ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

As I would have had you not following your usual M.O. of playing 'gotcha' so quickly. And I did anyway. Which Walter of course will not acknowledge.

0 Replies

I agree, WH. Actually, you said:

Quote:

You're quoting what the Arab critics said, Walter.

What we've been saying is that the only Arabs who are being discriminated against in Israel are those attempting to blow up or otherwise kill Israelis.

But, the article which you quoted in the SAME POST said:

Quote:

Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory. The establishment did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action in order to allocate state resources in an equal manner. The state did not do enough or try hard enough to create equality for its Arab citizens or to uproot discriminatory or unjust phenomenon. Meanwhile, not enough was done to enforce the law in the Arab sector, and the illegal and undesirable phenomena that took root there.

Your own source contradicts your position within the same post. There has been quite a bit of discrimination, which in part lead to those Arabs trying to blow up or kill Israelis. This is in direct contradiction to your assertion that the only arabs being discriminated against are those who are committing bad actions.

Why don't you just admit your error and move on? You didn't read the report, and if you did, you certainly didn't understand what it was saying; otherwise, how do you account for such a huge inconsistency in your post? This is what you get for stating absolutes which simply aren't true: people giving you a hard time...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And some would say that integrity requires using the entire context and not just cherry picking what fits with one's chosen point of view.

0 Replies

That's a bullsh*t response. The relevant section of your quotation directly contradicts what you wrote. Accusing me of 'cherry-picking' doesn't change the fact that you didn't check to see if your quotation matched your assertion, and you know it.

The further you push on this, the more ridiculous you look...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And some would say that integrity requires using the entire context and not just cherry picking what fits with one's chosen point of view.

That wasn't my point at all. And your's neither.

0 Replies

uh, oh... looks like Foxfyre got caught using a word! It doesn't matter what she was talking about, the context of which she was using the word, or the meaning of the post or paragraph the word was in, just that she used it!

You should grovel on your knees for forgiveness Foxfyre and face your punishment. How dare you try to get an idea across when so many posters scrutinize your WORDS instead of what they say?

0 Replies

I did acknowledge my error in the source of a post and apologized for it. And I further explained why I thought the post was incomplete and how I think that was corrected by other postings offered today.

I think using the full context of a member's argument shows much more integrity and is much more satisfying than the left wing mindset of playing 'gotcha'. Don't you guys ever get tired of trying to make your point by attempting to discredit, destroy, embarrass somebody else? I would hate to have no more conviction of my beliefs, opinions, values than that.

But oh well. Back to my policy of not feeding trolls and/or arguing with idiots and/or engaging in exercises of futility.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But oh well. Back to my policy of not feeding trolls and/or arguing with idiots and/or engaging in exercises of futility.

Cycloptichorn and I belong exactly to which of above groups?

Not that I really need your pompous holier-than-thou expoundings of definition but I would make it easier ...

0 Replies

Oh I don't know Walter. You pick. That way we can avoid anothe several pages of personally directed insults and might be able to get back on topic.

0 Replies

Up to now it was only you who used insulting words, namely above.

0 Replies

Going back to McG's post, I use the words I use. I have not personally directed them at anybody. That you choose to use personally directed insults doesn't make you any paragon of virtue either. So let's just drop it as one of the exercises in futility that I mentioned.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Going back to McG's post, I use the words I use. I have not personally directed them at anybody. That you choose to use personally directed insults doesn't make you any paragon of virtue either. So let's just drop it as one of the exercises in futility that I mentioned.

Well, just for the record I pots your to previous responses - where you "use words" and "not direct them to anybody" again:

Foxfyre wrote:

[...]
But oh well. Back to my policy of not feeding trolls and/or arguing with idiots and/or engaging in exercises of futility.

Foxfyre wrote:

Oh I don't know Walter. You pick. That way we can avoid anothe several pages of personally directed insults and might be able to get back on topic.

I know, you don't answer questions, turn responses the way you like it, but nevertheless I try it again:

- you addressed me directly,
- you said, we could avoid another [the 'r' added by me] several pages of personally directed insults.

I constate that
- the only insults were to be found in your response.

Where did I insult you on several pages?

0 Replies

What a crazy conversation.

Fox, you made an affirmative assertive statement about the nature of Israel's treatment of the Arabs who live within its borders. WH and I pointed out how you were incorrect about that statement, and showed evidence from your own quotation about how incorrect you were about that statement.

This isn't cherry-picking your argument, it is directly showing how your argument is flawed using your own evidence. You can wave your hands and piss and moan about how people are using unfair tactics or are personally insulting you, but it doesn't change the fact that you haven't addressed the fact that Israel does discriminate and treat its arab citizens poorly. When you attempted to do so, you failed, because you cited evidence that showed the opposite of your intention.

Are you prepared to admit that Israel does have a problem in this area, or will you continue to bull through the conversation without doing so? An admission that you thought a source was different is not the same thing as admitting that your argument is factually incorrect, according to evidence provided by you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I, by pointing out the weakness of her argument, insulted her.

Fox considers it a personal insult when you correct her faulty logic.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I, by pointing out the weakness of her argument, insulted her.

Fox considers it a personal insult when you correct her faulty logic.

Cycloptichorn

Extreme understatement.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fox considers it a personal insult when you correct her faulty logic.

Most certainly .... with the addition made by dys.

0 Replies

Fox considers it insulting when the intent is to be insulting. And she's not too stupid to know when that is the case.

Now, repeating, I will go back to my policy of ignoring the trolls, idiots, and exercises in futility and will get back to work for awhile here. And those who fit whatever category there can go right ahead and do whatever it is that you do.

0 Replies

Quote:

Fox considers it insulting when the intent is to be insulting. And she's not too stupid to know when that is the case.

Hmm, I'm not so sure about this, as you consistently display a lack of ability to differentiate between an attack on your argument, and an attack on yourself.

In fact, you respond to attacks on your argument by retreating into a shell game of attacking others for attacking you personally. You have consistently displayed this behavior for years, it isn't as if it is some sort of secret around here.

Quote:

Now, repeating, I will go back to my policy of ignoring the trolls, idiots, and exercises in futility and will get back to work for awhile here. And those who fit whatever category there can go right ahead and do whatever it is that you do.

You should probably start to ignore your own posts, then, because the logical inconsistencies in your arguments, coupled with your inability to respond to other posters valid criticisms of said argument, puts you in either the second or third category.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Fox considers it insulting when the intent is to be insulting. And she's not too stupid to know when that is the case.

Now, repeating, I will go back to my policy of ignoring the trolls, idiots, and exercises in futility and will get back to work for awhile here. And those who fit whatever category there can go right ahead and do whatever it is that you do.

Well, I for one hope you do just that.

0 Replies

Is Israel's alleged discrimination against Arabs, who freely choose to live in Israel, enough provocation to justify Arabs--who are not living in Israel but are allegedly seeking right of return to Israel--murdering Israeli non-combatants and advocating the extermination of Israel?

I think not!

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know