The thing is, gesturing vaguely at something we thing is obvious, is not really a source. Even 1+1=2 has to be proven. I suspect that Zionism is just used as a pretext to be antisemitic by people who were going to anyways. But I also don’t have any data to back it up.
How do you prove this? Through definitions? An appeal to authority is not valid proof.
This line of reasoning reminds me of when people were saying the “square root of 2 isn’t 1 because mathematical scholars say so”…No, it’s by definition not one. Count one thing one time, how many things have you counted? One.
I don’t need a source or an authority for that nor for 1+1=2. I need to understand the basic definitions and concepts.
The proof is something like 300+ pages long and they needed to invent a few new branches of mathematics to reach the end, because it’s strictly not based on appeal to authority. I didn’t even try to understand it, but it’s a cool piece of trivia.
I mean I understand that there are academic standards of proof, but the idea that those are necessary for casual conversations about easily understood concepts is pretty ridiculous.
It seems like one of those bojack memes where the drooling person at the one end and the Jedi at the other end would both say just count a couple of rocks and the nerd in between would be saying write a 300-page proof.
Things like basic property of counting are not mathematical strict definitions.
Relying on “dude, it’s obvious” doesn’t work in science, you need to prove things. Otherwise you’d think a feather and a cannonball always fall a different speeds, for instance.
And you’re trying to prove that mathematics works the same way as physics weirdly with regards to proof? It doesn’t. You do proofs in precalculus and none of them involve dropping cannonballs and feathers from the ceiling.
But again, we’re not talking about an environment where formal proofs are necessary. This is social media, we’re a link under cat photos.
There is no “source” for the claim that zionism drives anti-semitism. It’s outside the realm of objective science. But it seems pretty obvious that a bunch of genocidal wackos claiming to represent judaism is bad for jews.
It is often used by antisemites to disguise their antisemitism as valid criticism of zionism.
That validity ends, once you attack any Jew for their Jewishness, attribute any wrongdoing of Jews to their Jewishness or straight up insult other people as “Jews”.
That’s an option article, same as we are writing here. There could be statistics relating anti-semitic attacks to Israels activity, for instance. Claiming something is outside of objective science is a very lazy cope-out.
The thing is, gesturing vaguely at something (…) obvious, is not really a source
Yeah, it’s not like there’s a lot of people honestly and precisely detailing how they developed their bigoted attitudes. That doesn’t mean that you can’t reason your way to a logical conclusion, though.
No, this (ascertaining the underlying causes of bigotry) is a place where definitive data by definition can’t exist and thus logically reaching the most probable conclusion based on what IS known must take its place.
I’m trying to assume that your demands for the impossible are in good faith, but it’s getting difficult .
As I said before, claiming data can’t exist is a lazy cope-out. I also presented an example of data that could work: antisemitic attacks per day vs activity of Israel in Gaza, plotted over time. Just an example, I’m no sociologist.
As I said before, claiming data can’t exist is a lazy cope-out
As far as bad faith reading goes, ignoring the word “definitive” to make your strawman fit is up there 🙄
antisemitic attacks per day vs activity of Israel in Gaza, plotted over time. Just an example, I’m no sociologist.
Nobody ever told you the difference between correlation and causation or the fact that bigotry consists of SO much more than just overt violence, did they?
It’s clear that nothing good will come from continuing to indulge you, so I’m gonna go now. Have the day you deserve.
The thing is, gesturing vaguely at something we thing is obvious, is not really a source. Even 1+1=2 has to be proven. I suspect that Zionism is just used as a pretext to be antisemitic by people who were going to anyways. But I also don’t have any data to back it up.
Disclaimer: This is off-topic.
How do you prove this? Through definitions? An appeal to authority is not valid proof.
This line of reasoning reminds me of when people were saying the “square root of 2 isn’t 1 because mathematical scholars say so”…No, it’s by definition not one. Count one thing one time, how many things have you counted? One.
I don’t need a source or an authority for that nor for 1+1=2. I need to understand the basic definitions and concepts.
The proof is something like 300+ pages long and they needed to invent a few new branches of mathematics to reach the end, because it’s strictly not based on appeal to authority. I didn’t even try to understand it, but it’s a cool piece of trivia.
It’s a basic property of counting though, right?
I mean I understand that there are academic standards of proof, but the idea that those are necessary for casual conversations about easily understood concepts is pretty ridiculous.
It seems like one of those bojack memes where the drooling person at the one end and the Jedi at the other end would both say just count a couple of rocks and the nerd in between would be saying write a 300-page proof.
Things like basic property of counting are not mathematical strict definitions.
Relying on “dude, it’s obvious” doesn’t work in science, you need to prove things. Otherwise you’d think a feather and a cannonball always fall a different speeds, for instance.
Mathematics isn’t an empirical science.
And you’re trying to prove that mathematics works the same way as physics weirdly with regards to proof? It doesn’t. You do proofs in precalculus and none of them involve dropping cannonballs and feathers from the ceiling.
But again, we’re not talking about an environment where formal proofs are necessary. This is social media, we’re a link under cat photos.
My point is broader, you need data and rigor, not “dude, just look at it”.
And my point is that you don’t need data and rigor for every single discussion.
For something so sensitive, I like to have it. I won’t accept any broad generalization unless backed by a reputable study.
There is no “source” for the claim that zionism drives anti-semitism. It’s outside the realm of objective science. But it seems pretty obvious that a bunch of genocidal wackos claiming to represent judaism is bad for jews.
It is often used by antisemites to disguise their antisemitism as valid criticism of zionism.
That validity ends, once you attack any Jew for their Jewishness, attribute any wrongdoing of Jews to their Jewishness or straight up insult other people as “Jews”.
That’s an option article, same as we are writing here. There could be statistics relating anti-semitic attacks to Israels activity, for instance. Claiming something is outside of objective science is a very lazy cope-out.
Yeah, it’s not like there’s a lot of people honestly and precisely detailing how they developed their bigoted attitudes. That doesn’t mean that you can’t reason your way to a logical conclusion, though.
This is a place where you need data, not reasoning to a plausible conclusion.
No, this (ascertaining the underlying causes of bigotry) is a place where definitive data by definition can’t exist and thus logically reaching the most probable conclusion based on what IS known must take its place.
I’m trying to assume that your demands for the impossible are in good faith, but it’s getting difficult .
As I said before, claiming data can’t exist is a lazy cope-out. I also presented an example of data that could work: antisemitic attacks per day vs activity of Israel in Gaza, plotted over time. Just an example, I’m no sociologist.
As far as bad faith reading goes, ignoring the word “definitive” to make your strawman fit is up there 🙄
Nobody ever told you the difference between correlation and causation or the fact that bigotry consists of SO much more than just overt violence, did they?
It’s clear that nothing good will come from continuing to indulge you, so I’m gonna go now. Have the day you deserve.
I repeat: just one example.