I’m two months away from submitting my PhD thesis in mathematical logic. You learn the damned definition.
I’m out.
Water:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32038&Cr=gaza&Cr1=
Electricity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/world/africa/08iht-mideast.4.9877918.html
You were saying?
Indeed. I’ll use “bombed back to the stone age” in future use.
Words are weapons, and Finn Again has a sack of gravel, and some pointy stones in his arsenal.
Be careful, CRSP!
Well, that’s exactly the point of this little "flattening"discussion.
Finn wins by attrition.
And here I thought it was an idiom. I guess when you’re refusing to admit that you’re making fictitious claims, anything will do. By the way, hyperbole (just like ad hominem fallacy) has an actual definition. It’s “extravagant exaggeration.”
As should be obvious, if you are making claims that you contend are factual, but they are in fact extravagant exaggerations, then your claims aren’t factual, are they? They are, in fact, fictional. An “exaggerated” fact, an especially an “extravagantly exaggerated” fact is no longer a fact.
This is hardly rocket science.
I’m sure.
Internet claims to expertise aside, if someone makes a claim, asking what their proof is is not an ad hom fallacy. If someone lacks credibility and the only source for a claim is their say-so, saying that you don’t have a credible witness is not an ad hom fallacy.
And please clear up your ignorance on what the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof is, as well.
“I have drawings on a map created by a group that lacks credibility and which are based on uncited, unsourced claims that haven’t been verified. Now provide news reports of bombs not hitting those locations, or I’m right!” is, actually, a textbook example.
Mmm hmmm.
Someone posts something that they admit is false, that they contradict with their own words. And, naturally, I’m at fault for noting it that they’re using fiction to support their rhetoric. Of course we know that your argument is intellectually consistent and not a rationalization, right? If instead of “all of Lebanon was flattened” because some suffered a degree of damage is okay, surely you’d support a wackjob claiming “all Palestinians are terrorist” because, after all, some Palestinians are. Right? It’s just some perfectly acceptable hyperbole. Right? You do have actual standards at work in your argument and you’d accept any bombastic hyperbole designed to sell a narrative, and not just when its purpose is to distort Israel’s actions.
I’m sure.
Sigh. Can’t let it go.
Aren’t you an English “teacher”, all Internet claims to expertise aside? Can’t it be both? I mean, describing Manchester as being “flattened” was idiomatic. Here’s an excerpt from the Independent, for instance:
Describing the aftermath of a bombing as “being flattened” is idiomatic English, whether we’re discussing Manchester, Lebanon or the Gaza strip. You don’t need to search especially hard to find other examples. For instance, a rather ironic, given the subject of the discussion, eye witness report after the Oklahoma city bombings:
Taking the statement “was flattened” at face value, it’s an obvious exaggeration. However, when describing a town as being flattened, nobody actually imagines a giant foot stamping every building out of existence. Do you know what an idiom is? Do they cover that in class?
Are you sure you’re a teacher? Are you sure you actually speak English as a first language?
Believe what you want. Simply dismissing a claim because you don’t like who made it is fallacious. As I stated earlier, I Googled a few of the towns and cities that the map claimed were bombed, and, lo-and-behold, they were in fact bombed by the IAF. You can’t point to an error in the map. Balls in your court, love.
Naturally, in your pathogenic worldview, “comes from Israeli sources” and “trusted” are identified, right?
This is the last time this will be said before a round of formal warnings is issued: personal comments aren’t allowed here. That means no jabs about a poster’s presonality or behavior. If you find someone too frustrating to respond to, skip the insults and don’t respond (or start a Pit thread). This goes for everyone.
When hyperbole is deliberately used to replace a factual analysis in a discussion, it distorts the issue.
Which brings us back to any of your recent non-factual claims. The south was not “completely” flattened. “The whole of Lebanon” was not bombed, let alone rubbled.
“All Palestinians are terrorists” is, likewise, not an “idiom”.
Likewise, rather obviously your argument doesn’t also include the claims that “Hezbollah started the war by flattening the entirety of Israel!” or “Hamas completely flattened each and every Israeli population center within range of their rockets!”
But “Israel flattened the entirety of Lebanon!” is just fine.
See, towns have actually been flattened to the point where no buildings are left standing. When you have to exaggerate (that is, say something that is not a fact) in order to make your point, it’s a sign that your point cannot stand on the actual facts.
Just like “All Muslims participated in flattening absolutely all of Manhattan in 2001” isn’t just an “idiom”, and we’d quite rightly take issue with someone who was using such a claim to support a narrative that was hostile to Muslims.
Or to bring your hijack back to the thread’s topic, “All of the people on the flotilla were murderous and they slaughtered absolutely all of the IDF commandos” would be objectionable because it was hyperbolic nonsense that was not factual.
Right?
Sauce, goose, gander, yadda yadda?
Yet again, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. One can not “dismiss” a claim that has not been supported in the first place. But you’ve now added the fallacy of anecdote to the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Finding a few examples where claims match up with reality does not mean that they all do. To say nothing of the fact that in a conflict which saw as much deliberate media deception and fauxtography both from Hezbollah and many of those reporting from the area, even actual claims that any explosion reported must be Israeli bombing don’t stand up.
There are some rather obvious problems with crediting any reported missile strike/bomb explosion as the gospel truth.
Not that we have actual cites to verify the map, in any case.
Here we see the same tired method in action: immediately mock what you don’t like but have no factual response to. Really does not help the discussion.
If Gaza is only receiving a quarter of supplies it needs, it does not necessarily mean that 3 quarters of the population must necessarily be starving. That’s some incredibly bad logic coming from someone so eager to present himself as an authority on logic.
Of course, this fails to address the point you are (I can only presume) trying to object to. An Israeli minister is on the record as stating very emphatically that the flotilla was manned by “anything but aid workers”. That implies the people in question were NOT aid workers but were there for more nefarious purposes. It’s all about the evidence.
As soon as this incident occurred, Israel tried to impugn the aid worker status of the flotilla, which is part and parcel of Israel’s aggressive communication strategy (and yours, for that matter). The problem is that Israel had no **real **ground to do so, as I went to some trouble to explain. Were the ships carrying aid? Were the ships headed to a destination in need of such aid? Were the representatives of aid organizations on board? Yes to all, as far as I know. Was anyone armed with anything other than an improvised weapon? No.
Actually, it makes for an excellent form of protest - delivering the supplies and undermining the current implementation of the blockade would be two excellent outcomes for anyone actually concerned with the welfare of people in Gaza, which is something you may want to spend some time pondering instead of trying to score cheap points that no one with any sense will be fooled by. If you have better information, why not present it instead of this hand-waving?
Almost every object can be a lethal weapon, so the Israeli claims about these implements wielded by the crew of the boarded ship are meaningless. A fork is a “lethal weapon”. The point I was making is that there is zero evidence that the aid workers were in fact armed with “real” weapons - firearms, explosives, at the very least swords or machetes or other items whose function from manufacture is to cause injury. Improvised weapons like bars or catapults or kitchen knives that you can scrounge from literally everywhere are not a very convincing argument.
No account of this matter that I have read suggested that there were firearms on board. A couple handguns were snatched from Israeli commandos, but that’s it. Again, if you have different information, why don’t you just share it?
A few examples were enough to make my point that fighting wasn’t limited to a portion of the country, as you claimed, but rather engulfed the whole of Lebanon. The burden of proof is on you to show that the claims of bombing in the north of Lebanon, both from the map, and the independent reports I earlier posted, were incorrect. You can’t do this because it’s established fact that northern Lebanon was repeatedly bombed by the IAF, as you well know, not just the south.
Media deception according to Israeli sources. Biased cites. Not admissible. Source, goose, gander, all that. Yawn. Same old, same old. Boring.
I wanted to bring up this point again, since it risks being buried in the usual volume of dreck. Can anyone shed any light?
Sure I can, I’ll post in a bit.
Sure. It’s a piece of empty Gotchaya! argument that takes Israeli governmental claims as gospel when it suits an argument.
Glad I could help.
It this another “idiom”? Because, of course, it’s simply fictional.
Some were admitted by the news agencies that carried them. Others were obvious after a detailed analysis of the facts. Still others were so blatant that they were auto-refuting, like an article written by a Hezbollah shill who claimed that Hezbollah never used civilian areas as shields, in the same piece where he talked about Hezbollah commandeering an apartment complex.
Of course, it’s mighty handy to dismiss all the actual substantiated evidence as Israeli propaganda.
After you post it, you can’t later change your point to something else.Your original fiction was that the entirety of Lebanon was rubbled. You admitted that was false.
No, again this is very, very basic logic. You provided a map, based on uncited and uncourced reports. The claims it makes have to be proven, not disproved. You used it to back up a claim that you now admit is false, in any case, so I’m not sure why you’re still bringing it up. You’ve already admitted that you said something that wasn’t true when you claimed that all of Lebanon was “flattened”.
Likewise, it’s a bit hard to keep your claims straight about bombastic hyperbole and what it ‘really meant’. If you’re changing it from “all of Lebanon was reduced to rubble!” to “a few military targets in the north were hit and several bridges” then sure. But I guess that’s one of the advantages of “idioms”, if they’re shown to be wrong they can mean whatever’s most useful. Naturally I figured that by claiming that all of Lebanon had been reduced to rubble, that you were talking about sustained bombing campaigns of northern population centers, which didn’t happen. If you’d like to change the meaning to something that did happen, then obviously it would be accurate.
The factual response was to show that the claim is bogus, because if it was true, 75% of Gaza’s population would have died. Obviously, since they have not, they are obviously getting what they need.
It’s basic logic.
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. If you can get by without it, rather obviously you do not need it.
No, it directly addresses the point. You can tell, because it directly addressed the point. The stated purpose of the flotilla itself was not to simply deliver aid, but to break the blockade. People involved in deliberately ending a military blockade are not simply aid workers.
Now you are trying to imply that their own statements are somehow “nefarious” or not “evidence”. You’re wrong on both counts. Their admitted purpose was to end the military blockade. That is not the function of an aid worker.
They’re quite accurate, but they’re not useful for the argument you’re making. Bashing someone with a crowbar doesn’t become benign just because your argument works better if we’re not allowed to say it was an instance of the use of lethal force. Likewise, the criminal justice system has not been paralyzed by the utter meaninglessness of ‘assault with a deadly weapon’.
Yes, knives, cudgels, etc… are not real weapons.
If you kill someone with one, they are only pretend dead.
Facts according to Israeli sources. Gotcha.
Cite please.
Yes, I learned to dismiss cites I don’t like from a master.
You’re now admitting that Israeli planes did in fact bomb northern Lebanon quite heavily?
I don’t admit that the claim is false. Lebanon was flattened by Israeli actions in the Lebanese-Israeli war.
So in fact you are finally admitting that you were categorically wrong when you claimed that fighting was limited to only a portion of the country, and in fact bombing engulfed the whole country. Apparently bombing doesn’t count as fighting if it isn’t sustained (for some suitably vague notion of sustained).
No, it shows a clear hypocrisy. Israel wants to be known as an Occupying Power as and when it suits them. ie. So they can board ships in international waters for daring to want to get aid to Gaza, but not actually live up to any of the responsibilities in looking after those being occupied.
The whole point was that your defence to something was quoting what an “Occupying Power” is allowed to do when Israel themselves do not consider them to be an occupying power. That’s not an “empty Gotchaya! argument”, it is showing you a quite clear logical failing of your own argument.
From the Wiki link: These are pretty reliable sources of legal opinion;
Secondly the Convention uses the phrase “the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, …”. So it looks like a something that might not have a yes/no answer but rather depend to what extent there is an ‘exercise of the functions of government’. Control of the borders is fairly key in this regard and may explain the opinion of the experts quoted in the Wiki article.
There is also a link to the Red Cross full text version of the Conventions and there are articles there that interested persons might read.
You have a great idea, all credit to you. Now for the serious question,
If the Israeli government were to make such a request, do you think the EU or US would turn them down?
If the US unilaterally announced this policy, how would Israel view it?
I’m not sure I’d go that far… but it certainly shows the double standard that your argument is based on; Israeli politicians’ claims are cited as gospel when it suits the argument to deny the applicability of the 4th GC to the present situation, but the Israeli response to this incident that argues that they had a right to enforce the blockade is dismissed.
I’ve actually cited the 4th GC, and it disagrees with your claims.
You’re welcome to cite something if you’d like though.
There is no double standard on my part. I am asking if Israel is the Occupying Power of Gaza or not. That is what I asked. Go back and look at the post.
I’m not making an assertion, I’m asking a question.