I’ve not posted in there for a while either.The Var thread.
I’ve condemned the Israeli government on numerous occasions. Just seeing if the poster I was quoting was being a hypocrite.Yet you refuse to go anywhere near condemnation of stuff we have been seeing live on the telly. Fucking laughable
Do you go around asking everyone if they have hypocritical views whenever they post something or is it just in this specific circumstance? If it's just this specific circumstance, why this topic and that particular poster?I’ve condemned the Israeli government on numerous occasions. Just seeing if the poster I was quoting was being a hypocrite.
That particular poster said it makes him sick when people refuse to condemn “this genocide” so I think it’s only fair to ask him if he also condemns the mass murder that immediately preceded it.Do you go around asking everyone if they have hypocritical views whenever they post something or is it just in this specific circumstance? If it's just this specific circumstance, why this topic and that particular poster?
So whenever we condemn something we now also have to condemn everything else we disagree with that may be directly related to it as well in case people think we are in favour of those things? It might make posts on here a bit long. Whenever I commented on the invasion of Iraq following the WMD allegations should I have included a line in every post condemning the 9/11 attacks just in case someone couldn't cognitively detach one thing from the other?That particular poster said it makes him sick when people refuse to condemn “this genocide” so I think it’s only fair to ask him if he also condemns the mass murder that immediately preceded it.
It’s not that difficult to understand my point if you try.
I think you’re addressing your post to the wrong person. He was the one saying that it made him sick when people don’t criticise “the genocide”.So whenever we condemn something we now also have to condemn everything else we disagree with that may be directly related to it as well in case people think we are in favour of those things? It might make posts on here a bit long. Whenever I commented on the invasion of Iraq following the WMD allegations should I have included a line in every post condemning the 9/11 attacks just in case someone couldn't cognitively detach one thing from the other?
It's a shame that the forum post history function must be currently broken so you couldn't see that the poster had condemned all civilian killing in previous posts. That might have answered your question without you having to sound like you were making accusations.
I'm glad you asked because it was "only fair" though, at first glance I thought it might have been an attempt to use a bit of racism to try and stifle the criticism.
A statement I agree with wholeheartedly. Do I have to caveat that opinion as well?I think you’re addressing your post to the wrong person. He was the one saying that it made him sick when people don’t criticise “the genocide”.
This discussion is going nowhere as you don’t appear to understand my point and are going off on a tangent.A statement I agree with wholeheartedly. Do I have to caveat that opinion as well?
I think the "misunderstanding" is on your part and I'm not convinced it is one at all, I think it's a deliberate deflection. I'm refusing to accept the tangent you already went off on. You were asking the poster whether they condemned incident A when they posted about people not condemning incident B and I've asked why they should have to answer to you about it. They have a post history where they clearly have condemned it in the past and there is no reason why they should have to caveat their opinion to appease you regardless.This discussion is going nowhere as you don’t appear to understand my point and are going off on a tangent.
What you think and your “spidey senses” are of no interest to me. I know what my point was and I don’t need your assistance interpreting it.I think the "misunderstanding" is on your part and I'm not convinced it is one at all, I think it's a deliberate deflection. I'm refusing to accept the tangent you already went off on. You were asking the poster whether they condemned incident A when they posted about people not condemning incident B and I've asked why they should have to answer to you about it. They have a post history where they clearly have condemned it in the past and there is no reason why they should have to caveat their opinion to appease you regardless.
From this point on I expect you to question everybody about their position on every aspect of a situation if they don't explicitly cover it in their post, otherwise my spidey senses of an ulterior motive and racist undertones will start tingling again.