3 ms·

> samaritans live continuously in samaria for 2000+ years. Home land of both the peoples, then? Looking more like a one-state reality to me.

• runarberg 3y ago
  I stopped engaging with your parent because they were not arguing in good faith. The post you were replying to is an example of Motte-and-bailey fallacy. The only reason they are talking about the Samaritans is because they failed argue that West Bank Settlers have any right to the land, so they turned to the much more reasonable argument that an indigenous religious minority should have rights as a group. Note that this etno-religious minority numbers fewer than a 1000 people, only about 400 live in the occupied West Bank (and honestly, I haven’t asked them, but I would be very surprised if they were happy with the occupation). It is obvious from the early points that parent was arguing for something with much grander stakes than this tiny minority. Not only that but your parent explicitly mentioned Jewish people earlier (obviously referring to illegal settlers), while from what I know about the Samaritan minority is that their religion related to Judaism while still distinct, so I question whether it is actually accurate to refer to them as Jewish. In other threads your parent actually crossed the line and started attacking me as a person. Wrongly claiming my position is pro-colonial https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39497508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39497508 Which kind of feels like the poster is trying to Kafkatrap[1] me. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#[[wikt:Kafkatrapping|Kafkatrapping] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#[[wikt:Kafka...]