zmic wrote: sourmìlk wrote:
zmic wrote:Because they know perfectly well that the West, wary of yet another disastrous war in the Middle East, will prefer economic sanctions.
Again, . This is entirely speculative.
I'm not aware that the government of Israel has the habit of publishing their foreign strategies, so no [citation] will be forthcoming.
I'm not asking for a scientific proof here, because I know you can't provide one for the above reason. But how about at least some evidence pointing to why your view might be the case?
bentheimmigrant wrote:You claim things, with no proof, and then say its not your job to provide proof. You then spend pages arguing that it's not your role, even though you made a claim that's testable (just show the success rate of applicants). But you refuse. It's rude.
I really don't see how a disagreement about burden of proof constitutes rude behaviour. Not wanting to prove a negative claim is entirely valid.
yurell wrote:Your conduct? You call everyone liars, then lie to to excuse it.
I have never once done either of these things. And no, that's not calling you a liar because I make absolutely no guesses as to why you've said that. You may not remember properly, we may have different interpretations of the same events, etc. I don't assume the motivations behind people's arguments, because it's an ad hominem, and because I don't care. I think you think that I think that, when I point out that a person is stating a falsehood, I assume that they're lying. I don't.
You make positive assertions, and then when asked for evidence you ignore the requests (or claim that it's not your job).
See above: arguing about burden of proof is perfectly legitimate behaviour for a debate.
This is entirely valid.
You refused to let a point you've challenged once stand in an argument, yet if you're being supported by a challenged point you're happy to use it.
If a point or counterargument has been made and is unchallenged, it is reasonable for me to assume that it's not been challenged because people agree with it.
You constantly say "I've explained ...", when you know that this annoys people and tends to be untrue.
I do it in the above situation.
You constantly argue ad nauseum using the same points that have been discredited by virtually everyone in the thread.
I only go back to previous points if a person makes a point I've already refuted. That's not me dragging the thread in circles, it's him.
You try to redefine words to mean what you want hem to mean so you can use their connotations while sticking to your own ridiculous restricted meaning.
If I've committed the "no true Scottsman" fallacy I apologize, but I don't see how that qualifies as misconduct.
Several other things have been described in various people's discourses before they blocked you (including me). I should really have learnt to not read your posts by now, but almost every post in this thread not by you addresses you.
I've read those posts, and they tend to be insults that tell me nothing other than that the poster is annoyed with me.
Edit: In fact, given that it's not rare for a mod to say 'this will not turn into another Sourmilk discussion', it should be obvious that at least something is wrong with how you conduct yourself in a discussion.
Or that I post a lot and thus frustrate people.