• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent [W:283,569]

Dr. Chuckles said:
wider conspiracy =/= genocide. More than 30 women administered injections deceptively =/= not genocide large institutional bias =/= genocide
Click to expand...

If you consider a sensationalist TV show to be possible evidence of institutionalized sterilization, then why not just get your "suspicions" from random people on the street?
 
ecofarm said:
If you consider a sensationalist TV show to be possible evidence of institutionalized sterilization, then why not just get your "suspicions" from random people on the street?
Click to expand...

Are you even remotely familiar with the TV show, or are you attacking it out of ignorance, as well?
 
I think the reactive uber PC left gets confused on the jew as minority issue. Being that they can look white, are generally well off as a demographic (in the west), and are very well organized politically (to say AIPEC is amazingly well run and organized is a pretty big understatement) given their size.


Add to that a healthy dose of cultural relativism, and you got people that will tolerate some extremely shady characters
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Are you even remotely familiar with the TV show, or are you attacking it out of ignorance, as well?
Click to expand...

It's not a research paper. Look at the cherry picked "results". For the love of God, look at the conclusions!

And think to yourself...

Really??

Based on what?
 
ecofarm said:
It's not a research paper. Look at the cherry picked "results". For the love of God, look at the conclusions!

And think to yourself...

Really??

Based on what?
Click to expand...

so you are not remotely familiar with the program? You would think one would address this prior to calling it sensationalist, the results "cherry picked", etc. In fact, one would think a basic familiarity with what the program actually stated would be vital to such things
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
so you are not remotely familiar with the program? You would think one would address this prior to calling it sensationalist, the results "cherry picked", etc. In fact, one would think a basic familiarity with what the program actually stated would be vital to such things
Click to expand...

Is it a peer reviewed article being presented? No. It's just a TV person who asked a few questions and made up some stats. This story is clearly agendized and sensationalist - that's obvious.
 
Israel gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent [W:283]

ecofarm said:
Is it a peer reviewed article being presented? No. It's just a TV person who asked a few questions and made up some stats. This story is clearly agendized and sensationalist - that's obvious.
Click to expand...

Investigative journalism doesn't tend to operate under the scientific method. It's generally a hypothesis generator that the government or independent organisation may want to apply more rigorous analysis toward.
 
Ben K. said:
Investigative journalism doesn't tend to operate under the scientific method. It's generally a hypothesis generator that the government or independent organisation may want to apply more rigorous analysis toward.
Click to expand...

And yet I am expected to formally dismiss uncited pop data and cherry picked "results", without access to the "study" itself. As if I am obligated to dig deeper, into the TV show's "study" that's not gonna get released.

Why am I obligated to formally address a ghost in order to be allowed to reasonably dismiss it? What is this, some kind of "well, you gotta have faith that it doesn't exist!" crap? Accepting the negative, given no real evidence of the affirmative (especially on something world-shaking) is some kind of religion now?
 
ecofarm said:
And yet I am expected to formally dismiss uncited pop data and cherry picked "results", without access to the "study" itself. As if I am obligated to dig deeper, into the TV show's "study" that's not gonna get released.
Click to expand...

Actually, the report would be comparable to observational data which suggests that further investigation is necessary in order to reject either the hypothesis or the null hypothesis. You are rejecting the hypothesis and accepting the null hypothesis in the absence of any such study.

Example: If someone were to claim that they have observed a single crow eating it's young, it would suggest that a study is necessary to make either of the following claims: A. Crows will occasionally eat their young (hypothesis) or B. Crows will not eat their young (null hypothesis).

What you are doing is basically saying, "I do not believe that the person claiming to have made the observation is credible for whatever arbitrary reasons I have decided to assail their credibility with (appeal to authority fallacy in this case, specifically) thus there is no need to study this further because I reject hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis as true based solely on my personal opinions of the alleged witness.

That's bad science.

A neutral stance is preferable when faced with unstudied issues.
 
Accepting the negative given a lack of any real evidence of the positive is entirely rational, logical and reasonable. Claims, especially wild ones, without any real evidence, can - and should - be dismissed out of hand.

We cannot be expected to entertain every outrageous allegation until every last shred of evidence is re-examined and every question answered. That's a snipe hunt. That's the kind of reasoning that perpetuates truthers, UFOers, birthers and the like. The "I must allow for the possibility of ANYTHING to be true until proven otherwise!" That's cult-think, crazy people.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Accepting the negative given a lack of any real evidence of the positive is entirely rational, logical and reasonable.
Click to expand...

Two things.

First: You are not the arbiter of what "real" evidence is. You have arbitrarily decided that the evidence is not real by virtue of the appeal to authority fallacy. that is, by it's very nature, illogical.

Second: There is plenty of real evidence to warrant further investigation into the hypothesis (and not just from the television program. The comments from the government officials are actually plenty to warrant further investigation in and of themselves).

There isn't enough data to make any claim in either direction. One can lean in one direction, but you are actively rejecting the hypothesis in the absence of any investigation. That's terrible science and logic.

Also, your attempts to claim that this is similar to truthers, UFOs and birthers displays a distinct inability to recognize the important difference between an absence of evidence (which leads to fallacious reasoning) and evidence of absence (which does not).

There is evidence of absence in certain cases, which leads to a tentative rejection of hypothesis and acceptance of the null.

There is no evidence of absence in this case.
 
Last edited:
One cannot rationally and logically lean in the direction of institutional sterilization. Your premise (and, expectedly enough, conclusion) is false.
 
Oh I dunno, birth control for the darkies without consent? LOL Even if it were true (which I doubt the narrative is even remotely what it seems to be) lets put it into a loittle perspective shall we? In America we've killed 55 million potential humans since the 70's. We gave darkies LSD, experimented on them, we keep Native Americans drunk and isolated, but Israel giving out BC to the darkies is bad...

I love hypocrisy..


Tim-
 
Tucker Case said:
The existence of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment indicates that your position of incredulity is a bit naive at best.
Click to expand...

The evidence known in this case, the examination of events prior to this TV show and surrounding evidence of insurmountable height all points to typical difficulties experienced in every planned parenthood program everywhere in the world and especially in regard to pre demographic transition populations.

Leaning in the direction of institutional sterilization is like leaning in the direction of God exists. If someone wants to do that, fine, but don't tell me that accepting the negative, lacking any real evidence, is a matter of faith or bias.
 
Hicup said:
Oh I dunno, birth control for the darkies without consent? LOL Even if it were true (which I doubt the narrative is even remotely what it seems to be) lets put it into a loittle perspective shall we? In America we've killed 55 million potential humans since the 70's. We gave darkies LSD, experimented on them, we keep Native Americans drunk and isolated, but Israel giving out BC to the darkies is bad...

I love hypocrisy..


Tim-
Click to expand...

Yeah, because 1970, the 1800s and today are the same!

?

Did you actually just apologize for (presumably) institutional sterilization based on what you think happened in the 1800s?
 
Hicup said:
Human nature hasn't changed much, if at all my friend..


Tim-
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you think about human nature, the world has developed. Whether you recognize that or not, it happened. You cannot justify things today based on crap that you think happened hundreds of years ago.
 
ecofarm said:
Leaning in the direction of institutional sterilization is like leaning in the direction of God exists.
Click to expand...

And there are rational and logical reasons to lean toward the direction of God existing. there are also logical and rational reasons to lean the other direction. This is quite different from the god hyptheisis, though, as investigation which leads to the ability to fully reject or accept the null hypothesis can actually occur (the hypothesis CAN be tested).

If someone wants to do that, fine, but don't tell me that accepting the negative, lacking any real evidence, is a matter of faith or bias.
Click to expand...

Nobody is telling you that. They are telling you that accepting the null hypotheses without investigation is a matter of faith or bias. And it is.
 
Tucker Case said:
Nobody is telling you that. They are telling you that accepting the null hypotheses without investigation is a matter of faith or bias. And it is.
Click to expand...

There has been an investigation. If we are to assume the context of this thread, there is that, and one must lean away from the affirmative based on this story. Then there is other evidence, as this is not the first such allegation. Those allegations, and responses, can be examined as well. Then we can consider population data and population dynamics with attention to gender issues.

Having done all of those things, and exausted the available evidence both in this TV story and otherwise, one would need to be operating on faith to lean in the direction of institutional sterilization.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
Oh I dunno, birth control for the darkies without consent? LOL Even if it were true (which I doubt the narrative is even remotely what it seems to be) lets put it into a loittle perspective shall we? In America we've killed 55 million potential humans since the 70's. We gave darkies LSD, experimented on them, we keep Native Americans drunk and isolated, but Israel giving out BC to the darkies is bad...

I love hypocrisy..


Tim-
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps some of us could learn the self-control necessary so as to avoid such intentionally provocative and pejoritive terms like "darkies".
 
Jerry said:
I don't have a problem with sneaking BC to people in over populated countries if they won't do it voluntarily.
Click to expand...
You are ethically challenged then.
And, these people are living in Israel , not Ethiopia.
 
Tucker Case said:
Oh. Awesome. Can you point me towards that peer reviewed study so that I may read it for myself?
Click to expand...

The allegations have yet to warrant one.
 
Don't get me wrong, Eco. I lean toward there not being an institutionalized program of sterilization myself. I just do not see enough evidence of it's absence to reject the hypothesis and accept the null, yet. It warrants further investigation (it might only be investigation on my part of existing literature, though)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom