You keep arguing in bad faith, as everyone knows that if you actually wanted to know what “birthright” meant, as if you didn’t already, it’d take you 10 seconds to check it on Google. So asking that is you asking in bad faith. I’m explaining this because I genuinely think you don’t understand it, the proudly ignorant American that you are.

Yeah, i googled it. I still don't understand what the fuck you meant by the implication of using it though. Which is why i think it's related to israel or judaism. But i don't know anything about those two things, so i'm not sure i would be able to recognize what you meant by it, unless you meant my birthright to post shitpost comments on the internet or something? I fail to see how this is relevant though. So i'm assuming it's some sort of dig at religion that is failing incredibly hard here because i legitimately have no idea what you mean. And you are gaslighting yourself into believing otherwise.

Once again, equivocation on the level that I mostly remember encountering on recess 20 years ago. You said “it says starvation, not genocide”. That’s you pretending that once can’t commit by, among other methods, intentional starvation.

i already covered this, go read what i actually said. This simply isn't congruent with history, nor does it make any sense in the context providing, because genocide is almost always an explicit violence act against another group of people for no reason other than their ethnicity. Defining it as anything else would include Mao's famines, and north koreas famines. But weirdly, you don't seem to be continually puking yourself over the thought of hundreds of thousands of north korean farmers who are currently starving. It's almost as if you either, only care about the Palestinians, or simply do not actually believe what you are saying, and are simply doing some classic, political posturing here.

Again, because you seem to be incapable of reading, russia is LITERALLY doing the same thing to ukraine. But again, doesn't seem to matter to you, because apparently ukrainians are less worthy to life than Palestinians according to your complete lack of care about them starving.

You can’t admit to a single piece of evidence of the MOUNTAIN of evidence of war crimes there is against Israel

war crimes against israel? October 7th was considered to be one, but obviously, you misspoke here. And you meant the war crimes that israel is committing, that are being levied against israel. To which, i have agreed too. And you have subsequently, ignored, either because you aren't reading what i'm posting, even though i'm clearly reading what you post. Or because it simply disentangles your entire narrative here of you being "correct" and it makes you look bad, so in turn you have to save face by pretending they don't exist.

Or are you just going to pull the "i couldn't remember" card? Even though it was literally 30 minutes to an hour ago that i said this, and that you read it, in fact, why don't i go pull it up? "Oh look, another question you haven’t asked yet which btw, yes israel is comitting war crimes, and so has hamas. It’s almost like answering actual questions is, rather easy."

oh wow, look at that, you literally lied.

You’re scared, willfully ignorant and on the wrong side of history.

i'm on the wrong side of history? Homie, there is no wrong side of history, merely the side that gets written down and archived at some point. Whether this comes to bite in the back later is a different story. The chances of that happening are incredibly small though.

Also i find it rather cute that you keep calling me willfully ignorant, even though i keep explaining to you, that i am quite literally basically ignorant on the topic, because well. I don't have the fucking time.

pitiful whinging about “both sides”.

oh, you're the "both sides" type of person, nobody is worse than these type of people. Because they sit in a superiority complex of their own, completely abusing a rather useful concept.

Since you don't seem to understand how it works, i'll explain it to you (properly( bothsidesing is a technique commonly used to compare to different groups, in this case opposing parties. Via isolating one side, documenting it's behaviorisms, and rhetoric. And the repeating the same for the other side, in a similarly isolated manner. And finally, once complete, you can compare them between the two, and what would be expected (in this situation) is a significant overlap in a lot of rhetoric, and a handful of valid underlying causes to the problem. The rhetoric is obviously going to be self determinant. It should be very clear where it is. The underlying structures are going to be hidden within rhetoric most of the time, though apparent.

The problem with most "both sides" ""both sides"" type of people is that they complete forego the entire process of this, and instead do surface level equivocations of two often entirely irrelevant scenarios. Even though this is literally a fundamental fallacy of conceptualization. It'd be like if i said that global warming doesn't exist because seasons still happen. But of course, you've never done this right?

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23128346/11632541

oh, oh no... What a terrible discovery.

That’s why I keep linking things like these

i would also like to point out, that you're expecting to link the same resources over and over again, while expecting me to do something about it instead. Debate is a two way street my friend, you have done nothing but fence sitting here.

oh and by the way, i find it curious that you accuse me of sealioning, even though you're literally the one DEMANDING an answer from me, lmao. Go read your definitions better so you can use fallacies properly.

People like you disgust me, but as I don’t want to be as shit of a person as you, I actually reply in good faith. People like you just tie yourself in knots.

my guy, you have done nothing but reiterate the same exact statement you made originally. If anybody here is in bad faith, it's you because you refuse to interact with any of the premises i propose.

Interesting that you seem to use the "people like you" phrasing. Surely that could never imply anything bad. Surely you don't have a trained predispoition against people who disagree with you. Do you?

But, since you seem to like fallacy so much, i will indulge you. Notably, you keep using an "appeal to the stone" fallacy. Or more clinically referred to as "proof by assertion" You're also entertaining an "invincible ignorance fallacy" You will probably engage in "argument of repetition" later on, when in the shower, yelling at me. Also an "argument from silence" fallacy in there. And since you seem to like language so much 'ignoratio elenchi" fallacy as well.

Curious how all of these are "relevance fallacies" isn't it. Fun fact, a common trap with fallacy is just misapplying them wherever you see fit. Whether that is the case here, or whether your line of behaviorisms uniquely lines you up for this specific type of fallacy, is not up to me, as i don't like to meander into these kinds of things. It's rather boring and difficult. It's more interesting running into the underlying concepts.