Even Damuri has admitted that I’ve conceded errors when faced with actual facts. I’ve already admitted that I was ignorant of the 2008 SC decision (which you were also ignorant of and which constitutes the only relevant piece of basic knowledge, but only for me, not for you. For you it doesn’t count.)
So what you’re really saying is that I’ll disagree with people and despite how much they just know that they’re right, if I have the audacity to argue my point and remain unconvinced, obviously I am refusing to admit fault.
How about when you cited "Pyrotechnics, Explosives & Fireworks." as an authoratitive cite for the classification of white phosphorous under the international laws of war? A cite that, in fact, claimed not that WP was still being classified as a weapon but that it used to be? Did you admit your error then?
This never happened, anywhere. And you are arguing in bad faith.
The truth is that I was the first to cite data on the rate of malnutrition.
Yes, you kept claiming that I didn’t know what malnutrition was, but that was obviously false. Should you be Warned for debating in bad faith?
In fact, I pointed out to you that a discussion of the degree of malnutrition and the actual health risks from it would be a perfectly viable tack but that bombastic claims about how “Gaza is starving!” were not. You saw this. I discussed it with you.
and yet, in bad faith, you are repeatedly claiming that I disputed what malnutrition is.
Of course, you also declared that chocolate was an essential food.
As you don’t have a problem with facts, you can certainly cite where you admitted that was true and, in fact, as you’re perfectly willing to admit fault, you didn’t keep trying to rationalize reasons why chocolate was a necessity, including arguing in bad faith that its inclusion in US ration packs meant it was a necessity but cigarettes’ inclusion in US ration packs did not mean that they were a necessity during the time they were included.
Again we see you fundamentally debating in bad faith. Inclusion in ration packs goes to show just how necessary something is, except when you’re not arguing that it’s necessary. Being ignorant of a 2008 verdict means that someone is totally ignorant of all the basic facts… except when you’re ignorant of it and then it isn’t imortant.
This is also in bad faith. You made this same clam and I pointed out the actual facts. The WHO looked at all major diseases in the relevant time period.
How horrible!
You made a claim, and then someone responded by arguing that a different metric was needed… and they didn’t agree with you! Obviously, Something Must Be Done!
Correct.
Indeed. I don’t agree with you and I don’t accept your arguments and have my own, therefore the mods must do something!!! And you don’t like my arguments, therefore they must be made in bad faith! And you’re claiming things now like pointing out that misusing the word “need” to mean “something you can live your entire life without” is “baseless logic”.
Since you’re now using poor logic to sell your point, are you annoyed at your own argument?
Yes, and whose new definition he was then shown to be using in bad faith, selectively, and to bolster his rhetoric. Before going on to repeat the thing he claimed not to have been saying, when he declared that the south had been totally obliterated. Of course he’d probably claim he didn’t really mean that, either. Which brings up the question of why someone would exaggerate quite so often and say quite so many things they didn’t mean, all for rhetorical effect.
Yet again, do you think that Captain would have minded if someone said “Of course Israel defended itself, Hezbollah flattened all of Israel within firing range!” It would have been, after all, using Captain’s own metric. So he would have been fine with it, right? Or if someone had said “Of course Israel went to war, the whole of Lebanon are terrorists!” Captain would have agreed with that, right? After all, some of Lebanon was hit by bombs so he claimed that the whole of it was, and some of Lebanon are terrorists so one could claim that the whole of Lebanon are terrorists.
I mean, right?
Captain was arguing in good faith, wasn’t he?
Yet another example of your bad faith debating.
In point of fact, I criticized the embargo, said it was too draconian and that it was causing undue hardship for Gazans and that it should be loosened.
This, on the other hand, is an actual instance of bad faith debating. I never did any such thing and in fact pointed out that a discussion over the degree of malnutrition and its effects would have been valid. Unable to deal with that fact, you claim that instead I quibbled over the definition of malnutrition.