you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

The screenshot showed a portion of the text, not cherry-picked pieces put together.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The point he's making is that if you take a section of something and say it's the entire thing then you're misleading people. His point has everything to do with the lack of context/info.

It's like taking a picture of your finger and calling it a detailed image of yourself. Yes, technically it's a part of you, but you're not just a single finger. You also have eyes and ears and arms and all that good stuff.

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

if you take a section of something and say it's the entire thing

Yeah, but that didn't happen. Where did the post say that was the entire law? OP picked the part that was most disturbing to them, highlighted it and shared it. The additional context doesn't take away from the post, IMO. Our legislature has far more pressing issues than worring about Jewish persecution in Europe. The fact that they're spending their time writing, debating, and passing stuff like this supports the OP's position that Jews have much influence over the US government, and nobody has posted anything to counter that specific argument.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Where did the post say that was the entire law?

Oh, come on now. This is such a weak argument. I'm saying that it was presented as if it was. Again, I say "here's a picture of me". You see only a finger. You say "that's not a picture of your whole body" and I say "Of course not! I never said it was!" Yeah, I'm technically right, but I'm still very misleading.

The fact that they're spending their time writing, debating, and passing stuff like this supports the OP's position that Jews have much influence over the US government, and nobody has posted anything to counter that specific argument.

Maybe it's because the jews have had people like you and OP insinuating that they're evil warmongers who rule the world behind the scenes? This isn't new either, this is centuries of hate thrown at them. They're the only group that is hated to such a degree that one of our largest atrocities, Hitler's attempt at genocide, was committed against them. Do other groups deserve the same laws? Yes, but I can understand focusing on the jews.

There are very many people who HATE jews all over, I've seen them. Certain people may not like blacks or the spanish, but the jews get a different kind of hate. They're the only group of people I've seen universally despised all over the world. The second would be black people.

[–]34679 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

people like you and OP insinuating that they're evil warmongers who rule the world behind the scenes

I see. You just make shit up and attribute it to others as you go along, just like you did with the OP's post.

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Lmao is that not a thing people say? Seriously, I see it a lot. People say the jews control the government, they start wars to profit off of them, all kinds of shit. I'll admit maybe you or OP didn't, but it's a very common sentiment.

Also, the holocaust definitely happened and there are definitely a large group of anti-Semites in the world.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They do, not all Jews and especially not law abiding ones. 9/11 was a Mossad and Dual-Israel, Zionist operation, the majority who planned happened to be Jews. That means, 99.9% of Jews are normal nice people, I have a neighbor who is Jewsh, I won't lump him in with the crimes a hundred or so Jews, Christian Zionists and trained Jesuits commited but I will call it out. Becase the neoconseervative Zionists like to use judaism as a scapegoat.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You can certainly have these beliefs and while I don't agree with you, this just goes to show what I said is correct. If anything you're further proving the point I'm making by posting what you've posted.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

People don't always have to disagree, you know.

[–]Zombi 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They certainly don't, but if I disagree then I'm allowed to voice that opinion.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I might be, but I know with certainty that neoconservative Zionists played the largest role in planning and rolling out 9/11. Is judaism to blame? No.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your argument is sound.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

But the portion was selected to misrepresent the meaning of the law. The image was edited to make it seem like that was a top-level list, when actually it was a second-level list. Red marks were placed to distract attention away from certain parts towards others.
We shouldn't have fallen for it.

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Fallen for what? It's an example of Jewish influence over US legislation, which supports the OP's claim.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's far, far weaker evidence than it was presented as being.

But, more importantly, it is being used by Saiditors as evidence, yet it was misrepresented. Surely this should be setting off alarm bells?

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

OP posted the part of the law he was outraged by, and shared it as evidence of Jewish influence over US legislation. How was it misrepresented? What lie did the OP tell?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

  1. It was edited so it appeared that this was the top level of the law. The indentation was removed. This suggested that these were part of the "list of directives".
  2. The OP omitted the context that stated that these were examples of things that would fit a definition. They weren't a definition, or a list of forbidden actions, or anything like that.

All in all, the OP made a deliberate misrepresentation of the law. That falls under my definition of "lie".

[–]34679 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

  1. Or, more likely, OP used the snipping tool to grab the part he was most outraged by because the full text wouldn't fit with the title. Go ahead and pull it up. Unless you're running 4K, it's not fitting on your screen.

  2. See 1. OP took a snip of that part of the law, and combined it with the header showing the name of the law, resolution number, sponsor, committee, etc. In other words, context that enables anyone to find the whole law and read it themselves.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

  1. No, it fits on my screen fine, and my screen is quite small. Note that it's ridiculously easy to produce an accurate version of the screenshot given by simply scrolling, then cropping the screenshot; a composite shot was wholly unnecessary.
  2. That would have taken an extra line; two at worst. Not all of that even would've been needed; just partial visibility of the last line before the extract would've served to make the context clear.

I suppose Hanlon's razor might apply here, though.