International Active US Air Force member self-immolates outside Israel Embassy in Washington

[terrapin]

Lol. I don't even need to type anything new to you. Just quote myself and prove you're lying.

For the ones that were an appeal to emotion, I really don't know what you want me to do. It is an appeal to emotion. It is cut and dry. It had been explained to you how it was an appeal to emotion prior to this post, not just a definition. You simply don't have the intelligence or education to understand it. I can't help you with that personal failing.

Concession accepted. You made no exceptions and refused to admit any possibility at all that wasn't a logical fallacy and now I know you were lying and are lying now on purpose rather than just too uneducated to know the difference.

When you said "For the ones" you are trying to give the impression you did give some exceptions but I listed many that were not logical fallacies and you told me they all were multiple times.

 

[TheMaster]

Erroneously linked, maybe. The MIC is a civilian enterprise. The military is a part of the larger entity as an arm of the government. It might seem like I am nitpicking, but it's an important distinction you need to understand to grasp just how damning the allegeded video would be if it existed.

No, its simply artificial to try to de-link the government, the military, and the military industrial complex. They work in sync. And the US military is directly involved in assisting transfer and setup of weapons systems to Israel.

You're arguing with people who don't think it is a good way to protest saying it is.

I'm not saying its necessarily a good way to protest. I'm saying its valid though, and he was not mentally ill and his sentiments were justified and it could well have a huge impact in the larger scheme.

. No one is saying it's not a protest, theyre saying they don't agree with it. By arguing you are saying it was a good way for him to protest, hence "cheering him on".

Affirming its valid and could have an impact and understanding his valid reaons from his perspective, is not cheering him on.

The only idiots who have cheered him on here are those who are glad he died.

Now I've basically given you two choices- either he was mentally unstable o he actually did have access to proof of direct involvement and chose a poor way to protest instead of exposing that. It is one of the other. So which is it?

He saw the wood for the trees which clearly you dont. He didnt need some obscure 'video proof' when he is part of a military representing a government sending billions upon billions of dollars worth of advanced weaponary being used to slaughter civilians.

 

[terrapin]

lol...

Maybe, just maybe... someone, somewhere might change their mind.

Totally worth this lunatic dousing himself with gasoline and setting himself on fire.

Clownworld

Strange how you didn't address the actual argument here.

The question is if somebody is inspired by what this man did then goes and reads up on it because they hadn't already and comes out with a different opinion. Would that be a logical fallacy??


Of course it wouldn't and any honest person knows that, but I guess you guys can all keep lying instead and pretending.

 

[TheMaster]

it's not a "valid form" and anyone suggesting so is insane. it's supporting, encouraging even, others to use this as a valid form of protest for international policy within the US. and that's incredibly irresponsible. at least he only took himself down.......

Its an extreme form of protest as I have stated from the beginning. If you recognize it as a protest which most do, then it is by definition a valid form of protest despite being extreme and not to be immitated which is highly unlikely anway as the vast majority wouldnt be willing to do it in this way or feel it is necessary to protest in this way.

 

[blackheart]

Get fucked loser. You’re not very bright.

I'm not very bright but you're using formal debate terms that I've demonstrated you clearly don't understand?

 

[Scerpi]

Strange how you didn't address the actual argument here.

The question is if somebody is inspired by what this man did then goes and reads up on it because they hadn't already and comes out with a different opinion. Would that be a logical fallacy??


Of course it wouldn't and any honest person knows that, but I guess you guys can all keep lying instead and pretending.

Lying about what? You sound like an extremist. The kind of psycho that justifies strapping a bomb on someone else and convincing them to be martyr for the cause.

It's worth suiciding yourself if it can change one person's mind!!! lol...

As long as it's someone else sacrificing themselves and not you... right?

 

[terrapin]

Lying about what? You sound like an extremist. The kind of psycho that justifies strapping a bomb on someone else and convincing them to be martyr for the cause.

It's worth suiciding yourself if it can change one person's mind!!! lol...

As long as it's someone else sacrificing themselves and not you... right?

Once again you failed to address the point. I wonder why?

 

[CatchnShoot]

Police reaction is a classic

Oh, the classic Rock, Paper, Scissors, Gun, Fire.

Gun beats fire?




Yep, it worked so well in Tibet, bring it home. Twatricide.

 

[Crash Lance]

Rest in peace, Aaron.

You became a martyr for the campaign that you supported.

 

[CatchnShoot]

Rest in peace, Aaron.

You became a martyr for the campaign that you supported.

I'm pretty sure he's going to rest:

 

[Blayt7hh]

No, its simply artificial to try to de-link the government, the military, and the military industrial complex. They work in sync. And the US military is directly involved in assisting transfer and setup of weapons systems to Israel.



I'm not saying its necessarily a good way to protest. I'm saying its valid though, and he was not mentally ill and his sentiments were justified and it could well have a huge impact in the larger scheme.

Affirming its valid and could have an impact and understanding his valid reaons from his perspective, is not cheering him on.

The only idiots who have cheered him on here are those who are glad he died.


He saw the wood for the trees which clearly you dont. He didnt need some obscure 'video proof' when he is part of a military representing a government sending billions upon billions of dollars worth of advanced weaponary being used to slaughter civilians.

Now you're just acting dense because you can't actually answer or refute me. There is a big distinction people make between direct and indirect involvement. I don't give a fuck if you care about it or not as I am simply stating the reality of the way the general public perceives these things.

The "Obscure video" is one HE claimed he saw, not something I made up. There's quite a few alarming posts he made that indicate he was mentally unwell. You stating he was not is simply your personal desire not based on anything else.

You can continue to try this tactic of not understanding the distinctions I made, but do you think that is really a good route to go?

 

[kflo]

Its an extreme form of protest as I have stated from the beginning. If you recognize it as a protest which most do, then it is by definition a valid form of protest despite being extreme and not to be immitated which is highly unlikely anway as the vast majority wouldnt be willing to do it in this way or feel it is necessary to protest in this way.

the point is it should be widely rebuked. that person needed help. he was not well.

but hey, hamas commended his act.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Concession accepted. You made no exceptions and refused to admit any possibility at all that wasn't a logical fallacy and now I know you were lying and are lying now on purpose rather than just too uneducated to know the difference.

When you said "For the ones" you are trying to give the impression you did give some exceptions but I listed many that were not logical fallacies and you told me they all were multiple times.

Dude these are old quotes and they can be followed. You're an actual idiot if you think this is somehow working for you. It clearly doesn't bother you to lie repeatedly in here in the face of irrefutable proof.

 

[Blayt7hh]

It might draw attention to the issue but why should anyone change their opinion because of what he did?

Lying about what? You sound like an extremist. The kind of psycho that justifies strapping a bomb on someone else and convincing them to be martyr for the cause.

It's worth suiciding yourself if it can change one person's mind!!! lol...

As long as it's someone else sacrificing themselves and not you... right?

He's also a lying pos and he knows it. My very first response to him, which of quoted at him more than once now, with the part bolded and underlined that he wants to pretend never happened.

He started trying to pretend I never said that somewhere along the way in a weak ass attempt to move the goal post. Honestly I don't know what he is hoping to achieve now by calling me a liar while posting things that are lies that I can just go back and requote to disprove.

 

[Halge]

How is this going to help make Hamas surrender?

 

[terrapin]

Dude these are old quotes and they can be followed. You're an actual idiot if you think this is somehow working for you. It clearly doesn't bother you to lie repeatedly in here in the face of irrefutable proof.

I don't think this should be too hard. Just answer the question. Are there any exceptions to your logical fallacy argument of any kind?

What if a person hadn't even read up on it and then they were inspired by this man's actions and then actually read the data and changed their opinion based on that data?

What if a person had taken in the data but was emotional when forming their previous position, but this man's actions caused them to reassess it more honestly and they changed their position by taking in data more accurately and honestly?

It's just a yes or no question. Are both of those logical fallacies yes or no? because you lied and said they were multiple times before.

You have previously lied that both of these would be logical fallacies. will you stand by that absurdity?

No one needs to go back in the thread when it's summed up right here. Just clear it up for everyone. Yes or no?

@Scerpi

 

[TheMaster]

Now you're just acting dense because you can't actually answer or refute me. There is a big distinction people make between direct and indirect involvement. I don't give a fuck if you care about it or not as I am simply stating the reality of the way the general public perceives these things.

The "Obscure video" is one HE claimed he saw, not something I made up. There's quite a few alarming posts he made that indicate he was mentally unwell. You stating he was not is simply your personal desire not based on anything else.

You can continue to try this tactic of not understanding the distinctions I made, but do you think that is really a good route to go?

You have been refuted throughout this thread.

The US is involved in this war, they dont need to have ground troops there to be the main supporter and armourer. His argument which is valid is that the US military is complicit in Israels slaughter of civilians.

Your rather feeble attempts to deflect from this have been that:

"buh, the military industrial complex is not the government is not the military"

"He claimed some video showing direct US military involvement"

None of this has any bearing on his motivations and attempt to draw attention to the US military and government being complicit in this slaughter of civilians.

In fact the term complicit actually implies indirect involvement not direct, since yes the US has no ground troops there.

His last words were "I will no longer be complicit in genocide"

His motivation was to take a stand against the US government support and complicity in this.

 

[kflo]

I don't think this should be too hard. Just answer the question. Are there any exceptions to your logical fallacy argument of any kind?

What if a person hadn't even read up on it and then they were inspired by this man's actions and then actually read the data and changed their opinion based on that data?

What if a person had taken in the data but was emotional when forming their previous position, but this man's actions caused them to reassess it more honestly and they changed their position by taking in data more accurately and honestly?

It's just a yes or no question. Are both of those logical fallacies yes or no? because you lied and said they were multiple times before.

You have previously lied that both of these would be logical fallacies. will you stand by that absurdity?

No one needs to go back in the thread when it's summed up right here. Just clear it up for everyone. Yes or no?

@Scerpi

what if this man's actions caused superman to mate with wonder woman and created superwonderman who saved the world?

 

[Blayt7hh]

You have been refuted throughout this thread.

The US is involved in this war, they dont need to have ground troops there to be the main supporter and armourer. His argument which is valid is that the US military is complicit in Israels slaughter of civilians.

Your rather feeble attempts to deflect from this have been that:

"buh, the military industrial complex is not the government is not the military"

"He claimed some video showing direct US military involvement"

None of this has any bearing on his motivations and attempt to draw attention to the US military and government being complicit in this slaughter of civilians.

In fact the term complicit actually implies indirect involvement not direct, since yes the US has no ground troops there.

His last words were "I will no longer be complicit in genocide"

His motivation was to take a stand against the US government support and complicity in this.

So the answer is yes, you do think playing dumb is a good route to go.

In this response you’re still playing dumb about indirect vs direct, still actually being dumb about distinctions between entities, and not actually addressing my points just kinda saying what you want. Whatever. I’m not going to bother with you.

 

[My Spot]

You have been refuted throughout this thread.

The US is involved in this war, they dont need to have ground troops there to be the main supporter and armourer. His argument which is valid is that the US military is complicit in Israels slaughter of civilians.

Your rather feeble attempts to deflect from this have been that:

"buh, the military industrial complex is not the government is not the military"

"He claimed some video showing direct US military involvement"

None of this has any bearing on his motivations and attempt to draw attention to the US military and government being complicit in this slaughter of civilians.

In fact the term complicit actually implies indirect involvement not direct, since yes the US has no ground troops there.

His last words were "I will no longer be complicit in genocide"

His motivation was to take a stand against the US government support and complicity in this.

Using your logic, we've also been complicit in Yemen since the spring of 2015. Do you know how many civilians there have been killed or starved to death due to US supplied ordinance and planes used by the Saudis? You can't have it both ways.