Speaking of the Mossad, I never noticed the definite article until it popped up in Ira Levin’s The Instructions (which by the way is holy shit fucking awesome–I’m maybe a third of the way through). Somehow, every time I’d ever read the name of the organization up 'til then, I’d never noticed it (or it had been omitted).
Not really.
Why what do you think the second greatest tragedy to befall the Palestinians was following the Naqba?
Every Palestinian I’ve ever talked to would give just one answer and most of Israel’s western critics have never even heard of that event.
Sorry, but with rare exceptions most of Israel’s critics are embarrassingly ignorant of the people they claim to care about and that ignorance proves that their claims are false.
Don’t be ridiculous. If I don’t know exactly how many American Indians died at Wounded Knee, yet I call it a grave injustice, I am wrong?
If you’ve never heard of Wounded Knee then no, you don’t really care about the plight of the Lakota.
“Nobody says ‘the God’, do they?”
Yes, again you get to deliberately ignore the factual veracity of the statements and try to annoy me by simply pointing out that I’ve made them. You’re so smart!
You can go now, secure in the knowledge that you can, indeed, recognize certain words that are used and repeat them.
Yes, after I claimed that you were full of shit in your description, you offered a link that confirfmed everything I said but which you announced with “Let’s see, shall we…Bzzzt. Fail!” And now you claim that it wasn’t the purpose of your link. Just like you’re arguing that pointing out the hypocriscy inhrent in your bigotry was somehow not germane to pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in your bigotry. And you still are dumb enough to think I was talking about South Africa as a nation rather than illustrating that it would be bigoted to hold negative views about South Africans simply because of their nationality. Again, try to determine the difference between “America” and “Americans collectively”, “South Africa” and “South Africans as a group”. You’re also still stupid enough to think that pointing out your hypocrisy is a ‘tu quoque’. You obviously have no idea what the phrase even means, but I guess you figure it’s in Latin so you should use it to sound smart. A tu quoque is an attempt to discredit a position because it’s hypocritical. Your position was discredited because it’s rank ignorant bigotry, and I* also *noted that you’re a hypocrite. I’m somewhat unsurprised that you’re unable to understand.
You’ll notice that there’s an “s” on the end of the word “discussion”. I’ll leave it to you to puzzle out what that “s” might indicate, and what it means that you’ve only been able to offer one single example, and one in which your hypocrisy was relevant to your bigotry. And you’re still too stupid to realize that saying that Americans, as a group, are some sort of pejorative description is bigoted. That, like most bigots, you try to justify it is unsurprising, Bigots are stupid.
“Yes, I think blacks are bad, but it’s their actions that I base that on. Why, just look at how many are in prison!”
You’re not even novel in your bigotry. Nor are you particularly clever in your backpedaling. Sure, you said that you had negative views about Americans, collectively, but really you just meant those who supported a politician you don’t like. But, erm, really really, you just meant those who actually voted for him. Yeah, that’s the ticket. And it’s totally retarded to object to the (pre-backpedaling) idiocy you were spewing. The post-backpedaling stuff is pretty stupid too, by the way.
You’re just a hateful little idiot, and you got upset that while I clearly condemned something, I didn’t just spew hate and tried to actually provide information on the historical context for the events. As pointed out, even likening Israel’s actions to a crazed child-killer didn’t make a dent in your neutron-dense skull, and you still think, to this day, that I was trying to justify anything. At all.
You’re now vomiting up the same idiocy. I should have just said “it was morally reprehensible” and “shut up”, because hateful idiots like you can only handle the hate and can’t handle moral condemantion coupled with an actual attempt to fight ignorance and provide historical evidence. And the fact that you still don’t understand that analogy and it simply enrages you? That puts me in mind of a chimp freaking the fuck out because it finds a computer and has no idea what to do with it other than smash it or urinate on it.
Hey Finn. Can I bug you to get an apology?
You said:
And this all started when I said:
It really sounds like we agree here. It really seems like you owe me an apology. If you have any integrity at all, of course.
Yes, I am sorry, that you’re so awful at trolling.
Well, that’s just a bunch of stupid lies, you anti-Semitic prick. Now you’ve really pissed me off!!!
More racist trolling from a bigot!
I think an anti-Semitic prick should have a foreskin if at all possible.
Ignorance is bris.
Please tell us a bit more about how it’s perfectly rational to JAQ about ethnic-based treachery among Jews in politics since, after all, Jews might just be like international Communists and may betray the nation. We must be watchful, after all.
(I believe that you line at point is “nyeh nyeh, you can’t realize what I’m saying since you can’t read minds!”)
Man, I’m sorry, if you feel like searching my posts, you’ll find this was the first time I ever typed Mossad in any context. But hey, I rarely respect my own language so you can’t hit me with that part.
Heh-heh-heh . . . Some day, but not today, my friends, the poor Jews will figure out that their entire history has been shaped from behind the scenes by a secret international gentile Christo-Islamic conspiracy extending across the generations. Because we like buying retail. So there!
I have seen this sort of thing before. I had a partner who was about the smartest most logical person you could ever meet but he lost all reason when it came to Israel.
Finn not only undercuts the argument for Israel, the mere act of criticizing Israel gets you about 80% of the way to being an anti-semite in his book. He doesn’t usually call you an anti-semite, he just implies it by asking why in the world you would spend so much energy on criticizing Israel when there are so many worse things to criticize, gee Finn wonders why you might do that. Or he accuses you of having an agenda, (never really saying what he thinks your agenda is, he just accuses you of having one).
Alessan on the other hand make an unapologetic case for why he doesn’t give a fuck what you think but at least he doesn’t imply that the only reason you could be criticizing Israel is because you are an antisemite.
Shakes head It’s like you’re trying to think, but somehow keep falling short…if you think anything there confirms your delusions, you truly are retarded.
No, dumbo, I’m pointing out that “pointing out the hypocrisy” is irrelevant to arguing against the factual basis, or not, of the “bigotry”. But, of course, that’s not possible (because it isn’t bigotry, it’s informed dislike), so the best you can manage is “no, u”. Hence irrelevant and just an ad hominem.
Or, let me put it this way - I could be the world’s biggest bigot at home. I could be a paid-up AWB member. It would still have absolutely no bearing on the logic of my arguments about America. “Pointing out the hypocrisy” isn’t an argument. It’s called the Fallacy of Two Wrongs, Google it.
In a democracy, when it comes to moral responsibility,* there is no difference*. Which was my point all along, numbskull.
No - like I said at the time, it was a badly failed attempt at one.
Wait - you didn’t, but no, you did? Make up your mind.
Whereas I’m constantly surprised you can type anything resembling English, you drivelling butt-pustule.
It means rhetoric, and English, are two more things you fail at. Along with counting.
I’m pretty sure there’s still some bigot-stuffing room in those sentences, try harder. Tosser.
You really don’t have to keep doing it, you know. I’ve already seen you suck at argument by comparison, I don’t have to see you keep falling on your face about it.
Oh, who am I kidding, it never gets old. Keep it up, you jerk.
Which would be - the majority. And it’s not just one politician. If you thinlk my argument boils down to “I hate Bush”, you’re a little behind the curve. But I knew that already, you throwback.
Hah. It amuses me that you don’t even try and deny it.
You say “historical evidence”, I say “excuses and justification”. You subhumanoid.
Oh, I “understand” it - it’s still bullshit.
Oh, Hastur, you can’t even make original insults, poo-flinger. You sadden me. Or you sicken me, I forget which one.
Well, I’ll criticize Israel and take my chances. Its policies are often short-sighted, and not short-sighted in some vague way like our grandchildren will pay more in taxes, boo-hoo, but short-sighted in the sense that growing populations are going to force a major crisis.
That’s about as negative as I can get off the top of my head.
Well Bryan, I’m conflicted. On one hand I very much enjoy discussion with informed, honest parties and have publically thaked Ibn for his contributions here even though he considers the Balfour Declaration itself to be a serious mistake. On the other hand Damuri and his coterie seem to have purchased a timeshare membership on a lovely cross, and I know it’s a real bitch go try to schedule time on it.
I’d like them to get their money’s worth, is what I’m saying, but I just can’t fully bring myself to endorse their paranoid martyrdom fantasies. Can you and I compromise and I’ll accuse you of not liking bagels and lox?
As you combine the wonderful qualities of extreme stupidity with rage, I understand that you can not comprehend the fact that I already pointed out that your bigotry was objectionable on its own (being bigotry, after all), and that you are also a hypocrite. I understand that you don’t know what a tu quoque fallacy is, but you’re willing to freak out about it. Yes, you’re a bigot and you hate Americans or Bush supporters or Republicans, or whomever you’ve settled on in your latest binge of angry backpedaling. And just like a racist who loathes blacks but tries to justify it, you’re doing the same “but my hate has good support!” routine.
I’m happy just to let you serve as proof for my claims about you, and I appreciate the dozens of single line responses followed by thesaurus-vomit variations on “Grrr, u r dum!”
Or that you were full of shit and dishonest when you claimed it happened in multiple threads, and then furiously denied doing that until your exact words were quoted to you, at which point you went a bit further off the rails. You were obviously trying to inflate a single instance into something it wasn’t while whining about the pattern that multiplicity would represent. Those reading along can, I am sure, puzzle out the truth. I’m also certain that even though you do not (but you’re willing to stroke ou about it, just to be sure) those reading along know the difference between “you wrong because you are a hypocrite” and “you are wrong because your claims are simple bigotry, and you are also a hypocrite.”
It’s actually a somewhat common error, like people who confuse an ad hominem fallacy of arguing that a position is wrong because the person advancing it is an asshole, with arguing against a position and also noting that the person advancing it is an asshole. If you weren’t quite so stupid and angry, this would even be a teachable moment.
As for all the rest? Well, people can figure out if “morally reprehensible” is a criticism or not and whether or not you are at all honest. They can determine whether or not it’s reasonable to subscribe to the doctrine of Angry Idiocy and demand that in GD of all places, folks should just get their hate on and not provide information about historical context. Perhaps there are more people like you and the next thread about the rise of Stalin won’t have an informative discussion about the context of the time, but only a series of angry idiots screaming “He was a butt pustule, now shut up and do not complicate my hate!”
Likewise, I’ll leave it to people to figure out if you really are an angry idiot who thought that comparing a nation to a child-murdering methhead was trying to justify it’s actions and if you understand what an an analogy is any better than you understand what a tu quoque fallacy is.
There is really nothing to be gained, for me, by trying to talk sense into someone who’s furious with rage and profoundly unintelligent. So, fell free to go berserk in a few more posts, my responses would only be pointing out your continued militant stupidity and that gets boring.
Ciao ciao.
Playing the “this is so beneath me” card doesn’t work when you’ve already spent many posts on spewing vitriol. Ditto for the “you must be soooo mad” attempted troll, that kinda also only works if your own posts are more calm and reasoned in comparison. Which they’re not.
See, that’s where accusations of hypocrisy have currency. In pittings, not GD. Learn the difference between debate and frothing, Mr BigotSpigot.
I am not upset - I’ve been calling you various synonyms for “idiot” at the end of my points by careful design, and with the aid of a dictionary, not frothing at the mouth endlessly spewing the word “bigot” over and over, like some sort of rabid parrot. Squawk
You ambulatory by-blow.