Stupid World

[oldrider]

I dont recall you being outraged at these UN findings - Quite the opposite

Really - seems English is not your first language - the post was a question?

Well many were outraged by this abomination but it still went virtually unnoticed by the MSM:- https://twitter.com/Muhammad_imrran/...89689107210240

[husaberg]

Really - seems English is not your first language - the post was a question?

Well many were outraged by this abomination but it still went virtually unnoticed by the MSM:- https://twitter.com/Muhammad_imrran/...89689107210240

It wasnt a question it was a simple statement of fact. Did you see a question mark? What is in question is that your level of outrage has nothing to do with the acts involved but everything to do with the alleged perpetrators.
The UN clearly pointed out on multiple occasions. Hamas uses children as human shields, stores munitions and fires rockets from schools, You are of course not outraged by that though, until those same children then die in the crossfire.
You are not interested war war crimes when they are committed by Russia Syria or Hamas.
There is only one thing you are interested in, its the sole reason you post on KB these days and thats to spread more of your anti Jewish propaganda.

https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-rep...human-shields/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/w...ar-crimes.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20180306...houta-chemical
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.3a04c88a900b
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/w...za-report.html

[oldrider]

As an avid defender you will be very familiar with the where and why of this topic then:- https://twitter.com/HenryMakow/statu...rymakow.com%2F

[husaberg]

As an avid defender you will be very familiar with the where and why of this topic then:- [

Avid defender of what asking you to justify your propaganda.
The UN clearly spelled out the why of what happens in the Middle east with Hamas and Israel already.
You just refuse to acknowledge what happens when humans are used as shields and school and hospitals are used to store and send missiles from.
As well as stead fastly refusing to condem any other country other than the USA and Israel for anything.
https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-rep...human-shields/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.3a04c88a900b
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/w...za-report.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/w...ar-crimes.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20180306...houta-chemical

[TheDemonLord]

Backing yourself up requires discussion, I keep asking what your 'yes' was in reply to, because it does not fit with the immediate context,

And I've told you. The Accusation I made against you.

It may not fit the immediate context, but it does fit the context of what I said, in relation to you and have repeatedly referred to.

The fact that you ignore this is your problem, not mine.

you act as if other context somehow trumps this and changes what you were replying to,

It does. I've made it clear what the correct interpretation is - by referring to statements prior and statements subsequently. You are simply hellbent on ignoring this.

but offer only evasion when confronted by this point.

Except for the whole posting of quotes, explaining the context, referencing what I've said.

Unlike you, who when confronted with a point, go off on a tangent about Standards and how they only apply when you want them to.

That is why backing yourself up only to a subjective 'burden of proof' is an exception that makes you a hypocrite.

No, it doesn't.

You can disagree with the evidence presented (which you are doing), but you cannot deny that it has been presented nor can you deny that I have not fulfilled my obligation.

Your disagreement however fails on one key point - if I was trying to post-hoc retcon what I meant (which is what your accusation essentially is), then I wouldn't be able to point to prior statements made by me, against you - that show that my meaning is in line with what I say it is, as opposed to what you want/need it to be.

Problem is, those prior statements exist, and I've pointed them out to you. Which means we are left with you sticking with the bad-faith interpretation, despite the clarifications being made and pointed out, in order to try and win a Point. The only reason for persisting with this tactic?

It's cause you've got nothing.

It's those last to parts that make me NOT a hypocrite. As an added bonus, your repeated demands for this of other people and repeated refusals of this for yourself is the only demonstation of Hypocrisy in this thread (and an additional bonus - Sargon's Law)

Which three posts?

to the three posts dealing with a specific question.

How about, you take 5 minutes, get your story straight, you may want to re-read what you've written - then come back to me.

Classic.

As I've explained, they'll keep until you can demonstrate some intelligence and integrity on this first point.

And as I've explained - doesn't matter how stupid or dishonest you think I'm being - you've still got a burden of proof, which you are refusing to meet.

We both know why all this avoidance and 'standards' and refusals: Because I've not said the things you ascribed to me. You know this - yet you refuse to retract them (that makes you a liar)
Then demanding proof of others which you yourself refuse to meet (that makes you a Hypocrite)
You also refuse to concede them (that makes you dishonest).

Curiously enough - all the things you accuse me of - Sargon's Law again.

[oldrider]

The circle of diversity? https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/s...rymakow.com%2F -

[Graystone]

And I've told you. The Accusation I made against you.

It may not fit the immediate context, but it does fit the context of what I said, in relation to you and have repeatedly referred to.

The fact that you ignore this is your problem, not mine.



It does. I've made it clear what the correct interpretation is - by referring to statements prior and statements subsequently. You are simply hellbent on ignoring this.



Except for the whole posting of quotes, explaining the context, referencing what I've said.

Unlike you, who when confronted with a point, go off on a tangent about Standards and how they only apply when you want them to.



No, it doesn't.

You can disagree with the evidence presented (which you are doing), but you cannot deny that it has been presented nor can you deny that I have not fulfilled my obligation.

Your disagreement however fails on one key point - if I was trying to post-hoc retcon what I meant (which is what your accusation essentially is), then I wouldn't be able to point to prior statements made by me, against you - that show that my meaning is in line with what I say it is, as opposed to what you want/need it to be.

Problem is, those prior statements exist, and I've pointed them out to you. Which means we are left with you sticking with the bad-faith interpretation, despite the clarifications being made and pointed out, in order to try and win a Point. The only reason for persisting with this tactic?

It's cause you've got nothing.

It's those last to parts that make me NOT a hypocrite. As an added bonus, your repeated demands for this of other people and repeated refusals of this for yourself is the only demonstation of Hypocrisy in this thread (and an additional bonus - Sargon's Law)







How about, you take 5 minutes, get your story straight, you may want to re-read what you've written - then come back to me.

Classic.



And as I've explained - doesn't matter how stupid or dishonest you think I'm being - you've still got a burden of proof, which you are refusing to meet.

We both know why all this avoidance and 'standards' and refusals: Because I've not said the things you ascribed to me. You know this - yet you refuse to retract them (that makes you a liar)
Then demanding proof of others which you yourself refuse to meet (that makes you a Hypocrite)
You also refuse to concede them (that makes you dishonest).

Curiously enough - all the things you accuse me of - Sargon's Law again.

So you've finally admitted it does not fit the immediate context? Do you understand how difficult it makes conversation when you answer a question with an answer to a different one that may not have even been asked? One might even say it is a very irrational approach.

You spout enough drivel to find context for retconning pretty much anything. Your post-hoc 'context' approach means you just ignore what I asked, and had to find something you could answer yes to. Of course prior statements exist to fulfill this, so this does not sufficiently back up your point. Nor have you (even now) explicitly stated the yes was not in response to the direct question I asked; for this reason you still offer evasion, and fail to back yourself up.

As far as I am aware, the three posts I refer to, are not the same ones you do. This is because time and time again, you do not back yourself up, it would have been trivial to post the three that you refer to by now, but again, your way is evasion.

And yet, they'll keep until you can demonstrate some intelligence and integrity on this first point.

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/452961-skri...oning-britain/

[TheDemonLord]

So you've finally admitted it does not fit the immediate context? Do you understand how difficult it makes conversation when you answer a question with an answer to a different one that may not have even been asked? One might even say it is a very irrational approach.

I've made this repeatedly clear - by pointing out the correct Context - if you are too stupid to understand this, that is not my issue.

I've given you the correct Context, referenced. If you were being honest in this, you'd accept the clarification and move on. But as above - you are deliberately being dishonest, so...

You spout enough drivel to find context for retconning pretty much anything. Your post-hoc 'context' approach means you just ignore what I asked, and had to find something you could answer yes to.

I ignored the question because it was irrelevant. All that is required of me is to clarify and back up my clarification. The rest is in your head.

Of course prior statements exist to fulfill this, so this does not sufficiently back up your point.

That's an Oxymoronic statement.

Considering my defense to your accusation is to point to prior statements (which you've now acknowledged do exist) and demonstrate that they form a consistent series of Logical Statements. Statements which show what the correct Context is (despite your repeated attempts to the contrary).

Then your statement acknowledging their existence, but simultaneously claiming they do not sufficiently back up my point is contradictory (becoming a bit of a theme with you....)

Which is it? Does my accusation that you were happy to see someone who you don't like for political reasons being Censured stand? If it does - then I've fulfilled my Burden of proof for that which I've accused you of. Your attempt to attribute statements to me or accusations against you from me is not relevant.

If it does not stand - how do you explain the quotes that I cited from you, expressing happiness when hearing that someone you didn't like was censured for political reasons?

Nor have you (even now) explicitly stated the yes was not in response to the direct question I asked; for this reason you still offer evasion, and fail to back yourself up.

Since I've stated explicitly what it was in relation to... (See if you can work out the rest)

But I repeat - I've ignored this, because it's irrelevant. It's not in relation to anything I've said, against you. It's you trying to argue against what you want me to have said - and I'm having none of it.

A

as far as I am aware, the three posts I refer to, are not the same ones you do.

Let's assume that's correct - there's a simple way to resolve this - and that's by you not hiding behind these vague statements, actually editing your post so it's clear what rebuttal is in response to what statement.

In short - it's by you backing yourself up.

This is because time and time again, you do not back yourself up, it would have been trivial to post the three that you refer to by now, but again, your way is evasion.

See above - you acknowledge (implicitly) that I have backed myself up, yet you refuse to do the same. So how about, you (for once) fulfill your burden of proof - since you are now the one disputing what is being referenced - Burden of Proof is on you.

But I suspect all we will see is (Another textbook example of you fulfilling Sargon's Law) Evasion.

And yet, they'll keep until you can demonstrate some intelligence and integrity on this first point.

Then so too will the statement that you are a Dishonest, Hypocritical Liar.

I'll also state that at this point - I'll decline any further requests for proof/clarification from you. Applying your standards to you. Any requests by you will simply be met by a statement about your character, and a question as to whether or not you wish to retract or cite the lies you've made about me.

[Graystone]

I've made this repeatedly clear - by pointing out the correct Context - if you are too stupid to understand this, that is not my issue.

I've given you the correct Context, referenced. If you were being honest in this, you'd accept the clarification and move on. But as above - you are deliberately being dishonest, so...



I ignored the question because it was irrelevant. All that is required of me is to clarify and back up my clarification. The rest is in your head.



That's an Oxymoronic statement.

Considering my defense to your accusation is to point to prior statements (which you've now acknowledged do exist) and demonstrate that they form a consistent series of Logical Statements. Statements which show what the correct Context is (despite your repeated attempts to the contrary).

Then your statement acknowledging their existence, but simultaneously claiming they do not sufficiently back up my point is contradictory (becoming a bit of a theme with you....)

Which is it? Does my accusation that you were happy to see someone who you don't like for political reasons being Censured stand? If it does - then I've fulfilled my Burden of proof for that which I've accused you of. Your attempt to attribute statements to me or accusations against you from me is not relevant.

If it does not stand - how do you explain the quotes that I cited from you, expressing happiness when hearing that someone you didn't like was censured for political reasons?



Since I've stated explicitly what it was in relation to... (See if you can work out the rest)

But I repeat - I've ignored this, because it's irrelevant. It's not in relation to anything I've said, against you. It's you trying to argue against what you want me to have said - and I'm having none of it.

A

Let's assume that's correct - there's a simple way to resolve this - and that's by you not hiding behind these vague statements, actually editing your post so it's clear what rebuttal is in response to what statement.

In short - it's by you backing yourself up.



See above - you acknowledge (implicitly) that I have backed myself up, yet you refuse to do the same. So how about, you (for once) fulfill your burden of proof - since you are now the one disputing what is being referenced - Burden of Proof is on you.

But I suspect all we will see is (Another textbook example of you fulfilling Sargon's Law) Evasion.



Then so too will the statement that you are a Dishonest, Hypocritical Liar.

I'll also state that at this point - I'll decline any further requests for proof/clarification from you. Applying your standards to you. Any requests by you will simply be met by a statement about your character, and a question as to whether or not you wish to retract or cite the lies you've made about me.

Simple question then, when you responded 'yes' in the afore-mentioned post, was it in response to the question I asked (and that you quoted)?

Anyone who was actually interested in clarification would be able to answer yes or no to that.

[TheDemonLord]

Simple question then, when you responded 'yes' in the afore-mentioned post, was it in response to the question I asked (and that you quoted)?

Anyone who was actually interested in clarification would be able to answer yes or no to that.

As I said:

You are a dishonest, Hypocritial Liar. Do you wish to post a Citation or a retraction for the fallacious claims you've made about me?

[Graystone]

As I said:

You are a dishonest, Hypocritial Liar. Do you wish to post a Citation or a retraction for the fallacious claims you've made about me?

Luckily, saying it does not make it true; you'd need to back yourself up to show that...

I guess we got a bit close to the truth, being that you made a simple mistake, then compounded that by refusing to admit answering yes when the correct answer is no, is wrong. Your claims that you were ignoring the question are pathetic, given you quoted the question in question. Your claims that it was in response to a different question, that I do not recall even asking, are almost as pathetic. This is how I back up my claims about you being dishonest (in not admitting you were wrong) or moronic (in not understanding why those claims are irrational). Feel free to continue showing your true colors by answering attempts at rational discourse with more evasion and insults though.

[TheDemonLord]

Luckily, saying it does not make it true; you'd need to back yourself up to show that...

I guess we got a bit close to the truth, being that you made a simple mistake, then compounded that by refusing to admit answering yes when the correct answer is no, is wrong. Your claims that you were ignoring the question are pathetic, given you quoted the question in question. Your claims that it was in response to a different question, that I do not recall even asking, are almost as pathetic. This is how I back up my claims about you being dishonest (in not admitting you were wrong) or moronic (in not understanding why those claims are irrational). Feel free to continue showing your true colors by answering attempts at rational discourse with more evasion and insults though.

Hold yourself to your own standard, and you might have a point.

Do you retract the lies you've made or will you post a citation?

[Graystone]

Hold yourself to your own standard, and you might have a point.

Do you retract the lies you've made or will you post a citation?

Which part of my standard there is one I do not hold myself to? Do you think I am not backing up my claims about you being dishonest or moronic on that point? If so, I would welcome rational discussion on why this is or isn't the case...

Will you? We can move on if you do...

[Berries]

This Sargon bint has a lot to answer for.