Interesting that you’ll only admit that I’m right within the bounds of what supports your argument and then deny, as you, yourself, pointed out everything else.
That’s called cherry-picking, and it’s a logical fallacy.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.
I did not do this so explain what exactly I cherry picked. Zionism, which is what the current conflict is about, has only existed for a little over a 100 years.
So, not only do you employ logical fallacies like cherry picking to try to make your point, you also invent something I never said. I never claimed this was about Zionism at all. That is a straw man, and yet another logical fallacy
Interesting that you’ll only admit that I’m right within the bounds of what supports your argument and then deny, as you, yourself, pointed out everything else.
That’s called cherry-picking, and it’s a logical fallacy.
I did not do this so explain what exactly I cherry picked. Zionism, which is what the current conflict is about, has only existed for a little over a 100 years.
So, not only do you employ logical fallacies like cherry picking to try to make your point, you also invent something I never said. I never claimed this was about Zionism at all. That is a straw man, and yet another logical fallacy
You said the conflict is 1000 years old. That’s not a straw man. How is this conflict 1000 years old then?
I’m not your history teacher. And you really should know what you’re talking about before engaging in a such a complex topic as this.