then that is an attempt to discredit without disproving which is a tactic used to derail discussions.
I clearly said I don't even necessarily disagree with the message, just the framing. Again, it's a bad argument if you could make it fit universally.
Although I also may have overreacted a bit, it's mostly the framing of your title (no offense) that got me, not so much the linked content. The poster is talking specifics and themes, and there being ten books isn't really a core point, and he's not arguing statistics and ratios. I just got that from your title, and reacted to that, perhaps wrongly.
Not saying that is your intent but that is the result.
Well, thanks, because I certainly wasn't trying to derail. I just don't like bad arguments, and I think "These ten Jews I picked have something in common" is an incredibly silly argument. Which, again, isn't even the point of the content, just the title.
So, yeah, not trying to derail or discredit, just point out silliness when I see it.
I clearly said I don't even necessarily disagree with the message, just the framing. Again, it's a bad argument if you could make it fit universally.
Although I also may have overreacted a bit, it's mostly the framing of your title (no offense) that got me, not so much the linked content. The poster is talking specifics and themes, and there being ten books isn't really a core point, and he's not arguing statistics and ratios. I just got that from your title, and reacted to that, perhaps wrongly.
Well, thanks, because I certainly wasn't trying to derail. I just don't like bad arguments, and I think "These ten Jews I picked have something in common" is an incredibly silly argument. Which, again, isn't even the point of the content, just the title.
So, yeah, not trying to derail or discredit, just point out silliness when I see it.
understood