If you overload the premise, it’s not exactly analyzing anything of value.
This is the first time you’ve said anything close to an argument of why you reject my hypothetical that isn’t just rejecting hypotheticals altogether, so I’ll address it. I didn’t overload the premise. I literally changed one thing: I made it about the Holocaust instead of Gaza. That’s it. How does doing that “overload the premise?”
Your hypothetical was asking a loaded and incriminating question regardless of how I answered it.
Yes! If would incriminate you either way, because it forced you to either double down on what you had said and say that the Holocaust was justified, or contradict what you had said and say that the Holocaust wasn’t justified. The only reason you were in that situation was that you said shit that would also justify the Holocaust if it was valid. That’s your fault for painting yourself into that corner by using arguments that would justify the Holocaust! It’s not somehow my fault for pointing out that your arguments would also justify the Holocaust.
Just because a hypothetical makes you look bad doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
This is the first time you’ve said anything close to an argument of why you reject my hypothetical that isn’t just rejecting hypotheticals altogether, so I’ll address it. I didn’t overload the premise. I literally changed one thing: I made it about the Holocaust instead of Gaza. That’s it. How does doing that “overload the premise?”
Nah, don’t play stupid. Your entire fucking hypothetical rested on what a Nazi would say, by literally feeding it my words taken out of context and ignoring my explanation for why I had said what I said from the beginning.
t’s not somehow my fault for pointing out that your arguments would also justify the Holocaust.
Where the fuck do you get this idea that I’m justifying the Holocaust or any genocide at all?? Hello? Why is this a thing we have to discuss and for me to defend? Your entire exercise is so stupid because it doesn’t lead to anything other than setting up a trap. You’re not arguing in good faith. And somehow it’s my fault for not accepting it. You’re delusional.
Just because a hypothetical makes you look bad doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
It’s stupid because it’s so far removed from what we’re actually discussing. You want to have a certain conversation on your own terms without realizing how divorced it is from the main point that matters. And I know you’re doing that shit on purpose because it doesn’t matter what I say, but how you try to make me look. Eat shit.
Where the fuck do you get this idea that I’m justifying the Holocaust or any genocide at all?? Hello? Why is this a thing we have to discuss and for me to defend?
BECAUSE IF A LINE OF LOGIC IS VALID IN ONE CASE OF GENOCIDE THEN IT IS EQUALLY VALID REGARDING OTHER GENOCIDES!
Who the fuck is talking about genocides? Only you. I gave you an explicit example where I literally removed the word genocide from the sentence to explain my meta-comment, and it’s been nothing but genocide on your part.
Then you’re all Pikachu-face confused when it turns out that I’m well-read on genocide and that I denounce it freely.
Why? Because you actively have not been fucking listening. All you want is a pissing contest. Asshole.
Both you, and the person you originally replied to.
I gave you an explicit example where I literally removed the word genocide from the sentence to explain my meta-comment,
You attempted to minimize genocide by suggesting that being pro- or anti-genocide was merely a matter of personal preference an abhorrent and repugnant thing that you keep coming back to for some reason, as if it wasn’t abhorrent and repugnant.
Then you’re all Pikachu-face confused when it turns out that I’m well-read on genocide and that I denounce it freely.
Then why couldn’t you earlier? Why couldn’t you “freely denounce the Holocaust” when I asked if a particular line of logic would justify it?
“Yes, genocide is bad. Yes, genocide should be fought. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans have blood on their hands. And yet that doesn’t mean everything is genocide. Move the fuck on. The world is big, and there are a million other things at play.”
Funny how I keep circling back to this one single post. What more do you want?
Both you, and the person you originally replied to.
My comment was on the topic of genocide you two are hyper-fixating on. I was very clear on this and I clarified very early on. You chose not to listen. You still choose not to listen and now pretend you’re surprised.
You attempted to minimize genocide
You PRETEND I do so you could have an excuse to clutch your pearls and get people on your side. What a better way to vilify the other person than to accuse them of being *gasp* pro-genocide? You know damn well you can get people on your side that way who are cruising Lemmy on autopilot. I can see right through you.
Then why couldn’t you earlier?
Why should I if that was not the topic? That was your loaded topic. You want me to jump through your fucking hoops and I don’t have to. You keep hyper-fixating on the holocaust because it’s an easy way for you to get your fucking upvotes while trying to make others look bad and win your arguments. This is nothing but a game to you.
Face it, you don’t care about the genocide at all, you only care about winning. You’re not genuine, you only want to bicker.
Yes, that’s what I said, you were talking about genocide.
You PRETEND
Why do you keep saying this? Are you a mind-reader? I haven’t “pretended” a single thing this conversation. I genuinely, 100% believe that you were minimizing genocide. I’m not aware of any other possible interpretation of what you said.
Why should I if that was not the topic?
It seems like it would’ve been really fucking easy to say “No, that wouldn’t justify the Holocaust” and then explain whatever other interpretation supposedly exists for what you said, instead of playing this game where you refuse to answer and then answer like 20 comments later in a different thread.
Yes, that’s what I said, you were talking about genocide.
Do you know what meta is? Did you know that you can describe the concept of a topic and aspects of said topic without necessarily going into it? Because I clearly was talking about the hyper-fixation people have on the genocide as a topic. Do I need to link it again?
Yes, genocide is bad, yada yada yada, but there’s a time and place for everything, and using genocide for manipulating the public discourse as the other commenter was doing to rail against centrists and Democrats was a cheap shot and abusive. You can see what they were doing in their comment history. I referenced this earlier, and you said, “where can I find this??”
Ok? That’s the fucking topic. Not the genocide itself. Everything around the topic of genocide was the topic. Got it now?
Why do you keep saying this? Are you a mind-reader?
Because I refuse to believe you’re this dense. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re smart enough to understand, and that pretending not to understand is the next most logical conclusion, because what I’m saying is quite straightforward if you get what meta is.
I genuinely, 100% believe that you were minimizing genocide.
How?? I said the thing, I jumped through your hoop, I overexplained and keep overexplaining myself. Why is it so difficult to understand? Is it really that inconceivable?
It seems like it would’ve been really fucking easy to say “No, that wouldn’t justify the Holocaust”
No, you set up a trap. You don’t set up traps when you want straight answers. You ask directly what they mean rather than play stupid mind games that get people to second-guess your intentions.
instead of playing this game where you refuse to answer and then answer like 20 comments later in a different thread.
YOU dragged the conversation to c/memes. YOU wanted to “expose me” over here, “in front of the class”. We had a beautiful thing going on over there. This was a one-off comment because I found it funny. Oh, but now it’s my fault. lol…
Do you know what meta is? Did you know that you can describe the concept of a topic and aspects of said topic without necessarily going into it? Because I clearly was talking about the hyper-fixation people have on the genocide as a topic
And that is, itself, a statement about genocide. Saying that people are “hyper-fixated” on genocide, and that they shouldn’t be, that they should “move the fuck on” and that “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” is saying that genocide isn’t that big of a deal actually, that it’s just a matter of preference, like whether you like waffles or pancakes.
The fact is that genocide is a moral abomination and people are perfectly right to “fixate” on it, because that’s what you do when something abominable is happening in front of you. If I see somebody pull out a gun and start shooting people, and start complaining that everybody is “hyper-fixated” on the shooter and that they shouldn’t be, then I am making a statement about the shooting and how significant it is. This isn’t hard to understand.
Because I refuse to believe you’re this dense. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re smart enough to understand,
Right, you’re “giving me the benefit of the doubt” by saying that I’m lying.
How?? I said the thing, I jumped through your hoop, I overexplained and keep overexplaining myself. Why is it so difficult to understand? Is it really that inconceivable?
Now you did. I said that you were minimizing genocide. Now, I think you have a completely incoherent and self-contradictory position.
No, you set up a trap. You don’t set up traps when you want straight answers.
Brother, it was not a “trap.” I even did you the courtesy of explaining the implications of both of your possible responses. What kind of “trap-setter” explains their trap?
I asked you a very simple, staightforward, and perfectly fair hypothetical. I did not realize that you don’t understand how hypotheticals worked, or that a hypothetical apparently killed your family or something to the point that you would take this much offense over it. Again, just because a hypothetical makes your position look bad, that is not sufficient reason to reject it. That’s just like, how arguments work, on a very fundamental level.
YOU dragged the conversation to c/memes. YOU wanted to “expose me” over here, “in front of the class”.
This is the first time you’ve said anything close to an argument of why you reject my hypothetical that isn’t just rejecting hypotheticals altogether, so I’ll address it. I didn’t overload the premise. I literally changed one thing: I made it about the Holocaust instead of Gaza. That’s it. How does doing that “overload the premise?”
Yes! If would incriminate you either way, because it forced you to either double down on what you had said and say that the Holocaust was justified, or contradict what you had said and say that the Holocaust wasn’t justified. The only reason you were in that situation was that you said shit that would also justify the Holocaust if it was valid. That’s your fault for painting yourself into that corner by using arguments that would justify the Holocaust! It’s not somehow my fault for pointing out that your arguments would also justify the Holocaust.
Just because a hypothetical makes you look bad doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
Nah, don’t play stupid. Your entire fucking hypothetical rested on what a Nazi would say, by literally feeding it my words taken out of context and ignoring my explanation for why I had said what I said from the beginning.
Where the fuck do you get this idea that I’m justifying the Holocaust or any genocide at all?? Hello? Why is this a thing we have to discuss and for me to defend? Your entire exercise is so stupid because it doesn’t lead to anything other than setting up a trap. You’re not arguing in good faith. And somehow it’s my fault for not accepting it. You’re delusional.
It’s stupid because it’s so far removed from what we’re actually discussing. You want to have a certain conversation on your own terms without realizing how divorced it is from the main point that matters. And I know you’re doing that shit on purpose because it doesn’t matter what I say, but how you try to make me look. Eat shit.
BECAUSE IF A LINE OF LOGIC IS VALID IN ONE CASE OF GENOCIDE THEN IT IS EQUALLY VALID REGARDING OTHER GENOCIDES!
Who the fuck is talking about genocides? Only you. I gave you an explicit example where I literally removed the word genocide from the sentence to explain my meta-comment, and it’s been nothing but genocide on your part.
Then you’re all Pikachu-face confused when it turns out that I’m well-read on genocide and that I denounce it freely.
Why? Because you actively have not been fucking listening. All you want is a pissing contest. Asshole.
https://lemmy.world/post/40389131/21129741
Both you, and the person you originally replied to.
You attempted to minimize genocide by suggesting that being pro- or anti-genocide was merely a matter of personal preference an abhorrent and repugnant thing that you keep coming back to for some reason, as if it wasn’t abhorrent and repugnant.
Then why couldn’t you earlier? Why couldn’t you “freely denounce the Holocaust” when I asked if a particular line of logic would justify it?
Also, btw, I did:
“Yes, genocide is bad. Yes, genocide should be fought. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans have blood on their hands. And yet that doesn’t mean everything is genocide. Move the fuck on. The world is big, and there are a million other things at play.”
Funny how I keep circling back to this one single post. What more do you want?
My comment was on the topic of genocide you two are hyper-fixating on. I was very clear on this and I clarified very early on. You chose not to listen. You still choose not to listen and now pretend you’re surprised.
You PRETEND I do so you could have an excuse to clutch your pearls and get people on your side. What a better way to vilify the other person than to accuse them of being *gasp* pro-genocide? You know damn well you can get people on your side that way who are cruising Lemmy on autopilot. I can see right through you.
Why should I if that was not the topic? That was your loaded topic. You want me to jump through your fucking hoops and I don’t have to. You keep hyper-fixating on the holocaust because it’s an easy way for you to get your fucking upvotes while trying to make others look bad and win your arguments. This is nothing but a game to you.
Face it, you don’t care about the genocide at all, you only care about winning. You’re not genuine, you only want to bicker.
Yes, that’s what I said, you were talking about genocide.
Why do you keep saying this? Are you a mind-reader? I haven’t “pretended” a single thing this conversation. I genuinely, 100% believe that you were minimizing genocide. I’m not aware of any other possible interpretation of what you said.
It seems like it would’ve been really fucking easy to say “No, that wouldn’t justify the Holocaust” and then explain whatever other interpretation supposedly exists for what you said, instead of playing this game where you refuse to answer and then answer like 20 comments later in a different thread.
Do you know what meta is? Did you know that you can describe the concept of a topic and aspects of said topic without necessarily going into it? Because I clearly was talking about the hyper-fixation people have on the genocide as a topic. Do I need to link it again?
Yes, genocide is bad, yada yada yada, but there’s a time and place for everything, and using genocide for manipulating the public discourse as the other commenter was doing to rail against centrists and Democrats was a cheap shot and abusive. You can see what they were doing in their comment history. I referenced this earlier, and you said, “where can I find this??”
Ok? That’s the fucking topic. Not the genocide itself. Everything around the topic of genocide was the topic. Got it now?
Because I refuse to believe you’re this dense. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re smart enough to understand, and that pretending not to understand is the next most logical conclusion, because what I’m saying is quite straightforward if you get what meta is.
How?? I said the thing, I jumped through your hoop, I overexplained and keep overexplaining myself. Why is it so difficult to understand? Is it really that inconceivable?
No, you set up a trap. You don’t set up traps when you want straight answers. You ask directly what they mean rather than play stupid mind games that get people to second-guess your intentions.
YOU dragged the conversation to c/memes. YOU wanted to “expose me” over here, “in front of the class”. We had a beautiful thing going on over there. This was a one-off comment because I found it funny. Oh, but now it’s my fault. lol…
And that is, itself, a statement about genocide. Saying that people are “hyper-fixated” on genocide, and that they shouldn’t be, that they should “move the fuck on” and that “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” is saying that genocide isn’t that big of a deal actually, that it’s just a matter of preference, like whether you like waffles or pancakes.
The fact is that genocide is a moral abomination and people are perfectly right to “fixate” on it, because that’s what you do when something abominable is happening in front of you. If I see somebody pull out a gun and start shooting people, and start complaining that everybody is “hyper-fixated” on the shooter and that they shouldn’t be, then I am making a statement about the shooting and how significant it is. This isn’t hard to understand.
Right, you’re “giving me the benefit of the doubt” by saying that I’m lying.
Now you did. I said that you were minimizing genocide. Now, I think you have a completely incoherent and self-contradictory position.
Brother, it was not a “trap.” I even did you the courtesy of explaining the implications of both of your possible responses. What kind of “trap-setter” explains their trap?
I asked you a very simple, staightforward, and perfectly fair hypothetical. I did not realize that you don’t understand how hypotheticals worked, or that a hypothetical apparently killed your family or something to the point that you would take this much offense over it. Again, just because a hypothetical makes your position look bad, that is not sufficient reason to reject it. That’s just like, how arguments work, on a very fundamental level.
Who do you even think you’re fooling?