Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank have beaten to death a United States citizen in his early 20s, the victim’s family members and rights groups have said.
“We are aware of reports of the death of a US citizen in the West Bank,” Reuters reported a State Department spokesperson as saying. The official declined to comment further “out of respect for the privacy of the family and loved ones” of the reported victim.
Don’t be deliberately disingenuous. And if you’re insist on it, then I’ll match you: point to where I said you used the word ‘only’ in your comment, in my comment.
You comment strongly implied that you thought Maple Engineer thought this was a MAGA-specific phenomenon. There isn’t the same strong implication in Maple Engineer’s comment.
Oooooh, so now you’re willing to accept implied statements!
What happened to demanding explicit quotes only? Which implicit is exactly the opposite of.
And yes, there is the same strong implication in their comment
I never said that I wasn’t “willing to accept implied statements”? Their original comment absolutely did not imply they thought that it was only MAGAheads who were ok with Israel killing USAmericans, on the same level that you implied they thought that. You’re like that tweet about “I like waffles” “So you hate pancakes?”. They didn’t say anything about Biden either way…
Yes it absolutely did. Stop being deliberately obtuse.
deleted by creator
You cut off my sentence. Here’s the full quote.
Whether or not there was an implication at all is subjective. I don’t think that criticism of one party should be understood to be at the exclusion of another party, but whether or not that implication is there at all is up to you. I think making those sorts of inferences makes it very difficult to have any discussion about politics when criticising some group is meant as condoning another group; in that case any political statement would have to be very long to list all the groups it applies to.
But I didn’t say that it wasn’t implied at all; I said it wasn’t implied at the same level. Your reply to the original comment would make no sense if you didn’t believe that they only thought MAGA supporters were ok with Israel killing USAmericans. There’s far more ambiguity in the original comment, and I don’t believe it automatically lends itself to your interpretation (which was proven wrong by that commenter saying they don’t believe such a thing), but in any case it is absolutely not the same level of implication as your comment.
Bold mine. Yes there is.
Where did they say they only thought it was the “Magazis” who don’t give a shit? You’re like those amerikan liberals who think that criticising genocide joe meant you thought trump was better. You can make a negative comment about one amerikan politician without it being a positive about another. They’re practically the same anyway.
deleted by creator
Oh look, you’ve suddenly flipped back to demanding explicit quotes, when previously you accepted implications.
Hypocrite.
Can you point to where I said he thought it was a maga specific phenomenon?
The first sentence…
Please point out where I said that explicitly
The first sentence…
Nope. Try again
The first sentence…
So you can’t then
Can I point to where I said you said that explicitly? I can point to where I said you said it implicitly though. (emphasis mine)
You also more or less said it explicitly though, if you want to go down that route. I can’t quote a specific part of your comment because your entire comment is based on this suggestion. (emphasis mine again)
So you can’t point to where I said it explicitly.
Hypocrite
Lmao damn someone’s mad. Why reply to me 3 times? I’ve never said anyone said anything explicitly
Wow, I didn’t realize it was 2012 again
Sorry your straw man didn’t work.
I am begging reddit debate lords to actually learn what ‘strawman’ means, rather than treating the wikipedia page on logical fallacies like a list of magic incantations.
I am also begging them to just talk plainly: “You strawmanned me”, rather than this insufferable nerd sarcasm bullshit of “sorry you strawman didn’t work.”
I mean if, we’re being real, it was also a whataboutism. “What about what the democrats did?”
Get better.
Whataboutism is itself a thought-terminating cliché.
Citations Needed podcast: Whataboutism - The Media’s Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy
That’s an interesting excerpt. I always thought the proper response to an identified whatabout is to simply say “I asked you first.” -That’s assuming the opposite party refused to respond to the initial premise, argument, or question. I imagine if they did respond to the initial premise, argument, or question then asking whatabout… is just a standard form of discussion and debate, or so I’d think.
The modern whataboutism is the bothsidesism.
Basically a straight up admition that they’re both meaningless though terminating cliches
Another straw man. You guys are on a roll.
What is cliché is resorting to strawman arguments and whataboutism/bothsidesism when your dogmatic incantations don’t win the day. They are the refuge of the weak. Attempting to devalue the ideas is a transparent effort to reduce the impact of your weakness being labelled, It’s the same as white supremacists loudly calling out Godwin’s Law when they are rightly labelled as Nazis or Zionists labelling legitimate criticism of the actions of the state of Israel antisematism. Mike Godwin himself said, “By all means, compare these assholes to Nazis. Again and again. I’m with you.”
Man, you really can’t stop yourself from talking like the biggest reddit smuglord loser alive
Do you lot insist on writing like the most annoying losers on earth deliberately?
You know what the absolutely weakest whataboutism is? Both sides!
You’re on a roll. Do a Gish Gallop next! I love Gish Gallops!
I see you’re now just going down the list of magic incantations you learned from Wikipedia.
Not to mention, doubling down on talking like the biggest reddit loser imaginable. How about you tell us about bacon and narwals next
Having your bullshit called out clearly triggers you. Have you considered making informed, good faith arguments instead of trying to devalue the labels legitimately applied to your weak devices? Don’t want your strawman called out? Don’t use strawman arguments. Don’t want your whataboutism called out? Don’t use whataboutism. Don’t like that I called out all your normal devices? Don’t use them.
If you stop using those weak devices and actually engage in a good faith discussion I’m here. Keep using those weak devices and I will keep calling them out.
Stopped reading here