Fair enough. The blocking function is just a god send to me. I just take a look at their comment history, if it’s just full of bad takes I decide I don’t need their opinions in my life.

Don’t argue with edgy teenagers, see his last reply, he is either 12 years old or functionally an idiot, Not worth the time nor energy.

Ooof.

The start of the issue was when Europeans wanted Jewish people out of Europe after WW2 so they stole a shit ton of land that’s important to three different religions from the Palestinians and called it Israel…

That’s not what happened. There was a strong desire for a Jewish state in Palestine for hundreds of years, in the beginning of the 20th century this was accelerated through the British mandate and immigration. The real story is way more complex and your representation of it is not only wrong but also negates the agency the Jewish population living there for centuries had in creating the Jewish state.

Of course the horrors of the Holocaust had part in the decision but it was not because “Europeans wanted Jews out”

Like I said the real history is waaaaay more complex, I suggest you read up on it - the is a got starting point.

Edit: link didn’t post for some reason - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

I mean we already got the annoyingly erratic “this isn’t x -website” people that infested every corner of reddit so you might be on to something…

Another dishonest tactic - deflecting to an unimportant part of the argument to hold up the participant with needless explanations for metaphorical concepts.

What the other user meant is that all we know about space travel is, that we need a lot of protective layers around our crafts just for leaving the atmosphere, so one would assume that craft that supposedly travel hundreds of light-years would need a very sophisticated kind of protection. But there is no way to deliver evidence to a theoretical concept, hence why I said your arguing is in bad faith my dear.

edit: and now he takes the cowards way out of a failing argument by deleting his comments. That’s another tactic - ending the conversation, rendering all our arguments worthless and essential wasting our time. Jean Paul Sartre described it well in his quote about anti semitism.

It’s impossible to prove a negative, you simply can not prove that something ISN’T there. It’s such a transparent deflection and you know that, it’s a common conspiracy tactic, dishonest argument 101.

As long as there is no physical evidence that proves the existence of extra terrestrial UFO we have to assume that they are not real. So if you want to maintain they exist, you’ll have to cough up some proof.

Everytime Kissinger is mentioned I have to think of this Anthony Bourdain quote:

“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević.”

Bourdain is dead and that shit stain Kissinger is now over 100 years old. The world is not fair.