Also, I have almost never seen anyone who smears someone as "woke right" or "stormfag" win an argument. People who are trying to pull off that tactic should probably think about better ways of getting their point across.
Right, but it's not 'blowback' if it comes before supposed manipulation. Point is, Al Sharpton is not a 'Jewish agent'. He's just a moron grifter.
Call it whatever you want; it's possible - and happens - that an organization or group actively funds another group that calls for the death of the funders.
I'm just calling out the logic; again, not saying Sharpton is a Jewish agent, just that your argument doesn't do anything to disprove the idea.
Also, I have almost never seen anyone who smears someone as "woke right" or "stormfag" win an argument. People who are trying to pull off that tactic should probably think about better ways of getting their point across.
What if it's not a smear?
I'm just calling out the logic; again, not saying Sharpton is a Jewish agent, just that your argument doesn't do anything to disprove the idea.
I'm very confused. If pointing out that Al Sharpton incited deadly anti-Jewish riots isn't very strong evidence against the unproven and unsubstantiated claim that he is a "Jewish agent", then what does? This is the equivalent of the feminist claim that "a woman being friendly with a guy she's accusing of rape isn't evidence against the rape".
Let's be real. It's not even my job to "disprove" that. It's Mr. Retard's job to prove it, which he didn't. And not only did he fail to do that, he cited a guy who incited deadly anti-Jewish riots.
It's funny that any claim that Al Qaeda did 9/11 gets people here angry, except when it's done as a rhetorical ploy. Of course, if you believe in '9/11 truth' like 95% of people here, then you wouldn't believe at all that it's strange for the US to fund Al Qaeda.
Regardless, let's take your claim at face value. Like I said, you take something that is vanishingly improbable and then assert that it's somehow the norm, like feminists do with rape victims. Some rape victim, somewhere, was nice to her attacker, so the fact that a woman is nice to a man is not evidence for him not raping her. You're losing perspective like they do. Apparently, you'd rather believe, or give the benefit of the doubt to, a claim with zero substantiation, than to counter-evidence which is real counter-evidence.
It's funny that any claim that Al Qaeda did 9/11 gets people here angry, except when it's done as a rhetorical ploy.
I wouldn't say angry, but touché. That's a good point. For the record, I'm not saying exclusively AQ did 9/11; there were other actors as well. But they were involved.
Of course, if you believe in '9/11 truth' like 95% of people here, then you wouldn't believe at all that it's strange for the US to fund Al Qaeda.
I didn't say strange. It's not strange. That's my point. Funding enemies is commonplace.
Israeli funds Hamas. You think it's ridiculous that "Jews" (not all, obviously, but some interest group, or Israeli cutout, or what have you) would fund Sharpton?
And, again, you missed the point. I'm not even taking sides, just pointing out that your initial rebuttal made no logical sense. And I never said "Mr. Retard" was correct, or his logic was well thought out, or anything. Just that 'Jews wouldn't fund someone who stirred up anti-Jew riots' is far from a compelling argument. Because they absolutely fucking would. And, no, not because 'muh Jews,' but because that's how organizations operate. Heck, Israel loves antisemitism.
You're losing perspective like they do. Apparently, you'd rather believe, or give the benefit of the doubt to, a claim with zero substantiation, than to counter-evidence which is real counter-evidence.
No, you've lost perspective, or just monumentally and unintentionally misconstrued me. Your logic doesn't work; that was my only point.
Why not just say that, then?
Also, I have almost never seen anyone who smears someone as "woke right" or "stormfag" win an argument. People who are trying to pull off that tactic should probably think about better ways of getting their point across.
Call it whatever you want; it's possible - and happens - that an organization or group actively funds another group that calls for the death of the funders.
I'm just calling out the logic; again, not saying Sharpton is a Jewish agent, just that your argument doesn't do anything to disprove the idea.
Dunno.
What if it's not a smear?
I'm very confused. If pointing out that Al Sharpton incited deadly anti-Jewish riots isn't very strong evidence against the unproven and unsubstantiated claim that he is a "Jewish agent", then what does? This is the equivalent of the feminist claim that "a woman being friendly with a guy she's accusing of rape isn't evidence against the rape".
Let's be real. It's not even my job to "disprove" that. It's Mr. Retard's job to prove it, which he didn't. And not only did he fail to do that, he cited a guy who incited deadly anti-Jewish riots.
And the US is funding the same group of people who did 9/11.
It's funny that any claim that Al Qaeda did 9/11 gets people here angry, except when it's done as a rhetorical ploy. Of course, if you believe in '9/11 truth' like 95% of people here, then you wouldn't believe at all that it's strange for the US to fund Al Qaeda.
Regardless, let's take your claim at face value. Like I said, you take something that is vanishingly improbable and then assert that it's somehow the norm, like feminists do with rape victims. Some rape victim, somewhere, was nice to her attacker, so the fact that a woman is nice to a man is not evidence for him not raping her. You're losing perspective like they do. Apparently, you'd rather believe, or give the benefit of the doubt to, a claim with zero substantiation, than to counter-evidence which is real counter-evidence.
I wouldn't say angry, but touché. That's a good point. For the record, I'm not saying exclusively AQ did 9/11; there were other actors as well. But they were involved.
I didn't say strange. It's not strange. That's my point. Funding enemies is commonplace.
Israeli funds Hamas. You think it's ridiculous that "Jews" (not all, obviously, but some interest group, or Israeli cutout, or what have you) would fund Sharpton?
And, again, you missed the point. I'm not even taking sides, just pointing out that your initial rebuttal made no logical sense. And I never said "Mr. Retard" was correct, or his logic was well thought out, or anything. Just that 'Jews wouldn't fund someone who stirred up anti-Jew riots' is far from a compelling argument. Because they absolutely fucking would. And, no, not because 'muh Jews,' but because that's how organizations operate. Heck, Israel loves antisemitism.
No, you've lost perspective, or just monumentally and unintentionally misconstrued me. Your logic doesn't work; that was my only point.