Quite critical? Or he concedes that SOME of the settlement activity is bad. Does he think ALL settlement activity is bad or only the stuff that is absolutely indefensible?
Well, you can’t actually say “NEVER” about very many things. He concedes Israel’s culpability in some situations where Israel’s acts are absolutely indefensible, but he doesn’t even concede all of these cases.
There’s a difference between knowing nothing and not knowing everything.
And it’s true that you certainly can have a valid opinion about the Apartheid without having ever heard of Mandela. Similarly, the example the same poster gave (marriage between Palestinians and Israeli citizens) stays a valid argument even if he never heard about the expulsion of the Palestinians from Kuwait.
Stating that someone doesn’t have standing to discuss issue A because he lacks knowledge about more or less related issue B is disingenuous. We could even discuss the merits of an Apartheid system or discuss marriage laws without even knowing that South-Africa or Israel exist.
The point is that, generally, Damuri knows virtually nothing. And rather than accepting that fact and keeping an open mind, he routinely makes sweeping pronouncements and not only refuses to accept factual correction, but fits any new facts into an anti-Israel narrative. He’s admitted this, in his own words.
You can look at the time when he declared that the UN created Israel. Despite being shown that he was completely wrong, he demanded that it was true. In fact, when the supporting facts that he himself had used to base his argument upon… were shown to be false? He kept going, his argument not modified at all. Indeed, after several rounds of factual refutations, he was back to the original errors he had made.
Damuri argues from a position of willful ignorance and debates in bad faith, pretty much exclusively.
He’s thoroughly ignorant and thoroughly dishonest (look, for example, at how many times he alleged I called him an anti-Semite or even “shouted him down” with claims that he was an anti-Semite, before admitting that it never actually happened, while claiming that I ‘hinted’ at it… something which strangely he can’t ever cite).
You are an idiot. You’ve gone on record saying that anybody who criticizes Israel, but doesn’t do it enough for your tastes, is an “apologist”. Considering that you’re a self admitted anti-Israel bigot, that sets up quite a funny situation. You’re not alone in your stupidity, of course, most of your coterie allege that if you point out that their factual claims are wrong, then you must not ever criticize Israel about anything.
You, for instance, seem to think that “ALL” settlement activity is bad. This is because you’re an ignorant schmuck who’s, yet again, posting about things you don’t understand. Some of the ‘settlements’ are on land that was the spots of several Jewish villages which were ethnically cleansed in/around '48. Claiming that Jews returning to those areas is “bad” simply because you’re an ignorant twit who can’t be bothered to learn about the situation just means that you pretty much never argue in good faith and you demand that whoever you’re debating try to fill in the gaps in your knowledge while, each time, you just try to launch into yet another anti-Israel narrative.
No, seriously, you’re an object lesson on how the Dunning-Kruger effect works. Just like you’ve formed sweeping verdicts without bothering to learn the most basic facts about the subject, now you’ve decided that your anti-Israel bigotry is somehow gospel truth and if someone doesn’t “concede” points in the face of your mighty powers of reasoning (heh), something must be wrong.
Not with you and your bankrupt store of actual knowledge, there can’t be anything wrong with that. No, others must simply be refusing to accept the manifest truth of your glorious analysis.
Because I also say in that post that its irrelevant and besides the point. The point was that you claimed that the state department was not anti-Israel because it was riddled with arabists, people who might be overly sympathetic to the arab point of view. I pointed out a few people that weren’t arabists.
The reason your post pisses me off is because I address your primary assertion that my opinion is less valid than yours or Finn Again’s because I don’t have the same level of knowledge as you guys do. You don’t respond to that nor do you concede that you were mistaken about your conviction that only people who knew the nitty gritty details about the middle east could have a valid opinion about Israel. No, you latch onto details about Madeleine Albright’s Jewishness because that is one argument that you can win. So lets just say that you are entirely correct about Madeleine Albright, how does that undercut the validity of my opinion of Israel (it is this sort of diversionary nitpicking that Finn Again is famous for, if you say you’re not a sock I believe you but I was just struck by deja vu when you pulled the same bullshit tactic, see Finn Again and a dozen pages of argument on the definition of the word “flattened”).
Why? Because you think the most important argument or the most relevant fact in this sort of debate is Madelein Albright’s Jewishness? Am I trying to undercut Albright’s legitimacy by implying she is Jewish? Are you simply focusing on my implication that Albright is Jewish because its a niggling little detail that you can win or because you think it is substantively important to the debate?
There must be some sort of latin phrase for this tactic of implying that lack of knowledge of some detail on a topic renders your opinion invalid on that topic.
SFG isn’t trolling. He’s making a very valid point. When you can’t help throwing in a “trolling” in every other line, you might consider it an hint that you should maybe reonsider your posting style.
Yes, she very clearly is. Take, for instance, her trolling about my response to Damuri’s accusations that I’d ever “shouted him down” as an “anti-Semite”. Rather than addressing the factual nature of that argument, she simply trolled by pointing out that I’d repeated certain words. In that way, she’s attempting to shut me up if I am uppity enough to defend myself from slanderous nonsense like Damuri likes to spew.
If I’d said nothing, Damuri’s lies stand unchallenged. If I point out that he’s full of shit, SFG trolls at how often I’ve used certain words. Likewise, if you don’t care about whether or not words are correct and only spaz out because they’re simply used, then all you’re doing is trolling someone for using them. “I don’t know whether what you’re saying is true or not, and I don’t care, but I’m going to give you a hard time and try to piss you off” is a pretty concise definition of one way that folks can troll.
Likewise, in a thread started by Lobo in order to troll, the fact that I’ve mentioned the word a few times is hardly surprising. Just like she’s normally been spazzing out because I’ve used words like “anti-Semite” while discussing claims that either other posters evinced anti-Semitism or, (as when she was trolling me for being uppity enough to dispute Damuri’s lies), pointing out the fact that I hadn’t done what he said.
Several days ago I asked her:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13520010&postcount=177)
You’ll note that she still hasn’t addressed whether or not anything I’ve said is correct or incorrect, and is still trolling simply because I’ve said certain words. Naturally, it’s the same sort of trolling whereby someone will make something up about me and then moan about how awful it is that I point out people are lying. By trolling me, she gets to cut and paste the number of times I use that word.
Rather obviously, instead of (finally) addressing whether or not my accusations are factually accurate, she’ll just cut and paste her trigger words from this post and sperg out some more.
Another good example.
Damuri was debating the prevalence of Arabists within the US government while, he admits, he didn’t even know what the word “Arabist” meant. Damuri does not let a complete lack of knowledge get in his way.
He “latched onto” it because it demonstrates how you routinely argue in bad faith about things that you are totally ignorant about. In rebuttal to a comment about Arabists (a group who you didn’t even know the definition for) you mention Kissinger and Albright, because you think they’re both Jews. Only Albright isn’t, and you didn’t even know that.
As Damuri wouldn’t know how to argue in good faith, he’s whining about the fact that I’ve complained when his utter ignorance pops up.
Let’s take, for example, Damuri’s Witnessing about how the UN created Israel. The fact that it didn’t actually do that, couldn’t change his mind. Not at all.
If you think people won’t ridicule you for insisting that Madeline Albright is Jewish and should be regarded as a Jew even though the wiki article you’re citing says she’s a Christian then you are delusional.
The fact that you tried to imply that I was ignorant in that same post for not believing Albright was Jewish is utterly priceless.
I didn’t actually say that.
No, you chose two people because you thought they were Jews.
No, I’m ridiculing you for insisting that Madeline Albright is Jewish because it shows you are deliberately ignorant and aggressively in denial of reality.
Like I said, for your sake, I hope you’ve never ridiculed people who think Obama is a Muslim because by your standards he is a Muslim just as Wesley Clarke and George Allen are Jews.
False dichotomy. I think what you meant was “If I continue arguing exactly this way using these terms then everyone* thinks I’m kind of a nut. If I try to be calmer and more creative, my head will explode”
*everyone, in this case, meaning all the lying bigoted trolls.
As predicted.
Though the old “get a life” 'net riposte is more than trite it’s rather telling that Frothy gets his “therapy” on an Internet board.
My personal kick, if you will, is watching imbeciles taking this shit so seriously. And repetitiveness of course. Because reading the same feces over and over a mantra makes.
“Israel can do no wrong you troll, lying bigot”
“Israel can do no wrong you troll, lying bigot”
“Israel can do no wrong you troll, lying bigot”
“Israel can do no wrong you troll, lying bigot”
“Israel can do no wrong you troll, lying bigot”
“Israel can do no wrong you troll, lying bigot”
“Israel can do no wrong you troll, lying bigot”
“Israel can do no wrong you troll, lying bigot”
“Israel can do no wrong* you troll, lying bigot”
Yup. Almost there myself…
*And if it does, obviously, there are reasons too deep for regular folks to understand.
Almost got it. Though a few more Frothing Scrolls[sup]©[/sup] will surely go a long way to utterly indoctrinating moi.
Can’t wait to read 'em erm…chum.
Essentially, what CarnalK said.
I’d add that you’re using in this paragraph another word, “uppity”, that you use so often that it makes me cringe each time I read it in your posts.
Let’s look at this rationally, shall we?
-Damuri, objectively lied and claimed I’d “shouted him down” as an “anti-Semite.” SFG trolled me for using those words, not for being wrong.
-Zombie, objectively lied and claimed that I’d accused people of being “mein kampf readers”. SFG trolled me for using those words, not for being wrong.
-RedFury used his traditional troll that I never criticize Israel about anything, at the same time using the standard troll of lying about me while bemoaning the fact that I point out when people are lying. SFG will, no doubt, troll me for using those words, not for being wrong.
(Do you detect a pattern, yet?)
Now, some may feel fine admitting that they aren’t able to mentally process certain words cause them to flip out. Some people might enter a discussion about income tax and go berserk if the word “taxation” is used. Some people might go to a car show and go berserk because the word “car” is used. Some people might come into the Pit, a place for flaming, and freak out not because people are lying and trolling, but because someone is uppity enough to object to that. Such is life, I suppose. I take their claims as seriously as the lunatic who goes to a car show and starts screaming about how people keep using the word “car”.
I’d also note that you have steadfastly ignored whether or not what I’m saying is accurate or true, and you’re arguing, as well, that I should shut up and… do what? Allow people to lie about me without contradiction, lest folks troll me for pointing out facts? Really? That makes sense to you?
Of course, your objection to the word “uppity” aside, it’s the perfect word to describe the attitude of the few folks who are trolling on this issue. I either have to accept that people are lying about me with some pretty disgusting accusations, or I am so darned presumptuous that I think I’m allowed to point out when someone says something about me that isn’t true. And some now, the issue isn’t stylistic rigidity, as SFG was trolling even when synonyms were used or, of course, when I was using specific trigger words that set her off but which were part of accusations others had made.
Now, those who complain that true things make them think that someone is crazy? Let’s just say that I’m not going to lose sleep over the weight of their claims.
Folks are happy showing their true colors, it seems. A few assholes are lying and trolling as a matter of policy, and rather than objecting to that, some mental giants are objecting to the facts simply being pointed out. It’s like clearly saying “Please disregard anything I might say.”
I’m happy to oblige, i suppose. But I’d at least like one of the mouthbreathers to try holding to some personal integrity, even as a change of pace for a bit.
Keep fuckin’ that chicken Finn. Keep fuckin’ that chicken.
Oops, my mistake: Zombie lied and claimed I’d accused people of being Mein Kampf readers, and SFG trolled me for pointing out that that was an accusation that I’d called anybody a Nazi.
Lol, Finn is still talking about me even though I must have posted once or twice in this thread and that was days and pages ago… Christ, what a fucking lunatic.
As an old black man, FinnAgain remembers when he was called uppity for speaking “above his station”. Now, as a defender of the country with the most powerful military in it’s region, he feels that same racism when he tries to make a point. Stop oppressing him, you lying bigots!
I’ve no clue if you’re right or wrong, because I’d have to check umpteenth links and threads to figure that out. I didn’t even follow this thread until quite recently.
What I can tell, however, is that, right or wrong, you definitely have annoying posting patterns, which have already been pointed at you many times : walls of text(for me, tl;dr most of the time, to use an expression I just learned), repeating the same point over and over again, endless use of the words SFG is extracting from your posts and so on… It does give the mental picture of a monomaniac frothing at the mouth (especially added to your aggressive tone, but it’s not like this is uncommon in the Pit).
You can defend yourself from accusations, but plenty of people do so in the Pit without posting in such a way that eventually nobody cares whether they’re right or wrong and mostly everybody would just like the poster to shut up.
Paging Juan Carlos…
Beats the fuck outaa’ Xanax…ty
ZZZZZzzzzzz…
nighty-night