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.
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.
Not you. I didn't know your position, but I do know that nearly everyone here does not believe the official version's blame assignment, or Al Qaeda's admission for that matter.
I didn't say strange. It's not strange. That's my point. Funding enemies is commonplace.
Not that commonplace. (Leaving aside that if you're doing it, they're not really enemies. After all, Jake Sullivan acknowledged that the US is on the same side as Al Qaeda in Syria. Not enemies.) But let's call them enemies. If you take stock of how much funding goes to friends as opposed to enemies, the latter is absolutely dwarfed. It's not the normal course of events.
If all you knew of my neighbor is that he's trying to burn my house down, you wouldn't suspect him of being Antonio's agent, right? Now, in more exceptional circumstances, he might be serving my interetss... for insurance money, for example. But these are exceptional circumstances, which would need to be demonstrated and not asserted. The reasonable default conclusion, absent further evidence, is that he is not serving my interests. And the reasonable default conclusion for a guy inciting anti-Jewish riots is that he's not a "Jewish agent". Could it be 900D-chess where they use this guy to play the victim? Unlikely, but theoretically possible. Still, I'd need to see evidence, and the weight of the evidence absent such evidence is that he is not. Same for the example I gave you earlier to make you see it from another perspective. If a woman claimed a guy is a rapist, and there was evidence of them interacting cordially after the alleged rape, that suggests that he did not do it. Are there exceptional circumstances here this is not the case? Sure. These would require evidence, and in the absence of that evidence, I would conclude that the guy did not do it.
This all seem so obvious to me that I'm a bit shocked that you're so resistant to it. Perhaps you think that I'm saying that this is definitive, absolute 100% proof (which I don't even have for your consciousness or existence), rather than the fact that this is evidence that very strongly suggests something?
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?
I think it's ridiculous to call him a Jewish agent. I'm sure he's had support from Jews completely unrelated to Jewishness.
You wouldn't call Hamas a Jewish or Israeli agent, right? It's just that Hamas served Israeli interests by creating division, so they allowed Qatari money to come in to Gaza.
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.
Obviously not that, I know you well enough.
No, you've lost perspective, or just monumentally and unintentionally misconstrued me. Your logic doesn't work; that was my only point.
Let's see who has lost perspective, or maybe neither. Imagine if all you knew about someone is that he incited deadly anti-Jewish riots, and someone put a gun to your head and demanded that you answer if this makes it more likely, less likely, or no difference to your judgment of the truth of the assertion that this guy is a Jewish agent.
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.
Not you. I didn't know your position, but I do know that nearly everyone here does not believe the official version's blame assignment, or Al Qaeda's admission for that matter.
Not that commonplace. (Leaving aside that if you're doing it, they're not really enemies. After all, Jake Sullivan acknowledged that the US is on the same side as Al Qaeda in Syria. Not enemies.) But let's call them enemies. If you take stock of how much funding goes to friends as opposed to enemies, the latter is absolutely dwarfed. It's not the normal course of events.
If all you knew of my neighbor is that he's trying to burn my house down, you wouldn't suspect him of being Antonio's agent, right? Now, in more exceptional circumstances, he might be serving my interetss... for insurance money, for example. But these are exceptional circumstances, which would need to be demonstrated and not asserted. The reasonable default conclusion, absent further evidence, is that he is not serving my interests. And the reasonable default conclusion for a guy inciting anti-Jewish riots is that he's not a "Jewish agent". Could it be 900D-chess where they use this guy to play the victim? Unlikely, but theoretically possible. Still, I'd need to see evidence, and the weight of the evidence absent such evidence is that he is not. Same for the example I gave you earlier to make you see it from another perspective. If a woman claimed a guy is a rapist, and there was evidence of them interacting cordially after the alleged rape, that suggests that he did not do it. Are there exceptional circumstances here this is not the case? Sure. These would require evidence, and in the absence of that evidence, I would conclude that the guy did not do it.
This all seem so obvious to me that I'm a bit shocked that you're so resistant to it. Perhaps you think that I'm saying that this is definitive, absolute 100% proof (which I don't even have for your consciousness or existence), rather than the fact that this is evidence that very strongly suggests something?
I think it's ridiculous to call him a Jewish agent. I'm sure he's had support from Jews completely unrelated to Jewishness.
You wouldn't call Hamas a Jewish or Israeli agent, right? It's just that Hamas served Israeli interests by creating division, so they allowed Qatari money to come in to Gaza.
Obviously not that, I know you well enough.
Let's see who has lost perspective, or maybe neither. Imagine if all you knew about someone is that he incited deadly anti-Jewish riots, and someone put a gun to your head and demanded that you answer if this makes it more likely, less likely, or no difference to your judgment of the truth of the assertion that this guy is a Jewish agent.