3 ms·
Don't we typically call that ad hominem? And secondly, is your claim that every single one of these hundreds of large orgs are historically politically or relig
by forestrywat 2mo ago
Don't we typically call that ad hominem? And secondly, is your claim that every single one of these hundreds of large orgs are historically politically or religiously anti Israel? I get that of course Iran is not a valid opinion, but all the rest? That stretches credulity.
- jameshilliard 2mo ago> Don't we typically call that ad hominem? I think we'd typically call that bias. > And secondly, is your claim that every single one of these hundreds of large orgs are historically politically or religiously anti Israel? Plenty of those organizations/countries do have historical problems when it comes to antisemitism which is obviously highly correlated with an anti-Israel bias. Which of these organizations/countries don't have a history of either blatant anti-Israel bias(i.e. clear double standards) and/or outright antisemitism?