TakeYouToTasker

Yes. You're going in the direction of a logical fallacy. What do you do, in your model, with anti-Semites who are Zionists? They exist, much in the same way Abraham Lincoln sought to send all blacks in America to Liberia. What do you do with Jews who stand in opposition to Israel? Or are they simply your version of an "uncle Tom"? What do you do with non-interventionists, Nationalists, and libertarians who simply oppose entangling the nation in the affairs of foreign governments? Again, Joe, this is lazy thinking. If you wanted to make the case that anti-Semites have a strong overlap with anti-Zionists, and vice versa, that might be a more reasonable, if unsubstantiated, claim; but at least you're leaving room for reality in that model. The one you're currently using doesn't.

... It is possible to be anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic, Joe. You can be both at the same time. You can also be either-or, or neither.

No, Joe, it isn't to passively advocate for the destruction of the Jewish people any more than it would be for any other group of people with historically similar circumstances. IE. opposition to La Raza does not make you bigoted against Latinos or Mexican decent; opposition to reparations does not make you bigoted against blacks. That's lazy thinking. Jews are no different than anyone else, and simply because they have a preferred solution to their problems doesn't mean you hate or wish to discriminate against them by opposing it.

There are many things I'm prepared to accuse Boyst of being. None of them are "slick".

That's a very dangerous game. One that often puts a person on the wrong end of shotgun. There are two things in life you don't mess with: a man's wife and his paycheck. Doing either often proves fatal.

No, anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

Actually, I'm not really sure where the disabled fit into the intersectionality hierarchy.

...

No, that's not me being an !@#$. That's me explaining to you what you're doing. Listen, I enjoy your posts here. From what I've read from you over the years, I believe you try to be a deeply moral and good man. I know, from your posts, which I take at face value, that you love your family deeply, that you care about the world and the issues of the day, that you're compassionate, and that you are a man of God. I respect that, and I respect you. If either of us drank, I'm sure we'd enjoy a beer together. If we encountered each other at a Bills game, I would love to spend the day cheering them on together. I don't believe Israel to be innocent in any of this. There are no innocents in a war. The point I am trying to make is that you are too close to this issue to be in any way objective. That, and it would behoove you to make sure your information is correct before opining. I understand the difficulty in doing that when talking about issues we're passionate about; which I know is an absurd understatement in your situation given what we are discussing. However I implore you to try. Your people are at war, and often times they are the aggressors. This is one of those times. Here is the source you asked for. Actually, I'll provide you with several from a wide variety of sources to try and cut through bias: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/50-of-dead-in-gaza-protest-were-hamas-activists-says-hamas-official-1.6094899 https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/middleeast/hamas-members-gaza-deaths/index.html https://nypost.com/2018/05/16/hamas-claims-most-killed-at-gaza-border-were-supporters/ http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/16/hamas-50-dead-israel-clash/ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/hamas-claims-majority-gaza-protest-victims-members-article-1.3993750

Actually, it was Hamas who claimed 50 of the 62, not Israel. Nice to see you voicing your support for terrorists though. Good look, that.

So, the purpose is to undermine the Trump Presidency. Do you believe this is valid or wise?

Actually, you may have stumbled onto the one thing pot can cure by accident: having a good memory.

I'm mixed on him. He does a lot of good work, but retreats to motte and bailey fallacy when pinned down on issues related to libertarianism. On the whole, there's more good than bad; and I find him to be bright and articulate. He's more sabre rattler than problem solver though.

They're not folks anymore?

Can you even imagine the amount of smugness a pack of 50 Ben Shapiro's would have? 50 of the 62 dead were members of Hamas. Yes, war. I look forward to your complete retraction.

Someone's been watching Laura Southern.

...

No. Dividing us through faux political sabre rattling between the two parties.

They are propaganda outlets, but not for a party. People need to stop think about this in binary terms. They are doing this intentionally to divide us as a people.

If you're trying to make an itemized accounting of the problem you're going to run out of numbers.

Samson

I disagree with this. It is attempting to be forwarded as a new dogma, and has yet to be universally accepted. It is important to resist it's incursion.

Exactly. This has to lead to air tight prosecutions, or it will plunge us directly into civil war; and it may anyhow.

All of them. You're talking about actively prosecuting the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet. If you try to do it half-assed, they'll escape conviction, will turn this into a political football, and the Republic will be permanently lost. This is serious business being conducted by serious people. It's probably, historically speaking, one of the biggest potential turning points in human history. You don't sacrifice effectiveness to capitulate to short attention span theater.