I have no interest in defending arguments you have made by only quoting part of my sentences. They aren’t the arguments I have made, they aren’t ones I would bother defending.

You have flat out ignored parts of my argument, and even when you havent you have only quoted parts of my sentences and ignored the rest. You have also argued that if someone ignores an argument it is because they cant respond to it. Ill leave you to draw the obvious conclusion.............

Excuse me?
I am perfectly well aware that the target of the cartoon was Netanyahu (indeed, I said so in an earlier post), so there was no misinterpretation and you are wrong again.

My point (which you seem to have misinterpreted, probably deliberately) is that those "bad things", perpetrated by the state of Israel, under Netanyahu's leadership, are essential to the meaning of the cartoon.

The professionally outraged British Jews did not misinterpret the cartoon, they knew perfectly well what it was about. They took offence at the imagery of the wall of bodies.

You see, I've just quoted part of one of your sentences. It is a self-contained snippet, which says all one needs to know to understand it. If you'd written another 50 pages, nobody would need to read the rest to understand either your point, or my response to that point.

It's like if I answered exam questions on The Origin Of Species, or whatever. If each time I wanted to run an argument about something I'd read there, Id had to quote the whole feckin book, it wouldn't really work, now would it?

Are you really this stupid, or are you just feigning it for effect?

The target is the State of Israel and their acts under Netenyahu, rather than Netenyahu on his own. Only somebody being deliberately obtuse would argue that criticism of the acts of the state of Israel under Netenyahu’s leadership isn’t a criticism of the state of Israel aswell, especially when the title of said criticism is mentions Israel by name, but not Netenyahu. You can run around in circles all you want, jumping between the criticism being of an individual, and then to the acts of the state under the individual all you want. The fact you cant stick to one of them simply proves my point that there is potential for different interpretations.

And to address your point regarding the bad things, I can only reiterate that because nobody is disputing that ‘bad things’ happen, nor that they were ‘bad things’, listing the ‘bad things’ added nothing to the debate, weren’t relevant or needed and achieved nothing other than giving one poster a chance to unload about how much she dislikes them, That is irrelevant.
It is quite clear that the ‘bad things’ maybe relevant to the cartoon, they aren’t relevant to the debate we were having about it.

When did you answer an exam question on The Origin of Species? I dont believe you, prove it.

You see, I've just quoted part of one of your sentences. It is a self-contained snippet. Yet because i took out the context both before and after it, it completely changed what you had tried to communicate. This allowed me to argue against that self-contained snipped without actually addressing your argument at all.

I also ignored the rest of, this allowed me pretend it didnt happen, but frankly it's as utterly pointless as it is boring to be in a conversation where that is happening.

Hooray, at last.


Quite so.
Which begs the question why you feigned belief that I had misunderstood the cartoon.


Tedious and "deliberately obtuse" twaddle ... you knew exactly what was meant.


Nope, the "bad things" are essential to the meaning of the cartoon. The depiction of the "bad things" (i.e. the wall of bodies) is precisely from whence the offence was taken. To discuss the alleged offensiveness without reference to what caused the offence would be utterly meaningless.

Are you arguing just for the sake of it?

It's his raison d'etre.

Yet you have stated, at separate times, that the target was the State of Israel, Netenyahu as an individual, and now only the acts of the state of Israel under Netenyahu.

Because you did. You conflated the State of Israel, Netenyahu and the acts of the state of Israel under Netenyahu, I simply stated that as you have conflated these things, I can imagine others fearing the artist had done the same thing.

No, I don’t know what you mean without you saying it. Im not even trying to read your mind let alone succeeding in it.

So you think up until that point someone was arguing that these things didn’t happen or that they weren’t a source for criticism? No of course not, because everybody accepted, and nobody argued, that there weren’t things the state of Israel could be criticised for. If you are going to pretend that is the case, you would be a liar. We all knew full well the source of the criticism, we all accepted that people have a right, and people can and do criticise Israel, we all knew why Gerald Scarfe had chosen to do so. The debate has never been ‘are there things to be critical of Israel for’ so listing them as mintball did, was utterly pointless in the context of the debate and wasn’t, in my opinion, an attempt to add to the debate, but a chance for one poster to rant about her pet cause. That’s why it was irrelevant, that’s why it added nothing to the debate.

Seems that way.

No it isn't. It is a deliberate misquote by omission, which falsely asserts that I made a claim, when the person doing the asserting knows full well I did not. The seeming "quote" in fact completely misrepresents what was in fact written.

If you then proceed as if your deliberately falsified quote was correct, and replied to it, as in your example, you'd be pretty stupid.

It's actually embarrassing to have to explain this to an adult, but hey ho.