Did you?
All you have are unsubstantiated claims, inability to substantiate them, and lack of integrity to admit you can’t.
Typical for people on here.
I don’t expect you to acknowledge when you are wrong.
No, that’s definitely you.
Your video has nothing to do with your particular claim that the star on the floor is a Star of David: digression fallacy.
We aren’t talking about antisemitism, we’re talking about your insistence on that claim despite failure to substantiate it, disclosure that the design belongs to an actual building unrelated to Judaism, the implausibility that its appearance in the film is due to an author who didn’t direct the film & whose book likely didn’t specify that detail.
It’s classic motivated reasoning & confirmation bias drawing hasty conclusions lacking adequate support.
We aren’t disputing your other claims.
We’re disputing this one & criticizing your poor reasoning & lack of integrity to admit it’s unsupported.
Like the typical discourse at lemmy.
ad hominem fallacy
What is the first thing you said to me? You do not know what you are saying, but it feels right to you well that is because you are accusing people of things you are guilty of. You’re basic and transparent, try logic.
Your poor reasoning skills are failing you. The antisemitic caricature goes hand in hand with set design. So you are trying to ague they went to another country to film in an active government building built with the exact styling as their home country and that set designers, directors and everyone else involved chose to feature the star among such depictions was an accident or coincidence?
Do you need it substantiated how detail oriented film makers are? You aren’t disputing the antisemitic character depictions, but you refuse to see the connection between the characters and their location? Claiming a movie isn’t very specific about details is a pretty bold claim you will need to backup with some evidence.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 4 weeks ago
Abusive ad hominem fallacy.
Did you? All you have are unsubstantiated claims, inability to substantiate them, and lack of integrity to admit you can’t. Typical for people on here.
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Not it off fuckwit. You are either incredibly stupid or purposely trying to minimize the antisemitism.
Image
Watch this you ignorant asshole www.youtube.com/watch?v=4df3aD8ZfVw
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 4 weeks ago
Again with the ad hominem fallacy: try logic.
No, that’s definitely you. Your video has nothing to do with your particular claim that the star on the floor is a Star of David: digression fallacy.
We aren’t talking about antisemitism, we’re talking about your insistence on that claim despite failure to substantiate it, disclosure that the design belongs to an actual building unrelated to Judaism, the implausibility that its appearance in the film is due to an author who didn’t direct the film & whose book likely didn’t specify that detail. It’s classic motivated reasoning & confirmation bias drawing hasty conclusions lacking adequate support.
We aren’t disputing your other claims. We’re disputing this one & criticizing your poor reasoning & lack of integrity to admit it’s unsupported. Like the typical discourse at lemmy.
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Your poor reasoning skills are failing you. The antisemitic caricature goes hand in hand with set design. So you are trying to ague they went to another country to film in an active government building built with the exact styling as their home country and that set designers, directors and everyone else involved chose to feature the star among such depictions was an accident or coincidence?
Do you need it substantiated how detail oriented film makers are? You aren’t disputing the antisemitic character depictions, but you refuse to see the connection between the characters and their location? Claiming a movie isn’t very specific about details is a pretty bold claim you will need to backup with some evidence.