Not that Jack was wrong to take spoke to task for spoke’s paranoid racist fantasies of secret Traitor Jews, exactly, but really, we should be asking if Jewish ethnicity isn’t as much of a threat to American Security as International Communism during the Cold War. As someone as dishonest as you and given to games of “Ah-hah! Your example that debunks a claim that’s dishoenst but which I won’t touch, implies something!” would no doubt have realized, were you being honest.
At least now that you’re trying to weasel out of your apologia. Now, post apologia, you were trying to asset to something relative, that you can’t even identify, but surely that you had in mind at the time, some relatively absolute morality. Yeah…
Sad thing is you’re not even very good at lying.
See, for instance:
The number of times that the Mandate made clear it was to set up a Jewish national home, both in describing how it would foster that and it being in the lil’ thing we like to call a “preamble” shows that this is the wrong time to try to champion your factual error with a rather unconvincing lie. Just roll with it, and admit you were wrong and were making claims about a document you’d never read. Your claim kind of falls apart when the second sentence in the document says its purpose is to create a Jewish national home.
You tried this dodge before, last time claiming that giving people religious and civil rights meant that there couldn’t be a national homeland, or something. It’s okay. Some people argue by knowing what they’re talking about and making a case for it, and some argue by choosing a position and then trying to find evidence for it and rationalizing away their mistakes.
It’s clear what type of person you are.
Still can’'t be bothered to read the document, can you?
Folks reading along can note the fact that it is titled and dated:
The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
July 24, 1922
Those who are aware of history (rather than goggling it after the fact to rationalize their positions) will also be aware that Britain was awarded Palestine as a Mandate territory at the San Remo conference in 1920 which broke up the “Class A” territories between the powers. And, yep, in 1922 the specifics of the Mandate had to be authorized by the League of Nations.
Again, if you had even a cursory knowledge of history (or, even now, bothered to read the damn document you’re arguing over) it’d be pretty clear it was a League of Nations document, authorized by the League of Nations, as the very first line says:
Well… unless of course you’re (what’s that word, oh yeah) weaseling and you mean that the League of Nations approved the Mandate and set out the general terms of the Mandate and there would have been no British Mandate for Palestine if not for LoN approval and parameters, but otherwise they had nothing to do with drafting or approving it.
You turned it inside out and shoved its head right up its ass. Furthermore, I would bet you know it.
My point is that there are many, many occasions when conflicting loyalty overwhelms patriotism: many of the people who spied for the Soviets did not hate America and did not think of themselves as working against her interests. The Jewishitude of the person doesn’t enter in to it, its merely one of many such possibilities.
If you’re going to put words in my mouth, let me pick them, yours are poisonous.
Statement: Your kind of sweeping “they could be evahwhere, I’m not saying there’s a massive conspiracy but we can’t rule that out and we must be on our guard against them Dual Loyalty Joos” is the province of conspiracy wackos.
Response: Whoa, big fella! Why wouldn’t we expect such, given that otherwise loyal Americans spied for the Soviets due to their unjustifiable loyalty to international Communism. Why would we refuse to contemplate such a loyalty on religious or ethnic grounds?
So, in context, it was clear that you were saying that we should expect some Dual Loyalty Jews because you liken Jewish religion/ethnicity to a commitment of Americans to International Communism. And not just International Communism, but spying for a nation that we were involved in a decades long Cold War with. Out of misguided and honest loyalty to America… you now tell us.
Now your weaseling is that it’s not Jewish Dual Loyalty exactly, just that Jewish loyalty to their international ethnicity and/or religion might serve as a conflicting loyalty which overwhelms patriotism and causes them to betray their own home for the benefit of a foreign power. And spoke’s paranoid and racist Conspiracy Theory about having to watch Jews who had the audacity to have differeing political opinions than him is totally understandable and Jack shouldn’t have objected.
Unless of course this isn’t a special case of anti-Jewish sentiment on your part, and you’re on record here somewhere as saying that we really can’t always trust Americans of British descent to have opinions on NATO, given that they may have Dual Loyalties to Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. Just for example. I’m sure you can provide such quotes of yours on the Dope, warning of such Ethnic Perils, right?
Sometimes, it’s best to just stop digging Lucy. Just run with it. You feel that it’s okay to compare being a Jew to supporting International Communism and spying for the Soviet Union during the cold war. You honestly feel that it’s not at all untoward to suggest that an unknown number of secret Traitor Jews (due to religion or ethnicity, whichever) harbor Dual Loyalty which makes it impossible for them to be good patriots because their religion and/or ethnicity has so warped their senses that they’re now acting on behalf of a nation that isn’t even their own home. It’s just the same filthy tactic that spoke was using, you’re just trying to gussy it up. If a Jew dares have political opinions on Israel that some disagree with, why, he might just be one of them Dual Loyalty Jews acting out of loyalty to his ethnicity (not a racist claim not a racist claim!!!). :rolleyes:
“I believe that policies X, Y and Z,having to do with the Middle East and/or Israel are helpful for the US”
“I disagree, and I note that you are Jewish. Obviously, it is now only proper for us to speculate as to whether or not you are a knowing traitor or merely suffused with Dual Loyalty brought on by your ethnicity.”
“Wait, I thought we were going to discuss whether or not the policies were for the best? Are you really, in 2010, telling me that if you disagree with my assessment of global politics having to do with Israel, that it’s okay to question my patriotism and suggest that the mere act of analyzing this policy differently than you do opens me up to charges of Dual Loyalty via ethnic corruption?”
“Yes.”
“Couldn’t you have just asked ‘why do you hate America’?”
“That’s totally different. That’s how Bush and company tried to smear any democrats who had differing politics. This is how I’m trying to smear any Jews who have differing politics.”
“Ah”
“So, yeah, why don’t you love America enough, Jew?”
The poison, buddy, is in your own mind. Detox, baby.
You misunderstand, I dont care what you think about it, I just dont want anybody else reading to think you might be telling the truth about my opinions.
