You remind me of a short debate I had with a local 'friend'. The friendship didn't last the debate however, since I was presenting evidence and seeking answers that never came. I was labeled instead.. 'deceived'. As soon as the labels come out, you know the discussion is over.
Let's leave aside that the leaps of logic, critical thinking errors, and weak referential integrity of the relationships you question (might I add conspiratorially) doesn't provide a shred of evidence to backup anything you say (other than your opinions).
A common strategy for people to attack others is:
(1) Cast doubt on any source that disagrees with your point of view using the classic "Who funds x,y,z"? Valid questions. But before such questions are asked (and this can be asked of all/any groups or individuals - even the ones you agree with), one needs to do due dilligence of the content. In this example, you seem eager to cast doubt on "Arab America" by using the familiar question "Who funds this?" regardless of any research as to the integrity OR accuracy of the material produced by the group. So why should anyone fall for your classic attempts at deflection?
This is just one example of the strategies that deniers use when they don't have facts or evidence to back up their claims. So they have a proclivity to weave these threads by "attempting to plant seeds of doubt" in an effort to abrogate critical thinking.
I could go on with a detailed analysis of the errors in your comment, but IMO it is not worth the time - as you have already demonstrated your stance and bias beyond any shadow of a doubt.
(PS: many people use the same strategies you use - including Israel. How many times has Israel attempted to cast doubt and villify/discredit/defame a source using the "who funds" argument? How many times have Israel tried to disrepute and stigmatize sources that reveal evidence that goes against their narrative? How often does Israel use the same tactic that you do (of giving significance to relationships that might not have any significance or bearing on the situation at all? (re:"executive director Rebecca Vilkomerson's husband was/is still working for Checkpoint, an "israeli" cyber security firm that makes monitoring software.")
Your comment, unfortunately, reeks of the same strategies that Israel uses to rebutt any facts/evidence that go against its narrative and interests.
Really Ernesto, is that what you think of Jews and Jewry?
And I'm the one with a problem?
Thank you for clarifying your position.
Even the Palestinians don't hate Jews the way you do. They hate "Israeli Zionists", "American Zionists", and any other Zionists out there. They also hate settler-colonialism and being oppressed (regardless of if Jews or some other ethnic group are doing the oppressing). If you doubt that, I suggest you work on getting your information from credible sources with high integrity.
Thank you for the important commentary on this point.
You remind me of a short debate I had with a local 'friend'. The friendship didn't last the debate however, since I was presenting evidence and seeking answers that never came. I was labeled instead.. 'deceived'. As soon as the labels come out, you know the discussion is over.
That has been my observation.
Let's leave aside that the leaps of logic, critical thinking errors, and weak referential integrity of the relationships you question (might I add conspiratorially) doesn't provide a shred of evidence to backup anything you say (other than your opinions).
A common strategy for people to attack others is:
(1) Cast doubt on any source that disagrees with your point of view using the classic "Who funds x,y,z"? Valid questions. But before such questions are asked (and this can be asked of all/any groups or individuals - even the ones you agree with), one needs to do due dilligence of the content. In this example, you seem eager to cast doubt on "Arab America" by using the familiar question "Who funds this?" regardless of any research as to the integrity OR accuracy of the material produced by the group. So why should anyone fall for your classic attempts at deflection?
This is just one example of the strategies that deniers use when they don't have facts or evidence to back up their claims. So they have a proclivity to weave these threads by "attempting to plant seeds of doubt" in an effort to abrogate critical thinking.
I could go on with a detailed analysis of the errors in your comment, but IMO it is not worth the time - as you have already demonstrated your stance and bias beyond any shadow of a doubt.
(PS: many people use the same strategies you use - including Israel. How many times has Israel attempted to cast doubt and villify/discredit/defame a source using the "who funds" argument? How many times have Israel tried to disrepute and stigmatize sources that reveal evidence that goes against their narrative? How often does Israel use the same tactic that you do (of giving significance to relationships that might not have any significance or bearing on the situation at all? (re:"executive director Rebecca Vilkomerson's husband was/is still working for Checkpoint, an "israeli" cyber security firm that makes monitoring software.")
Your comment, unfortunately, reeks of the same strategies that Israel uses to rebutt any facts/evidence that go against its narrative and interests.
HaHa. Thanks Ernesto for providing me with a good laugh. I'm beginning to enjoy the subtle comedy in your responses.
>>"...the world's only racist cesspool..."
Really Ernesto, is that what you think of Jews and Jewry?
And I'm the one with a problem?
Thank you for clarifying your position.
Even the Palestinians don't hate Jews the way you do. They hate "Israeli Zionists", "American Zionists", and any other Zionists out there. They also hate settler-colonialism and being oppressed (regardless of if Jews or some other ethnic group are doing the oppressing). If you doubt that, I suggest you work on getting your information from credible sources with high integrity.