What is your most embarrassing "ate the onion" moment?
What is your most embarrassing "ate the onion" moment?
A few days ago I shared some news that the Eurovision song from Israel would be named "Your land is mine now" to later realize it was from an onion kind of website, lol.
I hope I'm not alone in this kind of f'up.
You're viewing a single thread.
I like that you are passing off a clear case of your own unexamined antisemitism as a cute conversation starter.
Cool cool finger guns
Edit: anybody downvoting really should be obligated to explain how somebody falling for such a thing isn't an antisemite at worst or a pure moron at best.
Antisemitism is about hating jews because they're jews. That's completely separate from criticizing a nation for crimes against humanity. The first is a group of people with no central government, the second is an administrative entity with a military that is violating the Geneva convention in another country.
If they are so willing to believe something so utterly ridiculous. It doesn't paint the best picture for them.
Volkswagen gassed monkeys for the diesel emmisions testing scandal. The world is full of ridiculousness.
If you press a lot of the people you are getting your information from, you will in fact find they hate Jews for being Jews.
When you are claiming the world's oldest conspiracy, you have to start from the position of, "I not one of the other antisemites who has claimed this thousands of times over the years and always been wrong, it's true this time.
If you truly believe this far right conspiracy is true now, that's fine, but if you are at all wrong, you are the same kind of person who has always made this claim.
That's a conspiracy theory, not fact.
Yes, these claims against Jews have always been hateful conspiracy theories.
What makes this time different?
All of the evidence South Africa presented.
Video evidence of the systemic war crimes.
Written and video evidence of the multiple genocidal statements given by a large numbers of governmental figures, including Bibi himself.
What would you require to actually entertain the idea that just maybe Israel is trying to enact genocide?
You know my definition clearly now. You've made me repeat it 4 times now.
Clearly state what would be required for you to stop accusing people correctly pointing out genocide of antisemitism?
Your definition of genocide is just war crimes though.
You still haven't answered why you think that is, or what your definition is, or what you think the ICJ's definition is.
You should watch South Africa’s presentation:
https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3
And the courts findings yourself, and get your news from a primary source:
That is literally the first hit from google. I know you won’t read it, but you should.
You should also really watch South Africa’s presentation: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3
And the courts findings yourself, and get your news from a primary source: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1uwq4cxuv
You literally have no reading comprehension. You pressed me three times, and each time I responded with 'Any country that deals with a population it considers problematic by completely restricting access to food, medicine, and potable water is committing a genocide'
Each time you ignored that and tried to 'press' me again.
It's almost like you're looking for an answer you're not getting.
It's a yes or no question.
Are you willing to accept the ICJ's ruling when they ultimately reject your claim of genocide?
Not if the government in question is completely restricting access to food medicine and potable water to a population it considers problematic.
But, you certainly won't either. You certainly don't now that the ICJ has found Israel is plausibly committing genocide.
Plausible is what the recent case was about, if you actually read.
It was too determine if South Africa has standing, and if it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide for a full trial. As a result of its finding, it called on Israel to stop killing Palestinian civilians and to preserve evidence for the eventual trial.
Asking me if I will agree with their finding is pointless, as it will be years before the trial is finished.
So, now that you know that the ICJ has found it plausible, will you stop accusing people who claim Israel is committing genocide are antisemitic, or are you willing to admit that claim came solely from nationalism in bad faith?
You are using plausible to mean likely, i'm just wondering if the ICJ's quotes are using the word in the same way you are.
A problem I am having is whenever I ask for actual quotes and their context, i am either ghosted or bullied.
Do your own research. That was literally the point of the court hearing.
It's why they ordered Israel to preserve evidence.
Seriously, watch all three presentations. It's worth doing. Unless you don't want your obvious world view destroyed.
If you don't want to be `bullied' (although, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd use that word for people defending themselves from your accusations of antisemitism due to them pointing out a genocide), then don't attack people with the bad faith accusation of antisemitism.
You still haven't answered the question.
Come on, I answered yours. It's your turn.
What would it take for you to admit that recognizing a genocide isn't antisemitism?
If the ICJ stated genocide is likely happening, those quotes exist and would be used by you to bolster their case.
I think.you are essentially just makinf your argument on the vibe of your reading of the international.courts, and not what is documented. Am i correct?
That is literally the first hit from google. I know you won’t read it, but you should.
You should also really watch South Africa’s presentation: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3
And the courts findings yourself, and get your news from a primary source: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1uwq4cxuv
I think you are refusing to do any research on something you aren't willing to change your mind about. I think nothing would change your mind, so you didn't even bother watching any of the three parts of the hearing because you already knew what you would believe.
Your method of doing that is to never state a clear opinion, not engage in any logic, and respond to everything with questions.
I'll follow suit. What do you think the purpose of that hearing was, and what do you think the conclusion was for the hearing?
But, as per my previous paragraph, I'd bet you didn't even watch it.
I'm sorry you don't like the fact that I'm asking you questions regarding your claims instead of just arguing at you or outright accepting them without question. I imagine I can be frustrating when you are wanting one of those two options and I won't provide it.
But you are bringing forth accusations, millenia old accusations, and they should be examined.
As for what I think the conclusion of the hearings was, we have not concluded the proceedings whatsoever and anybody claiming determinations have been released is being dishonest.
I'm giving you every opportunity to discuss this without hyperbolism.