You’re such a bad liar

please explain to me what you think i'm lying about, i'm very curious.

Ah, so we’re using your definition, but the definition of the UN and the actions of Israel actually fulfilling reasonable grounds for it doesn’t matter, the experts on international law don’t matter, but things you pull out of your arse do? :D

ah yes, just the colloquially accepted definition of genocide by most jewish people, and also the general public at large, as a result of the actions of nazi fucking germany. Also i find it cute how you have silently retconned from saying "confirmed genocide" to "reasonable grounds for genocide"

And again, i don't disagree with the experts, you just completely mischaracterize what they say and then shit yourself over it repeatedly until someone quits yelling at you for being wrong.

You’re literally ignoring the fact that the world is against Israel’s slaughter of women and children, so you get to this tantrum and start kicking your foot and going “waaah, waah, no no no, Israel no bad, only hamas bad!”

"fun fact, most people don't agree that killing people is morally good" wow aren't you just a stand up citizen, stating the laws of nearly every fucking country in the world. And the culturally accepted moral status of murder globally across the world, wow look at how far you've come.

Again, i am also against this, i have literally said as much. You're just fucking stupid and refusing to acknowledge it.

The following are quotes of things that i have said, in this conversation:

did i mention the israeli settlements in westbank/gaza (however that works) because if not, why the fuck are they there? Yet another anti-israeli point for you to wrap your head around.

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.

And this is just the first page of comments on my profile. You can almost certainly find more if you actually look through my history. But you won't.

Then you go on a tiresome tirade about how you see “fallacies”. It’s rather entertaining, really, watching a kid like you larp understanding debating. That’s why I’m still in this thread. People like you disgust me, but it’s that sort of morbid type of disgust in which I’m sort of intrigued by it. Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting.

my brother not in christ, you have sealioned me this entire debate, and then without a hint of irony, you accused me of sealioning, even though clearly, you're significantly more aggressive on me answering your questions, than i am on your answering my questions. WHICH MIGHT I ADD, IS BECAUSE YOU FUCKING IGNORE THEM.

following pulled from an actual philosopher. Something you would be deeply unfamiliar with.

American academic philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong discussed the term in his book Think Again: How to Reason and Argue, saying:

Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called 'sealioning'. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes.

Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting

bro if you think willful* ignorance psychologically is "interesting" I regret to inform you that i don't even yell at you to gather interesting information about you, because literally everything you're doing right now is an already documented existing form of fallacy, or trolling. There is nothing else here.

And besides, willful ignorance is a well studied concept since at least the beginning of science. Probably well before it. Stoicism in some capacity is primarily based on willful ignorance. There are entire fucking religions based on the ignorance of modern society, and it's methods of operation. In fact, there is an entire disorder on the schizophrenia spectrum that is primarily related to willful ignorance of most things not immediately relevant to an individual.

Yeah, people like you. People who act in this way,

as defined by what strict standards? Because you cannot be the one to define them. As that would be a conflict of involvement. For one thing, that's dehumanization. A tale as old as racism. Secondly the entire purposes for the definition of my "actions" is to argumentatively enclose me into your small framework of the world. Because you don't have the mental capacity to conceptualize anybody thinking outside of three cubic meters of physical space. And unfortunately for you, i am unbound by physical space. I could literally just start saying "israel is committing genocide against palestine" "death be to israel" tomorrow if i so pleased, and you could do nothing about it.

Which is what you’re doing, and which is what I talked about through-out this thread

it's throughout, though i suppose that could be a regional difference huh?

you being the case in point

you ever stop to think about the everlasting effects of the dunning kruger effect? Yeah me neither. Good thing i'm not making any assertions on anything.

I hate genocide deniers

yet curiously, you defined it earlier as "grounds for genocide happening" weird how you slip in and out of frameworks isn't it? Almost as if my technical accuracy has tainted your restricted framework so much that you're working between two different frameworks entirely.

maybe Google “fallacy fallacy”, unless you’re still pretending not to know how to Google. :DD)

the fallacious fallacy is a good one. Curiously, i never stated that your argument was wrong due to use of fallacies, i just pointed out that you used fallacy commonly. Because fallacy is a rather weak rhetorical device that can almost always be applied retroactively due to the sheer amount of them out there. Your argument is wrong because it's fucking bad. Your entire argument rests on the basis of one statement being worded in a specific way, meaning something that it does not. The ONE argument that you have is that "according to the ICJ and UN courts, Israel has "committed genocide"" even though the rulings you cite do not fucking say that.

Israel is a war criminal

wow look, something i've agreed up three fucking times, from the first time you mentioned it.

and you are defending it.

please, demonstrate it. This would be libel if it weren't for the fact that you were demonstrably wrong.

And yet, curiously i've not once heard you mention anything else i've mentioned that would also count as genocide under your own definition of genocide.