Trump : Palestinians, please move out of GAZA. We (USA) will clean it up and make it the Riviera of the middle east. Then you can come back.

[Valcazar]

That’s called the False Dilemma Fallacy.

But there is no false dilemma being posed here.
You made the positive case for Trump in post 330.

The fact is that Genocide Joe and Holocaust Harris are not Hitler lite…..they are Hitler. It’s Trump that’s currently Hitler lite….he didn’t carry an apocalyptic genocide. T

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

You don’t know much about Middle East history. If you did, your post would embarrass you.

I didn't ask about wars.
I asked about terror attacks such as October 7, that exceeded or equaled October 7 in magnitude.

 

[Klatuu]

But there is no false dilemma being posed here.
You made the positive case for Trump in post 330.

No, just stating facts. Genocide Joe and Holocaust Harris were co-architects of the apocalyptic genocide. Trump had nothing to do with that. Those are both facts. Given that, it’s easy to say who is Hitler and who is Hitler light.

 

[Klatuu]

I didn't ask about wars.
I asked about terror attacks such as October 7, that exceeded or equaled October 7 in magnitude.

Responses like this just underscore your lack of knowledge of Middle East history.

 

[Leimonis]

I dont believe that Trump's plan will work but if it will and Gazans would lose Gaza it will be the most profound FAFO in modern history

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Responses like this just underscore your lack of knowledge of Middle East history.

Its interesting how you never express your knowledge of Middle East history.
Maybe there isn't much knowledge there as much as mental gymnastics with no regard for what is actually better for your cause.

 

[Valcazar]

No, just stating facts. Genocide Joe and Holocaust Harris were co-architects of the apocalyptic genocide. Trump had nothing to do with that. Those are both facts. Given that, it’s easy to say who is Hitler and who is Hitler light.

Which, in the discussion we were having, is a positive argument for Trump as we are arguing that Hitler-lite is a better result than Hitler.

 

[Klatuu]

Which, in the discussion we were having, is a positive argument for Trump as we are arguing that Hitler-lite is a better result than Hitler.

To you that’s what it means. For me it means that it would be impossible to vote for any individual or party that enabled an apocalyptic genocide. Nor would I vote for Trump for a variety of reasons.

Both are unsupportable. Genocide Joe and Holocaust Harris should rot in hell. Trump hasn’t done anything like that but he’s on his way to hell as well

Hence the False Dilemma Fallacy.

 

[Valcazar]

To you that’s what it means. For me it means that it would be impossible to vote for any individual or party that enabled an apocalyptic genocide. Nor would I vote for Trump for a variety of reasons.

Both are unsupportable. Genocide Joe and Holocaust Harris should rot in hell. Trump hasn’t done anything like that but he’s on his way to hell as well

Hence the False Dilemma Fallacy.

Indeed, this gets directly to our differing views of what voting means.
If you view voting is about expressing/demonstrating a moral opinion, then saying there are only two choices is indeed a false dilemma.
If you view voting as selecting a government, then since there were only two viable winners, it isn't a false dilemma at all.

 

[Klatuu]

Indeed, this gets directly to our differing views of what voting means.
If you view voting is about expressing/demonstrating a moral opinion, then saying there are only two choices is indeed a false dilemma.
If you view voting as selecting a government, then since there were only two viable winners, it isn't a false dilemma at all.

You repeat the False Dilemma Fallacy again with your two voting models. There is no binary choice - voters can vote for any number of parties or candidates, write in a candidate, spoil their ballot or choose not to vote at all. They make protest votes on a myriad of issues. They vote for values sometimes They sometimes vote on moral grounds. They vote on local issues or national or international ones. They vote on personal likes or dislikes of individual candidates. Sometimes people don’t vote to signify their unhappiness with the choices or process - if enough people do that it puts the legitimacy of the election in question. Sometimes people don’t vote because nothing the parties offer has any significance to them. Sometimes people vote on what government will do for them and what government will do to others in their name.

Most people probably vote or don’t vote based on some combination of the above. But when people vote or don’t vote it’s about more than government, it’s about how they are governed and that is intrinsically connected to the social contract. Don’t listen or violate the social contract and you will lose votes

 

[shack]

It keeps you morally pure.

Nobody can criticize for casting a vote for a side that is evil or corrupt.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

You repeat the False Dilemma Fallacy again with your two voting models. There is no binary choice - voters can vote for any number of parties or candidates, write in a candidate, spoil their ballot or choose not to vote at all. They make protest votes on a myriad of issues. They vote for values sometimes They sometimes vote on moral grounds. They vote on local issues or national or international ones. They vote on personal likes or dislikes of individual candidates. Sometimes people don’t vote to signify their unhappiness with the choices or process - if enough people do that it puts the legitimacy of the election in question. Sometimes people don’t vote because nothing the parties offer has any significance to them. Sometimes people vote on what government will do for them and what government will do to others in their name.

Most people probably vote or don’t vote based on some combination of the above. But when people vote or don’t vote it’s about more than government, it’s about how they are governed and that is intrinsically connected to the social contract. Don’t listen or violate the social contract and you will lose votes

That assumes the voter is uninterested in the result of the election, is not influenced by the consequences of their choice and only interested in issues that concern them.
While some may vote that way, most vote for a result even if they disagree on a few policies.

 

[shack]

You have real trouble holding Genocide Joe and Holocaust Harris responsible for what they have wrought.

Having a discussion of who is responsible is a totally different matter.

Your (extremely biased) opinion does not make it an objective fact. Since you've admitted that you hate Ziontologists (a moronic made up word that means absolutely nothing other than the study of Zionts--LOLOLOLOL) so much and you think that Israel is a piece of shit nation, you have obviously disqualified yourself from any such discussion.

 

[Valcazar]

Nobody can criticize for casting a vote for a side that is evil or corrupt.

That's the logic they would like to go with, yes.
They didn't sully themselves, so they are blameless for anything that happens going forward.

It's the "there is no duty to assist" approach.

 

[shack]

Which is why I asked you earlier what you'd have expected the US to do after October 7.
And if there was any attack in the past that equaled or exceeded the October 7 attack in magnitude.
You are holding on to an oversimplified narrative and your expectations of what the US should have done seems naive.
So Hamas attacks and kills 1200 Israelis, Israel responds and you'd have expected the US, an extremely close ally of Israel to pull support for Israel and ask them to stand down?
Trump had the benefit of coming to power when Biden negotiated the ceasefire.
But you'd still hold him above Biden, even with his history of signing EOs to ban Muslim entry into the US, advocate for creating Muslim registries, and his calls for ethnic cleansing in peace time?
Is there any doubt that, not 45000, but perhaps 90000 could have died if Trump was in power on October 7, followed by an ethnic cleansing?

You have perfectly pointed out what an irrational and illogical stance he is taking. It defies comprehension. I think you've helped him see the light of day.

Good post.

 

[Valcazar]

You repeat the False Dilemma Fallacy again with your two voting models.

You only think that because you do not accept the "you are picking a government" model.

There is no binary choice - voters can vote for any number of parties or candidates, write in a candidate, spoil their ballot or choose not to vote at all. They make protest votes on a myriad of issues. They vote for values sometimes They sometimes vote on moral grounds. They vote on local issues or national or international ones. They vote on personal likes or dislikes of individual candidates. Sometimes people don’t vote to signify their unhappiness with the choices or process - if enough people do that it puts the legitimacy of the election in question. Sometimes people don’t vote because nothing the parties offer has any significance to them. Sometimes people vote on what government will do for them and what government will do to others in their name.

Most people probably vote or don’t vote based on some combination of the above. But when people vote or don’t vote it’s about more than government, it’s about how they are governed and that is intrinsically connected to the social contract. Don’t listen or violate the social contract and you will lose votes

Yes, all of that is the "My vote is a moral statement" model.
You take that as a given (after all, it is how it normally sold to people about why voting is important, so that's common).

But the US works under a system where that is at odds with the reality of voting.

 

[shack]

That’s called the False Dilemma Fallacy.

Actually, I think that you have a real dilemma.

 

[shack]

Both are unsupportable.

Which brings us back to the same point. And that is, what trump is proposing, the utter and total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, is much more than what Israel was able to accomplish and a worse outcome for Palestinians. And you think that that is less evil than what Biden, Harris and Israel did.

 

[danmand]

Which brings us back to the same point. And that is, what trump is proposing, the utter and total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, is much more than what Israel was able to accomplish and a worse outcome for Palestinians. And you think that that is less evil than what Biden, Harris and Israel did.

Only - and only - because Trump has not done it yet.

 

[bver_hunter]

I can do it just like you did.

I condemn Israel killing Gazans but they were justified because of the Oct.7 attack by hamas. Are you cool with that?

Then what is your issue in the first place when I condemned both Hamas for the Oct 7th killings as well as The Israeli killings of over 60,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children?
But I have not come across anyone condemning an act of killings and then stating in the same sentence that they were "justified" for it!!