Don't Look Up
-
This post did not contain any content.
"AAAHHH! Hamas are attacking... Doncaster?"
-
That's fish.
TIL. Flying fish or...? How do they reach the chicken eggs?
-
Jesus, how can you read that fascist slop without vomitting:
The residents of the Israeli border communities expected periodic rocket attacks after Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007. They accepted the danger as the price of country life in a tight knit community which still had traces of the pioneer spirit of early Zionist communities.
The article is full of horrific stuff like this.
The paragliders were used to attack Israeli military bases.
You made this comment implying that paragliders were not used to attack civilian targets. Which is not true and was very easy to verify. I choose to provide a link from the BBC as it is rated as high credible and close to centre.
Jesus, how can you read that fascist slop without vomitting
Because I am capable of critically reading an article without blindly internalizing it's contents.
But back to my original point, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets. This fact does not excuse any of the IDF's atrocities.
-
The paragliders were used to attack Israeli military bases.
You made this comment implying that paragliders were not used to attack civilian targets. Which is not true and was very easy to verify. I choose to provide a link from the BBC as it is rated as high credible and close to centre.
Jesus, how can you read that fascist slop without vomitting
Because I am capable of critically reading an article without blindly internalizing it's contents.
But back to my original point, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets. This fact does not excuse any of the IDF's atrocities.
And you said that "paragliders attacked small villages" which even even your pro-genocide suck-job excuse of an article doesn't actually reach the point of claiming.
I choose to provide a link from the BBC as it is rated as high credible and close to centre.
If you read that article and say "yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre", you are a fascist.
Because I am capable of critically reading an article without blindly internalizing it’s contents.
Clearly not, given you claimed it as "high credible and close to centre." Do you also go around 'critically reading' other openly fascist news sources?
This fact does not excuse any of the IDF’s atrocities.
Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF's atrocities.
-
And you said that "paragliders attacked small villages" which even even your pro-genocide suck-job excuse of an article doesn't actually reach the point of claiming.
I choose to provide a link from the BBC as it is rated as high credible and close to centre.
If you read that article and say "yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre", you are a fascist.
Because I am capable of critically reading an article without blindly internalizing it’s contents.
Clearly not, given you claimed it as "high credible and close to centre." Do you also go around 'critically reading' other openly fascist news sources?
This fact does not excuse any of the IDF’s atrocities.
Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF's atrocities.
If you read that article and say “yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre”, you are a fascist.
I use independent media ratings to determine the leaning of news agencies. Check out Ground News if you’re interested in that kind of thing.
propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC
If you think BBC News is “far right” then you are in a media bubble. Critically read articles, especially from perspectives that don’t align with your views. It will help you understand the world.
But back to my original point before this side track, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets during the October 7th attacks.
-
If you read that article and say “yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre”, you are a fascist.
I use independent media ratings to determine the leaning of news agencies. Check out Ground News if you’re interested in that kind of thing.
propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC
If you think BBC News is “far right” then you are in a media bubble. Critically read articles, especially from perspectives that don’t align with your views. It will help you understand the world.
But back to my original point before this side track, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets during the October 7th attacks.
I use independent media ratings to determine the leaning of news agencies.
"Independent"? Independent of who? How does that make them reliable? If they're rating that Der-Sturmer tier genocide propaganda as "realiable and in the middle" then you should find a different ''independent media ratings".
If you think BBC News is “far right” then you are in a media bubble.
Right back at you, chief. If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn't far-right, you are in a media bubble.
Critically read articles
I do, which is how I can conclude that BBC is far right.
especially from perspectives that don’t align with your views. It will help you understand the world.
Right back at you, chief.
paragliders were used to attack civilian targets during the October 7th attacks.
Even your fascist article doesn't make that claim.
-
God damnit, stop making the case for eugenics already. Let RFK's absurd health advice do its thing, weed them out, and we can hand out the Darwin awards in a few years.
When I said no fixing I meant it. Not even genetic manipulation can fix this kind of stupid.
-
I use independent media ratings to determine the leaning of news agencies.
"Independent"? Independent of who? How does that make them reliable? If they're rating that Der-Sturmer tier genocide propaganda as "realiable and in the middle" then you should find a different ''independent media ratings".
If you think BBC News is “far right” then you are in a media bubble.
Right back at you, chief. If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn't far-right, you are in a media bubble.
Critically read articles
I do, which is how I can conclude that BBC is far right.
especially from perspectives that don’t align with your views. It will help you understand the world.
Right back at you, chief.
paragliders were used to attack civilian targets during the October 7th attacks.
Even your fascist article doesn't make that claim.
Even your fascist article doesn’t make that claim.
If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.
There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith. You made a comment that implied that paragliders were not used to attack villagers in your initial post. That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down. To be clear, you can agree that paragliders were used to attack villager AND be against the IDFs genocide in Gaza. Don’t make the truth the enemy when it’s inconvenient.
What news agencies do you trust?
-
Even your fascist article doesn’t make that claim.
If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.
There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith. You made a comment that implied that paragliders were not used to attack villagers in your initial post. That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down. To be clear, you can agree that paragliders were used to attack villager AND be against the IDFs genocide in Gaza. Don’t make the truth the enemy when it’s inconvenient.
What news agencies do you trust?
If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.
So you've Motte-and-Baillied your way from "gliders were used to attack small villages" to "gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets" to "a para-glider was referenced in this article". Maybe you should work on your own critical thinking skills before pulling out this insults.
There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith.
You know what is actually a bad faith logical fallacy? Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had "so many logical fallacies" in their comments (without actually bothering to identify any of them). Specifically Proof by Assertion, Fallacy Fallacy, and Ad-hominem. I know reddit liberals like yourself have been trained to employ the phrase "logical fallacy" like some kind of magical incantation that lets you declare yourself correct without having to actually address anyone who disagrees with you, but you actually do still have to substantiate the point.
If you actually think that I'm not arguing in good faith, you would simply stop replying, and maybe report me. The fact that you are not doing that suggests that you don't actually believe that and are using the accusation vexatiously.
That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down.
Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it's true; you can't just declare it to be true.
What news agencies do you trust?
As someone who has repeatedly talked about "reading critically" you should probably know that it's not a matter of blanket trusting any whole agency, you should read closely enough to: 1. Determine the article's biases, and 2. Determine where the claims of of fact are actually coming from. You should definitely be hesitant to trust an article from a source that has a history of fierce pro-genocide support, is getting all of the claims of fact directly from IDF stormtroopers, and engages in some of the most obscenely blatant editorializing in what is ostensibly supposed to be a news article that I have ever seen.
-
If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.
So you've Motte-and-Baillied your way from "gliders were used to attack small villages" to "gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets" to "a para-glider was referenced in this article". Maybe you should work on your own critical thinking skills before pulling out this insults.
There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith.
You know what is actually a bad faith logical fallacy? Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had "so many logical fallacies" in their comments (without actually bothering to identify any of them). Specifically Proof by Assertion, Fallacy Fallacy, and Ad-hominem. I know reddit liberals like yourself have been trained to employ the phrase "logical fallacy" like some kind of magical incantation that lets you declare yourself correct without having to actually address anyone who disagrees with you, but you actually do still have to substantiate the point.
If you actually think that I'm not arguing in good faith, you would simply stop replying, and maybe report me. The fact that you are not doing that suggests that you don't actually believe that and are using the accusation vexatiously.
That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down.
Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it's true; you can't just declare it to be true.
What news agencies do you trust?
As someone who has repeatedly talked about "reading critically" you should probably know that it's not a matter of blanket trusting any whole agency, you should read closely enough to: 1. Determine the article's biases, and 2. Determine where the claims of of fact are actually coming from. You should definitely be hesitant to trust an article from a source that has a history of fierce pro-genocide support, is getting all of the claims of fact directly from IDF stormtroopers, and engages in some of the most obscenely blatant editorializing in what is ostensibly supposed to be a news article that I have ever seen.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Sure, I'll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you've committed in this thread.
1. Ad Hominem
Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself.
Quote:
“If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”
Formal Logic:
(I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist) Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced.
2. Genetic Fallacy
Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content.
Quote:
“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”
Formal Logic:
(Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬CYou reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made.
3. Motte and Bailey
Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged.
Quote:
“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”
Formal Logic:
Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians” You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza” Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article” Then argue: ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬PIt's a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes!
4. Fallacy Fallacy
Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false.
Quote:
“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’...”
Formal Logic:
(∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A) Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians).
5. Begging the Question
Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning.
Quote (from your rebuttal):
“Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.”
“That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…”Formal Logic:
(You assume: ¬P) Then argue: ¬P \[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”]You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.
6. Poisoning the Well
Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously.
Quote:
“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?”
“If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”Formal Logic:
Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments.
edit: fixing formatting
