Your words say leaders but your words say not leaders

Another solid argument that gets right to the real point of all this.

No, he said everything else is some type of castle. I looked this castle up and it aligns well with the idea that he’s trying to shut down the other claims without considering them.

From the wiki:

where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”)

So he’s technically saying that the rest of the post is modest claims which are easy to defend, ie he agrees with Y. (I’m assuming the bailey is genocide and the motte is the claims of ethnic cleansing w/out genocide)

deleted by creator

🍆💦😜

Removed by mod

That’s too bad, because neither of those is the case. I personally think your attempt to kill the conversation above with your “stop typing” and again now with this comment is an actually an attempt to hide your head in the sand, but I guess we’ll never know.

Valuable addition. I ask “why is that inference wrong” and you say “no”.

Well then why did you say the rest of the post of the person you’re responding to doesn’t matter? You did say that, didn’t you? You told them to stop and that their argument is faulty, but didn’t deny the actual claims. That implies to me you don’t care. If you do care, you did an extremely poor job of showing it by telling them to stop talking.

So if the above is so completely off base, why don’t you continue your argument with the poster above?

So there is nothing you haven’t seen with your own eyes but acknowledge exists?

That’s the only argument we’re discussing here.

Seems that way. Person 2 above said “it’s not x but it is y”, person above said “you can stop at it’s not x” implying to me they are fine with “but it is y”. What’s wrong with that inference?

Your vibe is “reads really far into things without actually explaining what they think is going on”

Does my post not acknowledge, in the plainly written text, that there’s likely other varieties that are appropriate?

So I ask again, what argument are you trying to make, emphasis on the trying?

So your argument is “they are just dehumanizing and trying to exterminate a group of people, and I’m chill with that”? A bold position.

You have to know that’s a terrible argument, right?

Your image didn’t display for me in voyager app

I didn’t realize framework was a two party system 🙄

Everything is political, that’s a ridiculous take.

Ok maga, I give up talking to you

Long reach to what? What exactly are you arguing?

Ok but then they reaffirmed their commitment to a big tent.