4 ms·
If you want to meet our arguments, refute the specific claims we make; either that the facts are false, or that the facts do not demonstrate Shirky's law. Other
by rendall 3y ago
If you want to meet our arguments, refute the specific claims we make; either that the facts are false, or that the facts do not demonstrate Shirky's law. Otherwise we're just arguing in circles.
To recap, here is a list:
UNRWA collaborates with Hamas. UNRWA schools teach anti-Israel rhetoric to children. Hamas employees work at UNWRA. UNRWA expands the definition of refugee beyond that of UNHCR to include children of refugees and those who have citizenship in other countries. UNRWA replaces the normal operations of government leaving Hamas free to use vast resources to commit terror.
To demonstrate that Shirky's Law does not apply to UNRWA, you should refute each of those specific claims.
- crazygringo 3y ago> you should refute each of those specific claims. Sorry, that's just not how it works. You're making a number of highly controversial, cherry-picked statements that are being heavily debated in the news. It doesn't really matter if a handful of Hamas employees may or may have worked at UNRWA, when it has a staff of 30,000. It's irrelevant if some educational materials take a locally-biased political viewpoint, when the history curriculum in every nation takes a locally-biased political viewpoint. But I don't have to refute any of your arguments because none of them have any relevance whatsoever to Shirky's law applying. Whereas you continue to refuse to engage with the analogy to the Red Cross, even after I've pointed that out that you aren't responding to that. So I just can't take this discussion seriously anymore, when you keep trying to divert the discussion into irrelevant tangents, and won't engage with the simple, direct comparison that reveals the foundational inconsistency in your logic.