|
ustwo: perhaps you have difficulty reading some of my posts, so let me separate out one of the main points from above:
The article in the OP presents nothing like an argument for systematic anti-israel bias.
It uses anecdotal evidence to set up arbitrary assertions about systematic bias.
It provides no evidence of systematic bias, and therefore provides no proof of systematic bias and makes no coherent argument about it.
Do you have difficulty with the (rudimentary) notion that an assertion is not an argument?
Or are assertions the same as arguments for you?
When you evaluate an argument, is its relation to evidence not an issue?
Another way:
You seem quite convinced--based seemingly on nothing--that there is some kind of anti-israeli bias in the american press--the claim is preposterous---taking it at all seriously would requires some evidence and actual arguments related to that evidence.
Without it, the assertions of systematic bias are not even a joke: they are nothing more than paranoid statements you make because you find them aesthetically appealing.
If aesthetic appeal is the basis for your positions, why not simply say as much so I can stop wasting my time trying to figure out whether to take your posts seriously or not.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|