Comment by yosamino
3 days ago
If you are arguing in good faith, why are you not reading what you are arguing about.
The full quote is:
> excuse me if I don't take their word as to whom they're fighting for granted. Especially not after what they did in Gaza.
That claim is not as as absolute as you make it out. It does not mean "Israel is lying about everything". "Not taking for granted" just means not to assume everything is true without questioning it. It just means, as I put it earlier: there is an overt thing being said, but there is also the suspicion of an ulterior motive.
The comment then goes on to give you a reason to be suspicious which in this case is the destruction of Gaza along with the atrocities the Israelis committed and the well documented dehumanizing rhetoric that points to a hatred against Palestinians as a whole that exists in Israeli society.
That comment doesn't argue that "somehow all the terrorism doesn't matter" - it says, there is more to it than just terrorism.
I am not sure why you are calling this a "mysterious thing" or "absurd" or "bizarre" - if you read any zionist literature or follow any zionist discussions, online or offline, then that viewpoint is regularly being expressed.
Or if you need another clue that technology is used for oppression and not just defense, go look at the West Bank and the land theft that is taking place there and how that is implemented.
Look, if you want to have a good faith political argument you need to consider that the people who you are arguing against are not all just crazy and stupid and that you somehow are in possession of some information that they somehow are not. People have different reasons for arguing different positions.
If you do not in fact actually believe that another person is arguing something crazy and bizarre, but instead you are using this as a rhetorical trick, then that is the almost the definition if arguing in bad faith.
But if you do actually believe someone's claim is crazy, mysterious or absurd, simply because you are refusing to understand their argument, then you are not contributing to discussion, and you need to go back and try to understand how it is possible that someone could come to a different understanding of a situation than you. You don't have to agree with it, you just need to understand it's possible.
Edit: Check how apropos the news is today
> “Destroy the idea of an Arab terror state; finally, formally and practically cancel the cursed Oslo Accords and get on the path of sovereignty, while encouraging migration both from Gaza and from Judea and Samaria,” said Smotrich, using the biblical term for the West Bank. “There is no other long-term solution.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-next-government-shoul...
> If you are arguing in good faith, why are you not reading what you are arguing about
I literally just rebuked you for falsely accusing me of arguing in bad faith. You now falsely accuse me of failing to read.
I obviously read the comment. I literally quoted the comment in my reply.
> I literally quoted the comment in my reply.
You selectively quoted the comment in your reply, leaving out some crucial information in order to set up a straw man argument.
I just helpfully pointed this out to you, because you were asking why someone was accusing you of arguing in bad faith. You can do with that whatever you wish.
If you are interested in why it's easy to recognize your way or arguing ( and I just want to note that it was not me who accused you of 'bad faith' argumentation in the first place), I can recommend Schopenhauer's "Die Kunst Recht zu behalten"[0] - your original
> To be clear, do you think it's bad to use technology to detect and stop terrorism?
shows up there as Chapter 7 "Yield Admissions Through Questions" among others.
You will note that I gave you an entire explanation to your specific assertions instead of just pointing to some book.
The thing about that is, though, that it's a bit boring sometimes because It often seems like every thought has already been though before. We humans seem to like to go in a circle. Just like the two us are doing right now.
I hope you have great rest of the week.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
> You selectively quoted the comment in your reply, leaving out some crucial information in order to set up a straw man argument.
You are wrong again. I quoted the comment as "he wouldn't take their word as to whom they're fighting" to highlight how the comment is denying that Israel is fighting terrorism. It is quite simple. There is no crucial information to be left out. Also it doesn't make sense to call that a "straw man argument" given that I simply repeated his comment and highlighted why it was absurd.
> I just helpfully pointed this out to you, because ...
Oh yeah, you were so helpful!