You set the goalposts at “opposing genocide,” so that’s still the elephant in the metaphor. I can understand why you think someone might shift the meaning mid-discussion in order to “win,” but that’s not happening here.
There are two candidates in this presidential election who have a realistic chance of success. One has voiced support for a ceasefire as a step to a two-state solution and concern for Palestinian suffering. The other has expressed the belief that a ceasefire is an unreasonable constraint on Israel, and that a swift, decisive victory is the only solution. One has acknowledged the need for Palestinian self-determination, the other has bragged about figuratively burying Palestine. One has openly stated that they “respect the voice” of pro-Palestinian protestors, the other has signaled that political dissent by “enemies within” will be persecuted.
However, if we’ve reached the point where you’ve determined that you are sure you know what I’ll say, then this discussion has run its course. Language like that implies that you’re preparing for an argument that would very likely either start off circular or quickly regress to that state.
The first one has also been saying that they support Israel, that Oct 7th is the biggest tragedy despite most likely over 100x that amount has died on the other side by now, that Iran is our number one enemy despite them just defending themselves, and has continued to give a genocidal racist regime money and weapons whole they clear out all of northern Gaza. And the biggest thing of all, is that they’re the ones helping perpetrated the genocide now. Pay attention to people’s actions, instead of words (although in this case, as I said initially, her words haven’t been great either lol).
You set the goalposts at “opposing genocide,” so that’s still the elephant in the metaphor. I can understand why you think someone might shift the meaning mid-discussion in order to “win,” but that’s not happening here.
There are two candidates in this presidential election who have a realistic chance of success. One has voiced support for a ceasefire as a step to a two-state solution and concern for Palestinian suffering. The other has expressed the belief that a ceasefire is an unreasonable constraint on Israel, and that a swift, decisive victory is the only solution. One has acknowledged the need for Palestinian self-determination, the other has bragged about figuratively burying Palestine. One has openly stated that they “respect the voice” of pro-Palestinian protestors, the other has signaled that political dissent by “enemies within” will be persecuted.
However, if we’ve reached the point where you’ve determined that you are sure you know what I’ll say, then this discussion has run its course. Language like that implies that you’re preparing for an argument that would very likely either start off circular or quickly regress to that state.
The first one has also been saying that they support Israel, that Oct 7th is the biggest tragedy despite most likely over 100x that amount has died on the other side by now, that Iran is our number one enemy despite them just defending themselves, and has continued to give a genocidal racist regime money and weapons whole they clear out all of northern Gaza. And the biggest thing of all, is that they’re the ones helping perpetrated the genocide now. Pay attention to people’s actions, instead of words (although in this case, as I said initially, her words haven’t been great either lol).