Has there ever been another target of a Pitting so intently determined to validate it?
Yes, your noise is cock full of stupid, but:
[quote=“I_Love_Me_Vol.I, post:300, topic:572787”]
I wouldn’t ascribe that claim to stupidity as much as I’d point out that it’s a relentlessly repeated lie used, mostly, by those who just know that they’re right and don’t want any facts to get between them and that knowledge. If, God forbid, they are shown to be wrong on the facts, or (~gasp!~) even worse doesn’t agree with their narrative, then it’s much easier to lie about how nobody but them and their fellow small band of brave warrior criticizes Israel, and all of those who do so are accused of anti-Semitism.
As a lie it’s basic and obvious, but as Damuri pointed out via his bit of projection (still zero cites for his claim), folks are using the Big Lie tactic and hope to fool idiots. And I admit it is a clever strategy. Some idiots will indeed be fooled and others will admit that they don’t know or care if the Big Lie isn’t accurate, but they get awfully disturbed if someone goes about showing that it’s not true.
Of course, people who aren’t stupid or intellectually lazy won’t be taken in. But they aren’t your target audience.
That is a lie. You didn’t misread Albright’s wiki page. The part that you posted made it clear that Albright was a Christian.
Here’s what you posted.
(bolded emphasis mine)
You then went on to make a complete ass of yourself by smugly suggesting that I didn’t realize that Albright was “Jewish by birth.”
Sorry, but you’ve made it clear that as far as you were concerned Albright is a Jew even if she’s a practicing Episcopalian who doesn’t consider herself a Jew because her parents were Jews before converting to Catholicism.
Apparently you subscribe to the Nuremberg Racial laws or are extremely stupid.
You then made it further clear those were your views when after I pointed out that by such standard Barack Obama was a Muslim by claiming that he would be if Islam, like Judaism was a “cultural ethnicity” showing that you know very little about Islam and have never heard of the Ummah.
Sorry, but, to use your own pet phrase, it’s very easy to “poke fun at you” when you claim a practicing Episcopalian is a Jew because of her genetics.
What are you talking about? I never mentioned anything about “birthers”. I mentioned people who thought Obama was a Muslim, who, by your standards, are correct.
Well, she’s not the President so she can’t be “impeached”. However, you were insisting that she couldn’t be an arabist(even though you admit you don’t know what an arabist is) because she’s(according to you) Jewish.
Umm… nice try, but you were the one who tried to “poke fun at [me]” for not recognizing that Albright was “Jewish by birth” and then smugly claimed that it was hard to “take me seriously” because I though a practicing Episcopalian who doesn’t consider herself a Jew shouldn’t be considered a Jew.
In short you were the one who brought up the “irrelevant bullshit” and are now upset because you made yourself look extremely stupid.
Umm… you missed the part where in this thread I mentioned I though the Balfour Declaration was a mistake?
Please don’t tell me you have to run to wikipedia to find out what the Balfour Declaration is because having strong opinions about Zionism without having heard of the Balfour Declaration is like having strong opinions about the Civil War and not having heard of the Gettysburg Address.
Door number 2.
The thing to remember is that this is just the way Damuri tries to argue. He gets his info from poorly reading Wikipedia or Google vomit and then makes points from a position of ignorance. When it’s pointed out that he’s wrong, he furiously tries to handwave his errors away; aruments he made don’t matter if he’s wrong and should be ignored, but if they’re right then everybody should pay attention.
The more importance Damuri placed on his argument, and the more he built on it, the more likely he is to demand that it should be totally ignored when it’s debunked. If you show that his argument’s support fails, it has to be irrelevant since his claims have to be correct even if they’re unsupported. That his argument’s support is debunked is your fault and proves how dishonestly you must argue. Otherwise you’d accept his claims even without support.
Yeah I know. I specifically included that part when I realized that there was more to the story.
I might have confused myself because I had some notion that Jews ascribed Jewishness based on the Jewishness of the mother. I didn’t want to get into an argument about how far that principle applied because I don’t know enough about it but once again. WTF does that have to do with ANYTHING? Its just another example of Israel apologists latching on to irrelevant details in an attempt to divert attention away from basic claims.
As far as I can tell you are the only one trying to make an issue of Albright’s
Jewishness. I am willing to concede she is whatever the fuck you say she is until I start to give a shit about it.
Your basic claim is that you can’t have an opinion on Israel or what is going on in the middle east unless you have comprehensive knowledge about the topic and that is simply not how debates here work.
Or are you ready to admit that you were full of shit when you tried to limit debate to people like you and Finn (that’ll be a fascinating debate “Israel: fair to Palestinians or the fairest to Palestinians”).
I didn’t want to get into this but I don’t think that Muslimness is an ethnicity the way it can be with Jewishness. I am not Jewish but I thought that being born to a Jewish mother made you a Jew and at least some Jews believe that once a Jew, always a Jew.
Even people who are unaware that their parents were Jewish might be considered jews.
Of course that has nothing to do with what Albright considers herself but there are some Jews that consider her a Jew by virtue of her mother’s Jewishness even if she does not.
Once again I am not sure why this is important at all because the basic claim that you are making is that I am not qualified to have an opinion on Israel and the situation in the middle east because I lack a comprehensive level of knowledge about the situation. Do you still stand by that or are you just looking for some way to diver the conversation (the resemblance to Finn’s tactics is fucking uncanny).
Looking stupid never upsets me on the internet. I just admit my mistake and move on (if I am permitted to move on that is). You and Finn both have a habit of taking a tangential mistake and taking that mistake as proof that everything else said by that poster is now suspect. Seriously its like you guys went to the same school of internet obfuscation.
And how does that criticize criticize Israel?
Are you saying that Israel owes its existence to the Balfour declaration? If not then you are merely saying that there is some historical dicta that should never have been said. If so then what do you make of the language regarding the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine?
For Damuri, this is a very, very useful skill to possess.
Again, observe the pathology that is Damuri.
Ibn is critical of Israel and Zionism, but he does so based on knowledge and understanding, rather than ignorant flailing like Damuri. But because he points out that Damuri is full of shit, he must be an “Israel apologist”. This is an actual smear tactic that’s really used, as opposed to the fictional “she called me an anti-Semite! (well, I got better)” nonsense.
Again, observe the dishonesty that is inherent in the very methods Damuri uses to argue. Now, only Ibn is trying to make something of Albright’s “Jewishness”. But Ibn has already pointed out to Damuri what Damuri’s own words were on the subject. They are, again:
When Damuri thinks he can gain an advantage, Albright’s heritage is relevant (when discussing Arabists, a concept Damuri didn’t even understand but was still willing to hold forth on) and can be used to claim that Ibn is ignorant about relevant facts. When Damuri’s shown to be wrong, the person pointing out his error must be a dishonest Zionist apologist, and should be ignored.
Of course.
I am actual bright enough. I don’t have to use a lot of my intelligence, however, to judge your posting style. Insulting rhetoric can be devastating to the target or it can make the speaker look like an obnoxious ass. Yours falls in the latter category. Your repetitive use of the already highlighted terms are eye-roll inducing but little flourishes like “OK, leave now” and “Quit trolling, you’re not very good at it” are particularly hilarious when you are so clearly reveling in the arguments. They make you look quite foolish.
Hello Mr. K. I don’t have strong opinions on the ME, primarily because my mind doesn’t absorb and file historical information very well. However, earlier in this thread you made this comment:
[INDENT]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.[/INDENT]
That struck me as being dumb or dishonest. What’s the significance of Israel having the most powerful military in the region? My understanding is that it is a tiny country surrounded by many larger, hostile nations. They’ve been subject to full-scale military assaults by those nations. They would only have to lose one war to be wiped off the map.
It seems that having an arsenal sufficient to protect yourself from multiple avowed enemies doesn’t mean you can’t be subject to persecution. The clear need to maintain that arsenal would indicate that Israel is being persecuted.
(And of course, Jews have suffered discrimination through much of history, so the “black man” remark has some validity even though you were joking.)
Your comment seemed like a prime example of the kind of casually misleading denigration that FinnAgain is railing against in this thread.
The idea that anyone is thinking him “uppity” for giving his opinions is laughable. Sorry this seems to fly by you.
What you have to understand on that point is that he’s doing it deliberately. For instance, I’ve objected to objectively verifiable lies and people who have, for example, chosen to try to give me a hard time for being uppity/presumptuous/speaking above my station and having the temerity to point out that their claims are false. While babbling about a ‘writing style’ or ‘insanity’, what they’re really demanding is that i shut up and not have the audacity to object when people lie about me.
This was, in general, the basis for Carnal’s idiocy; claiming that I was objecting to that bullshit because I was allegging that everybody who disagrees with me is a liar, or a bigot, or what have you. It’s not really worth much more than a quick mention though, especially since folks like that are trying to provoke a negative reaction for their own… reasons.
Are you actually paranoid, or just pretending? The star-chamber working against you would like to know.
Can you objectively prove that they think you are “uppity” or what these people think is your “station”?
Here’s my question for FinnAgain:
You said yourself that Lobohan is baiting you. So why the hell do you keep responding? If he’s truly just baiting you, he’s never going to change his statements. Nothing you say will change him. Why keep on?
In fact, I’m pretty sure Lobo posts these types of threads and posts to get a rise out of you, and it always seems to work. Since he also never has any new arguments, all you have to do is refute him once.
One more word of advice, and I’m done. When someone accuses you of being a troll, being mean to them doesn’t tend to dissuade that opinion in anyone. You are letting him poison the well.
That’s impossible. FinnAgain has pointed out a few times that Lobohan is bad at trolling.
You are correct, as Lobo is trolling, he has no intention of letting facts get in the way. But obviously he’s been repeating his lie in order to trick those reading along. More to the point, while I know that the usual suspects will respond with their “I neither know nor care if you’re correct, but shut up.”, some folks have intellectual integrity. I’m not writing for the idiots or people whose integrity is on holiday.
What’s the significance of Israel having the most powerful military in the region?
I guess I disagree with your statement that the most powerful country in the region can be “persecuted”. Vilified? Threatened? Slandered? Sure. For me the significant part of “persecution” is the actual ability to oppress someone.
So, do you think FinnAgain is being “uppity”? Is FinnAgain being told he’s “uppity”? That’s the point here.
eta: And FinnAgain’s stubborn refusal to see criticism without interpreting it as “Just Shut Up!” is again displayed.
As far as I know I’ve never crossed with Finn before. So I hardly post these kinds of threads with any regularity. As I said, if you care about the actual facts of this train wreck, Dio said he didn’t know why anyone would consider Finn a troll. I said I recalled a thread where he hurled anti-semitism accusations with abandon, I specifically mentioned that I didn’t think that would make him a troll, but I’d understand why some posters would view it that way. Finn then lost his shit and attacked like he’d just found the one-armed man that killed his wife.
The thread that happened in was shut, so I made this pit thread. Finn later admitted that he’d repeated anti-semitism accusations multiple times, so I’m completely vindicated by the way. Finn just wont cop to it because he’s a crazy person.
Did you, or did you not repeat anti-semitism accusations multiple times?
What did I say you did?
If one of us doesn’t have any integrity, I’d say its the guy who refuses to admit he’s wrong even when evidence is posted. I assume you’re just too angry to think straight.
Hi Mr. K,
I’m certainly open to being corrected on any matters concerning the ME or even concerning long multi-thread, multi-year SDMB feuds. But, from my seat in the gallery FinnAgain and the Ibn guy seem to be fighting ignorance, and the other players seem to want to look cool.
In a recent related Pit thread that I followed FinnAgain was objecting in post after post to some remarks of RedFury’s that seemed blatantly anti-semitic. Various posters including Elucidator and Shot From Guns were ignoring the substance of Finn’s posts and “laughing” about how obsessively he responded to other posters.
After many pages of being called out by FinnAgain, RedFury posted that he’d stepped over the line in his remarks. Clearly he had, and it shouldn’t have taken that long for him to say it. And the posters mocking FinnAgain should have been telling RedFury, that his remarks had been over the line.
So why was mocking FinnAgain’s obsession with facts acceptable, while RedFury’s offensive remarks no big deal? I’m not sure, but I don’t see it as compatible with “fighting ignorance” and it makes me tolerant of FinnAgain’s use of “uppity.”