No it’s called being consistent. I understand you prefer being a hypocrite but personally I prefer holding consistent values. If something lacks conclusive evidence it is perfectly reasonable to be sceptical and question it.
You’re presenting two extreme views when in actuality you can look at the evidence and the people making the claims and know there’s way more choices then those two options you presented so it’s a false dichotomy.
Anyways since you’ve proven my point I think this conversation is done.
Yes you can look at evidence and have questions exactly. Questioning things not backed by conclusive evidence is the reasonable normal thing to do. Thank you for agreeing even if by accident.
But you did. You agreed that you can look at the evidence and who’s saying it and draw your own conclusions. This supports what I’ve been saying the whole time. You are the one who kept saying any questioning of events labelled genocide is genocide denial.
Literally when did I do that? Just to be clear I don’t think there is white genocide going on in either South Africa or Europe my whole point is your logic of calling all questioning of claims lacking conclusive evidence as genocide denial is idiotic as it means you must accept these also
I’m using international organizations and countries as mine yet you claim they are the same.
Sorry I didn’t realise Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Thailand, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the World Bank, and the UN weren’t international groups worthy of listening to.
It’s not though? Either it’s ok to question all claims without conclusive evidence or you must accept them all.
That’s a false dichotomy.
No it’s called being consistent. I understand you prefer being a hypocrite but personally I prefer holding consistent values. If something lacks conclusive evidence it is perfectly reasonable to be sceptical and question it.
You’re presenting two extreme views when in actuality you can look at the evidence and the people making the claims and know there’s way more choices then those two options you presented so it’s a false dichotomy.
Anyways since you’ve proven my point I think this conversation is done.
Yes you can look at evidence and have questions exactly. Questioning things not backed by conclusive evidence is the reasonable normal thing to do. Thank you for agreeing even if by accident.
I’m not agreeing with you I think your argument is flimsy and foolish.
But you did. You agreed that you can look at the evidence and who’s saying it and draw your own conclusions. This supports what I’ve been saying the whole time. You are the one who kept saying any questioning of events labelled genocide is genocide denial.
You’re denying genocide and using Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes as proof.
I’m using international organizations and countries as mine yet you claim they are the same.
Literally when did I do that? Just to be clear I don’t think there is white genocide going on in either South Africa or Europe my whole point is your logic of calling all questioning of claims lacking conclusive evidence as genocide denial is idiotic as it means you must accept these also
Sorry I didn’t realise Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Thailand, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the World Bank, and the UN weren’t international groups worthy of listening to.