Apt Analogy?

[DGS49]

When I was a kid, many years ago, I was one of five children. My mother used to buy cases of Pepsi Cola to have around the house, and they generally lasted about a week.

One day, my brother and I were home and there was one bottle of Pepsi left in the Fridge, and of course we both wanted it. Not wanting to get involved, Mom told us to work out who gets the pop.

My brother - bigger and heavier than me - had the pop in his hands, and after Mom left the room, he said, 'Let's negotiate to see who gets the pop." Then he removed the top from the bottle and took a big swig.

I said, "You can't do that! The pop is for BOTH of us!"

But my brother said, "I'm still prepared to negotiate. Let's negotiate right now!" Then he took another swig.

I yelled out to my mother, "Danny's drinking all the pop!" And Dan yelled just as loud, "Dave refuses to negotiate!"

Then he took another swig.

By this time, of course, half of the bottle was consumed. When I pointed out that he had already consumed half of the pop that was supposed to be up for negotiation, he said that if the final negotiated deal called for me to get more than was left, he would "return" what was necessary to make the deal good - in pee.

Does this clarify why Barry and John refused to veto the UN Resolution about Israeli settlements?

What is wrong with the analogy?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

When I was a kid, many years ago, I was one of five children. My mother used to buy cases of Pepsi Cola to have around the house, and they generally lasted about a week.

One day, my brother and I were home and there was one bottle of Pepsi left in the Fridge, and of course we both wanted it. Not wanting to get involved, Mom told us to work out who gets the pop.

My brother - bigger and heavier than me - had the pop in his hands, and after Mom left the room, he said, 'Let's negotiate to see who gets the pop." Then he removed the top from the bottle and took a big swig.

I said, "You can't do that! The pop is for BOTH of us!"

But my brother said, "I'm still prepared to negotiate. Let's negotiate right now!" Then he took another swig.

I yelled out to my mother, "Danny's drinking all the pop!" And Dan yelled just as loud, "Dave refuses to negotiate!"

Then he took another swig.

By this time, of course, half of the bottle was consumed. When I pointed out that he had already consumed half of the pop that was supposed to be up for negotiation, he said that if the final negotiated deal called for me to get more than was left, he would "return" what was necessary to make the deal good - in pee.

Does this clarify why Barry and John refused to veto the UN Resolution about Israeli settlements?

What is wrong with the analogy?

Why did you refuse to negotiate? And he drank his half and was willing to give the other half to you. What was wrong with that? Did you drink the other half?

 

[José]

Originally posted by DGS49
What is wrong with the analogy?

The main assumption... the assumption that the I-P conflict is a family feud.

The bottle of Pepsi belonged equally to you and Danny because your mother bought it.

The Israeli - Palestinian conflict is not about two brothers disputing the same bottle of Pepsi to which they had the same right.

It is about a thief that broke into your house and stole the bottle of Pepsi from you, the family's only child.

 

[BULLDOG]

When I was a kid, many years ago, I was one of five children. My mother used to buy cases of Pepsi Cola to have around the house, and they generally lasted about a week.

One day, my brother and I were home and there was one bottle of Pepsi left in the Fridge, and of course we both wanted it. Not wanting to get involved, Mom told us to work out who gets the pop.

My brother - bigger and heavier than me - had the pop in his hands, and after Mom left the room, he said, 'Let's negotiate to see who gets the pop." Then he removed the top from the bottle and took a big swig.

I said, "You can't do that! The pop is for BOTH of us!"

But my brother said, "I'm still prepared to negotiate. Let's negotiate right now!" Then he took another swig.

I yelled out to my mother, "Danny's drinking all the pop!" And Dan yelled just as loud, "Dave refuses to negotiate!"

Then he took another swig.

By this time, of course, half of the bottle was consumed. When I pointed out that he had already consumed half of the pop that was supposed to be up for negotiation, he said that if the final negotiated deal called for me to get more than was left, he would "return" what was necessary to make the deal good - in pee.

Does this clarify why Barry and John refused to veto the UN Resolution about Israeli settlements?

What is wrong with the analogy?

It's a stupid analogy.

 

[Moonglow]

When I was a kid, many years ago, I was one of five children. My mother used to buy cases of Pepsi Cola to have around the house, and they generally lasted about a week.

One day, my brother and I were home and there was one bottle of Pepsi left in the Fridge, and of course we both wanted it. Not wanting to get involved, Mom told us to work out who gets the pop.

My brother - bigger and heavier than me - had the pop in his hands, and after Mom left the room, he said, 'Let's negotiate to see who gets the pop." Then he removed the top from the bottle and took a big swig.

I said, "You can't do that! The pop is for BOTH of us!"

But my brother said, "I'm still prepared to negotiate. Let's negotiate right now!" Then he took another swig.

I yelled out to my mother, "Danny's drinking all the pop!" And Dan yelled just as loud, "Dave refuses to negotiate!"

Then he took another swig.

By this time, of course, half of the bottle was consumed. When I pointed out that he had already consumed half of the pop that was supposed to be up for negotiation, he said that if the final negotiated deal called for me to get more than was left, he would "return" what was necessary to make the deal good - in pee.

Does this clarify why Barry and John refused to veto the UN Resolution about Israeli settlements?

What is wrong with the analogy?

Should have bought an off brand cola to have more, or share the last one...

 

[DGS49]

With all due respect, Jose, there has never been a "Palestine," either in the 'Holy Land' or elsewhere. The people who are referred to as "Palestinians" are merely the Arabs who happened to be living in the area under consideration when it was a part of the Ottoman Empire. They have no distinct ethnicity, religion, or tenable geographical claim.

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint). And of course, the U.N. concurred with the creation of Israel, "as a Jewish state," which remains a sticking point with the people we refer to as "Palestinians." (I won't go into the Balfour Declaration, which preceded the UN entirely).

 

[aris2chat]

Pals just turned down a two state solution from Kerry because they did not want to recognize Israel.......

and back the real reason there is no peace

and it ain't settlements

If they had accepts Obama might have gone before the UN one last time and publicly recognized palestine with its capital in jerusalem even if his replacement and congress don't. US and other recognized the syrian opposition government and that did not go far, but it did fuel a war.
Obama might still make some grant speech to undercut Israel and fuel more fighting even if it is just empty word by a lame duck in it's last throughs

 

[P F Tinmore]

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint).

That is because it is true.

 

[montelatici]

With all due respect, Jose, there has never been a "Palestine," either in the 'Holy Land' or elsewhere. The people who are referred to as "Palestinians" are merely the Arabs who happened to be living in the area under consideration when it was a part of the Ottoman Empire. They have no distinct ethnicity, religion, or tenable geographical claim.

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint). And of course, the U.N. concurred with the creation of Israel, "as a Jewish state," which remains a sticking point with the people we refer to as "Palestinians." (I won't go into the Balfour Declaration, which preceded the UN entirely).

There has been a Palestine (and Palestinians) since before the Greeks transliterated the Aramaic word for the land
ፍልስጥኤም (filisit’i’ēmi) to Παλαιστίνη (Palaistíni). The Muslims and Christians of Palestine are the descendants of the indigenous people of the area, most of whom converted to Islam after practicing Christianity for several centuries when Christianity was the state religion of the unified Roman subsequently Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire.

The Zionists were simply one of the last waves of European colonial invaders who robbed the land from the native people. And, they made no effort to hide their colonial intentions from the beginning.

 

[Hollie]

With all due respect, Jose, there has never been a "Palestine," either in the 'Holy Land' or elsewhere. The people who are referred to as "Palestinians" are merely the Arabs who happened to be living in the area under consideration when it was a part of the Ottoman Empire. They have no distinct ethnicity, religion, or tenable geographical claim.

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint). And of course, the U.N. concurred with the creation of Israel, "as a Jewish state," which remains a sticking point with the people we refer to as "Palestinians." (I won't go into the Balfour Declaration, which preceded the UN entirely).

There has been a Palestine (and Palestinians) since before the Greeks transliterated the Aramaic word for the land
ፍልስጥኤም (filisit’i’ēmi) to Παλαιστίνη (Palaistíni). The Muslims and Christians of Palestine are the descendants of the indigenous people of the area, most of whom converted to Islam after practicing Christianity for several centuries when Christianity was the state religion of the unified Roman subsequently Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire.

The Zionists were simply one of the last waves of European colonial invaders who robbed the land from the native people. And, they made no effort to hide their colonial intentions from the beginning.

That's simply more of your ignorant propaganda. The Arab-Moslem invaders / land grabbers were just a recent wave of colonists who followed earlier invaders.

You remain befuddled with your invention of a mythical "country of Pal'istan" you insist existed, yet, you remain unable to offer evidence of your silly claim.

If you knew anything of history, you would know that the mandatory established a process to re-establish the Jewish National Home. There was no invasion as you describe. Obviously, that is another of your baseless claims you cannot support.

 

[Shusha]

What is wrong with the analogy?

The problem with the analogy centers around the ownership or "right" to" the pop.

The Muslim Arab narrative is that the older brother is not permitted to ever drink any pop.

 

[RoccoR]

DSG49, et al,

First, let me say, "you are a great story teller." I wished I had that gift.

What is wrong with the analogy?

(COMMENT)

This is what we call a single event analogy. That is --- the analogy represents all there is to the topic under discussion. The analogy does not project the dynamics in past history of bad behaviors that molded and crafted the exercise of the unfair advantage.

For instance, the analogy does not impart on the listener, that "you" --- the little bother, --- had been running to your Mother and Father inciting them to slap your Big Brother for hogging the bedroom you share to do his homework. It doesn't articulate how you go running to Mom and Dad when yelling that your Big Bother won't let you have any pizza he just made, because you would't help in the slightest in the preparation. And again He gets yelled at by your parents. Or how about the time that you superglued you bothers cell phone to the table; or the time you put jelly donuts underneath bed covers so that the were squashed when he sat on the bed. And in each case you went running to you parents about how your big brother was a big nasty jerk, each time crying I'm just a little boy. etc, etc, etc,

A single event analogy has its purposes and uses. But they are not a good indicator of conditions that consists of a cascade or serial chain of events that induce an improper response; but, not wholly unjustified.

And as you get older, your antics get ever increasingly more disturbing and devistating.

Just My Thought,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint).

That is because it is true.

Yet you fail to produce the evidence that shows you are right and the world is wrong

 

[P F Tinmore]

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint).

That is because it is true.

Yet you fail to produce the evidence that shows you are right and the world is wrong

Pffffft. You are wacked. Where was Israel?

 

[Phoenall]

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint).

That is because it is true.

Yet you fail to produce the evidence that shows you are right and the world is wrong

Pffffft. You are wacked. Where was Israel?

And where is the nation of palestine in all that crap, who gave the arab muslims ownership of the land. And this means they must be named as being sovereign in a treaty, the one thing you dont have which is why you ignore the links showing it was the Jews that received the lands


Did you see the extent of palestine in all those maps, taking in parts of Egypt, Saudi and all of trans Jordan

 

[P F Tinmore]

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint).

That is because it is true.

Yet you fail to produce the evidence that shows you are right and the world is wrong

Pffffft. You are wacked. Where was Israel?

And where is the nation of palestine in all that crap, who gave the arab muslims ownership of the land. And this means they must be named as being sovereign in a treaty, the one thing you dont have which is why you ignore the links showing it was the Jews that received the lands


Did you see the extent of palestine in all those maps, taking in parts of Egypt, Saudi and all of trans Jordan

Palestinians are Palestinians by law and treaty. They are the sovereigns of the territory.

 

[Phoenall]

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint).

That is because it is true.

Yet you fail to produce the evidence that shows you are right and the world is wrong

Pffffft. You are wacked. Where was Israel?

And where is the nation of palestine in all that crap, who gave the arab muslims ownership of the land. And this means they must be named as being sovereign in a treaty, the one thing you dont have which is why you ignore the links showing it was the Jews that received the lands


Did you see the extent of palestine in all those maps, taking in parts of Egypt, Saudi and all of trans Jordan

Palestinians are Palestinians by law and treaty. They are the sovereigns of the territory.

By what law and treaty, and show the one that says Syrian, Egyptian, Iraqi and Irani arab muslim illegal immigrants are soveriegns.

You know like the ones I give you that show the Jews happen to be the soveriegns of 22% of palestine

 

[MJB12741]

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint).

That is because it is true.

Yet you fail to produce the evidence that shows you are right and the world is wrong

Pffffft. You are wacked. Where was Israel?

Thank you. But of course there was & is a Palestine. And the Jews were indigenous Palestinians.

 

[montelatici]

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint).

That is because it is true.

Yet you fail to produce the evidence that shows you are right and the world is wrong

Pffffft. You are wacked. Where was Israel?

Thank you. But of course there was & is a Palestine. And the Jews were indigenous Palestinians.

The indigenous people of Palestine who practiced a variety of faiths under Roman rule (those that practiced Judaism included) converted to Christianity when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. The vast majority of the Christians then converted to Islam under Arab and Ottoman rule.

The people that call themselves Jews in Israel today came from Europe and other parts of the world. They are not indigenous to Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

Therefore, it is disingenuous to consider this situation as though there was a "Palestine" out of which was carved the nascent state of Israel (which is apparently your viewpoint).

That is because it is true.

Yet you fail to produce the evidence that shows you are right and the world is wrong

Pffffft. You are wacked. Where was Israel?

Thank you. But of course there was & is a Palestine. And the Jews were indigenous Palestinians.

The indigenous people of Palestine who practiced a variety of faiths under Roman rule (those that practiced Judaism included) converted to Christianity when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. The vast majority of the Christians then converted to Islam under Arab and Ottoman rule.

The people that call themselves Jews in Israel today came from Europe and other parts of the world. They are not indigenous to Palestine.

As we know, it was the late 1960's invention by Yassir "suitcases full of welfare dollars" Arafat of "Pal'istanian" as a national identity.

Foreign invaders including the Mongols, Turks, Arabs, Romans and others is your first clue that your hysterical rendering of invented, indigenous people is yet another of your frauds.