4 ms·

> I'm not going to waste my time with someone [...] on live video. Yeah, thought so. If you want to debate this on live video with full transparency (real name

by dakom 2y ago

> I'm not going to waste my time with someone [...] on live video. Yeah, thought so. If you want to debate this on live video with full transparency (real names, agreement to have it publicized, third party mediator we both agree to), let me know.. otherwise- this is not worth my time. I don't address each of your points because they are so ridiculous it's not about rational argument in text. I assume you are much smarter than these points indicate, and so the actual issue at hand is deeper, and I think if you're forced to confront that with some real accountability you _might_ be able to recognize this with your reputation on the line. One example: Chalking up Hamas's intent to eradicate Israel entirely to "mistranslation"... that's a new level of willfull ignorance. Do you really need me to break down the Arabic translation on Wikipedia part by part, or source the numerous public statements by Hamas officials calling for the eradication of Israel by jihad and any means necessary? No, you don't need me to do that, it's obvious, so where does such a clear mistake come from? Not from misunderstanding facts. (P.S.. your ad-hominem attacks are clearly projecting your own insecurities. I know that telling you this won't change anything, but I want you to know that it not only doesn't bother me, it makes you look bad, you might want to stick to evidence-based points in the future)

loceng 2y ago
You claim I did ad hominem - please cite those specifically. The behaviour of yours I am pointing out can be supported with supported arguments by referencing all the various times you have and continue avoid. Also, couldn't this actually be you projecting - or is that an impossibility? "I don't address each of your points because they are so ridiculous it's not about rational argument in text. I assume you are much smarter than these points indicate, and so the actual issue at hand is deeper, and I think if you're forced to confront that with some real accountability you _might_ be able to recognize this with your reputation on the line." Here's my citation for the Hamas Charter mistranslation - I actually forgot to add my source and details for that, so I'll do that now, though it points to you're not even aware of most of the "other side's" argument points: PROPER TRANSLATION: "Israel will be established and will continue to be establishment until Islam invalidates it, just as Islam invalidated others before it." Source: https://jstor.org/stable/26331116 https://jstor.org/stable/26331116 The actual language used is properly translated to "invalidate" Israel (and not specifically Jewish either, and more people are now differentiating between Judaism and Zionism - the bad-unjust actors wanting to conflate themselves with Judaism, wolves wearing sheep’s clothing, as is said and warns us in the bible - in the context of speaking of unjust actions, e.g. it won't be Jewish (or even specifically Zionists) that will be eradicated, it will be any bad-unjust behaviours that won't be allowed to continue. So are you saying then you disagree with the translation in my citation above? Also, have you yet watched the videos by credible investigative journalists debunking the propaganda/lies created and distributed by your side? E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxfnya3ZRc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxfnya3ZRc You do understand the concepts of and how propaganda and manufacturing consent works, right?
- racional 2y ago
  Nice work - you've obviously completely demolished the objection to the translation by the user above. In fact one can verify the correct ("invalidate"/"nullify") translation directly, by looking at the original arabic word that was used (and its root). While you're at it, perhaps you can also explain this fun passage from the 1988 covenant: The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." Any translation issues with the phrases "killing of the Jews" and "There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"? There are also two appearances of the phrase "battle with the Jews" -- can you explain those as well, please? The JSTOR article conspicuously avoids analysis of these passages.
  - loceng 2y ago
    I don't know the context is of where what you cited. And once again, we'd need unbiased scholars to give an unbiased translation - as what you're citing could likely be purposefully or poorly mistranslated to change, even slightly, the context or scope - and when doing so could completely change the meaning. So where exactly did you pull this quote from? And does it cite where it's pulling the original quote from, or is it pulling from someone else who may have dishonestly translated it to begin with? You'd have to agree with me that confirmation bias exists - and is a very difficult minefield for any individual to navigate, right? Especially a difficult trap or valley to climb out of if someone may have been deeply indoctrinated into certain a weave of "disgust" producing narrative lines/threads for nearly a century, passed on through multiple generations? There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember, so it's okay if one side does it - but not the other? The rabbit hole goes very deep - has many misleading paths - and the problem is is proper conversation is heavily prevented and suppressed, primarily by one side, for example: Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, while being deceitful - in public attempting to organize a public debate with Candace Owens - behind the scenes in parallel were applying for and got a gag order on her. Do you think preventing people from "either side" from diving into long-form, thorough discussion to hash out as many points as possible - is good or bad? Thankfully people like Piers Morgan are having some of these people on to discuss, and it allows the general population to see for themselves who uses dishonest and disgusting tactics as part of their arguments - and which side aren't deceitful or avoidance, who are clear and articulate, etc. And should I bring up again now that the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" was first used by Israel? How about I mention again the Israeli government (I think it was Netanyahu himself but I don't remember at the moment) showed a map of Israel - that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it. So it's okay when Israeli uses it but demonized and misrepresented as to its meaning when Palestinians use it?

by dakom 2y ago

loceng 2y ago

You claim I did ad hominem - please cite those specifically. The behaviour of yours I am pointing out can be supported with supported arguments by referencing all the various times you have and continue avoid. Also, couldn't this actually be you projecting - or is that an impossibility? "I don't address each of your points because they are so ridiculous it's not about rational argument in text. I assume you are much smarter than these points indicate, and so the actual issue at hand is deeper, and I think if you're forced to confront that with some real accountability you _might_ be able to recognize this with your reputation on the line." Here's my citation for the Hamas Charter mistranslation - I actually forgot to add my source and details for that, so I'll do that now, though it points to you're not even aware of most of the "other side's" argument points: PROPER TRANSLATION: "Israel will be established and will continue to be establishment until Islam invalidates it, just as Islam invalidated others before it." Source: https://jstor.org/stable/26331116 https://jstor.org/stable/26331116 The actual language used is properly translated to "invalidate" Israel (and not specifically Jewish either, and more people are now differentiating between Judaism and Zionism - the bad-unjust actors wanting to conflate themselves with Judaism, wolves wearing sheep’s clothing, as is said and warns us in the bible - in the context of speaking of unjust actions, e.g. it won't be Jewish (or even specifically Zionists) that will be eradicated, it will be any bad-unjust behaviours that won't be allowed to continue. So are you saying then you disagree with the translation in my citation above? Also, have you yet watched the videos by credible investigative journalists debunking the propaganda/lies created and distributed by your side? E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxfnya3ZRc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxfnya3ZRc You do understand the concepts of and how propaganda and manufacturing consent works, right?

racional 2y ago
Nice work - you've obviously completely demolished the objection to the translation by the user above. In fact one can verify the correct ("invalidate"/"nullify") translation directly, by looking at the original arabic word that was used (and its root). While you're at it, perhaps you can also explain this fun passage from the 1988 covenant: The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." Any translation issues with the phrases "killing of the Jews" and "There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"? There are also two appearances of the phrase "battle with the Jews" -- can you explain those as well, please? The JSTOR article conspicuously avoids analysis of these passages.
- loceng 2y ago
  I don't know the context is of where what you cited. And once again, we'd need unbiased scholars to give an unbiased translation - as what you're citing could likely be purposefully or poorly mistranslated to change, even slightly, the context or scope - and when doing so could completely change the meaning. So where exactly did you pull this quote from? And does it cite where it's pulling the original quote from, or is it pulling from someone else who may have dishonestly translated it to begin with? You'd have to agree with me that confirmation bias exists - and is a very difficult minefield for any individual to navigate, right? Especially a difficult trap or valley to climb out of if someone may have been deeply indoctrinated into certain a weave of "disgust" producing narrative lines/threads for nearly a century, passed on through multiple generations? There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember, so it's okay if one side does it - but not the other? The rabbit hole goes very deep - has many misleading paths - and the problem is is proper conversation is heavily prevented and suppressed, primarily by one side, for example: Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, while being deceitful - in public attempting to organize a public debate with Candace Owens - behind the scenes in parallel were applying for and got a gag order on her. Do you think preventing people from "either side" from diving into long-form, thorough discussion to hash out as many points as possible - is good or bad? Thankfully people like Piers Morgan are having some of these people on to discuss, and it allows the general population to see for themselves who uses dishonest and disgusting tactics as part of their arguments - and which side aren't deceitful or avoidance, who are clear and articulate, etc. And should I bring up again now that the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" was first used by Israel? How about I mention again the Israeli government (I think it was Netanyahu himself but I don't remember at the moment) showed a map of Israel - that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it. So it's okay when Israeli uses it but demonized and misrepresented as to its meaning when Palestinians use it?