• 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]

And that's where you display your bias.

No, I accept that the hundreds of pages and numerous discussions prior to this TV show, and the TV show itself, and the international attention and the overarching population considerations have sufficed to illustrate that there is nothing behind these allegations. While I do not oppose further investigation, I also do not believe that we need government grants to study the possibilities of the Easter Bunny.

Now, as scientists, we, of course, cannot completely discount the possiblity of the Easter Bunny. But does it warrant a peer reviewed study?
 
No, I accept that the hundreds of pages and numerous discussions prior to this TV show, and the TV show itself, and the international attention and the overarching population considerations have sufficed to illustrate that there is nothing behind these allegations.

So by rejecting evidence which you have arbitrarily (and via logical fallacy) decided to reject, you have decided there is nothing behind the allegations?

The fact that there were some people discovered, even if cherry picking was involved, who claimed that they were coerced into taking the shots as the only way to emigrate, warrants further investigation on the matter. If only to discover whether or not separate individuals involved need to be prosecuted.

Also, your use of the Easter bunny as a way to argue in favor of engaging in a logical fallacy displays a lack of understanding regarding the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

The allegations of coercion coupled with the statement in response to those allegations indicates that further investigation is necessary to determine 1. if there was any coercion 2. if so, how widespread it was, and 3. whether or not there were any directives from any officials involved to perform such coercion.

You are rejecting the coercion hypothesis out of hand based on the fallacious exclusion of evidence. Without the investigation, though, one cannot reject the hypothesis of coercive governmental involvement logically.
 
So by rejecting evidence which you have arbitrarily (and via logical fallacy) decided to reject, you have decided there is nothing behind the allegations?

I have not rejected any evidence. I've examined everything available, including pop dynamic considerations, and come to the conclusion that there is nothing significant or substantive behind the allegations of institutional sterilization. I reject the sensationalist and unfounded conclusions of group, institutional and/or state institutional discriminatory and coercive sterilization.

Could there be institutional discriminatory coercive sterilization? Sure, it's possible - anything's possible. And monkeys could fly out my butt. Perhaps we need a super-mega peer reviewed investigation into the possibility that monkeys do, in fact, fly out my butt, before we abandon such foolishness. Just to be scientific and "fair" (you know, to all the possibilities).
 
Last edited:
I have not rejected any evidence. I've examined everything available, including pop dynamic considerations, and come to the conclusion that there is nothing significant or substantive behind the allegations of institutional sterilization.

By saying that the allegations are not significant, you are rejecting the evidence. You have done this based on fallacy.

And monkeys could fly out my butt. Perhaps we need a super-mega peer reviewed investigation into the possibility that monkeys do, in fact, fly out my butt. Before we, you know, abandon such foolishness. Just to be scientific.

Again, you demonstrate a distinct inability to understand the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence here. There is evidence of absence in the monkeys flying out of your butt scenario.

For example, monkeys do not have the necessary physical characteristics for flight. This is demonstrable by virtue of the laws of physics.

Second of all, we have evidence which would suggest that your rectum is, at the very least, an inhospitable place for mammalian life to exist.

Finally, we can actually look directly into your ass and see that there are monkeys absent from that location (direct, observational absence of evidence). Now, you might be able to shove a dozen or so monkeys into your ass, but with the first and second things being known we can say that the worst case scenario would be that monkey corpses might be excreted from your ass under certain specific conditions, but monkeys will not fly out of your ass at any point in the future.

We can say this because there is evidence of absence. Evidence which suggests that monkey flight is absent. Evidence which suggests that monkey survival in a human rectum is absent. And evidence which suggests that a monkey presence in said rectum is also absent.

We are not discussing an absence of evidence, however. In fact, if your claim was "and some creature of some sort might fly out of my butt", we'd have to allow for that possibility, and indeed, after investigation we'd eventually be able to prove that yes, some creature of some sort probably will "fly" out of your butt. Or, more correctly, some bacterial organisms will probably be forcefully expelled through the air from your sphincter at some point.

But we had to investigate the issue in order to make that determination
 
I wasn't gonna read that. I think I've made my position crystal clear and I think it's reasonable. I done my due diligence. However, I notice that you mention my ass, so I'll read it later; thanks, in advance.
 
I wasn't gonna read that. I think I've made my position crystal clear and I think it's reasonable. I done my due diligence. However, I notice that you mentioned my ass, so I'll read it later. Thanks, in advance.

You're missing out on some great monkey ass stuff there.
 
I'll get to it. I'm just not quite up for the Great Wall of Tucker at the moment.
 
Or, perhaps some of us could learn the self-control necessary so as to avoid such intentionally provocative and pejoritive terms like "darkies".

I was making a point, one you seemed to have grasped quite well.


Tim-
 
Certain contraceptives, like the one that was used, work by temporarily sterlizing the people who receive them. This is simply a matter of acknowledging what words mean.
:naughty
No!
You are incorrect.

They were not rendered sterile.

You can play fast and loose with the terminology all you want. You are not correct.


And as Ben K. informed us in post #188
Go to the WHO, NHS or your own gov website for medical procedures and you'll clearly see that sterilization refers to irreversible procedures that renders one incapable of reproducing by conventional means. So no, Depo Provera injections do not equal sterilisation.
 
And as Ben K. informed us in post #188
Go to the WHO, NHS or your own gov website for medical procedures and you'll clearly see that sterilization refers to irreversible procedures that renders one incapable of reproducing by conventional means. So no, Depo Provera injections do not equal sterilisation.

Quick question: Which source is a better source for the definitions of words, Dictionaries or websites?
 
Quick question: Which source is a better source for the definitions of words, Dictionaries or websites?
Stop wth the games.
Even the dictionary sources you used don't help you.
"See also", does not mean "the same as". And had you bothered to follow along to those "see also" terms, you would have seen them defined as contraceptive measures, not sterilizations.
Words have meaning.

And as pointed out, because their eggs can still be fertilized they can still produce children.
When they no longer can produce children they will be sterile.

So stop playing games.

Stick to the word contraceptive and you can't go wrong.
 
Yes that seems to be the case, what?

If you are agreeing that it was hyperbole on your part, you are spot on.

As Israel is the one to give these folks a home in the first place, I seriously doubt there is anything nefarious going on.

Yes, I agreed that it was hyperbole on my part. I should have known better because of all the anti Israeli propaganda that has been going on for years.
 
Stop wth the games.
Even the dictionary sources you used don't help you.
"See also", does not mean "the same as". And had you bothered to follow along to those "see also" terms, you would have seen them defined as contraceptive measures, not sterilizations.
Words have meaning.

And as pointed out, because their eggs can still be fertilized they can still produce children.
When they no longer can produce children they will be sterile.

So stop playing games.

Stick to the word contraceptive and you can't go wrong.
Quite seriously as I am following this thread and this argument about "sterilization" I am struck at the abject stupidity of it. Good God of course you come to an internet debate forum like this to find someone like Tucker just repeating stupid ad infinitum. You heard it here first folks, where else but the internet? Women who use birth control are "sterilized"!:doh In fact the meaning of the word sterilization has been "sterilized" so as to conform to Tucker's boatload of a stupid argument. Over and over. Seriously, his argument is on the bleeding edge of stupid. I mean it literally takes stupid to new heights of, yip you guessed it, stupidity. Ah the internet.:roll:
 
Quite seriously as I am following this thread and this argument about "sterilization" I am struck at the abject stupidity of it. Good God of course you come to an internet debate forum like this to find someone like Tucker just repeating stupid ad infinitum. You heard it here first folks, where else but the internet? Women who use birth control are "sterilized"!:doh In fact the meaning of the word sterilization has been "sterilized" so as to conform to Tucker's boatload of a stupid argument. Over and over. Seriously, his argument is on the bleeding edge of stupid. I mean it literally takes stupid to new heights of, yip you guessed it, stupidity. Ah the internet.:roll:

brilliant.jpg


Consider yourself fed.
 
And had you bothered to follow along to those "see also" terms, you would have seen them defined as contraceptive measures, not sterilizations.

Now now. Stop lying. It's one thing to be utterly incapable of comprehending what you read. That's not really your fault.

But outright dishonesty like that, well that's a different story.
 
Quite seriously as I am following this thread and this argument about "sterilization" I am struck at the abject stupidity of it. Good God of course you come to an internet debate forum like this to find someone like Tucker just repeating stupid ad infinitum. You heard it here first folks, where else but the internet? Women who use birth control are "sterilized"!:doh In fact the meaning of the word sterilization has been "sterilized" so as to conform to Tucker's boatload of a stupid argument. Over and over. Seriously, his argument is on the bleeding edge of stupid. I mean it literally takes stupid to new heights of, yip you guessed it, stupidity. Ah the internet.:roll:

I suppose since you have demonstrated the astounding capacity to put the word stupid in bold (your mother must be so proud) you should be able to present something, oh, I don't know, not retarded that can disprove the dictionary definition of the word. I mean, the guy you have allied with has decided that tubal ligation isn't sterilization because... well... because... that was pretty much his astoundingly intelligent argument when you get right down to it. I'm sure you have something better, though. Like, perhaps, "because I said so", or "because it's like totally not what the dictionary says it is man because like, well, you're stupid".

Please, amaze us with your brilliance.
 
I suppose since you have demonstrated the astounding capacity to put the word stupid in bold (your mother must be so proud) you should be able to present something, oh, I don't know, not retarded that can disprove the dictionary definition of the word. I mean, the guy you have allied with has decided that tubal ligation isn't sterilization because... well... because... that was pretty much his astoundingly intelligent argument when you get right down to it. I'm sure you have something better, though. Like, perhaps, "because I said so", or "because it's like totally not what the dictionary says it is man because like, well, you're stupid".

Please, amaze us with your brilliance.

Just to get this straight.

Is it your position that women who take birth control pills are 'sterilizing' themselves?
 
Just to get this straight.

Is it your position that women who take birth control pills are 'sterilizing' themselves?

They are temporarily sterilizing themselves, yes. I do not place the negative connotation on the word that others want to.
 
This is damned wrong.

This appears to be the problem from Israel's POV.


If that's the case then they should have another look at the Law of Return, but the response is certainly not to sterilize women.

I agree with you statement, except the word "sterilize". There were not sterilized.
 
They are temporarily sterilizing themselves, yes. I do not place the negative connotation on the word that others want to.

Sterilization is intended to be permanent, birth control is not. Birth control, as in pills or condoms, is a temporary measure against pregnancy. There is no such thing as anyone temporarily sterilizing themselves because they would still not be sterile.

There is no negative or positive connotation on the word. You are just using it incorrectly. Ask anyone in the health profession and they will clarify it for you.
 
Sterilization is intended to be permanent, birth control is not. Birth control, as in pills or condoms, is a temporary measure against pregnancy. There is no such thing as anyone temporarily sterilizing themselves because they would still not be sterile.

There is no negative or positive connotation on the word. You are just using it incorrectly. Ask anyone in the health profession and they will clarify it for you.

The actual definition of the word disagrees with the colloquial usage by health professionals.

Here's the real newsflash for everyone who thinks that the colloquial use of the word by health professionals is the end all and be all of the discussion: The word was not created by them. It was adopted by them. It does not matter if they like to use it solely to describe permanent sterilization. The word is still very applicable to temporary sterilization techniques, techniques such as birth control methods which work by making a person incapable of reproduction.

There are basically three types of birth control classes:

1. Methods which prevent the intermingling of gametes (examples: condoms, Diaphram)
2. Methods which prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus (Example: IUD)
3. Methods which render the person incapable of reproducing (Examples: hormone treatments like "the pill", vasectomies, Tubal Ligation)

The third type are the one's which are "sterilization techniques". Health professionals have decided to only call the permanent techniques of this type "sterilization", but that does not negate the fact that they are ALL sterilization techniques.
 
Last edited:
If a piece of surgical equipment is sterilized, does that last forever?
 
Back
Top Bottom