So much for the "Israel doesn't abide by UN Resolutions" argument from Muslims

[Karmashock]

Another bullshit ad hominum!

Actually it isn't. I was responding to a statement you made about YOURSELF. I made it clear that you have not in my experience quoted reliable sources as you have yourself claimed.


that is not an ad hominum... and it is sadly not bullshit. You are however evading a response.

It is self-explanatory.

It's not Billo, if it were no one would disagree with you. It wouldn't be controversial. it is however, so it isn't self explanitory nor is there no valid argument against it's message.

First off, I never claim my sources to be good or bad. They're just the sources I use for that particular post depending on the issue.

This is just a lie. You cited a list of credible sources and then claimed to use them on a regular basis. Which you don't.

Secondly, don't blame me because you're too lazy to do your homework before shooting your mouth off!Talk about hypocrisy!

This is ad hominum. You are making this about me instead of countering points made above.

A minute ago you were complaining about the Geocities source I used. If you go back and re-read that post, you will see that it too, quoted UN Articles and links.

Why didn't you cite those then? Why did you cite a webpage on Geocities?


Billo, it's honestly pathetic... Your position is so laughably sad I don't know what to tell you any more. Use credible sources or be a clown.


I have no power over what you choose to do... but if you continue to insist on backing your perspective up with nonsense then the outcome is inevitable.

That's not a fact. That is your opinion. However, you seem to lack the maturity to take ownership of your own opinions. Is that wrong?

Actually, it is a fact based on other people's opinion's of your own credibility. Credibility is a subjective measurement of how much people in general respect and trust your words.

I've seen no one backing you up. Even people that might like to, see how suicidal it would be to support you ham-handed attempts at a point... and thus stay quiet until you go away and they can present a more reasonable argument.


You do far more damage to your own opinion then I could ever do to it. People like you ironically are very good for Israel. You annihilate the credibility of your whole ideological camp making it child's play to mob up what remains.

Now if you don't care that with every post you damage your own position more then you help it, then continue. But I really doubt you understand that that is what you're doing.

 

[Karmashock]

why are you posting this in the " So much for the "Israel doesn't abide by UN Resolutions"" thread?


I think you're lost.

 

[Tashah]

Yeah, let's take care of some un-finished business.

I agree. Like I said previously, I will be here every blessed day.

"...written by an arab" means it is automatically false?

I didn't say 'false'... can you read? I said 'biased'. I noted that the piece characterized itself as Perspective. Anyone reading that particular piece with an iota of integrity would conclude that this so called 'Perspective' is nothing more than overt propaganda.

"...written by an arab" is quite the racist statement on your part.

He IS an Arab. No slur. That is a fact. Precisely how is that racist?

Do you really want to play this game Billo? No one at DP is better at language/linguistics than muah.

Shall I semantically/grammatically/contextually deconstruct your posts? Shall I dote on your every word? Are you masochistic? Wanna play?

I provided links to my assertions.

Any nincompoop can toss out assertions. Any ten year old could do what you do here. Your credibility wanes with each post. Assertions? Jettison the childsplay and debate like an adult.

All you can do to argue these, is state your objections to the particular websites as a matter of personal preference.

Been there done that.

Yet you act like these are valid responses to the assertions being made in these websites.

It is not incumbant upon anyone here to disprove assertions. They are what they are... unsubstanciated strings of content. Since YOU interjected these assertions, it is YOUR responsibility to validate them.

Your whole point is these websites are biased so that automatically means the assertions made in them are to be treated as false. But you call me "intellectually dishonest".

Unless you can prove that these assertions you have culled from biased websites are true and valid, then yes... you are being intellectually and ethically dishonest.

Your use of YouTube video's is also disingenuous. Karmashock is right. These presentations lack any critical contextual annex. In addition, you have no idea of where or how these video's were filmed and/or edited. It's a cheap vehicle to sling mud without the checks and balances of neutral oversight.

Go on. Keep slinging the mud Billo. But please stop crying when people point out how dirty your hands are.

 

[justone]

why are you posting this in the " So much for the "Israel doesn't abide by UN Resolutions"" thread?


I think you're lost.

I would feel better if a mod could delete my post from this topic. I’ve copied it to paste in the right place…

This is what happens when one is not careful with a gun… I was aiming at Billo’s head, but almost shut myself.

 

[Tashah]

I would feel better if a mod could delete my post from this topic. I’ve copied it to paste in the right place…

That post was deleted at your request.

This is what happens when one is not careful with a gun… I was aiming at Billo’s head, but almost shut myself.

Moderator's Warning:

Cease all such musings immediately and forever.

 

[justone]

That post was deleted at your request.

Thanks, my wound is healing...

Moderator's Warning:

Cease all such musings immediately and forever.

HiHi, Sir!

The joke looks worn out anyway. I hope Billo will not be missing it...

Sure, Tashah, no problem.

 

[AcePylut]

Let's recap shall we?

In Post #11 Billo quotes a story from Global Research... which itself obtains the information from Press TV Iran. Need I say more?

In Post #20, Billo quotes larouchepub.com. This is a Lyndon Larouche website, well known for anti-semitic and conspiracy theory beliefs.

In Post #36, Billo again quotes a story from Global Research, which has obtained the story from The Guardian... a recognized Leftist British newspaper.

Billo tries again in Post #60 and quotes a story from ConsortiumNews... a known conspiricist website.

This gem from Post #90


In Post #91 Billo tries a truthout.org link... but here again this story was authored by Robert Parry of ConsortiumNews. See remarks for Post #60.

In Post #94, Billo again taps truthout.org. This 'story' is defined on that very page as a 'Perspective' and written by an Arab.

Billo 'sources' in Post #95. None are mainstream, all are biased.
indictsharon.net (anti-Israel website)
wafa.ps (Palestine News Agency)
truthdig.com (Left wing blog)
guardian.co.uk (Leftist website)

Undaunted, Billo uses a geocities.com source in Post #96! This is a personal webpage... anyone can post virtually anything. Unbelieveable!


By any measure Billo, you are intellectually dishonest in your almost exclusive usage of biased websites with manipulated materials.

I have also taken personal note of your blanket assassination of Israeli character. This was an insult I will not soon forget.

:good_job: :beat: :2funny: :good_job:

 

[Volker]

I AM NOT A DISHONEST PERSON!

This is pretty clear, that you are not a dishonest person.

This has been tried before with other people, it is a trick, I have never seen it working. This has been tried before with me.

All these ad hominems certainly don't look like a sign of a strong position to me :mrgreen:

 

[Karmashock]

This is pretty clear, that you are not a dishonest person.

This has been tried before with other people, it is a trick, I have never seen it working. This has been tried before with me.

All these ad hominems certainly don't look like a sign of a strong position to me :mrgreen:

I hope you're being sarcastic. :shock:

 

[Volker]

This would be my smilie when I try to be sarcastic:

This is my smilie to say I mean it like I say it: :mrgreen:

 

[Karmashock]

This would be my smilie when I try to be sarcastic:

This is my smilie to say I mean it like I say it: :mrgreen:

That's unfortunate. Trying to save billo at this point is like trying to swim with an anchor... He's going straight to the bottom and will take anyone that attaches themselves to him along for the ride. He's backed up too many positions with personal geocities pages and Iranian propaganda. He could have gotten out of it by simply admitting those are bad sources and then provided others. He provided liberal blogs, more iranian propaganda, and more geocites.



He then claims his sources are anything but what they are... which means he's either lying or completely insane (ie detached from reality).


So I don't know what you're doing when you say he's "clearly not a dishonest person" when he frankly must either be a liar or be crazy. So it follows that unless I'm mistaken about what billo has done... And I don't think I am... you're either ignorant of what he's done or other unpleasant conclusions.


It's a bad move generally... So I'm a bit confused as to what you're doing. It looks like the forum equivalent of going swimming with lead floaties... nothing left but a small splash and a few bubbles...


Furthermore, I'm not insulting you... merely going over the inevitable consequences of doing something that is frankly pretty stupid. That is unless you want to really help billo out by dispelling the central arguments against him at this point? Because your word like my own or anyone else here isn't worth much. Provide something to back it up... or as I said... small splash... little bubbles... and two people suffocate on the bottom of the lake...


Nothing personal.


Karmashock.

 

[Volker]

That's unfortunate. Trying to save billo at this point is like trying to swim with an anchor... He's going straight to the bottom and will take anyone that attaches themselves to him along for the ride. He's backed up too many positions with personal geocities pages and Iranian propaganda. He could have gotten out of it by simply admitting those are bad sources and then provided others. He provided liberal blogs, more iranian propaganda, and more geocites.

I don't want to go through the whole thread, what I read was a Palestinian News Station and the Guardian have been critisized as biased. This is not what I expect from people who think to be in a strong position.

He then claims his sources are anything but what they are... which means he's either lying or completely insane (ie detached from reality).

This is only more ad hominem.

So I don't know what you're doing when you say he's "clearly not a dishonest person" when he frankly must either be a liar or be crazy. So it follows that unless I'm mistaken about what billo has done... And I don't think I am... you're either ignorant of what he's done or other unpleasant conclusions.

I don't see the part which makes him a liar or crazy.

It's a bad move generally... So I'm a bit confused as to what you're doing. It looks like the forum equivalent of going swimming with lead floaties... nothing left but a small splash and a few bubbles...


Furthermore, I'm not insulting you... merely going over the inevitable consequences of doing something that is frankly pretty stupid. That is unless you want to really help billo out by dispelling the central arguments against him at this point? Because your word like my own or anyone else here isn't worth much. Provide something to back it up... or as I said... small splash... little bubbles... and two people suffocate on the bottom of the lake...

This is the problem, the side that argues with Billo seems to have no central arguments, otherwise we probably would not see all these ad hominems here. As I said, I did not read the whole thread, maybe there is a central argument hidden somewhere.

Nothing personal.

Ok, well, my criticism was not directed at you, but at the person who tried this dishonesty trick against me a few weeks ago and failed.

 

[Volker]

Look here :mrgreen:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...l-plans-nuclear-strike-iran-3.html#post460917

 

[Karmashock]

Look here :mrgreen:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...l-plans-nuclear-strike-iran-3.html#post460917

Refering to this?

Once again you are dishonest and classless Volker. I addressed each and every paragraph of that post in-toto. But then again, honesty and class are quite foreign concepts to you.

I don't see what that does for billo? Billo's credibility problem has very little to do with anyone else's here. This situation is almost entirely of his own making.


So again, do you have anything that refutes any of the basic points against him?


Or small splash... little bubbles?


Or you realize it's hopeless, tell billo you tried but it's impossible to save anyone who's so completely screwed, and say peace out?



Karmashock.

 

[AcePylut]

This is the problem, the side that argues with Billo seems to have no central arguments, otherwise we probably would not see all these ad hominems here. As I said, I did not read the whole thread, maybe there is a central argument hidden somewhere.

Did you read the first post in this thread?

I'd kindly request that you read the whole thread, and judge for yourself if (for example, but not limited to) a Geocities website is more credible than CNN.

 

[Karmashock]

I don't want to go through the whole thread, what I read was a Palestinian News Station and the Guardian have been critisized as biased. This is not what I expect from people who think to be in a strong position.

The palestinian news agencies are not credible. You know this... they're effectively "state media"... much like the Russian Pravda or the People's Republic of North Korean's news.

As to the guardian is it is a politically biased source and what's more has a history of running editorials on as news stories.

What's more, he didn't even cite an article from the guardian, he cited an EDITORIAL! Which is an OPINION article.

Now, if you honestly think that a state propaganda article and an editorial from a politically biased news source shouldn't be criticized as biased.

You are either ignorant, crazy, or lying yourself.


Again, no offense. It's just that there aren't any other conclusions. I carefully detailed the sources billo has cited in this thread. Post 108, page 11 if you want to look it up.

He has cited as his primary evidence.


Geocities personal pages, State propaganda media, politically biased blogs, and editorials from fairly radically biased news papers.


that is not valid evidence. All that proves is that some people think that or that some people want you to think that. Not that it's true or has been verified by any credible source.

This is only more ad hominem.

No it's not. We're not even talking about the topic any more, the topic is billo right now. So it is completely valid for me attack his credibility in a discussion about billo's credibility. What's more, as he cited the above sources as his proof it would be valid for me to question his credibility under any circumstance.

This is the problem, the side that argues with Billo seems to have no central arguments, otherwise we probably would not see all these ad hominems here. As I said, I did not read the whole thread, maybe there is a central argument hidden somewhere.

False inference. There is lots of detail in this thread. However, for as long as billo insists on making a clown of himself there is going to be a powerful force holding him accountable for that.

Ok, well, my criticism was not directed at you, but at the person who tried this dishonesty trick against me a few weeks ago and failed.

I am neither familiar with nor care what happened in that other thread and see it as completely irrelevant. What's more, I should point out that whatever happened to you in that other thread, this is entirely valid here. And attaching yourself to billo is a mistake.

I've got him cold. All you can do is throw yourself in front of a few bullets and I have plenty of ammo.

 

[Volker]

Refering to this?

I don't see what that does for billo? Billo's credibility problem has very little to do with anyone else's here. This situation is almost entirely of his own making.

If a person asks Billo's credibility and I can show that the same person asked someone elses credibility before by mistake, I consider it relevant. Actually, it says something about the credibility of mentioned person.

So again, do you have anything that refutes any of the basic points against him?

This is what I did. I don't see basic points different from ad hominem attack so far.

 

[Volker]

Did you read the first post in this thread?

I'd kindly request that you read the whole thread, and judge for yourself if (for example, but not limited to) a Geocities website is more credible than CNN.

Maybe I will read the whole thread some time, but not now.

 

[Volker]

The palestinian news agencies are not credible. You know this... they're effectively "state media"... much like the Russian Pravda or the People's Republic of North Korean's news.

They offer a perspective. Media with no government influence can offer perspectives, too.

As to the guardian is it is a politically biased source and what's more has a history of running editorials on as news stories.

What's more, he didn't even cite an article from the guardian, he cited an EDITORIAL! Which is an OPINION article.

I don't see the problem here. Citing an opinion looks ok to me.

Now, if you honestly think that a state propaganda article and an editorial from a politically biased news source shouldn't be criticized as biased.

You are either ignorant, crazy, or lying yourself.

It does not matter, if the source is biased or not. What matters is, is it true or is it not true

Again, no offense. It's just that there aren't any other conclusions. I carefully detailed the sources billo has cited in this thread. Post 108, page 11 if you want to look it up.

Thank you for giving me a post, I checked it.

He has cited as his primary evidence.

Geocities personal pages, State propaganda media, politically biased blogs, and editorials from fairly radically biased news papers.

that is not valid evidence. All that proves is that some people think that or that some people want you to think that. Not that it's true or has been verified by any credible source.

So you have a like a credibility scheme for differnt media sources, who you believe more and who you believe less. Many people have, there is one more general for Debate Politics, too. To say, this newspaper is left or this is influenced by the Palestinian government may not match your credibility schema, but this can be different with other people and therefore is simply not a refusal.

No it's not. We're not even talking about the topic any more, the topic is billo right now. So it is completely valid for me attack his credibility in a discussion about billo's credibility. What's more, as he cited the above sources as his proof it would be valid for me to question his credibility under any circumstance.

This is the problem with this thread, it turned into a discussion of a member's credibility. This is the problem I wanted to address.

False inference. There is lots of detail in this thread. However, for as long as billo insists on making a clown of himself there is going to be a powerful force holding him accountable for that.


I am neither familiar with nor care what happened in that other thread and see it as completely irrelevant. What's more, I should point out that whatever happened to you in that other thread, this is entirely valid here. And attaching yourself to billo is a mistake.

I've got him cold. All you can do is throw yourself in front of a few bullets and I have plenty of ammo.

I showed you how it works, so you can care about to be not manipulated here.

 

[Karmashock]

If a person asks Billo's credibility and I can show that the same person asked someone elses credibility before by mistake, I consider it relevant. Actually, it says something about the credibility of mentioned person.

That's a text book case of ad hominem.

I'm not kidding... he's going down and is already taking you with him.

This is what I did. I don't see basic points different from ad hominem attack so far.

You think pointing out that hes' citing geocities, editorials from rabidly biased newspapers, citing popoganda government sources from Iran, and various blogs and then turning around and claiming to cite reliable sources isn't dishonest?


Sir, you have arrived, you are made yourself a clown. Complete with rubber nose and big floppy shoes. I have nothing more to say to you beyond take a few balloon animals and dance for some children. You have demonstrated rather firmly that you are yourself either too ignorant to realize what you're saying, too detached from reality to know what you're saying, or simply lying to save a hopeless argument. I'd have pity for you if I hadn't given you every chance to save yourself... but I did.


*shoos Volker away*

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This is pretty clear, that you are not a dishonest person.

This has been tried before with other people, it is a trick, I have never seen it working. This has been tried before with me.

All these ad hominems certainly don't look like a sign of a strong position to me :mrgreen:

Welcome back, Volker. We missed you. :2wave: Guess now I can go back to posting in the ME Forum.

 

[Gardener]

Sir, you have arrived, you are made yourself a clown.

Volker hasn't just arrived as it has been here for quite some time.

I do take exception with your characterization of Volker as a clown, as well. Clowns are funny.


All you need to know about Volker is that facts will be ignored in favor of agenda and there is no such thing as truth. All is subjugated to the single-minded determination to promote the agenda of Islamist terrorists.

 

[Volker]

That's a text book case of ad hominem.

This is not an ad hominem at all, it shows a situation where the same person showed a similar behaviour, this makes it relevant.

I'm not kidding... he's going down and is already taking you with him.


You think pointing out that hes' citing geocities, editorials from rabidly biased newspapers, citing popoganda government sources from Iran, and various blogs and then turning around and claiming to cite reliable sources isn't dishonest?


Sir, you have arrived, you are made yourself a clown. Complete with rubber nose and big floppy shoes. I have nothing more to say to you beyond take a few balloon animals and dance for some children. You have demonstrated rather firmly that you are yourself either too ignorant to realize what you're saying, too detached from reality to know what you're saying, or simply lying to save a hopeless argument. I'd have pity for you if I hadn't given you every chance to save yourself... but I did.


*shoos Volker away*

Now, this is ad hominem and yes, you are kidding.

 

[Volker]

Welcome back, Volker. We missed you. :2wave: Guess now I can go back to posting in the ME Forum.

Hi, Captain, thank you :2wave:

 

[Volker]

I don't know the Islamist terrorist agenda, I wonder how this agenda would match Gardeners absurd left right circular theory.