«12. . .2,1742,1752,1762,1772,1782,1792,180. . .2,5112,512»
That's incorrect... I know many that embrace the right of Palestine to exist. I know them personally though and they are not keen on joining NS... I can say at best 1 of them comes from Palestine and others are from other countries.
The Arabs in the British Mandate were rioting and killing Jews long before Israel was established. And again, I point out that they had their chance at statehood and rejected it, in favor of destroying Israel. Which they failed to do and lost miserably.
I keep stressing this, but, there is no factual basis to this claim. You seem to have either a fundamental misunderstanding of the system that is in place, or else cannot separate rhetoric from reality. An apartheid state is one in which racial segregation is used to oppress another group which is not in power. You have provided no evidence that this exists. As I said before, the United States treats Canada as a separate country and treats Canadians as foreign citizens. They cannot go in and out of the US as they please. They do not have the same rights as Americans. The United States treats citizens from all other 193 countries this way. Does that make the US an apartheid state? Are the other 194 countries besides Israel apartheid states too? If not, why is Israel treated to a double-standard?
That's why I discounted that article as lacking in evidence. It's all rhetoric. You have to have some kind of proof of a racist law on the books. Apartheid in South Africa was not mere poetry, it was a conspicuous, unapologetic legal system that oppressed native South Africans. If apartheid really existed in Israel, it should not be so difficult to find one concrete example of racial discrimination.
So all walls or barriers along international boundaries are examples of racial apartheid? I don't understand why you refuse to realize that separating Israel from Palestinian settlements is not the same thing as, what you claimed was, racial discrimination against Arabs. The US has a wall with Mexico, China has a fence with Korea, India has barriers between Myanmar and Bangladesh, Ukraine has one with Russia, Saudi Arabia has one with Iraq, etc., etc., etc. Are all countries who have built the roughly 77 border barriers around the globe racist, apartheid states? If so, then it seems like "apartheid" is a lot more widespread and accepted a practice than you intimate. If not, then, again, why is Israel alone held to an impossibly high standard?
Border checkpoints.
So now simply building a house or shopping mall is considered an act of apartheid?
Originally you said that only Jews (not Israelis) could use the road, and Muslims and Christians (rather than Palestinians) could not. Based on this article alone, that seems to be false. They've built a road on their side of the border, and a road on the Palestinian side of the border. This is yet another smoke-and-mirrors attempt to warp the definitions of words and apply them to situations where they do not logically apply. If you can find one example of Israel substantially discriminating against people based on racial grounds inside Israel, and not on the border, then I will concede that Arab Israelis are not equal members of society. And if you can prove it is widespread, then I will concede it may be an apartheid state. But I think that if such examples existed, you would have produced them by now.
I again would ask for a source, and not simply paraphrased hyperbole.
Have you never heard of the Holocaust? About the pogroms that occurred in the 19th century? The expulsion of Jews from Spain by the Inquisition? Jewish ghettos? Forced conversion by Spain and the Eastern Roman Empire? The destruction of the Jewish homeland by the Roman Empire and their expulsion from Jerusalem in 135 AD? The past 2000 years of Jewish history is one of continuous suffering and persecution. I think that explains their tenacity in seeking, establishing, and preserving a homeland for themselves in which they will not be persecuted again. As long as Israel exists, a second Holocaust cannot happen, because they will be capable of fighting back. This was the reason Israel was restored by the UN in 1948. It's not simply the opinion of a couple of pro-Israel pundits, this is (or was, for a time) international policy.
So if the Florida Keys wanted to separate from the rest of Florida and the United States (see: the Conch Republic), and the US said "no", then the US would be racist against Keysians?
Under international law, only a discrete "people" have a right to self-determination and nationhood. You may think international law is racist, I guess. But of course, in order for it to be racist, it would have to actually be a race, which it is not. There is no such thing as a Palestinian "race"; they are Arabs. And Arab nationhood was already established under the Cairo Conference, in addition to other treaties signed after WWI. Your argument is a non sequitur. There are a grand total of 22 culturally Arab countries in North Africa and the Middle-east, of which, 6 are ethnically Arab. Other than Israel, there are 0 for the Jewish people. I think that should answer your question about why Israel's right to exist is so "special".
I cannot believe how naive this is. Adolf Hitler was an original supporter of Israel! To him, and a sizeable number of anti-semites, Israel is a huge ghetto. Anti semites all around love Israel because they can just pack them in there. (And perhaps, if they ever get power in a nation with a nuclear arsenal, get rid of many Jews in one fell swoop).
You think anti semitism somehow dies because there’s one predominantly Jewish nation? Give me a break! The only thing that stops a holocaust from happening is that nazi race science is not popular.
You know what does increase anti semitism? Israel violating treaties, expanding illegally, arbitrarily turning water off in the West Bank, slowly increasing influence in what is supposed to be a place of shared authority. Sorry, didn’t you use international law to justify Israel’s existence? Let’s see them follow it themselves.
Your analogy is the non sequitur. A better one would be to say it’s not racist for, I don’t know, the Cubans (since we’re in Florida) to demand their own state because they’re oppressed, get it, and then have everyone turn a blind eye when they start oppressing the non-Cubans in this hypothetical Cuban state of Florida.
You still haven’t really defined what a right to exist means. It doesn’t make any sense to me - especially if international law also supports free movement of persons.
If a people has a right to a country, it doesn’t make any sense that they only get one, because of diaspora. Wherever there are large minorities, they ought to have their own country. Especially when one is oppressed. Like Arabs, in Israel. Or maybe we should just force them to move? Sounds ethical.
Tying states to ethnicity instead of location is a favorite of Western imperialists, and it will always lead to oppression of minorities.
Are any of them in positions of power in the world? Political leaders occasionally pay lip service to it, but they still accept the libel that if you criticize the state of Israel you’re an anti-semite (my favorite was when they accused Corbyn of being an anti-semite for meeting with Jews who didn’t like Israel).
Anyway, I said many, not all.
I still think that the ideal solution is to reestablish the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Culture of Life, The Gallant Old Republic, and Lagrodia
I generally try not to throw terms like "Holocaust denial" around casually, but I feel like this falls under the category of "you'll know it when you see it". Hitler never supported Israel, and his attitude towards Zionism was ambivalent throughout the 1930s. Certain Nazi officials did offer Zionism cynical short-term support as a means of getting Jews out of Europe, including the Haavara Agreement in 1933, which allowed Jews to remove some of their assets from Nazi Germany and some 60,000 immigrated to the British Mandate, but this program was canceled by the Nazis in 1939 when they began their extermination program. But Zionism predates Nazism by nearly a century and I would discourage anyone from making the juvenile and mean-spirited insinuation that Israel is some sort of ghetto. The Nazis tried to destroy the Jews, not grant them power and freedom. The very suggestion is patently outrageous.
Did I ever say that? I said that the Jewish people are in a superior position to defend themselves as one nation than they were scattered and unarmed in the 1930s.
Shallow logic, sorely lacking in facts. Cite the treaties and the violations. Anti-Zionist rhetoric frequently speaks in generalities, but rarely ever specifics. I am not interested in rhetoric.
That's not an analogy, that's just you painting your own narrow, uncorroborated view onto a different hypothetical. The issue is separatism, not oppression. No one was oppressing Arabs during the Mandate period. Palestinian nationhood popped up as a Pan-Arabist reaction to Zionism, not Jewish oppression of Arabs. The war they started in 1948 was an attempt to destroy Israel, not defend themselves from oppression. I have already pointed out they were offered nationhood and rejected it.
I didn't think I had to define something that seems pretty self-explanatory on its face (a right to exist = the right to exist; unlike "freedom of speech", the ability and right to exist does not come in shades, it is bold and unambiguous). But I think that I have sufficiently explained its context in terms of the international principle of self-determination. Beyond that, I think the literal definition of its constituent words should suffice.
It doesn't.
Feel free to believe whatever you want, but that is not reflected in international law.
Grossly inaccurate. Europeans did a fantastic job of ignoring ethnic groups from Africa to India. To say that "tying states to ethnicity instead of location is a favorite of Western imperialists" is even further removed from reality than the claim that Israel is an apartheid state. Self-determination destroyed European empires, it was not created by them.
Papal knights and Phydios
Yeah and what next? Destroy Hagia Sophia yet again? Better just give it to muslims... At least they will rebuild it...
Even though I'm pretty sure (or hope) this is meant in jest, I would just state for the record that this would only further increase violence in the area.
Furthermore, there is something called a "quiet title action" in the common law where one simply has to establish a superior, but not absolute, claim to the land in question. It can also be applied to questions of territorial disputes. There are at least half a dozen powers who can viably lay claim to the area of Israel/Judah/Palestine. But the original, oldest claimants are the Jewish people.
While their possession of the land has been interrupted by nearly 20 centuries of empires fighting over it, that does not change the fact that they have the superior claim. The Arabs who lived in the British Mandate after WWI certainly have a solid claim to the area, viz-a-viz adverse possession. But that does not trump true title to the land, which, even if we accept the termination of title during the time of Herod in 44 AD, was unambiguously restored in 1947-49. What the Arabs in Palestine are owed is more a question of equity and fairness than law or rights.
As to the Kingdom of Jerusalem...I think it's pretty fair to say that their claim to the land is inferior to the Arabs who settled the area beginning in the 3rd century. The Eastern Roman Empire had a superior title to them, but that no longer exists. Greece claims to be its legitimate successor, but it has not pursued these claims for some time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ramadan-2016-israel-water-west-bank-cuts-off-a7082826.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier
Anyway, even if these somehow don’t violate the Geneva convention, they’re still profoundly unethical. But we’re determined to turn a blind eye to it, and you’re an anti-semite if you bring it up.
Get the hell out of this argument your antisemitic accusations, dude. Don’t you dare try this. My great-grandparents were Ashkenazis. Hitler would’ve killed me too. Forgive me for not thinking stuffing an ethnic group - especially one frequently persecuted, in an age where a few well-placed missiles can wipe all of them out - is a slam dunk, problems over! Forgive me for criticizing it! Frankly, it doesn’t sound like a position of power to me when, as you all claim, everyone is always after them and they need millions of dollars of aid!
No, let’s leave it at anti semitism. Let’s engage in shallow accusations of holocaust denial, interpret things in bad faith. What I said was that it is not nearly as simple as “Jews support Israel, anti-semites oppose it”. This ethnic Jew isn’t a huge fan of Israel when it does bad things. But no, it must be anti-semitism that’s fueling it.
Look above.
And that... gives Israel an excuse to seal Arabs off and destroy their economy, cut off their water and electricity, etc. Many of these people, of course, weren’t even alive for the Six-Day War, let alone for the 1948 war.
“Right to self-determination” to me is a personal right, not one of an ethnic group - especially one as spread as the Jews. People act as persons, not as a race.
To be clear, in case my criticism has obscured it - I don’t support destroying the state of Israel by any means. That would create more problems than it would solve, obviously. Israel exists, and ought not be destroyed. This specific piece of rhetoric, though, makes very little sense to me.
It does. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 13.
As imperialism wound down after World War I, much of Europe and the US cut a bunch of countries up and made new ones, drawing borders and ignoring diaspora. It makes very little sense to me. The “we can solve everything” view Europe has is an imperialist viewpoint. Europe has always loved race science.
Article 49 is arguably inapplicable, and relies entirely on the assumption (not entirely based in fact, but in opinion) that Israel is an "occupying power". Considering this has all taken place within areas Israel claims as its own, and Palestine's status under international law is ambiguous, I'd say that's a tenuous assertion at best, "international consensus" not withstanding.
I never said that, but you seem particularly sensitive to even the prospect of the accusation.
I deliberately avoided accusing you of being anti-Semitic, and left it at "this sounds like Holocaust denial", which I stand by. Furthermore, if we cannot maintain a discussion at an unemotional, purely academic level, then further discussion would be pointless. I have not employed course or belligerent language, and I think you're perfectly capable of the same.
Your grandparents, or what Hitler would have thought of you, are beside the point. I judged only your statement, not you yourself. Ad hominem attacks are fallacious lines of argument, I generally avoid engaging in them. That is why, again, I never said you were anti-Semitic. Only that I found your statement mean-spirited, juvenile, and smacking of Holocaust denial. Whether you meant it that way or not, I firmly believe that what you said grossly cheapens the death and sacrifice of the 5,896,577 Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis, and who I'm sure would have very much preferred a thousand times over to live in peace in Israel, where they can live normal lives and pursue their dreams in relative safety. It is a silly suggestion given in poor taste at best, a horrifying suggestion at worst.
They're doing a pretty darn good job of defending themselves so far. And given the level of persecution they still face in Europe and the United States, I'd say they're a lot better off in a self-governing state of their own than depending on the whims of a bigoted system that ignores them. They're being rounded up in New York City for holding religious ceremonies and having their parks closed. Would you prefer them live there? "Never again" pervades everything Israel does, and I think it is commendable.
Again, I never said anything about you being anti-Semitic. As I said above, engaging in ad hominem attacks is an easy way to weaken your own position. But, to be frank, you seem to almost want me to accuse you of anti-Semitism, considering how much effort you've gone to criticize me for something I haven't even said yet.
You act like the Arab-Israeli War and the Six-Day War are the only conflicts involving Palestine. Their government has pledged to Israel's destruction and since the year 2000 they have launched 8,749 missiles into Israel's territory. I would say their flagrant and unapologetic aggression is ample grounds for imposing sanctions and an embargo.
Unfortunately, international law usually involves nations, not individuals. An individual human being is not a subject of international law.
That, at least, is a genuine relief. Your card deck certainly seemed heavily stacked against Israel, based on your manner of speaking. I see anti-Zionism and the BDS movement as excuses and pre-cursors to a second Holocaust, which I think the world ought to try its best to actively prevent. If you are not bent on seeing Israel supplanted, I am interested in what you would offer in the alternative, seeing that you seem very passionate about the plight of the Arabs in Palestine.
It isn't rhetoric, it's the law. Both the foundational law of Israel, and the right to self-determination under international law. I am simply making a distinction between the Jewish people and its expression of self-determination in forming Israel, and the Arabs who live in Palestine and their standing under international law, in the context of self-determination.
It doesn't. It may seem a small distinction, but "freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" is not the same thing as "freedom of movement" (unqualified). Many people speak of freedom of movement as freedom of migration, or something along the lines of the Schengen zone in the EU. Neither of those are contemplated by Article 13, and what is contemplated is not, to my knowledge, being violated by the Israelis.
Nationalism and self-determination have generally worked to the disadvantage of every former great power in Europe. In fact, most nations in Europe today are actively attempting to suppress nationalist movements within their territories, for instance Catalonia and Scotland. I do not think that your pronouncement on self-determination as imperialism matches with reality. This is in the same line of arguments that certain hostile powers in Asia make that "human rights" are a Western invention. Now, you may very well agree with them, and that's your right, but that is not my view. A lot of people in the 19th century resisted modernization because science was viewed as "Western"; I think it is wrong--and equally wrong to apply that to anthropology.
Papal knights and Phydios
Well I certainly didn’t mean to open up a firestorm of emotions. Maybe this topic is too emotional to be handled rationally right now?
Anyway, my question was how Israel should proceed to fix things. I think everyone has blood on their hands, perhaps some more than others, but moving forward how can we fix this? To say there is no way is to leave only unethical radical solutions which I think should be unthinkable for peace to proceed.
I do want to caution some talk which feels like victim blaming from occurring. If a state commits evil, it’s people should not then be fair game for evil. Saying “Israel has done wrong so Anti-semitism is understandable” may be a fair statement, but a Jew in Israel who doesn’t support the government programs, then being killed by a Palestinian missile is still a victim, not a perpetrator. A Jew having insults hurled at him in New York is still an innocent victim even if Israel has done terrible things.
If this was not the case we wouldn’t count civilian dead in ww2 for the Germans, everyone would be an enemy. Being complicit is a sin, but it didn’t justify the treatment of the German civilians at the hands of the soviets. What crime warrants and justifies those atrocities? Are terorrists who are guilty now fair game for water boarding because they have done heinous things?
I think we also ought to remember that we see this situation through a glass darkly when it comes to day to day living. Likewise, our mindsets are completely different. I was talking to an Israeli who recently got her citizenship the other day and she told me much isn’t reported about life in Israel. She also told me that the way of thinking is entirely different. She told me, “you don’t know what it’s like to have your car stop and your mom begins looking around for shelter in case the bomb siren goes off”. And she’s right, I have no clue. She told me stories of having to shelter in place for days, and how their house was required to have a bomb shelter by government rules. I couldn’t begin to empathize with how that would affect your thinking, especially as a child being raised through that. She told me something that hit me emotionally, “do you think people would leave their lands if they weren’t facing (can’t quite remember the exact wording but something evil was the just of it) and worried for their lives? If it weren’t for the fighting I would’ve never left, I loved Israel.” Though she proceeded to tell me how much she loved Canada too and wouldn’t leave now, so yay Canada for that one.
Anyway, this discussion makes me imagine her cowering as a little girl in a bomb shelter while we dismiss Palestinian anti-semitism as “understandable.” Which, don’t get me wrong I kind of agree with. Oppressing a people group to such an extent will only ever bring about hate, but it’s with them in mind too I asked the question, how do we fix this? No Israeli child should experience what she experienced, and no Palestinian should experience what they experience, so how can we begin building a foundation for a peaceful, equal, and moral future? Especially in Israel.
Now, I don’t say this to defend Israel or all its actions, though I’m sure it may come across that way. Rather I’m hoping to just encourage us to take a few breaths and remember that this discussion is great, but don’t get too worked up.
Ps: I don’t know this girl very well, we just got chatting in the grocery store because she heard me getting excited about an Israeli product (I enjoy sounding out the Hebrew and seeing if I know the words). Then we chatted for an hour, as I like to get to know people and their stories, God only knows if I’ll ever see her again, but this conversation made me think of her. I think we can all agree that the current state of affairs in the middle-east in heart breaking regardless of cause.
Culture of Life, The Gallant Old Republic, Phydios, The Rouge Christmas State, and 1 otherAmerican antartica
As always, I am perfectly capable of discussing the issue rationally, though I think I've said everything that can or needs to be said.
I have already made my views known on that subject in two of my posts from over the last few days, though I can reiterate my proposal to anyone who forgot or didn't see it.
"24%: The percentage of U.S. adults who say they will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion.
30%: The percentage of pro-life adults who say they will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion.
19%: The percentage of pro-choice adults who say they will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion."
(https://news.gallup.com/poll/313316/one-four-americans-consider-abortion-key-voting-issue.aspx)
From today's issue of Tangle. The Democratic Party has made "ABORTION ON DEMAND AND WITHOUT APOLOGY" a core plank of their platform, but it doesn't seem that a lot of their voters are supporting them because of that. Across the board, most Americans do not seem to vote based on their view of abortion. Oh, they'll scream at someone who doesn't agree with those views- but they don't seem to vote based on them. Pro-lifers need to do better, of course, but I was more interested in how abortion advocates were even less likely to vote based on their view of abortion.
Culture of Life and United massachusetts
Interesting to see that, while there is a threshold gap between pro-life and pro-choice, that there is not one between Republican and Democrat (a slight advantage towards Democrats, actually). That would seem to imply a fair number of pro-life independents who vote according to the issue, which would be a hopeful statistic. (Alternatively, a higher number of pro-life voting Democrats, which is possible, see Louisiana, but probably not as likely. There seem to be a good number more high-level pro-choice Republicans than pro-life Democrats).
As I said, polls are only one tool out of many, and you should never rely on something as cold and aloof as polls to determine what's going on in the country. Furthermore, polls are sort of highly subjective themselves, because you have to know what questions to ask. Finding out what's going on in the country requires you to do research independent of that, right? And that sort of research is the kind of "organic" research that I think is better.
Only if they have the attitude to go along with their wealth or power.
Purely on the grounds of their attitude. Most devout Christians are not (in my experience) very wealthy. A very rare few.
More elitist, but only in attitude. The Marxist laborer has very little political or organizational power.
Looking at the broader picture, I suppose that could be the case. I've never done a cost-benefit analysis, but your reasoning makes sense to me.
I only said especially if it was a neighboring country. But even if it had been America, as a lone imperialist power, I think that still would have evoked extremely passionate opposition from the Chinese of the time. It's much, much easier to focus your hatred on a single enemy, as opposed to having a faceless coalition of a number of different states, which makes it emotionally more diffuse.
My argument was not that polls should be the sole source of data, just that they are plainly the best for what seems to be the populist's general goal, appraising the opinion of the nation. They are, of course, subjective, any human assessment is, but it seems that its their effectiveness that gets them hit with labels that seem more emotional than rational, "cold and aloof" are not critiques of function, but of form. Its always good to have a variety, but the person who is relying more heavily on 'organic' conversations and media is going to be less equipped to follow the public will than one who relies more heavily on 'aloof' polling. They will look more populist, but be less so.
(That's without getting into the issue of responsiveness to the different methods. A whole lot of people are not really interested in getting too tangled up with politics, that's the whole concept of the 'moral majority.' There are a lot more people willing to take a survey than going out to rallies where a candidate can talk to them or engaging on media. No method perfectly listens to all the quiet ones, but the non-poll method gives disproportionately more weight to the loudest people.)
This was referring back to the definition that the ordinary American was "a person of modest means", and that a non-elitist attitude wealthy person was fine enough when left out of that category because they could weather policy changes.
I am talking about attitude specifically here, apologies if that was not clear-basically the Target employee example. Neither of us would call the Christian or laborer in these examples an "Elite™", but I thought it curious that, with the nationalist definition, it seemed like you would consider them "elitist."
Conversely, it tends to be easier to direct admiration towards a single nation. If the intervention is viewed negatively, then passionate opposition can easily work for either, either "Those evil [insert nationality here]", or a "the world is against our great nation" sort of gig. If viewed positively, it's easier to say "Our great friends, the [insert nationality here]" over "I guess we needed the whole world to come and save us."
“Holocaust denial, not anti-semite”. Ok dude. Holocaust denial totally isn’t anti-semitic. That’s right
Me: “Anti-semites can support Israel too, and Jews can oppose it.”
La france bonapartiste: “YOURE A HOLOCAUST DENIER.”
I am perfectly capable of having a civil conversation, but I will absolutely not tolerate being accused of holocaust denial. It’s a lie, and a lazy attempt to circumvent reading the actual point. When you throw out baseless accusations like that, I am absolutely going to be angry.
Maybe now you can see why I find it so difficult to listen to most defenders of Israel. Because so often they accuse everyone who disagrees with them as being an anti-semite. And let’s make something very clear - if you accuse someone of being a holocaust denier, you are accusing them of being an anti-semite. You cannot be a holocaust denier and not be an anti-semite.
Shame on you.
"Cold and aloof", here, are critiques of function. For example, is it easier to run a bunch of tests on a patient, not knowing what exactly you're looking for, or would it be best to directly ask the patient how they're feeling, and use that data to then direct your scientific tests? A cold and aloof method is not as effective, because it doesn't connect with real, living human beings. Cold reason is for dealing with data, not people.
True, it would work it both ways. For instance, many French of the 1940s generation praised America as liberators, whereas they did not give much attention to the British, Canadians, Australians, etc. who also took part in their liberation. Just as Russians resent America for their rivalry and the collapse of the Soviet Union, but don't really look at the rest of NATO the same way.
The two days I leave for a funeral out of state are the two days that Access to Abortion is submitted and makes quorum.
Ughhh.
Culture of Life, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, Stellonia, and 3 othersThe Catholic State of Eire, Lagrodia, and Under ledzia
And TNP propped it up...of course. Of course.
Oh well, counter-campaign has been sent
Culture of Life, Phydios, Stellonia, Lagrodia, and 1 otherUnder ledzia
I'm so sorry y'all -- I'll see what can be done. We had plans, but most of them involved earlier detection ... and the largest region in the game not artificially propping up the resolution.
Culture of Life, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, Stellonia, and 3 othersThe Catholic State of Eire, Lagrodia, and Under ledzia
Denying aspects of the Holocaust involves a lot more than simple antagonism towards the Jewish people. And I would remind you that a majority of Holocaust victims (depending on how you define the Holocaust, I suppose) were actually non-Jews (~11 million Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Free Masons, gays, etc.). So just because I say a statement sounds like Holocaust denial does not (and cannot, logically) require the speaker of that statement to be anti-Semitic.
I addressed your point on top of characterizing it as Holocaust denial, so you are wrong that I circumvented the point you were trying to make. I directly addressed and refuted it.
You're entitled to your emotions, naturally, but it is was far from baseless. I gave ample explanation of why I thought that way.
Which is, again, something I did not do.
I like this example and I'll run with it. Say there is an outbreak of some disease or other. Would it be better for a doctor to ask questions of a single patient, and then apply conclusions and methods from that one person to every patient they see, or would it be better for them to look at the 'colder' accumulated data of questionnaires given out to several thousand persons with the illness and use that as the basis for treatment?
If you're talking about one-on-one, or some guy who is the Mayor of a town with ten people, absolutely personal interaction is better, no doubt-but that is never really the case in politics. Polling is effective because it is the best way to seek out the opinions of a group that is so large that you could never speak to even a significant fraction of them. When you have three hundred million plus people to deal with, looking at things realistically, their collective opinions are data.
Agreed.
«12. . .2,1742,1752,1762,1772,1782,1792,180. . .2,5112,512»
Advertisement
