[netsharc]

Ah, diverting the argument whether killing innocents (hundreds of thousands and counting) is fine or not to an argument about what a word means... whatever helps you sleep at night.

Next you can argue that this number is wrong, and since you believe the number is lower, then... it's not a big deal.

Ironically, who introduced the phrase "good faith argument" in this yelling-at-each-other?

[cmilton]

This is going to be difficult if we just assume my positions before allowing me the opportunity. What would be an acceptable number to you?

[netsharc]

An acceptable number for me is 15027 civilian deaths.

A farcical answer for a farcical question (which is also deflecting from the actual issue).

You seem to want to have an argument about the borders of discussion, and are moaning that blah A, blah B, blah C, that some bored people on the Internet who are on "the other side" of the argument is doing is preventing you to have a discussion. You're having a "fight" but it's not even about the genocide ("Wait, what's a genocide!?! Define that!"), but about the terms of discussion.

[cmilton]

If we can't agree on terms, how do we make sure we understand each other?

I want to understand what your expectations of Israel were after October 7th. I believe my questions have been very specific, but I realize you have no desire to have an actual discussion. Good day.