upvote
> What you're doing now is a different argument entirely:

I've not made an argument. I've provided the proper context that supports the original point.

>> Considering the scale of suffering caused by this conflict, - Jasonadrury

your response:

> That's not context, it's a category error dressed up as one.

You have shifted goalposts in every post. The context was the conflict in aggregate. Continue arguing with yourself. It's not compelling.

reply
"I've not made an argument" is a fascinating claim immediately after quoting someone who used aggregate scale to call October 7th a "blip"- and agreeing with them.

Providing context in support of a conclusion is making an argument. That's what arguments are.

The goalposts that moved: "blip" (single event framing) -> "scale of the conflict" (aggregate framing) -> "I wasn't arguing anything." Three posts, three different claims, now apparently none of them count.

Noted.

reply
What’s an ‘event’?
reply
...

A discrete incident with a defined start, end, perpetrator and location.

(As opposed to a 77-year conflict involving multiple states, wars and actors.)

Now ask me one on sport.

reply
That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking right there.

You sure have a big stake in defending a genocide, Jan.

reply
The OCHA data is linked above. Read it or don't.
reply