Israel

[Wahrheit]

Can you define peace? See, I'm not fully on board with considering Whabbism and other types of extremism "peace"

 

You could just as easily say much of the world was at peace before the Turks and Moguls invaded. It's not a great argument to box the turks into an area smaller than a US state

The starting line of the Palestinian Gov is death to jews, since when did the US start openly negotiating with terrorists? And since when did the US president override congress to do so?

 

Can you see the problem with meeting death to jews halfway?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Practical peace is not injuring/killing each other, ultimate peace is the death of everything and everyone. 

[Resident Fascist]

Can you define peace? See, I'm not fully on board with considering Whabbism and other types of extremism "peace"

 

You could just as easily say much of the world was at peace before the Turks and Moguls invaded. It's not a great argument to box the turks into an area smaller than a US state

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peace

 

Yes, I can. And don't blame it all on the Turks and Moguls. Europe had been waging wars with itself for years. Saying that any particular group is responsible for the world not being at peace in those times is an even worse argument. Also, there wasn't many actual Turks living in Palestine under Ottoman rule. It was mostly Arab Palestinians, of varying religious backgrounds. Majority Islam, with some Christianity and Judaism. 

 since when did the US start openly negotiating with terrorists?

 

When you armed Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Here's an example:

 

Death to all Jews - http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48882612.html

 

another fine example: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12222/sick-palestinians-celebrate-death-four-israelis-michael-qazvini

 

Not entirely sure what else I can cite there. Maybe if you would do more than a single image spam post, I might be better equipped to respond. 

[Dad]

Support for a stable 2-state solution - though I understand why this is difficult for you to understand, given your positions on nuance in other threads. We all have to cut you a little slack, we know.

 

Unnecessarily condescending and aggressive.  This isn't punishable. but keep it civil, please.

[Wahrheit]

Unnecessarily condescending and aggressive.  This isn't punishable. but keep it civil, please.

Can you warn him for doing the same, worse and more frequently, then? This was basically just me testing to see if anyone was paying attention.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peace

 

Yes, I can. And don't blame it all on the Turks and Moguls. Europe had been waging wars with itself for years. Saying that any particular group is responsible for the world not being at peace in those times is an even worse argument. Also, there wasn't many actual Turks living in Palestine under Ottoman rule. It was mostly Arab Palestinians, of varying religious backgrounds. Majority Islam, with some Christianity and Judaism. 

 

When you armed Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

I'm not talking about Europe, I'm talking about the genocide against the Zorostarians and invasion of northern India. They attacked modern day Iran long before this conflict too place. It's not like the 150k or so zorostarians can now ask for Iran back from the Muslims can they?

 

First of all, those were policies followed under the current president to a degree. Secondly, pretty sure democrats widely deny that we've been arming ISIS. So you cannot claim that one. Thirdly, not after they came out as terrorist organizations

 

Can you warn him for doing the same, worse and more frequently, then? This was basically just me testing to see if anyone was paying attention.

 

Your turn Ringo. Dad has punished me in the past for being aggressive. As has Roxas. Pretty sure I published my warn history in a post yesterday. And worse case, do you really wanna be as bad as a guy like me? Seems beneath you. You should set the example for me to follow :)

[Resident Fascist]

Here's an example:

 

Death to all Jews - http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48882612.html

 

another fine example: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12222/sick-palestinians-celebrate-death-four-israelis-michael-qazvini

 

Not entirely sure what else I can cite there. Maybe if you would do more than a single image spam post, I might be better equipped to respond. 

 

I too, can deliberately pick parts of data that only support my argument. How about all the times Israelis have celebrated the deaths of Palestinians?

[Wahrheit]

Here's an example:

 

Death to all Jews - http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48882612.html

 

another fine example: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12222/sick-palestinians-celebrate-death-four-israelis-michael-qazvini

 

Not entirely sure what else I can cite there. Maybe if you would do more than a single image spam post, I might be better equipped to respond. 

Could you cite a non-partisan source?

[Dad]

 

You're both shitposting now.  Stop it.  And this is being moved to debates.  Merging it with the Isreal thread.

 

Practical peace is not injuring/killing each other, ultimate peace is the death of everything and everyone. 

[Resident Fascist]

I'm not talking about Europe, I'm talking about the genocide against the Zorostarians and invasion of northern India. They attacked modern day Iran long before this conflict too place. It's not like the 150k or so zorostarians can now ask for Iran back from the Muslims can they?

 

First of all, those were policies followed under the current president to a degree. Secondly, pretty sure democrats widely deny that we've been arming ISIS. So you cannot claim that one. Thirdly, not after they came out as terrorist organizations

 

Oh for funk sake, you're comparing a Modern day conflict to one that happened thousands of years ago. I can appeal to that crowd to: America is a country built on genocide of natives. The slaughter of Native American populations by European colonialists is arguably one of the biggest genocides in human history. How about America's "peaceful" occupation of Hawai'i? Don't pull up ancient history into modern arguments.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Could you cite a non-partisan source?

Unless the numbers or information can be refuted as false, I don't see why I should. You were linking ETS as non-ironic sources a few days back iirc. So the question remains, can you refute any of the information placed there. It's a sign of grasping when someone attacks a source instead of the material. Realistically however, I cannot. Non-partisan doesn't exist.

 

Palestinian authorities have regularly glorified the death of jews in their state media, and indoctrinated their kids to espouse that. Bibi on the other hand has been recurring reaching out to try to get talks. They're not equal

Oh for funk sake, you're comparing a Modern day conflict to one that happened thousands of years ago. I can appeal to that crowd to: America is a country built on genocide of natives. The slaughter of Native American populations by European colonialists is arguably one of the biggest genocides in human history. How about America's "peaceful" occupation of Hawai'i? Don't pull up ancient history into modern arguments.

Well you're agreeing with me here? You cannot ask America to get up and leave? You cannot ask Isreal to get up and leave? You cannot ask Muslims to get up and leave in Iran

[Resident Fascist]

 

Well you're agreeing with me here? You cannot ask America to get up and leave? You cannot ask Isreal to get up and leave? You cannot ask Muslims to get up and leave in Iran

 

Israel has a much lower population than those two countries. So yes, logistically, I can.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Israel has a much lower population than those two countries. So yes, logistically, I can.

Well Hawaii and Isreal have a similar population; and the time of ratification is fairly similar. You cannot ask Hawaii to get up and leave either. Try again. 

 

Again, since it was ignored in an divert conversation to an attempt to dish our warning points or "test the water," it's a strategic benefit to keep Israel for the US, and the congress had a bi-partisan consensus not to send the money. So how come the admin secretly did? Please answer both those 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Unless the numbers or information can be refuted as false, I don't see why I should. You were linking ETS as non-ironic sources a few days back iirc. So the question remains, can you refute any of the information placed there. It's a sign of grasping when someone attacks a source instead of the material. Realistically however, I cannot. Non-partisan doesn't exist.

 

That ones a lie; If one can undermine the credibility of a source, any information it imparts also loses credibility. It's a fairly common legal strategy to my understand that one undermines or strengthens testimony by proving credibility and reliability.

 

It's not grasping at all to do so, unless the information is emphircal. But even then, one can discredit the means by which the data is taken, and if the scope was too wide or too narrow say.

 

There is absoluty nothing wrong with attacking a source if it's flawed in a debate, because it means one has built ones argument off of a position of weakness.

[Resident Fascist]

Well Hawaii and Isreal have a similar population; and the time of ratification is fairly similar. You cannot ask Hawaii to get up and leave either. Try again

 

1893 and 1945 are not fairly similar. 

[Wahrheit]

You're both shitposting now.  Stop it.  And this is being moved to debates.  Merging it with the Isreal thread.

Can you tell me what the accepted response is when someone needs to cite their sources?

 

Anyway, if you're merging it with the Israel thread I'm dipping out b/c that thread is going nowhere fast.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That ones a lie; If one can undermine the credibility of a source, any information it imparts also loses credibility. It's a fairly common legal strategy to my understand that one undermines or strengthens testimony by proving credibility and reliability.

 

It's not grasping at all to do so, unless the information is emphircal. But even then, one can discredit the means by which the data is taken, and if the scope was too wide or too narrow say.

 

There is absoluty nothing wrong with attacking a source if it's flawed in a debate, because it means one has built ones argument off of a position of weakness.

Well that was what I was asking him to do, obv a fake new story won't hold wait Tom, but if he cannot refute the evidence posted in the stories, such as bibi attempting to reach a deal or Palestine celebrating, then just going for an attack on a sympathetic take on the jews is little different than me saying NYT is fake news cause they're tough on trump (as example)

Can you tell me what the accepted response is when someone needs to cite their sources?

 

Anyway, if you're merging it with the Israel thread I'm dipping out b/c that thread is going nowhere fast.

How about being more specific than a meme? And actually pointing out what exactly you wanted cited? C'mon man

[Wahrheit]

Well that was what I was asking him to do, obv a fake new story won't hold wait Tom, but if he cannot refute the evidence posted in the stories, such as bibi attempting to reach a deal or Palestine celebrating, then just going for an attack on a sympathetic take on the jews is little different than me saying NYT is fake news cause they're tough on trump (as example)

How about being more specific than a meme? And actually pointing out what exactly you wanted cited? C'mon man

Not a meme, just text on an image (notably, that image is hosted on Wikipedia, where they use it in an official capacity, so YCM is literally worse than Wikipedia now).

 

You made a bunch of factual claims in one post without sourcing them. It's fairly common policy, especially in debates, that if you're going to make an outrageous claim, you cite a source to support it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

1893 and 1945 are not fairly similar. 

 

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel Creationof Israel, 1948

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Admission_Act enactedMarch 18, 1959

 

C'mon man

 

 

Not a meme, just text on an image (notably, that image is hosted on Wikipedia, where they use it in an official capacity, so YCM is literally worse than Wikipedia now).

 

You made a bunch of factual claims in one post without sourcing them. It's fairly common policy, especially in debates, that if you're going to make an outrageous claim, you cite a source to support it.

Were they really outrageous given that the top of a google search on "Palestine position on Jewish state" would give you those and more

 

Asking for a friend. Either way, you have your sources now, I eagerly await your rebuttal 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Well that was what I was asking him to do, obv a fake new story won't hold wait Tom, but if he cannot refute the evidence posted in the stories, such as bibi attempting to reach a deal or Palestine celebrating, then just going for an attack on a sympathetic take on the jews is little different than me saying NYT is fake news cause they're tough on trump (as example)

 

His argument, as I understand it was like thus:

The sources you've provided are heavily partisan

Partisan means they have a lower incentive to tell the truth, and thus any truth they claim has doubt casted upon it

To verify your claim, he then asks for non partisan sources (Or even opposing partisan sources) to verify such things actually happen.

 

He essentially asks you for additional citation, because what you had use has no incentive to tell unbiased truth one way or another.

 

It's not claiming 'fake news' and it's not him refuting your point. It's him asking you to actually prove your point, by verifying your own claims with sources that have no issues with credibility.

 

There is no need to refute the points you made from his perspective, because on his side of the argument there is no point to refute, you've yet to prove anything.

 

If you can't provide that, the argument becomes hypothetical, because he has no burden to disprove, you have burden to prove because you brought it up.

[Resident Fascist]

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel Creationof Israel, 1948

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Admission_Act enactedMarch 18, 1959

 

C'mon man

 

Also wouldn't a PM do better if you were concerned? 

 

Hawai'i became an official state in 1959, but it had been occupied since the late 1800s.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Hawai'i became an official state in 1959, but it had been occupied since the late 1800s.

And there have been jews living in Isreal for longer than the 1800's, this isn't a rabbit hole you're gonna win through Shard

 

 

 

Partisan, but there's proof

His argument, as I understand it was like thus:

The sources you've provided are heavily partisan

Partisan means they have a lower incentive to tell the truth, and thus any truth they claim has doubt casted upon it

To verify your claim, he then asks for non partisan sources (Or even opposing partisan sources) to verify such things actually happen.

 

He essentially asks you for additional citation, because what you had use has no incentive to tell unbiased truth one way or another.

 

It's not claiming 'fake news' and it's not him refuting your point. It's him asking you to actually prove your point, by verifying your own claims with sources that have no issues with credibility.

 

There is no need to refute the points you made from his perspective, because on his side of the argument there is no point to refute, you've yet to prove anything.

 

If you can't provide that, the argument becomes hypothetical, because he has no burden to disprove, you have burden to prove because you brought it up.

There's a funking video tom...but here http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/sermons.html

[Wahrheit]

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel Creationof Israel, 1948

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Admission_Act enactedMarch 18, 1959

 

C'mon man

 

 

Were they really outrageous given that the top of a google search on "Palestine position on Jewish state" would give you those and more

 

Asking for a friend. Either way, you have your sources now, I eagerly await your rebuttal 

 

 

This is like the opposite of what you suggested, so I don't really know what you were hoping to gain.

[Sunshine Jesse]

What else is it then?

It's not antisemetic because it doesn't inherently have anything to do with Judaism.

 

I don't believe a religious right to land exists to begin with, but I'm also not educated enough on this topic to really comment any further.