Oooh, so Kamala is playing 5D chess and will do an about-face on Biden’s genocide policy when she enters office? Because her past record is so stellar on this issue? Like that time she had wine from an illegal settlement served at the White House? She and her boss wipe their ass with the rule of all and all pretensions of even basic human morality on an international level, but she’s not Trump!
Strawman much? Or are you arguing with voices I can’t hear?
Edit: Y’know what? I’m curious. How do you envision her coming out against Israel going? Let’s hear your version of how things would go, because I can’t hear these arguments as anything other than “I support Trump.”
So please, enlighten me as to how this would go down without Trump being elected and making the situation worse.
Do you think you’re on The West Wing or something? You’ll have your curiosity sated when you learn to step out of the Blue MAGA bubble and engage with reality.
Stating what I take the arguments as, is absolutely not a strawman. At no point did I say “you are stating that you want Trump to win, why would you say that?”
If you need me to define strawman arguments, I can. But it might be better if you just googled it instead.
Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.
Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.
Pot calling the kettle black a bit aren’t ya?
And no, you didn’t commit a classical literal strawman, but then again neither was the argument you threw the same accusations at. More accurately, they were begging the question, with the assumed conclusion being we all agree genocide is bad and therefore should be stopped. And that if Kamala does not commit to stopping (or at least mitigating) the genocide before the election, she is very unlikely to do it after. A point you are constantly avoiding to maintain your false dichotomy that the only two options are full support for the genocide, or Trump in the Whitehouse.
And since you were misusing the strawman fallacy, I didn’t think you would be a stickler for its definition.
Regardless, it was just so unbelievably hypocritical of you to (incorrectly) accuse them of strawmanning your argument and in the same comment attempt to reduced the value of their argument to “supporting Trump” just to strengthen your unsupported conclusion. I just couldn’t resist pointing it out. Next time I’ll be sure to assume you can’t read between the lines and spell everything out for you.
Now, you are free to go back to shoving your head up your hole and going “lalalala” when ever anyone mentions the United State’s role in the ongoing genocide. Just remember to have a big frown on your face when it’s brought up so everyone knows it wasn’t your fault.
Oooh, so Kamala is playing 5D chess and will do an about-face on Biden’s genocide policy when she enters office? Because her past record is so stellar on this issue? Like that time she had wine from an illegal settlement served at the White House? She and her boss wipe their ass with the rule of all and all pretensions of even basic human morality on an international level, but she’s not Trump!
Strawman much? Or are you arguing with voices I can’t hear?
Edit: Y’know what? I’m curious. How do you envision her coming out against Israel going? Let’s hear your version of how things would go, because I can’t hear these arguments as anything other than “I support Trump.”
So please, enlighten me as to how this would go down without Trump being elected and making the situation worse.
Do you think you’re on The West Wing or something? You’ll have your curiosity sated when you learn to step out of the Blue MAGA bubble and engage with reality.
🤦♂️ That isn’t a strawman.
No, of course not, it’s just saying their argument is something that it isn’t. I swear there is a term for that.
To be fair, I get it. Because I can’t hear your arguments as anything other than “I support genocide”.
Stating what I take the arguments as, is absolutely not a strawman. At no point did I say “you are stating that you want Trump to win, why would you say that?”
If you need me to define strawman arguments, I can. But it might be better if you just googled it instead.
Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.
Pot calling the kettle black a bit aren’t ya?
And no, you didn’t commit a classical literal strawman, but then again neither was the argument you threw the same accusations at. More accurately, they were begging the question, with the assumed conclusion being we all agree genocide is bad and therefore should be stopped. And that if Kamala does not commit to stopping (or at least mitigating) the genocide before the election, she is very unlikely to do it after. A point you are constantly avoiding to maintain your false dichotomy that the only two options are full support for the genocide, or Trump in the Whitehouse.
And since you were misusing the strawman fallacy, I didn’t think you would be a stickler for its definition.
Regardless, it was just so unbelievably hypocritical of you to (incorrectly) accuse them of strawmanning your argument and in the same comment attempt to reduced the value of their argument to “supporting Trump” just to strengthen your unsupported conclusion. I just couldn’t resist pointing it out. Next time I’ll be sure to assume you can’t read between the lines and spell everything out for you.
Now, you are free to go back to shoving your head up your hole and going “lalalala” when ever anyone mentions the United State’s role in the ongoing genocide. Just remember to have a big frown on your face when it’s brought up so everyone knows it wasn’t your fault.
It is. The Biden administration does not have a policy to, nor are they, committing genocide. No one is arguing that they should.
That clearly fits the definition:
… what?
“genocide policy”? The talking points are so transparent at this point.