dastanktal

joined 1 month ago
[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 days ago (53 children)

.... this is awkward.

Speaking of recent history can you remind me what party was in charge from 2000 to 2008? You know when those rights were increasing in society?

Its fun to point out when people use fallacies like the ones you used here. A genetic fallacy and an ad hominem. It's the sign of a weak orator. One who is unable to actually support their arguments.

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 days ago (93 children)

Yes we all know that trans rights got stronger under Joe Biden and his administration was able to enshrine strong trans protections.... Oh wait.

Those Democrats have done so much to help pull us into a new enlightened age and definitely haven't let Republican policies stand every single time they got back into office.

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 19 points 5 days ago (157 children)

That feeling when Democrats are turning on trans people. Pretending the Democrats will save us as a Fool's errand. Pretending that trans people wouldn't be on the chopping block if the Democrats had federal office is naive.

Some Democrats, reeling from Republican attacks tying their party to transgender rights issues, are privately furious at their leaders and explicitly warning they need a better strategy going into 2026.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/13/democrats-moderates-transgender-issues-strategy-00189123

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The obvious and moral position is that nobody should support genocide.

Which is why I don't care who supports genocide. If you support any form of genocide your opinion automatically is worthless to me.

Who cares who supports genocide? Those people can be instantly discounted.

Your question is inane. Answer my previous question if you want an answer to this. You have yet to answer anything I've posited. It's an interesting technique to impose your own question and demand an answer when you have answered none.

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Still not an answer to the question. One that you posed.

I see you're dodging your own quotation.

A lot of people see all the genocide as 100% justified

Who cares how much support there is for a genocide? why even bring that up? I'm 100% sure you won't answer this either.

Do you think all consequences of aggressors are justified?

I think imposing any consequences on the aggressors of a genocide would be a good start.

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (6 children)

Would you mind reading the username there?

Wow. Eptiome of honor here. I bow to your "holy" presence.

Definitely not a cowardly intellectually dishonest sophist.

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (10 children)

You're such a coward.

Couldn't answer the very simple question of how restricting funding to Israel is endorsing a genocide or justifying murder.

I was entirely right in my prediction of your response in my last comment. This is an excellent example of a red herring fallacy and a great way to try and avoid answering the above question.

A lot of people see all the genocide as 100% justified

This yours? 🙄

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (13 children)

How does restricting Israel's defense assets from the United States, which they are perfectly capable of manufacturing on their own, result in murdering people? Is the United States immediately going to strike Israel with missiles?

The only people claiming that giving Aid to Palestinians is funding terrorists are Israel in the United States everybody else pretty universally agrees they giving Aid the Palestinians is not funding "terrorist" groups. This is an especially stupid example given the fact that Bibi has admitted to funding Isis groups to disrupt Hamas activities as recently as last month.

a lot of people all see the genocide as 100% Justified.

Yeah so did the Germans in World War II. That's a wonderful argument you're making. 🤦

So I'm going to predict you're not going to give me a straight answer because you and I both know what the answer actually is. But let's try this again so that you can at least try to prove that you're not just a fool who came in here without any fact to back up your opinion.

How does removing $500 million of United States tax dollars from the Israeli defense assets endorse genocide, and as a follow-up, justify murder?

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 days ago (24 children)

Explain how the statement is pro genocide?

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago

That presupposes that it's either 110% or 10% with no in between. You can do the bare minimum to not create headaches for your co-workers, while still not going above and beyond.

Exactly what I meant but I was unable to put it into words. You shouldn't abandon your co-workers, you should hold up your end of responsibility to your work and be accountable in that way but that you should not go above the letter of your job description.

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 42 points 5 days ago (26 children)

You understand that the Iron Dome is why Israel felt it had the impunity to strike Iran and continued to act belligerent in the region right?

Furthermore withholding all Munitions to a state facilitating genocide is the bare minimum. Regardless of the intended purpose any Munition can be turned offensive.

Finally even if Israel didn't have the resupply for the Iron Dome and had to supply their own budget it would not guarantee a genocide against the Israeli people. Saying anything of the such is stupid and undermines the control of the United States has in that area with its massive aircraft carriers that carry the power of a small state with them.

view more: ‹ prev next ›