If you overload the premise, it’s not exactly analyzing anything of value.
This is the first time you've said anything close to an argument of why you reject my hypothetical that isn't just rejecting hypotheticals altogether, so I'll address it. I didn't overload the premise. I literally changed one thing: I made it about the Holocaust instead of Gaza. That's it. How does doing that "overload the premise?"
Your hypothetical was asking a loaded and incriminating question regardless of how I answered it.
Yes! If would incriminate you either way, because it forced you to either double down on what you had said and say that the Holocaust was justified, or contradict what you had said and say that the Holocaust wasn't justified. The only reason you were in that situation was that you said shit that would also justify the Holocaust if it was valid. That's your fault for painting yourself into that corner by using arguments that would justify the Holocaust! It's not somehow my fault for pointing out that your arguments would also justify the Holocaust.
Just because a hypothetical makes you look bad doesn't mean it's invalid.
Oh, right, we’re still doing that bit, pretending we don’t understand basic analogies
Are you talking about the analogy where you compared a moral stance about genocide to a mere preference between liking pancakes or waffles? I understood that analogy perfectly, as well as how utterly monstrous it was to make.
The burden of proof falls on you to prove that I am.
I did.
All you have are your stupid and loaded hypotheticals.
It's not my fault you don't understand hypotheticals.
I know the horrors. Discovering its history is actually one of the most memorable moments of my teenage years. The harrowing thought that people could behave like this to one another changed me in ways no other thing has. I’ve read the books, some of them twice. And I haven’t even mentioned the other genocides, like the Rape of Nanking, that left me disheartened for weeks after reading it. Or the My Lai Massacre. Or even Gaza.
Huh, you sound like a good person who cares about genocide, then. There was this other user running around telling people who were upset about genocide that "the world doesn't revolve around genocide" and that they need to "move the fuck on." Maybe I should introduce you to each other and let you duke it out with them. Lemminary, meet Lemminary.
Damn, and you still have to provide only a partial context?
They literally said, "I'm employed," so I gave a condensed version. If someone wants to read through all your drivel, they can read through the thread I linked. If they want your side of the story, they can ask you. This person asked me.
How about you share the parts where you relentlessly accuse me of being a Nazi?
I literally referenced that.
The part where you misconstrue what I’m saying and purposely fail to grasp my point?
I can't link that part because it doesn't exist and never happened.
The part where I actually fight back by falsely accusing you to prove my point, by using the same tactics you used to accuse me baselessly?
I wasn't accusing you baselessly. I gave you my basis. You didn't "prove your point" you just lobbed baseless nonsense to deflect from my valid criticisms.
You know what’s also an even more valid form of reasoning? Sticking to what actually happened instead of inventing unfair scenarios.
So... you're denying that hypotheticals are a valid form of reasoning, by calling them "invented unfair scenarios.
How many times have you called me a Nazi, exactly? I should’ve kept count, but it was literally every single comment for a while.
Yes, because you said Nazi shit. I didn't "misconstrue" anything. I also lost count.
You’ve also lied, pretending you didn’t understand a basic analogy
You keep repeating this claim that I'm "pretending not to understand you." It's complete nonsense. If there is some alternate meaning to your words that isn't Nazi shit, I can assure you that I don't understand that meaning whatsoever.
and barraged me repeatedly over something I said to somebody else.
Yes, you did say Nazi shit to somebody else, I'm not sure why it matters who it is you're saying Nazi shit to.
You have not, you just did.
I did, multiple times. That's what my hypothetical was asking. I didn't realize that you both hate and don't understand hypotheticals, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, but I guess that's where you were confused.
I can unequivocally say the Holocaust is evil
OK! Great! Progress! You finally answered my hypothetical then, despite refusing to for some reason the first dozen times I asked.
So, since the Holocaust was evil, even though we could imagine someone saying all the same shit about how "the world doesn't revolve around genocide" and people need to "move the fuck on," it clearly shows that those are not valid things to say about genocides in general, and are, in fact, pretty fucked up.
So, now it's unclear. Before, you said a bunch of Nazi shit. Now, you're contradicting what you said before. So I don't really know what to make of that.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Why even bother with this bullshit and pretend it’s somehow the ultimate litmus test when we could’ve been discussing the facts? Oh, right, we tried that to no avail on your part.
Because, dumbass, hypotheticals are not "bullshit," they're a perfectly valid form of reasoning, and have been accepted as such by everyone since fucking Socrates.
How about this: Is it valid to accuse, misconstrue, bully, lie, attempt to publicly shame, and purposely misrepresent others under the guise of being an anti-genocide white knight by twisting people’s words even after they have fully explained what they meant and refuse to acknowledge that?
I didn't do any of that shit. I haven't misconstrued a single thing you've said, I have not lied or bullied, I didn't even engage when you brought it up more publicly in this thread, where you were trying to shame me.
Really, the only thing I've done is ask you is whether the Holocaust was justified or not, and when you couldn't answer that, I called you a Nazi. That's it.
Then, after I pointed out how abhorrent these things were, and they did nothing to deny that the exact same arguments could be used to justify the Holocaust, while also hurling a bunch of insults at me, I called them a Nazi. They responded by accusing me of being a pedophile.
And you can't give any reason why my hypothetical isn't valid beyond "it's dumb" or it's "a false narrative," with no further explanation.
It's not complicated, it's incredibly straightforward. We don't even need the hypothetical, since you seem to struggle with the concept of them. Let's frame it this way instead: is it valid to say the exact things you say about one genocide about other genocides? Yes or no.
"False narrative" do you not understand how hypotheticals work? Are all hypotheticals "deceptive?" Christ Jesus.
I'm not sure whether to pity you for having been failed by your educational system or whether to pity the educational system for having to deal with you.
Lol describing the presidency under Reagan as "a reminder of our common humanity" is 1000% praising and whitewashing Reagan, there is nothing "disingenuous" about it whatsoever.
You're right. How could it be otherwise? Everyone loves America. A real leftist would watch a child talking about how they've come to fear sunny days because that's when the American drones fly, and would belt out, "I'M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN, WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW I'M FREE!" It's literally inconceivable that any actual American would look at all the needless deaths caused by everyone who's sat in that building since, well ever, and would experience anything but trauma at seeing part of it torn down.
It's genuinely sickening to me that any of you liberals, clapping like seals when bombs are dropped on innocents because the news says it's ok, thinking of yourselves as "true patriots," and shunning any and all alternate perspectives, abjectly refusing to read any sort of theory - that any of you actually think that you're some kind of "leftists."
My softness of heart is used to feel the pain of the many, many victims of the US government, and my openness of mind is used to understand their perspective. If you possessed either, you wouldn't mourn over a symbol of imperialism.
This is the first time you've said anything close to an argument of why you reject my hypothetical that isn't just rejecting hypotheticals altogether, so I'll address it. I didn't overload the premise. I literally changed one thing: I made it about the Holocaust instead of Gaza. That's it. How does doing that "overload the premise?"
Yes! If would incriminate you either way, because it forced you to either double down on what you had said and say that the Holocaust was justified, or contradict what you had said and say that the Holocaust wasn't justified. The only reason you were in that situation was that you said shit that would also justify the Holocaust if it was valid. That's your fault for painting yourself into that corner by using arguments that would justify the Holocaust! It's not somehow my fault for pointing out that your arguments would also justify the Holocaust.
Just because a hypothetical makes you look bad doesn't mean it's invalid.