To be clear didn't read any of that horseshit past your first sentence because clearly it would be a waste of time.
So everybody has an idea of how much energy to waste trying to have conversations with you I wan a make this really clear. Are you saying there is no objective way to know whether or not Biden said he is a zionist who will fully support Isreal here?
Because if that's the case I think you're confusing "objective reality" for "literacy"
Because we're literally commenting on an article that directly quotes Joe Biden as saying that.
So unless you're saying what Biden says has no connection to reality (you could probably get somewhere with this but pretty sure that's not your point) not really sure what you're backup is.
Epistemic fallacy, non sequitur, strawman fallacy, goalpost moving.
His argumentation was clear in that it was directed at questioning one, and only one, attribute mentioned by you, specifically:
Then again Biden himself is not anymore progressive or any less Zionist than any Republican candidate, he is to the right of many of them. [emphasis mine]
You, on the other hand, argued for:
Then again Biden himself is not anymore progressive or any less Zionist than any Republican candidate, he is to the right of many of them. [emphasis mine]
Which is neither valid as a reply, nor is it relevant to the raised issue.
To be clear didn't read any of that horseshit past your first sentence because clearly it would be a waste of time.
So everybody has an idea of how much energy to waste trying to have conversations with you I wan a make this really clear. Are you saying there is no objective way to know whether or not Biden said he is a zionist who will fully support Isreal here?
Because if that's the case I think you're confusing "objective reality" for "literacy"
Because we're literally commenting on an article that directly quotes Joe Biden as saying that.
So unless you're saying what Biden says has no connection to reality (you could probably get somewhere with this but pretty sure that's not your point) not really sure what you're backup is.
Epistemic fallacy, non sequitur, strawman fallacy, goalpost moving.
His argumentation was clear in that it was directed at questioning one, and only one, attribute mentioned by you, specifically:
You, on the other hand, argued for:
Which is neither valid as a reply, nor is it relevant to the raised issue.
Attempted ad hominem, bandwagoning, infantile reply.
Except it isn't, as you'd know if you did any studying beyond looking up a list of fallacies on wikipedia...
k