Because I’m perfectly aware of what he actually thinks about these issues and you’re not fairly representing those views. I’m not going to defend views he doesn’t hold.
Telling someone they’re wrong is much less convincing than demonstrating it by laying out the evidence.
It’s pretty clear you just don’t like the guy based on what you’ve heard someone say about him and are now just having an emotional reaction to someone bringing it up. If you actually had a point you would’ve already made it.
This criticism is like the anti-Sam Harris 101 entry level talking points. I’ve heard it countered hundreds of times before. I’m surprised you didn’t also mention the Bell Curve and racism.
Look into any of his statements where he argues Israel has a right to defend itself, that Palestinians are genocidal, that colonialism isn’t a thing on and on and yes I also think iq is nonsense.
You just keep making noise, how about trying to make a coherent argument instead? Steelman a position of his that you disagree with and then tell me what exactly you disagree with about it.
This incoherent, ambiguous hand-waving isn’t going to achieve anything. You chose to speak up - then speak up.
First, my general attitude: I’m not interested in exploring all the ways that Israel has missed the mark—from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s corrupt alliance with the far right, to the many crimes committed by settlers in the West Bank…
He argues that Israel’s actions in Gaza do not constitute genocide under any reasonable definition of the term. He’s also pointing out that Hamas has openly expressed genocidal intent toward Jews and Israel, both in their founding charter and in public statements by their leaders. He views the genocide accusation against Israel as a moral inversion: it attributes genocidal intent to the side that has the means but refrains from using them for that purpose, while ignoring the side that has the explicit intent but lacks the capability.
If it was how can you trust someone with those opinions at all never mind “the most”?
Because I’m perfectly aware of what he actually thinks about these issues and you’re not fairly representing those views. I’m not going to defend views he doesn’t hold.
Look into any of his statements about israel palestine you are factually wrong no point talking to you.
Telling someone they’re wrong is much less convincing than demonstrating it by laying out the evidence.
It’s pretty clear you just don’t like the guy based on what you’ve heard someone say about him and are now just having an emotional reaction to someone bringing it up. If you actually had a point you would’ve already made it.
This criticism is like the anti-Sam Harris 101 entry level talking points. I’ve heard it countered hundreds of times before. I’m surprised you didn’t also mention the Bell Curve and racism.
Look into any of his statements where he argues Israel has a right to defend itself, that Palestinians are genocidal, that colonialism isn’t a thing on and on and yes I also think iq is nonsense.
You just keep making noise, how about trying to make a coherent argument instead? Steelman a position of his that you disagree with and then tell me what exactly you disagree with about it.
This incoherent, ambiguous hand-waving isn’t going to achieve anything. You chose to speak up - then speak up.
He claims Israel isn’t a settler colonial , isn’t commiting commiting genocide, on and on
First, my general attitude: I’m not interested in exploring all the ways that Israel has missed the mark—from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s corrupt alliance with the far right, to the many crimes committed by settlers in the West Bank…
Source
He argues that Israel’s actions in Gaza do not constitute genocide under any reasonable definition of the term. He’s also pointing out that Hamas has openly expressed genocidal intent toward Jews and Israel, both in their founding charter and in public statements by their leaders. He views the genocide accusation against Israel as a moral inversion: it attributes genocidal intent to the side that has the means but refrains from using them for that purpose, while ignoring the side that has the explicit intent but lacks the capability.
Yeah not even debate someone denying the most well documented genocide by an apartheid settler colony.