‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
Hamtramck, population 28,000, has new Trump campaign office weeks from election in hopes of gains in swing state
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21396125
Stephen Starr in Hamtramck, Michigan
Mon 14 Oct 2024 11.00 EDT
You're viewing part of a thread.
It's not a hypothetical, it's an example. The statement was made "There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide." I showed that's not true.
But it isn't happening that way so it doesn't matter.
The answer to a question doesn't matter because it doesn't fit your agenda. I get it. A statement was made, in general, not about these candidates. A moral stance. I showed the fallacy of that stance. We're not talking about what's happening right now, I'm talking about how that moral stance isn't valid.
You seem to want to make that discussion around moral stances something it isn't and are upset that it proves a point. Can you at least admit that moral stance is invalid?
You're debate-broing in defense of a genocidal admin.
Nope, not at all. You're ignoring the points being made to attack me directly and make wild claims. Never have I said genocide is ok or should be defended. Never did I say what either side is doing is ok, I actually called it bad if you would read what I wrote. I'm just realistic enough to see that rigid ideals hurt more people than help.
Can you at least admit that the moral stance of "There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide" is invalid? Or do you think sending $10 is the same as sending $10 billion?
You're debate-broing in defense of a genocidal admin.
So you can't answer the question and would rather just throw out generic insults? Lines up.
Again, you are debate-broing here. The point is that both the DNC and GOP are doing their best to arm Israel, and that will not change.
No, see you're missing the point to be contrarian and cause more friction because you don't like what I'm saying.
A general moral stance was claimed. Ok, got that? Nothing about DNC or GOP, a moral stance. About what is morally right. I disagreed with that moral stance about morals. Not about the DNC or GOP. So, I expressed why that's not a valid moral stance or worldview. That moral stance could be applied to any country. You keep trying to inject things about the DNC and GOP to push your agenda. Why is beyond me.
So you're debatelording.