Israel/Palestine discussion

[sourmìlk]

It is and I've explained how. It's the hypothesis that assumes the fewest things.

Not really -- assuming that there the permits are easily or reasonably acquirable and assuming that the permits are not easily or reasonably acquirable both require that one respective assumption.

No. As I've explained, assuming that it's not easily or reasonably obtainable implies the existence of additional barriers to obtainment. You're asking me to prove that those barriers do not exist, which is asking me to prove a negative. And again, Palestinians have actually gotten permits for building things.

No, that just makes it "difficult".

I don't think it's possible to defeat three grizzly bears with your bear hands.

[yoni45]

No. As I've explained, assuming that it's not easily or reasonably obtainable implies the existence of additional barriers to obtainment.

And assuming it is easily or reasonably obtainable implies that no such additional barriers exist, just as big of an assumption.

I don't think it's possible to defeat three grizzly bears with your bear hands.

Well then, you'd unfortunately be less capable of obtaining electricity than someone more capable.

[sourmìlk]

No. As I've explained, assuming that it's not easily or reasonably obtainable implies the existence of additional barriers to obtainment.

And assuming it is easily or reasonably obtainable implies that no such additional barriers exist, just as big of an assumption.

I don't think it's possible to defeat three grizzly bears with your bear hands.

Well then, you'd unfortunately be less capable of obtaining electricity than someone more capable.

[yurell]

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

The Palestinians built throughout area C administered by Israel without permit[31] which, according to Peace Now is due to the extreme difficulty Palestinians face in obtaining building permits for Area C. (Under the 1993 Oslo Accords 59% of the West Bank was allocated to Israeli control and denoted as Area C.[32]) Only 91 of 1,624 Palestinian requests permits were approved by Israeli authorities in 2001-2008.

A 6% chance of actually getting a permit doesn't sound like it was reasonable to expect a permit, at least not in a reasonable time-frame.

[sourmìlk]

No. As I've explained, assuming that it's not easily or reasonably obtainable implies the existence of additional barriers to obtainment.

And assuming it is easily or reasonably obtainable implies that no such additional barriers exist, just as big of an assumption.

No, it's not, because it assumes fewer entities. For example, the assumption that bigfoot doesn't exist is not as big an assumption that he does because the latter requires the existence of more entities. This is the fundamental basis of Occam's razor. Replace "bigfoot" with "barriers to obtainment of a permit" and the principle holds.

Well then, you'd unfortunately be less capable of obtaining electricity than someone more capable.

Isn't that a tautology?

The Palestinians built throughout area C administered by Israel without permit[31] which, according to Peace Now is due to the extreme difficulty Palestinians face in obtaining building permits for Area C. (Under the 1993 Oslo Accords 59% of the West Bank was allocated to Israeli control and denoted as Area C.[32]) Only 91 of 1,624 Palestinian requests permits were approved by Israeli authorities in 2001-2008.

Now this actually does suggest that there may be barriers to Palestinians obtaining building permits. But we have to figure out what those barriers are and, to determine whether discrimination exists, also compare that to the number of permits requested by settlers and their approval. I'm trying to find more information about it but the citation link is broken

[yurell]

Also, let's not forget the racism behind it, same source:

Peace Now also said the army demolished 33 percent of the 4,993 cases of illegal Palestinian construction against which it issued demolition orders. By contrast, 7 percent of the 2,900 cases of illegal settler construction that drew demolition orders were torn down, the group said.[33]

[yoni45]

Who'da thunk it.

[sourmìlk]

Yeah, well there really isn't an excuse for that. There are reasons, e.g. that as Israeli citizens who vote politicians don't want to piss them off as much, but there aren't excuses. I'd say it's not necessarily racism as it could be motivated by the aforementioned reason, but there's probably a good bit of racism thrown into the mix.

[EdgarJPublius]

No. As I've explained, assuming that it's not easily or reasonably obtainable implies the existence of additional barriers to obtainment.

And assuming it is easily or reasonably obtainable implies that no such additional barriers exist, just as big of an assumption.

No, it's not, because it assumes fewer entities. For example, the assumption that bigfoot doesn't exist is not as big an assumption that he does because the latter requires the existence of more entities. This is the fundamental basis of Occam's razor. Replace "bigfoot" with "barriers to obtainment of a permit" and the principle holds.
|

I'm not sure whether the fact you actually seem to understand the burden of proof and Occam's razor here is evidence of even a broken clock being right twice a day, or some more malicious intention.

Remember, any positive assertion (that barriers do exist, that profiling does work, etc.) assumes the burden of proof, not just positive assertions that happen to contradict your position.

[sourmìlk]

Yeah, I get that. Also this is what I mean about respecting me more when you disagree with me. You see that I'm perfectly capable of making rational arguments to support proper positions, perhaps you could consider that I'm not entirely crazy when I make arguments you disagree with.

[bentheimmigrant]

Then stop appealing to pseudoscience and presenting your opinions as fact. You started claiming null hypothesis about the extent to which it is difficult to get a permit. It is a question to which there is a range of answers. There is some difficulty, because that is the nature of bureaucracy. You must be literate. You usually have to pay a fee. There may be zoning laws. So claiming that the null hypothesis backs you up comes across as an attempt to use scientific terms to bully people into not expecting you to back up your claims. If you want to hold this to a scientific standard, then start producing facts to back up the factual claims you make.

[zmic]

Israel is so aggressive it MUST be a bluff!

No, Israel really is serious. They see a nuclear Iran as a serious threat, and will do anything possible to stop it, just as they have in Iraq and Syria.

It has become glaringly obvious that Israel's little piece of theater served no other purpose than to pressure Western countries to increase sanctions on Iran. And their little plan worked perfectly. They have no intention to attack whatsoever.

[sourmìlk]

Then stop appealing to pseudoscience and presenting your opinions as fact. You started claiming null hypothesis about the extent to which it is difficult to get a permit. It is a question to which there is a range of answers. There is some difficulty, because that is the nature of bureaucracy. You must be literate. You usually have to pay a fee. There may be zoning laws. So claiming that the null hypothesis backs you up comes across as an attempt to use scientific terms to bully people into not expecting you to back up your claims. If you want to hold this to a scientific standard, then start producing facts to back up the factual claims you make.

Calling my arguments pseudoscience isn't an argument. Now, as for the fact that there is some difficulty inherent to the nature of bureaucracy, assuming those difficulties does not violate Occam's razor as they are necessary entities. They must exist by the very nature of permits. And by the way, that post was specifically in response to somebody who agreed with my use of these scientific terms. And even by a scientific standard I don't have to prove a negative (though it has been shown that Palestinians can acquire building permits, though there may be difficulty).

It has become glaringly obvious that Israel's little piece of theater served no other purpose than to pressure Western countries to increase sanctions on Iran. And their little plan worked perfectly. They have no intention to attack whatsoever.

This is not only entirely unsubstantiated, it's inconsistent with the facts. Israel hasn't been pushing for increased sanctions, it's been encouraging the West to abandon sanctions in favour of a military option. Calling something "glaringly obvious" constitutes an assertion, not an argument.

[bentheimmigrant]

Then stop appealing to pseudoscience and presenting your opinions as fact. You started claiming null hypothesis about the extent to which it is difficult to get a permit. It is a question to which there is a range of answers. There is some difficulty, because that is the nature of bureaucracy. You must be literate. You usually have to pay a fee. There may be zoning laws. So claiming that the null hypothesis backs you up comes across as an attempt to use scientific terms to bully people into not expecting you to back up your claims. If you want to hold this to a scientific standard, then start producing facts to back up the factual claims you make.

Calling my arguments pseudoscience isn't an argument. Now, as for the fact that there is some difficulty inherent to the nature of bureaucracy, assuming those difficulties does not violate Occam's razor as they are necessary entities. They must exist by the very nature of permits. And by the way, that post was specifically in response to somebody who agreed with my use of these scientific terms. And even by a scientific standard I don't have to prove a negative (though it has been shown that Palestinians can acquire building permits, though there may be difficulty).

But using scientific terms that don't apply is pretty much pseudoscience. Your null hypothesis was basically "I'm right and you're wrong". As a counter example, one may obtain a permit to build on undeveloped land in this country. The nature of those permits is such that they are very difficult to obtain (as the default position is that the government does not want you to build on such a site). Assuming your null hypothesis would be wrong (because there is no reason to have one in the first place, as the only suitably scientific ones would be "all applicants successful" or "no applicants successful". The answer by nature is somewhere in between, and where is what matters here). But at the end of the day, you're the one who made the claim. And since we're not talking about actual science, it would have been perfectly reasonable for you to have gone over some facts (e.g. success rate of applicants) and then made the argument that the rate is sufficiently high that one could consider them easy to obtain. Because, again, we're not looking for a positive or negative proof. There's no such thing. When you make a claim and then expect other people to have to provide the proof to counter you, you're being disingenuous and arrogant. This is why people respond the way they do.

[Enokh]

I absolutely did. Occam's razor states that you shouldn't create extra and unproven entities to back up your argument. Your assumption that something could be preventing the Palestinians from obtaining a permit creates extra unproven entities, those entities being any barriers between Palestinians and the permit. Thus, given the existence of a permit, the default assumption that involves the fewest assumed entities is that the permit is obtainable.

So, I realize that I'm like a page and a half late on this, but since the permit talk is still going on. . .

The problem with your statement is this: the building permits are issues by the Israeli Government. The Palestinians and the Israeli government do not get along. The barriers between Palestinians and the permits are the Israeli government, since the Palestinians have to go through said government to get the building permits. No "extra unproven entities" have been created, and as such Occam's Razor does not apply.

[jules.LT]

When the two sides work from opposite assumptions (whether Israel usually acts in good faith or not), I don't see how Occam's razor can help. Then, the burden of proof is for whoever thinks his point is worth backing up with facts... (thanks, yurell).

[EdgarJPublius]

The problem with assuming you are not just crazy and/or ignorant because you are capable of making a rational argument, is that you so rarely make such an argument that the other obvious conclusion is you are a malicious troll.

[zmic]

It has become glaringly obvious that Israel's little piece of theater served no other purpose than to pressure Western countries to increase sanctions on Iran. And their little plan worked perfectly. They have no intention to attack whatsoever.

This is not only entirely unsubstantiated, it's inconsistent with the facts. Israel hasn't been pushing for increased sanctions

Yes it has.

it's been encouraging the West to abandon sanctions in favour of a military option.

Because they know perfectly well that the West, wary of yet another disastrous war in the Middle East, will prefer economic sanctions.

Calling something "glaringly obvious" constitutes an assertion, not an argument.

are you a citizen of Israel by any chance?

[sourmìlk]

Because they know perfectly well that the West, wary of yet another disastrous war in the Middle East, will prefer economic sanctions.

Again, [citation needed]. This is entirely speculative.

are you a citizen of Israel by any chance?

No, I'm American.

When the two sides work from opposite assumptions (whether Israel usually acts in good faith or not), I don't see how Occam's razor can help. Then, the burden of proof is for whoever thinks his point is worth backing up with facts... (thanks, yurell).

The burden of proof is on the person who thinks that one side isn't acting in good faith. Unless you have evidence supporting that stance, you cannot assume that somebody is lying or otherwise being dishonest.

The problem with your statement is this: the building permits are issues by the Israeli Government. The Palestinians and the Israeli government do not get along. The barriers between Palestinians and the permits are the Israeli government, since the Palestinians have to go through said government to get the building permits. No "extra unproven entities" have been created, and as such Occam's Razor does not apply.

The Israeli government doesn't constitute itself a barrier, it is the source of barriers. If the Israeli government gave out permits to whoever asked nicely, for example, they would not be a barrier. So to call the Israeli government a barrier requires that you assume the existence of barriers they've set up.

But using scientific terms that don't apply is pretty much pseudoscience. Your null hypothesis was basically "I'm right and you're wrong". As a counter example, one may obtain a permit to build on undeveloped land in this country. The nature of those permits is such that they are very difficult to obtain (as the default position is that the government does not want you to build on such a site). Assuming your null hypothesis would be wrong (because there is no reason to have one in the first place, as the only suitably scientific ones would be "all applicants successful" or "no applicants successful". The answer by nature is somewhere in between, and where is what matters here). But at the end of the day, you're the one who made the claim. And since we're not talking about actual science, it would have been perfectly reasonable for you to have gone over some facts (e.g. success rate of applicants) and then made the argument that the rate is sufficiently high that one could consider them easy to obtain. Because, again, we're not looking for a positive or negative proof. There's no such thing. When you make a claim and then expect other people to have to provide the proof to counter you, you're being disingenuous and arrogant. This is why people respond the way they do.

I'm not sure you quite understand my stance or even Yoni's. Yoni was requesting a negative proof, i.e. that I demonstrate the nonexistence of unreasonable barriers to obtaining a permit. If you think that it's proper argument to request a negative proof then you are simply wrong.

The problem with assuming you are not just crazy and/or ignorant because you are capable of making a rational argument, is that you so rarely make such an argument that the other obvious conclusion is you are a malicious troll.

Just because you disagree with me does not mean that my argument is crazy. Obviously I don't think that you make rational arguments very often because I disagree with you, but does that necessitate that I conclude that you're either insane or a troll? Of course not. My point is that, even though you disagree with me, you see I'm capable of lucid thought, so perhaps you could think of my wrong arguments as simply wrong and not crazy.

[yurell]

The burden of proof is on the person who thinks that one side isn't acting in good faith. Unless you have evidence supporting that stance, you cannot assume that somebody is lying or otherwise being dishonest.

You're wrong. The burden of proof is always on the party making positive claims. Otherwise, you will have people being caught in the position of having to prove the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence.

Obviously I don't think that you make rational arguments very often because I disagree with you, but does that necessitate that I conclude that you're either insane or a troll?

They're not saying you're crazy or a troll because they disagree with your arguments, they're saying it because of how you conduct yourself, something which many people in this thread have pointed out to you many times.

[sourmìlk]

You're wrong. The burden of proof is always on the party making positive claims. Otherwise, you will have people being caught in the position of having to prove the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence.

Well yeah, if I were to definitely claim that Israel were necessarily acting in good faith that probably would put the burden of proof on me. But until some evidence is presented, it is not a useful assumption to make that a party is lying.

They're not saying you're crazy or a troll because they disagree with your arguments, they're saying it because of how you conduct yourself, something which many people in this thread have pointed out to you many times.

I must have missed it. I've heard criticisms of my arguments and their style, but what is objectionable about the way I conduct myself?

[bentheimmigrant]

You claim things, with no proof, and then say its not your job to provide proof. You then spend pages arguing that it's not your role, even though you made a claim that's testable (just show the success rate of applicants). But you refuse. It's rude.

[yurell]

Your conduct? You call everyone liars, then lie to to excuse it.
You make positive assertions, and then when asked for evidence you ignore the requests (or claim that it's not your job).
You refused to let a point you've challenged once stand in an argument, yet if you're being supported by a challenged point you're happy to use it.
You constantly say "I've explained ...", when you know that this annoys people and tends to be untrue.
You constantly argue ad nauseum using the same points that have been discredited by virtually everyone in the thread.
You try to redefine words to mean what you want hem to mean so you can use their connotations while sticking to your own ridiculous restricted meaning.


Several other things have been described in various people's discourses before they blocked you (including me). I should really have learnt to not read your posts by now, but almost every post in this thread not by you addresses you.

Edit: In fact, given that it's not rare for a mod to say 'this will not turn into another Sourmilk discussion', it should be obvious that at least something is wrong with how you conduct yourself in a discussion.

[zmic]

Because they know perfectly well that the West, wary of yet another disastrous war in the Middle East, will prefer economic sanctions.

Again, [citation needed]. This is entirely speculative.

I'm not aware that the government of Israel has the habit of publishing their foreign strategies, so no [citation] will be forthcoming.

are you a citizen of Israel by any chance?

No, I'm American.

[sourmìlk]

Because they know perfectly well that the West, wary of yet another disastrous war in the Middle East, will prefer economic sanctions.

Again, [citation needed]. This is entirely speculative.

I'm not aware that the government of Israel has the habit of publishing their foreign strategies, so no [citation] will be forthcoming.

I'm not asking for a scientific proof here, because I know you can't provide one for the above reason. But how about at least some evidence pointing to why your view might be the case?

You claim things, with no proof, and then say its not your job to provide proof. You then spend pages arguing that it's not your role, even though you made a claim that's testable (just show the success rate of applicants). But you refuse. It's rude.

I really don't see how a disagreement about burden of proof constitutes rude behaviour. Not wanting to prove a negative claim is entirely valid.

Your conduct? You call everyone liars, then lie to to excuse it.

I have never once done either of these things. And no, that's not calling you a liar because I make absolutely no guesses as to why you've said that. You may not remember properly, we may have different interpretations of the same events, etc. I don't assume the motivations behind people's arguments, because it's an ad hominem, and because I don't care. I think you think that I think that, when I point out that a person is stating a falsehood, I assume that they're lying. I don't.

You make positive assertions, and then when asked for evidence you ignore the requests (or claim that it's not your job).

See above: arguing about burden of proof is perfectly legitimate behaviour for a debate.

You refused to let a point you've challenged once stand in an argument, yet if you're being supported by a challenged point you're happy to use it.

This is entirely valid. If a point or counterargument has been made and is unchallenged, it is reasonable for me to assume that it's not been challenged because people agree with it.

You constantly say "I've explained ...", when you know that this annoys people and tends to be untrue.

I do it in the above situation.

You constantly argue ad nauseum using the same points that have been discredited by virtually everyone in the thread.

I only go back to previous points if a person makes a point I've already refuted. That's not me dragging the thread in circles, it's him.

You try to redefine words to mean what you want hem to mean so you can use their connotations while sticking to your own ridiculous restricted meaning.

If I've committed the "no true Scottsman" fallacy I apologize, but I don't see how that qualifies as misconduct.

Several other things have been described in various people's discourses before they blocked you (including me). I should really have learnt to not read your posts by now, but almost every post in this thread not by you addresses you.

I've read those posts, and they tend to be insults that tell me nothing other than that the poster is annoyed with me.

Edit: In fact, given that it's not rare for a mod to say 'this will not turn into another Sourmilk discussion', it should be obvious that at least something is wrong with how you conduct yourself in a discussion.

Or that I post a lot and thus frustrate people.

[bentheimmigrant]

Oh for the sake of all that is good and decent! You're presented with a list of things that bother people about you, but refuse to believe its true. The burden of proof is an example of your style. You made the positive claim that it was easy to obtain a permit. This is trivial to back up with statistics. Yet you refuse. Why? On principle? Because the data dos not support you? Because you argue in bad faith? Because you're lazy? Because you're a troll? These are all the reasons I can think of and none of them reflect well on you. So yes. People do have a problem with you and it's probably not their fault.

[sourmìlk]

On principle. I don't see why I should spend time doing my opponent's research for him, and I don't see how that reflects badly on me either.

[bentheimmigrant]

Because you're the one who made the claim, so it's your research to do. It's not our job to show you that you make your facts up.
It's already been demonstrated that statistics where available, so why didn't you use them?

But all of this misses the point.

...my opponent...

Here is the problem.

[sourmìlk]

Because you're the one who made the claim, so it's your research to do. It's not our job to show you that you make your facts up.

No, the burden of proof isn't on me. If I'd said "bigfoot doesn't exist", then it's up to another person to prove otherwise. If I say "unreasonable barriers to obtaining a building permit in Area C don't exist", it's up to the other person to prove otherwise. It is not by burden to prove a negative.

It's already been demonstrated that statistics where available, so why didn't you use them?

See my above post.

But all of this misses the point.

...my opponent...

Here is the problem.

Why is that problematic? Isn't that the proper term for a person who disagrees with you in a debate?

[Ulc]

Because you're the one who made the claim, so it's your research to do. It's not our job to show you that you make your facts up.

No, the burden of proof isn't on me. If I'd said "bigfoot doesn't exist", then it's up to another person to prove otherwise. If I say "unreasonable barriers to obtaining a building permit in Area C don't exist", it's up to the other person to prove otherwise. It is not by burden to prove a negative.

I usually stay out the mess you guys have made of this thread.

But seriously?

It's called "backing up your arguments" and is customary done so that people can distinguish "arguments" from "making shit up". And when dealing with non-obvious arguments it's necessary if you want to avoid looking like a douchehat making shit up.

[Radical_Initiator]

No, the burden of proof isn't on me. If I'd said "bigfoot doesn't exist", then it's up to another person to prove otherwise. If I say "unreasonable barriers to obtaining a building permit in Area C don't exist", it's up to the other person to prove otherwise. It is not by burden to prove a negative.

It seems like you're suggesting that burden of proof is a sort of all-or-nothing proposition, that it starts with one side in a debate and never leaves that side. That's untenable. What I would think you should want to do, in the frame of the permit debate, is state that permits exist (easily provable) and that some have been awarded to Palestinian people and/or groups (perhaps a little harder, but still provable). Then, the burden shifts to the argument declaring discrimination. In other words, it certainly is your job to prove absolute or near-absolute barriers don't exist, then it becomes "your opponent's" job to declare that unreasonable barriers do exist. Proving the non-existence of an absolute is not the same as proving a negative: in the latter case, you would have to refute all possible counter-examples, while in the former, you need only provide them. But you must provide them.

Edit: I think it's been said previously, but it should be said again: the mere existence of a permit is not enough to prove non-discrimination. In the US, African-Americans had the right to vote long before they were actually able to use it, due to disenfranchisement laws that stood on the books until someone challenged them. The default position cannot be that because a right exists, it is being allowed.

And Ulc does a better job of explaining, in a much more succinct manner.

[bentheimmigrant]

Is the level of ease with which one can do something a "negative" that can't be proven? No. Is there a source of evidence that could have supported your argument (if it wasn't for the inconvenient fact that it countered your argument)? Yes.

The fact that you want to twist a simple claim of fact into a "negative" so that you don't have to back it up is exactly what we're talking about. It's not a negative or positive claim. The question is, "To what extent is it easy to obtain a permit?" you said easy, others said difficult. The answer is not an absolute or fundamental truth (like the existence or otherwise of Bigfoot), it is a subjective measure that should be argued from facts. This is why I call your style pseudoscience. You try to take scientific terms and apply them in a way that shows you either don't understand what you're doing, or you're trying to bluff your way out of things.

Why is that problematic? Isn't that the proper term for a person who disagrees with you in a debate?

It's problematic because you are more concerned with winning than ascertaining facts, a trait of which you should not be proud.

Also, what they said.

[Ghostbear]

You know, I agree with everything frustrating being said about sourmilk here. But there's an easier solution to trying to convince him to stop (because he wont): just ignore him. It'll save all of you so much stress. It's what I decided to do with this thread. It essentially makes the thread unavailable because nearly every post is in reply to him anyway, but oh well.

Sourmilk, maybe the root problem, causing all of the other problems (and they are true, much as you will argue otherwise) is that you see this as a debate to be "won", instead of a discussion? You certainly seem to treat it so. Food for thought for yourself either way: you should note that probably the worst person for evaluating whether someone is being reasonable is that very same person. Lots of people are pointing out to you flaws in your arguing methods- people who I would hope you would respect-, maybe you should take a step back, a real step back, and ask yourself if they're right, instead of just immediately dismissing their arguments? I don't think you set out to intentionally argue this way, and you definitely aren't stupid; I think other people made the same conclusions, which is why they don't bothering to just ignore you outright. Either way, you're forced to consider either that everyone else is wrong (including people that probably couldn't agree on the color of the sky if left alone, yet agree on this), or just you.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents for each "side". I'm going to go back to more or less ignoring this thread now.

[sourmìlk]

It's called "backing up your arguments" and us customary done so that people can distinguish "arguments" from "making shit up". And when dealing with non-obvious arguments it's necessary if you want to avoid looking like a douchehat making shit up.

This ignores all of my points. I've already responded to this.

It seems like you're suggesting that burden of proof is a sort of all-or-nothing proposition, that it starts with one side in a debate and never leaves that side. That's untenable. What I would think you should want to do, in the frame of the permit debate, is state that permits exist (easily provable) and that some have been awarded to Palestinian people and/or groups (perhaps a little harder, but still provable). Then, the burden shifts to the argument declaring discrimination. In other words, it certainly is your job to prove absolute or near-absolute barriers don't exist, then it becomes "your opponent's" job to declare that unreasonable barriers do exist. Proving the non-existence of an absolute is not the same as proving a negative: in the latter case, you would have to refute all possible counter-examples, while in the former, you need only provide them. But you must provide them.

I did, in fact, say that Palestinians had acquiring permits, thus indicating the nonexistence of absolute barriers. And I also explained that the existence of a permit implies the existence of a process to obtain it.

Edit: I think it's been said previously, but it should be said again: the mere existence of a permit is not enough to prove non-discrimination. In the US, African-Americans had the right to vote long before they were actually able to use it, due to disenfranchisement laws that stood on the books until someone challenged them. The default position cannot be that because a right exists, it is being allowed.

I wasn't trying to prove the nonexistence of discrimination, and that's definitely something that's not my responsibility. That is absolutely a negative proof.

Is the level of ease with which one can do something a "negative" that can't be proven? No.

No, but the nonexistence of unreasonable barriers to obtaining a permit is a negative that can't be proven.

Is there a source of evidence that could have supported your argument (if it wasn't for the inconvenient fact that it countered your argument)? Yes.

The data are not sufficient to disprove my argument. We don't know why those permits rejected nor has evidence been provided suggestion that Jews are treated differently.

The fact that you want to twist a simple claim of fact into a "negative" so that you don't have to back it up is exactly what we're talking about. It's not a negative or positive claim. The question is, "To what extent is it easy to obtain a permit?" you said easy, others said difficult. The answer is not an absolute or fundamental truth (like the existence or otherwise of Bigfoot), it is a subjective measure that should be argued from facts. This is why I call your style pseudoscience. You try to take scientific terms and apply them in a way that shows you either don't understand what you're doing, or you're trying to bluff your way out of things.

I have addressed your point about whether it constitutes a negative or positive claim with Yoni, so I'm not going over that again. And second, none of that is misconduct. At worst it's poor argument. Your disagreement with me on the subject of burden of proof does not give anybody a reason to disrespect me.

Why is that problematic? Isn't that the proper term for a person who disagrees with you in a debate?

It's problematic because you are more concerned with winning than ascertaining facts, a trait of which you should not be proud.

I really don't see how you extrapolated that from my use of the word "opponent."

[Radical_Initiator]

It seems like you're suggesting that burden of proof is a sort of all-or-nothing proposition, that it starts with one side in a debate and never leaves that side. That's untenable. What I would think you should want to do, in the frame of the permit debate, is state that permits exist (easily provable) and that some have been awarded to Palestinian people and/or groups (perhaps a little harder, but still provable). Then, the burden shifts to the argument declaring discrimination. In other words, it certainly is your job to prove absolute or near-absolute barriers don't exist, then it becomes "your opponent's" job to declare that unreasonable barriers do exist. Proving the non-existence of an absolute is not the same as proving a negative: in the latter case, you would have to refute all possible counter-examples, while in the former, you need only provide them. But you must provide them.

I did, in fact, say that Palestinians had acquiring permits, thus indicating the nonexistence of absolute barriers. And I also explained that the existence of a permit implies the existence of a process to obtain it.

Did you say it, or did you prove it? As you're fond of pointing out, saying it is simply an assertion, not an argument.

Edit: I think it's been said previously, but it should be said again: the mere existence of a permit is not enough to prove non-discrimination. In the US, African-Americans had the right to vote long before they were actually able to use it, due to disenfranchisement laws that stood on the books until someone challenged them. The default position cannot be that because a right exists, it is being allowed.

I wasn't trying to prove the nonexistence of discrimination, and that's definitely something that's not my responsibility. That is absolutely a negative proof.

And I'm not asking you to prove discrimination doesn't exist. But even if "permit exists" implies "process to obtain permit exists", it is not enough to say "permits are obtainable." My example was intended to suggest a situation in which a right exists and therefore a process to exercise that right exists, but it does not imply that exercise of that right is permitted. One of the things people are annoyed by is your tendency to mischaracterize an argument and then dismiss it.

The fact that you want to twist a simple claim of fact into a "negative" so that you don't have to back it up is exactly what we're talking about. It's not a negative or positive claim. The question is, "To what extent is it easy to obtain a permit?" you said easy, others said difficult. The answer is not an absolute or fundamental truth (like the existence or otherwise of Bigfoot), it is a subjective measure that should be argued from facts. This is why I call your style pseudoscience. You try to take scientific terms and apply them in a way that shows you either don't understand what you're doing, or you're trying to bluff your way out of things.

I have addressed your point about whether it constitutes a negative or positive claim with Yoni

Unconvincingly.

[Zamfir]

Even for I/P levels, this is too much debate about sourmilk, and not enough about the topic. Sourmilk, I am getting sick and tired of threads that are about you.

It's your responsibility to leave room in threads for others. If you can't handle that responsibility, you should post less.

[sourmìlk]

I did, in fact, say that Palestinians had acquiring permits, thus indicating the nonexistence of absolute barriers. And I also explained that the existence of a permit implies the existence of a process to obtain it.

Did you say it, or did you prove it? As you're fond of pointing out, saying it is simply an assertion, not an argument.[/quote]
I referred to it, as I didn't think it would be contested. Should somebody have contested it, I would have gotten the necessary data.

And I'm not asking you to prove discrimination doesn't exist. But even if "permit exists" implies "process to obtain permit exists", it is not enough to say "permits are obtainable." My example was intended to suggest a situation in which a right exists and therefore a process to exercise that right exists, but it does not imply that exercise of that right is permitted. One of the things people are annoyed by is your tendency to mischaracterize an argument and then dismiss it.

I didn't say that the process necessarily implied obtainability, but that it is reasonable to assume obtainability until proven otherwise.

Unconvincingly.

Then say how it's unconvincing instead of ignoring it.

[Zamfir]

OK. Sourmilk, you're banned from the Israel/Palestine discussion for the next three days

[zmic]

Because they know perfectly well that the West, wary of yet another disastrous war in the Middle East, will prefer economic sanctions.

Again, [citation needed]. This is entirely speculative.

I'm not aware that the government of Israel has the habit of publishing their foreign strategies, so no [citation] will be forthcoming.

I'm not asking for a scientific proof here, because I know you can't provide one for the above reason. But how about at least some evidence pointing to why your view might be the case?

Today I'm reading on the website of Jerusalem Post

US and Israeli intelligence agencies mostly agree that Iran has not restarted its development of a nuclear bomb, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

According to the report, the assessment among top US officials is that Iran has not yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon, a conclusion which was established based on intelligence analyses.

And also:

Vice Premier Silvan Shalom says that the cumulative impact of the oil and SWIFT sanctions may soon reach the point of convincing the Iranian regime that it can only survive by abandoning its push for nuclear weapons.

This seems to confirm my analysis. It is clear that the Iranian "nuclear threat" is not nearly as imminent as some parties would like us to believe. Therefore an Israeli strike is not opportune because the potential benefits do not outweigh the risks -- Israel is a tiny nation compared to Iran and it would have to commit pretty much its entire air force in such an attack. Israel itself would have come to the same conclusion months ago. We conclude that Israel's threat of a air strikes were just political theater with the intention of isolating Iran --it's strategic enemy in the Middle East-- and weakening it by means of economic sanctions. It was never about the nukes, it was simply about finding a stick to beat the dog.

[yedidyak]

So from the Israeli Deputy PM saying 'Hopefully sanctions will get Iran to stop developing nukes' you got that the nukes aren't the issue?