As a demonstration of scale alone, I absolutely can. You're claiming the US planned an operation on the scale of 2.2million over 3 years, and attributed to this plan the infrastructure equivalent of a small town park.
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
I didn't say they planned for 3 years, I said how long it would take at the capacity they planned. 3 years didn't come from a hat like your thoughts do, they came from a calculator. Instead of being horrified that you could dispossess an entire people of their land with the infrastructure of a small town park, you're proving why they would choose such a small number.
People like you would leap to their defense and say people are crazy for expecting a full ethnic cleansing to happen.
This wasn't going anywhere when I called you out for ethnic cleansing apologia. All that's changed now is the mathematical demonstration that I was right to call you out on it.
I take from this that you'd prefer not to let it drop, then? If you absolutely refuse to let it end without doubling down on the smears, that's just a bit of a shame, but I'll obviously have to dispute personal accusations. It's your call. I'm happy to just end it.
Not necessarily. I just do find it interesting that the conversation can continue forever when we're not discussing things you've said and your beliefs. When we start talking about how you want to compare ethnic cleansing to an escalator, very suddenly the conversation wants to drop.
OK, so you want to carry on with the smearing.
I have never compared ethnic cleansing to an escalator. This is either an intentional lie, or you've still failed to grasp the argument. Judging by how you still seem to think that dividing 2.2m by 2k and coming up with a number is some kind of rebuttal, I suspect it's the latter, because that displays such an obvious and fundamental failure to grasp the point.
When you say "discussing things I've said and my beliefs", this has just been a parade of misrepresentations of my beliefs and lies about what I've said. So yes, it became tiresome to just constantly have to correct the record, and for you to just endlessly repeat the same falsehoods. So I wanted to just end it. But alas, apparently you absolutely refuse for this to end on any note except a smear, so here we are.
Because you haven't rebutted anything with any sort of substance. Your argument devolved to "trust me bro" and fallen on the exact same level as Jan 6 apologists, exactly as I said pages ago. And your intent is blindingly obvious as you still don't want to discuss why you think we can't assume genociders would take genocidal actions but instead focus on me. That's all you want to talk about, me. Not any ideas, not any historical events, your argumentation is focused entirely on the people arguing against you. That's why you wanted to drop the argument, because it started to focus too much on your ideas and why they just don't hold up under scrutiny.
This was addressed at the time. You misunderstood the argument, and thought it was about the perpetrator's failure to accomplish something being an indication that they didn't try. That wasn't the argument then, & it still isn't.
Never said this.
That is absolutely rich, considering the last several pages have been a never-ending parade of personal smears and accusations from you, and when I requested that we end it, you refused and doubled-down.
Last edited:
It was not addressed. When pointed out that by the numbers provided, Gaza could have been completely emptied in 3 years, you started talking about travel agencies and escalators to downplay just how fast that actually is. Your argument became banking on Biden's incompetence, which while tempting to do, should never actually be done when discussing something as threatening as ethnic cleansing. A plan was made and attempted that would empty Gaza completely before there could even be a presidential candidate in either major party who would actually want to stop something like this, but we can't discuss that because it takes away ammo for criticizing Trump. Even though you can still criticize Trump for wanting to ethnically cleanse the region, you just can't paint a strong contrast with the previous administration.
The argument was not, ever, about whether it was technically numerically possible over however long. It never relied on the administration's failure or incompetence. If you're talking about those things, you're not addressing the same argument.
I brought up escalators for one single reason: to illustrate that the bottleneck effect is not solely the result of demand and optimum capacity. OK? It was not a comparison with genocide.
All I'm going to do from now on is correct misrepresentations of what I've said, or personal accusations and smears. Whenever you're happy to stop.
But you won't name any other bottleneck. You went out of your way to say 2000 is just too small a number, repeatedly. That is your only argument, 2000 is too small. But 2000 isn't too small, it very clearly isn't. As that is seemingly the narrowest bottleneck in this series of events, it is perfectly reasonable to assume an attrition of 2000 people a day. You've provided no argument against this.
Maybe you shouldn't assume that 2000 per day through a checkpoint is a theoretical physical limitation that is necessarily going to be lower in practice as your argument from travel agency experience (or whatever) hinges on. Numbers can be all kinds of things: they can be estimates with varying assumptions that can result in high numbers and low numbers; they can be an agreement about a maximum number per day that has nothing whatsoever to do with the capacity of the infrastructure-- i.e. they let through 2000 and then close at 3 PM. But you know, escalators. Logistics.
My argument didn't really hinge on any of this, & I've never worked for a travel agency (!?!).
I'm just waiting for the insistent misrepresentation to stop at this point.
It really looks like it does. You've spent pages saying they're aiming for too low of a number, even in the face of it being shown that it's not too low, because you've retreated into "it would be even lower than what they say" with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to believe that.
1. I'm not saying they're aiming for "too low a number".
2. The argument doesn't hinge on the assumption that it'd be lower than 2k per day consistently for 3 years.
Really, all this is just reconfirming that you didn't really grasp what I was saying to begin with. But regardless, I just want to drop this now. As soon as you stop misrepresenting what I've said, we can.
As soon as you stop misrepresenting your own arguments for the past few pages now that you've got egg on your face. It's very telling that you won't say what the argument is now, I suspect because you were going to retreat into stressing on the argument being based around the word "infrastructure", like there was going to be a physical limit that wouldn't work properly or whatever until Senchaidh pointed out that the number was a political agreement, not an infrastructure project, and thus accomplishing 2000 a day would be extremely feasible. Now your argument is nothing, but you can't admit it.
If you want to bow out, fine, but I'm going to leave this here as the statement
If it's misinterpretation, explain yourself better. This one statement is you contradicting yourself in one post.