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
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.)
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