literally saying there’s no solution that isn’t worse than doing what the current administration is doing
That’s the strawman - at no point did I make that argument.
I didn’t say all possible actions are pointless, nor that I agree with how the US is handling it - which is increasingly poorly for a very long time.
I merely disagreed with your proposal in detail and asked you to defend it if you were so convinced of it.
Pointing out that cutting our nose to spite our face is a bad policy, and will do worse than fuck all to help anyone, does not equal agreement with the administration, the US or Israel or anyone or doing nothing.
I merely disagreed with your proposal in detail and asked you to defend it if you were so convinced of it.
So you’re just strawmanning me? Because at no point have I made a “proposal”.
What position do you want me to defend? So far my position has been that the US should be doing more to apply pressure to Israel.
How do you disagree with that WITHOUT taking the stance that any other action would lead to a worse outcome?
Pointing out that cutting our nose to spite our face is a bad policy
Again, what is this hypothetical cutting of the nose?
If you say that doing anything more than what the US is currently doing will “do worse than fuck all”, how is that not an endorsement of that policy? You’re saying it’s the best option.
You are right, “proposal” was overstating it, and a strawman.
Let’s see here:
It’s just pretty obvious that you don’t make a real effort to prevent a state completing it’s genocide before you stop supplying them with arms.
Up to now what you put forward twice was a purity test.
I thought the test was tantamount to a specific proposal: to stop the arms supply - but apparently you say it’s not, and you want to play the definition game now, or just a frustrated “no you”.
So far my position has been that the US should be doing more to apply pressure to Israel.
Maybe that’s your underlying motivation, which I agree with.
How do you disagree with that WITHOUT taking the stance that any other action would lead to a worse outcome?
I didn’t disagree with doing more.
And I didn’t say that any other action will lead to a worse outcome.
You keep on performing the same fallacy and ascribing me motivations I don’t have.
I disagreed with the non-proposal of stopping the arms right now as a minimum first step.
Again, what is this hypothetical cutting of the nose?
It’s clearly the minimum action you mentioned in the litmus test.
If you say that doing anything more than what the US is currently doing
At this point I’m not sure we understand language the same way.
That’s the strawman - at no point did I make that argument.
I didn’t say all possible actions are pointless, nor that I agree with how the US is handling it - which is increasingly poorly for a very long time.
I merely disagreed with your proposal in detail and asked you to defend it if you were so convinced of it.
Pointing out that cutting our nose to spite our face is a bad policy, and will do worse than fuck all to help anyone, does not equal agreement with the administration, the US or Israel or anyone or doing nothing.
So you’re just strawmanning me? Because at no point have I made a “proposal”.
What position do you want me to defend? So far my position has been that the US should be doing more to apply pressure to Israel.
How do you disagree with that WITHOUT taking the stance that any other action would lead to a worse outcome?
Again, what is this hypothetical cutting of the nose?
If you say that doing anything more than what the US is currently doing will “do worse than fuck all”, how is that not an endorsement of that policy? You’re saying it’s the best option.
You are right, “proposal” was overstating it, and a strawman.
Let’s see here:
Up to now what you put forward twice was a purity test.
I thought the test was tantamount to a specific proposal: to stop the arms supply - but apparently you say it’s not, and you want to play the definition game now, or just a frustrated “no you”.
Maybe that’s your underlying motivation, which I agree with.
I didn’t disagree with doing more.
And I didn’t say that any other action will lead to a worse outcome.
You keep on performing the same fallacy and ascribing me motivations I don’t have.
I disagreed with the non-proposal of stopping the arms right now as a minimum first step.
It’s clearly the minimum action you mentioned in the litmus test.
At this point I’m not sure we understand language the same way.
I’m out.