Gaza City Officially in Famine, Jews Celebrate

[BrightShinyGirl]

I don't believe the famine claims because I read articles like this.

 

[eric_erosfan]

I don't believe the famine claims because I read articles like this.

You seek out propaganda to confirm your bias. That is the very description of intellectual dishonesty. And exactly what stupid fucking MAGAtards like Reichguide do here on a daily basis.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You seek out propaganda to confirm your bias. That is the very description of intellectual dishonesty. And exactly what stupid fucking MAGAtards like Reichguide do here on a daily basis.

I didn't expect to ever see anything more intellectually dishonest than the scelerotic MAGAts on this board.

I was horrifically wrong. Almost every single Jew who posts on this board embraces intellectual dishonesty as some sort of perverse Jewish virtue. THEY support Israeli pogroms in Gaza, and those of us who refuse to accept the notion of Israeli government sponsored terrorism as "righteous" are deemed "antisemite".

Israel has no one to blame but themselves for their current predicament.

 

[JohnEngelman]

She's just like a trumptard, maybe even worse. She supports war criminals and repeats their blatant lies.

The Hamas attack on Israel was a war crime. I have never seen you condemn it.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You seek out propaganda to confirm your bias. That is the very description of intellectual dishonesty. And exactly what stupid fucking MAGAtards like Reichguide do here on a daily basis.

I am not a "stupid fucking MAGAtard!"

Oh, you mean Rightguide.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

The Hamas attack on Israel was a war crime. I have never seen you condemn it.

Then you need to look harder, faggot.

Hamas are terrorists, they don't commit war crimes they commit acts of terror. Israel commit war crimes. Americans commit war crimes.

 

[icanhelp1]

You seek out propaganda to confirm your bias. That is the very description of intellectual dishonesty. And exactly what stupid fucking MAGAtards like Reichguide do here on a daily basis.

Watch the actual videos of Oct 7th then get back to me. Hamas needs to go. Palestinians are taught from birth to hate and kill Jews. If Hamas releases the hostages and surrenders, this ends. If Oct 7th happened in the US we would search globally for the perpetrators and wouldn’t stop until the threat was eradicated. Asymmetrical warfare is ugly. There are always unintended consequences and tragedies when terrorist use human shields.. The sooner Gaza city falls the sooner the people can heal. Stop insulting our intelligence with anti Netanyahu propaganda. I watched the videos, me personally, I think Netanyahu has showed a value for human life.

I get my info from many sources.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Watch the actual videos of Oct 7th then get back to me. Hamas needs to go. Palestinians are taught from birth to hate and kill Jews. If Hamas releases the hostages and surrenders, this ends. If Oct 7th happened in the US we would search globally for the perpetrators and wouldn’t stop until the threat was eradicated. Asymmetrical warfare is ugly. There are always unintended consequences and tragedies when terrorist use human shields.. The sooner Gaza city falls the sooner the people can heal. Stop insulting our intelligence with anti Netanyahu propaganda. I watched the videos, me personally, I think Netanyahu has showed a value for human life.

I get my info from many sources.

What more can you expect from a group of people that believe the criminal is the victim?

 

[eric_erosfan]

Watch the actual videos of Oct 7th then get back to me. Hamas needs to go. Palestinians are taught from birth to hate and kill Jews. If Hamas releases the hostages and surrenders, this ends. If Oct 7th happened in the US we would search globally for the perpetrators and wouldn’t stop until the threat was eradicated. Asymmetrical warfare is ugly. There are always unintended consequences and tragedies when terrorist use human shields.. The sooner Gaza city falls the sooner the people can heal. Stop insulting our intelligence with anti Netanyahu propaganda. I watched the videos, me personally, I think Netanyahu has showed a value for lyinghuman life.

I get my info from many sources.

Terrorists are bad. Killing every innocent person in the vicinity while pursuing a terrorist is bad.

Making up lies that no innocents are being hurt or killed in pursuit of terrorists is intellectual dishonesty and, one could argue, equally bad.

 

[icanhelp1]

What more can you expect from a group of people that believe the criminal is the victim?

I have to laugh at shitbags like Laz lambasting Trump for what’s going on in Palestine. It’s feckless foreign policies of both Obama and Biden that fueled both the Israeli/Hamas and Russia/Ukraine conflicts. Trump broke the Iran economy and Biden resurrected it. Soon after the Biden administration took office the Iran theocracy started padding their wallets. Shortly after Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis started acting up. Russia/Ukraine is a European travesty. When Russia took over Crimea Europe looked the other way. It was then that Europe should have mobilized but they couldn’t, they were too dependent on Russian energy products. They looked the other way. Same with Iran and the West. The JCPOA was an excuse for the Europeans to trade with Iran. There are books written about it.

 

[glamorilla]

so when all the jews are dead is hamas just going to hang up their machetes and stop killing people?

 

[icanhelp1]

Terrorists are bad. Killing every innocent person in the vicinity while pursuing a terrorist is bad.

Making up lies that no innocents are being hurt or killed in pursuit of terrorists is intellectual dishonesty and, one could argue, equally bad.

No one is saying innocent people aren’t being killed. Just look at the Somali raid. How many citizens were killed because terrorist used innocent people as human shields. Palestinians aren’t as pure as people would like to believe. It’s an Islamist rot that permeates throughout the Gaza Strip and the region in general. Islamist are not your traditional Muslim. Their charter is the destruction of Israel and the west.

 

[Rebel5soul]

so when all the jews are dead is hamas just going to hang up their machetes and stop killing people?

What's your bet on that?

 

[icanhelp1]

so when all the jews are dead is hamas just going to hang up their machetes and stop killing people?

BSG’s article of Islamist extremism and ideology raising its ugly head in Australia is alarming but not surprising. Even the leftist loons in the US are being subjugated by this rot. People can’t seem to be able to differentiate Islamist extremism and Muslim religion.

 

[glamorilla]

What's your bet on that?

I'm expecting October 7th level events to begin happening on American soil soon.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Then you need to look harder, faggot.

Hamas are terrorists, they don't commit war crimes they commit acts of terror. Israel commit war crimes. Americans commit war crimes.

Read the essay that goes with this pyramid. It might make you a better person. The point I wish to leave you with is that name calling is the lowest form of discourse.



https://s.turbifycdn.com/aah/paulgraham/how-to-disagree-2.gif, by Paul Graham

March 2008

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.

https://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html[/TD]

[/TR][/TABLE][/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[1984X2024]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1960671052767314079

 

[JohnEngelman]

 

[coati]

Terrorists are bad. Killing every innocent person in the vicinity while pursuing a terrorist is bad.

Making up lies that no innocents are being hurt or killed in pursuit of terrorists is intellectual dishonesty and, one could argue, equally bad.

Netanyahu stated his objective is to "finish the job", whatever that means. He depends upon propaganda support to deny the devastating impacts on non-combatants and relief organizations.

We witness him getting this propaganda support right here on the little old porn board politics forum, from fat-and-happy urbanites living far from the center of this war.

Cooler heads try to.moderate this situation but are drowned out by the blood lust of the opposing factions.

 

[eric_erosfan]

No one is saying innocent people aren’t being killed.

BSG is saying exactly that. She even said the journalists killed in the hospital were terrorists.

She has gone off the deep end and become a Lying Dumb Cunt (LDC). But now your side can embrace her because she is exactly like you stupid fucking MAGAtards.

 

[Rebel5soul]

I'm expecting October 7th level events to begin happening on American soil soon.

I hope you're wrong but I fear you're right.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

BSG is saying exactly that. She even said the journalists killed in the hospital were terrorists.

She has gone off the deep end and become a Lying Dumb Cunt (LDC). But now your side can embrace her because she is exactly like you stupid fucking MAGAtards.

What would you call someone who took part in the October 7th genocide?

 

[JohnEngelman]

BSG is saying exactly that. She even said the journalists killed in the hospital were terrorists.

She has gone off the deep end and become a Lying Dumb Cunt (LDC). But now your side can embrace her because she is exactly like you stupid fucking MAGAtards.

You are skilled with obscene insults. Can you compose anything better?

 

[eric_erosfan]

What would you call someone who took part in the October 7th genocide?

What? The Hamas terrorists who attacked and killed Israelis and kidnapped others on October 7th are terrorists. There was never a question about this. You are the Lying Dumb Cunt (LDC) who thinks every innocent person killed in Gaza by IDF was actually a terrorist.

 

[eric_erosfan]

You are skilled with obscene insults. Can you compose anything better?

Dumbasses deserve scorn and ridicule. They do nothing to improve society. They should all find a good bridge.