fordy said:
Kasz216 said:
First off. You clearly didn't read my post, at least not correctly. Secondly, you didn't read your own post. I'd suggest going back and rereading them... but to put it succinctly.
There are groups in the UN that specifically vote against everything the US votes for, no matter how petty. That's not an assumption. There support never changed really. It was mostly anti-american because it was the cold war. Then when the cold war stopped. Most of those nations were still pretty anti-american.
Secondly, Europe has nothing to do with being anti-american. That was a completely different point... the shift with Europe was mostly due to demografic changes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/europes-trouble-with-jews.html?pagewanted=all
Is a simple enough primer.
Thirdly, you said their methods were getting more extreme. Not their land grabbing. Their methods have been muted as of late. Espeically muted as they lost support.
Additionally, when they unilaterally pulled back and shut down a number of settlements. They were losing support.
So your assumptions on these points are both wrong. You've made far more assumptions then I have.
|
You're making an illogical conclusion based on visible results. It's like looking at a black box, inputting a few tests and then coming to the unreasonable conclusion that it's a logical NOT operator, without any thoughts towards the inner workings of the black box. The results say that said states have always voted against America. Does that mean they will ALWAYS vote against them in all stances, or the fact that the inputs observes happen to coincidentally cause a conflict in opinion? To say the state is a simple logical NOT operator is the same as saying the state is simple.
On the European front, this is the classic retort to any criticism of Israel; just call them anti-Semetic. Ignore the fact that the left consistently denounces all sorts of opression, including the holocaust. Once again, it's the black box fallacy. Anything coming out that doesn't support Israel is anti-Semetic. It doesn't matter about the inner workings that determined the outcome.
Oh, so you do agree that, as a response to loss of support, their settlement rate has dropped? Don't you think that there is some kind of logic behind that, and not just "well let's see if we get support back by stopping this". There would most likely have been foreign communication as to WHY they have lost support, and acted accordingly. You pretty much just admitted that there was most likely a shift in support against Israel BECAUSE of the settlements.
You obviously don't understand the concepts of how logic and predictability coincide. Allow me to explain. Your assumptions occured at the top level, so in other words, the assumption had to bridge a bigger gap. My assumptions involve plotting known facts, decaying a hop to it's own reasoning and working recursively from there. So in other words, while I may have made a few assumptions to your one, the distance of my total assumption is a lot less, since yours spanned the initial reason to begin with. You already agreed that support was being lost from Israel. You just admitted then that, as of late the rate of occupation has been decreasing, most likely bacause of lost support (you said it, not me). Join the pieces we know, don't just jump over the whole issue with one mere assumption.
|
