The Hamas-run Health Ministry in the Gaza Strip says at least 500 people have been killed in an explosion that it says was caused by an Israeli airstrike.
Updated: Israel denies involvement in deadly Gaza hospital blast, says explosion caused by Islamic Jihad
Forreal though, you’re just shifting the goalposts like crazy. They weren’t defending hamas, they were calling the IDF liars. Which… yeah, this claim is a pretty reasonable thing to be skeptical about since they were touting that the hospital was hamas HQ and they ordered the evacuation of gaza city earlier this week?
Well you just shift more goals than the FIFA groundskeeping staff, dontcha.
For anyone curious about what this person is doing:
They start by putting words in the mouth of the other user, in a way that could broadly be interpreted as inline with their position but a lot more extreme. (ex: calling isreal a liar. I didn’t, I just implied they are clearly too biased to be a reliable source, close but more extreme.)
From there, they quickly move on to another more extreme claim that might not even be slightly related to the initial users point. The aim with this step is to force acceptance of the initial false claim they made, by blitzing you with a much more extreme claim. If you defend yourself here, it tacitly implies acceptance of the first claim, because you naturally jump to defending yourself from the most extreme claim first. (ex: Saying I’m not denouncing hamas. Of course I am, fuck hamas, they’re terrorist monsters. I dont have to say it in every comment though, especially if its not the topic at hand)
Then at the end they drop a false equivalence on us, tied to the acceptance of the false claim at the start. In this case the equivalence is that by not supporting something you clearly are tacitly approving of that thing. (btw: “which side you’re supporting” coward, just accuse me of supporting hamas. Oh, right, you won’t, because I didn’t/don’t, and you know it…)
Ironic? yes! The explotation of a social rule for their benefit and then rigidly applying that rule to someone else is a classic troll move!
Of course this is bullshit, and it’s bullshit that hinges on you having juuuust enough of an emotional reaction to their attempt that you don’t notice the whole thing hinges on you falling into the trap of accepting something is what you said when you, in fact, said no such thing.
And yes, I am arguing past them. It’s another classic troll move gleaned from my days as a shithead child on 4chan. But I like to think I’m not a shithead any more (might be lying to myself…). I’d also like to think that maybe reading this will keep someone out there from falling for this kind of bullshit in the future.Who knows.
Anyways, isreal sucks. So does hamas, but I just want to be clear how absolutely much isreal is just absolutely noshing down on a colossal plate of homoerotic dicks because of this. Both of them are, of course, but to be clear that “both” very much includes isreal as one of the two. The other one is hamas. But the dirst one is Isreal.
All that to say both sides suck, but Israel was first. It’s absolutely irrelevant. Israel can offer peace all day but there will never be peace with a terrorist organization that demands the compete destruction of all Jews. Hamas was responsible for invading Israel and what they did to it’s people there. Israel is completely justified in defending themselves from an existential threat, no different than you or I. If you fail to recognize those facts, yes, it’s tantamount to supporting terrorism.
They attempt to dismiss the bulk of the argument against them by focusing on one point that they think they can use as a concession, a sort of “moral middle ground” where you both meet (I am referring to them conceding that both sides suck. Which, critically important detail for later, I did not claim!). If it works, this serves a couple purposes: You get a common starting point from which you can build a philosophical bridge that you then can lead the other party across and you get to appear like you’re addressing the criticism directed at you while at the same time dismissing it as “all that”. A strong start, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Sadly it falls apart almost immediately as they lapse into the tired old formula, this time with a dash of logical fallacies. They continue on with a combination Red Herring mixed with a classic Circular Argument. “Israel doesn’t even need to try and get peace, because Hamas would clearly never accept it, so what’s the point in trying?”. I’m sure we can all see the problem there: I didn’t try because it won’t work, and because it clearly won’t work, why should I even bother to try? If it had landed this sure would be a corker to argue against, but since there’s no point in arguing against someone operating in brazen bad faith, we’ll just stick to meta-analysis and move on from that rather weak move.
Oh, but don’t forget that they also tried to put words in our mouth by asserting that anyone had claimed there could be peace between israel and Hamas. Sure, it might be impossible, it might not! But that’s not the point: They’re trying to sneakily get us to accept their assertion that there’s only two sides here! That’s right, those thousands of dead civilians? They don’t get a voice here, because it’s just Mighty And Righteous And Fully Justified, Israel!! vs. Those evil terrorist bastards what started it in the first place, Hamas!!. See, by engaging with the obvious fallacies they were making, they lead us into debating on their terms; that israel and Hamas are the only parties to this little conflict. Fuck you, they’re not, nice try, moving on!
“Hamas was responsible for invading Israel and what they did to it’s people there.” Sure, this is just a statement of fact. Hamas is responsible for the things Hamas did. They’re not addressing that Israel is also responsible for the brutally heinous acts they also committed, but it helps to reinforce their position to drop in a tidbit that you agree with. This seems obvious, sure, but remember that they’re still working under the false assumption that we fell for their very first attempt at establishing common ground. This little extra tidbit is supposed to get us onto the philosophical bridge they’ve built!
Next up, I’m a little petty!
They simply build more bridge by implying that israel is totally justified in defending themselves from this threat. It’s pretty goofy that they’ve ignored the irony that they’re claiming an invasion by a foreign group is 100% justifiable grounds for defending oneself with a counter-invasion, yet they deny that Hamas has any standing here.
Also that they ignore the frankly laughable assertion that Hamas is an ‘existential threat’ to israel. Israel, a nuclear power armed and outfitted by the our-healthcare-isn’t-free-find-out-why US of motherfuckin’ A!!(can I get an oorah?) is somehow facing an existential threat from a tiny terrorist faction, in a country smaller than Los Angeles, who’s primary means of warfare is rockets made out of sewer pipes (Yeah, that seems like a fair matchup…). They also seem to think that somehow, massacring civilians would be my reaction to an existential threat. It would not. I object to the massacring of civilians when you do it, when I do it or when israel does it. It’s just a pretty shitty thing to do. Honestly, given the things that usually threaten me existentially? I’d be better off massacring computer science textbooks.
Okay, that was fun. On with the breakdown!
Their final point is worded like a micdrop, but falls flatter than my ass in spandex. A classic False Equivalency - “If you don’t agree with these facts, then clearly you support terrorists!” which does the handy double duty of implying the corollary: “If you do agree with these facts, then clearly you support israel!”
I look forward to their next retort and our next great learning adventure! Now sing it with me, kids:
(sung to the tune of “london bridge”)
“Genocide is always wrong, always wrong, always wrong! Gen-ocide is always wrong, even when you’re jewish!”
…
…
(So I’m not a great lyricist, I’ll admit that.)
Wait I’m lost which one is which again?
Forreal though, you’re just shifting the goalposts like crazy. They weren’t defending hamas, they were calling the IDF liars. Which… yeah, this claim is a pretty reasonable thing to be skeptical about since they were touting that the hospital was hamas HQ and they ordered the evacuation of gaza city earlier this week?
When you’re quick to call Israel liars while careful to avoid denouncing Hamas, it becomes clear which side you’re supporting.
Well you just shift more goals than the FIFA groundskeeping staff, dontcha.
For anyone curious about what this person is doing:
They start by putting words in the mouth of the other user, in a way that could broadly be interpreted as inline with their position but a lot more extreme. (ex: calling isreal a liar. I didn’t, I just implied they are clearly too biased to be a reliable source, close but more extreme.)
From there, they quickly move on to another more extreme claim that might not even be slightly related to the initial users point. The aim with this step is to force acceptance of the initial false claim they made, by blitzing you with a much more extreme claim. If you defend yourself here, it tacitly implies acceptance of the first claim, because you naturally jump to defending yourself from the most extreme claim first. (ex: Saying I’m not denouncing hamas. Of course I am, fuck hamas, they’re terrorist monsters. I dont have to say it in every comment though, especially if its not the topic at hand)
Then at the end they drop a false equivalence on us, tied to the acceptance of the false claim at the start. In this case the equivalence is that by not supporting something you clearly are tacitly approving of that thing. (btw: “which side you’re supporting” coward, just accuse me of supporting hamas. Oh, right, you won’t, because I didn’t/don’t, and you know it…)
Ironic? yes! The explotation of a social rule for their benefit and then rigidly applying that rule to someone else is a classic troll move!
Of course this is bullshit, and it’s bullshit that hinges on you having juuuust enough of an emotional reaction to their attempt that you don’t notice the whole thing hinges on you falling into the trap of accepting something is what you said when you, in fact, said no such thing.
And yes, I am arguing past them. It’s another classic troll move gleaned from my days as a shithead child on 4chan. But I like to think I’m not a shithead any more (might be lying to myself…). I’d also like to think that maybe reading this will keep someone out there from falling for this kind of bullshit in the future.Who knows.
Anyways, isreal sucks. So does hamas, but I just want to be clear how absolutely much isreal is just absolutely noshing down on a colossal plate of homoerotic dicks because of this. Both of them are, of course, but to be clear that “both” very much includes isreal as one of the two. The other one is hamas. But the dirst one is Isreal.
All that to say both sides suck, but Israel was first. It’s absolutely irrelevant. Israel can offer peace all day but there will never be peace with a terrorist organization that demands the compete destruction of all Jews. Hamas was responsible for invading Israel and what they did to it’s people there. Israel is completely justified in defending themselves from an existential threat, no different than you or I. If you fail to recognize those facts, yes, it’s tantamount to supporting terrorism.
Another great example here!
They attempt to dismiss the bulk of the argument against them by focusing on one point that they think they can use as a concession, a sort of “moral middle ground” where you both meet (I am referring to them conceding that both sides suck. Which, critically important detail for later, I did not claim!). If it works, this serves a couple purposes: You get a common starting point from which you can build a philosophical bridge that you then can lead the other party across and you get to appear like you’re addressing the criticism directed at you while at the same time dismissing it as “all that”. A strong start, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Sadly it falls apart almost immediately as they lapse into the tired old formula, this time with a dash of logical fallacies. They continue on with a combination Red Herring mixed with a classic Circular Argument. “Israel doesn’t even need to try and get peace, because Hamas would clearly never accept it, so what’s the point in trying?”. I’m sure we can all see the problem there: I didn’t try because it won’t work, and because it clearly won’t work, why should I even bother to try? If it had landed this sure would be a corker to argue against, but since there’s no point in arguing against someone operating in brazen bad faith, we’ll just stick to meta-analysis and move on from that rather weak move.
Oh, but don’t forget that they also tried to put words in our mouth by asserting that anyone had claimed there could be peace between israel and Hamas. Sure, it might be impossible, it might not! But that’s not the point: They’re trying to sneakily get us to accept their assertion that there’s only two sides here! That’s right, those thousands of dead civilians? They don’t get a voice here, because it’s just Mighty And Righteous And Fully Justified, Israel!! vs. Those evil terrorist bastards what started it in the first place, Hamas!!. See, by engaging with the obvious fallacies they were making, they lead us into debating on their terms; that israel and Hamas are the only parties to this little conflict. Fuck you, they’re not, nice try, moving on!
“Hamas was responsible for invading Israel and what they did to it’s people there.” Sure, this is just a statement of fact. Hamas is responsible for the things Hamas did. They’re not addressing that Israel is also responsible for the brutally heinous acts they also committed, but it helps to reinforce their position to drop in a tidbit that you agree with. This seems obvious, sure, but remember that they’re still working under the false assumption that we fell for their very first attempt at establishing common ground. This little extra tidbit is supposed to get us onto the philosophical bridge they’ve built!
Next up, I’m a little petty!
They simply build more bridge by implying that israel is totally justified in defending themselves from this threat. It’s pretty goofy that they’ve ignored the irony that they’re claiming an invasion by a foreign group is 100% justifiable grounds for defending oneself with a counter-invasion, yet they deny that Hamas has any standing here.
Also that they ignore the frankly laughable assertion that Hamas is an ‘existential threat’ to israel. Israel, a nuclear power armed and outfitted by the our-healthcare-isn’t-free-find-out-why US of motherfuckin’ A!! (can I get an oorah?) is somehow facing an existential threat from a tiny terrorist faction, in a country smaller than Los Angeles, who’s primary means of warfare is rockets made out of sewer pipes (Yeah, that seems like a fair matchup…). They also seem to think that somehow, massacring civilians would be my reaction to an existential threat. It would not. I object to the massacring of civilians when you do it, when I do it or when israel does it. It’s just a pretty shitty thing to do. Honestly, given the things that usually threaten me existentially? I’d be better off massacring computer science textbooks.
Okay, that was fun. On with the breakdown!
Their final point is worded like a micdrop, but falls flatter than my ass in spandex. A classic False Equivalency - “If you don’t agree with these facts, then clearly you support terrorists!” which does the handy double duty of implying the corollary: “If you do agree with these facts, then clearly you support israel!”
I look forward to their next retort and our next great learning adventure! Now sing it with me, kids: (sung to the tune of “london bridge”) “Genocide is always wrong, always wrong, always wrong! Gen-ocide is always wrong, even when you’re jewish!” … … (So I’m not a great lyricist, I’ll admit that.)
deleted by creator