I already conceded that there are very likely, in fact, I’m sure of it, members of the IDF that are not there willingly and do not support its goals. The point I’m trying to make is that the proportion IDF soldiers that support Zionism is much higher than the number of supporters of Nazis in the Wehrmacht.
Many members of the Wehrmacht were fighting for Germany, not the Nazis. Every single member of the IDF, except for perhaps a few exceptions, are absolutely fighting for Zionism.
It would be a logical fallacy to jump to such a conclusion without interviewing a randomly sampled and much larger population. It is possible you may be correct or incorrect, but you are jumping to a conclusion about a topic with insufficient data to do so.
It would be a logical fallacy to jump to such a conclusion without interviewing a randomly sampled and much larger population.
Except that it is. And I’ve told you that, several times.
It’s like you have ignored every comment I have made so far. For the IDF of soldiers, there is a huge amount of pluralistic evidence to support this. And for the Wehrmacht soldiers, there is a huge amount of historical evidence that supports this, too.
You don’t wanna be convinced, you just wanna argue a single point and ignore anything that is contrary to it.
All of this information is very publicly available. Since you are so adverse to taking my word for it, go look at these facts up for yourself.
As you are clearly sea lining rather than arguing in good faith, I’m going to block you now.
They haven’t made any numerical claim. The argument against biased data is a fundamental one. Arguing that someone’s methodology is wrong is not arguing that the opposite of the conclusion is true. They are just saying “Facebook research don’t count”. I don’t know what statistical evidence you need for “Facebook research don’t count”.
I’ve only responded to you twice. Once to tell you that a biased sample set provides garbage data, and again to tell you I wouldn’t be arguing with someone who didn’t understand the core concepts of the conversation.
I already conceded that there are very likely, in fact, I’m sure of it, members of the IDF that are not there willingly and do not support its goals. The point I’m trying to make is that the proportion IDF soldiers that support Zionism is much higher than the number of supporters of Nazis in the Wehrmacht.
Many members of the Wehrmacht were fighting for Germany, not the Nazis. Every single member of the IDF, except for perhaps a few exceptions, are absolutely fighting for Zionism.
It would be a logical fallacy to jump to such a conclusion without interviewing a randomly sampled and much larger population. It is possible you may be correct or incorrect, but you are jumping to a conclusion about a topic with insufficient data to do so.
Except that it is. And I’ve told you that, several times.
It’s like you have ignored every comment I have made so far. For the IDF of soldiers, there is a huge amount of pluralistic evidence to support this. And for the Wehrmacht soldiers, there is a huge amount of historical evidence that supports this, too.
You don’t wanna be convinced, you just wanna argue a single point and ignore anything that is contrary to it.
All of this information is very publicly available. Since you are so adverse to taking my word for it, go look at these facts up for yourself.
As you are clearly sea lining rather than arguing in good faith, I’m going to block you now.
Have a wonderful time go fuck yourself
The beautiful irony here is that you are believing in and spreading IDF propaganda for them.
If your sample is heavily biased, then the data from it is worthless.
Well, then you’re welcome to prove that. I await your evidence to support your assertion.
I’ll warn you ahead of time: arguing against facts usually ends poorly. Beware.
Nah, I’m not going to argue science and statistics with someone who clearly understands neither.
Going through these comments you’ve not presented one scientific or statistical argument. You’re basically going on vibes.
They haven’t made any numerical claim. The argument against biased data is a fundamental one. Arguing that someone’s methodology is wrong is not arguing that the opposite of the conclusion is true. They are just saying “Facebook research don’t count”. I don’t know what statistical evidence you need for “Facebook research don’t count”.
I’ve only responded to you twice. Once to tell you that a biased sample set provides garbage data, and again to tell you I wouldn’t be arguing with someone who didn’t understand the core concepts of the conversation.
The vibes thing is quite the projection, though.
Considering this is the first time you’ve responded to me at all I think maybe I don’t trust your ability to judge Core Concepts of a conversation.