I dunno, sometimes I think folks need to just relax and not get all mad at each other.

You mean, when I specific said NPR is reporting something, you said ‘that isn’t NPR’. Even though I said, specific that NPR was reporting it.

Because both sites where talking about similar situation. They were different time periods, but the exact same actions taken by the Israeli Government.

But I get it. Cherry pick the link that lets you make a fake argument about being valid, and ignore anything else that might show your ideas to be false.

You didn’t say anything here about the source you were arguing with, but considering the majority of my comment was based on NPR, how could you not be responding to NPR?

If you post a link from CNN and a link from Stormfront, people are going to tell you not to link to Stormfront even if they don’t care about your CNN article.

Except, I didn’t post Stormfront, nor is there any evidence that the article I posted is antisemitic.

So, that is a extreme example that has no bearing on this discussion.

Heck, that claim didn’t come into after the fact. It’s not until someone was put on the spot that they claimed it was antiemetic. And of course, @Aceris is quick to claim that any article that isn’t from a western source isn’t legit to begin with.

You posted a link from a group that apparently has ties to white supremacists. That’s worth pointing out.

Except, he didn’t point that out. He generally replied to my whole comment without references either article. As far as any responsible person could tell, he was claiming everything was false.

Feel free to point out anything in the article that is false.

Did you click his link? It was pretty clear to me that he objected to your second source.

Since Alison Weir and If Americans Knew (IAK) have chosen to publicly attack JVP in response, we are writing to offer more detail about what led to our decision… Weir has been a repeat and friendly guest of white supremacist Clay Douglas on his hate radio show, the Free American. Clay Douglas is concerned primarily with the survival of the White race and sees malign Jewish influence everywhere.

Except, there isn’t anything in the original article that is negative, one way or another. I would challenge you to read it yourself.

And, there is no reason to take the article linked at any more face value, especially one from 2015.

I did read it. It simply quotes a UN report. But that’s not the point.

Like I said, if you link to Stormfront or another antisemitic group, people will rightly object. Even if the Stormfront article simply quoted some AP reporting.

That’s not the point? The information provide is accurate, but that isn’t the point?

Honest, you keep bring up stormfront as if the two things were alike at all.

Do you believe that certain white supremacist anti-semitic websites are better than others?

Are Stormfront and Fox News the same thing?

In terms of how often I link to them and my willingness to trust them, they are identical.

If some linked a news source from Fox News, it might be suspect but still I know the facts would be there.

And yet people would still rightly ask why you linked to Fox News.

Lego, was your original point upheld by the NPR link without the other link? If so, just base your position on the NPR link, disavow the other link, and move on. And if the other link is just rerouting another reputable source like AP, then just find a way to link to the reputable source and disregard the other less reputable source, and move on.

The way to deal with a cherry picked objection like this is to pick a different cherry.

Yeah, listen to Sharpe.

You mean like this?

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/newsworld/un-european-states-call-on-israel-to-halt-demolitions/ar-BB1e3FYW
or this

or this

or this

or this

or this

or this

or this

or this

I haven’t had a chance to read all of them yet, and I’m sure some are better sources than others. So pick you poison I guess.

Here is the actual UN report that a lot of those articles are trying to summarize: