Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are stupid and your logic analysis is stupid.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition or appeal to antiquity) is a fallacy that occurs when something is considered true or better simply because it is older, traditional, or "has always been done."- Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the majority or appeal to the people) is the fallacy of concluding that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. It often involves appealing to the emotions and values of a group to accept a claim as true.
You're appealing to all of the above, stating that the term anti-Semiticism should continue to mean what it does now, irrespective of the fact that Jews aren't the only Semites. I and many others disagree with you and with the Western culture that has been hoodwinked by Jews playing the victims and pretending that term should only apply to them (Even when you're the ones doing much of the victimizing vs non-Jewish Semites).
You xenophobic, misanthropic ZioNazis don't deserve to have that term exclusively refer to you, when you're not the only Semites. That's what I said and what many other people are saying too. How you and your buddies feel about our opinion is irrelevant, we don't care.
though this all belongs on another thread, I'll put here that you are wrong. No one is demanding "exclusive rights". You keep stamping your feet and insisting it is so, but all people are asking for is that words that mean something are used to mean that. You would prefer a language that has no meaning because anything can mean anyone.
you are starting with a number that came from Hamas and that even Hamas admits is wrong
Hamas-Run Gaza Health Ministry Admits to Flaws in Casualty Data
The Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health said on April 6 that it had “incomplete data” for 11,371 of the 33,091 Palestinian fatalities it claims to have documented. In a statistical...www.fdd.org
Gaza Fatality Data Has Become Completely Unreliable
Given the discrepancies in official Palestinian counts and their growing reliance on questionable data from media reports, the credibility gaps revealed by a previous Washington Institute study have become yawning chasms.www.washingtoninstitute.org
why does any action against any group change the meaning of a word or mean that it shouldn't mean what it means? The answer is is can't. The language expanded in 1923 to include a word that relates to Muslims.
Islamophobia - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Your claim is that a word should mean whatever you think it should mean. That leads to an anarchic approach to language and communication. The fact that you are relying on the structure of English to write your posts means that you explicitly cede authority to the dictionary and rules of English. Except you don't when it comes to one word because you don't like it. That doesn't change the reality of language no matter how many times you insist it could.
So when you go to a restaurant, feel free to order the tuna and be happy when they serve you salmon. Your want words to believe whatever you want. That's not how reality works. You want "inclusivity" then you want it across the board or you are being a hypocrite.
No it doesn't, any more than using any word in the way that the dictionary and history dictate is "sleight of hand." Your jealousy is really pathetic.
WITHIN IT'S TAXONOMIC GROUPING! How monopolistic of you! How can you limit it like that? What about inclusivity? This is hateful. Why do you choose to be hateful to all the other fish who want to be called tuna? Pity the poor carp and the shark, both of which might be called tuna by people and therefore, they should be included in the title of "tuna."
I am appealing to authority as it relates to the coining and meaning of the word. You reject that authority as it relates to a single word. That's hypocritical of you.
So you are ignoring that the term is "semitic languages" because people aren't actually "semitic". But hey, that's just the history and use of the word. Feel free to change that because you want to.
not only isn't that a case of reductio anything, but it isn't flippant. It is the natural and logical extension of your position. You are against "exclusivity in language" but don't embrace inclusivity for another word. Strange.
So since the Irish were called "white slaves" they should be included in the term "blacks" because they were called "slaves."
You have this urge to muddy the water. There is a clear linguistic point here but you are so angry about a word that you try to drag in all sorts of irrelevancies to fuel your baseless linguistic wishes.
And "bird" should include paper airplanes. And hamsters can be victims of Islamophobia. Break the monopoly that Muslims have on the word and be more inclusive!
Firstly, the argumentum ad antiquitatem doesn't imply that all traditional beliefs are inherently incorrect, but it cautions against assuming something is correct simply because it is traditional. The critical issue here isn't that the current definition of "anti-Semitism" as exclusively anti-Jewish is wrong solely because it's an old definition, but that it fails to account for the full spectrum of Semitic peoples, which includes non-Jewish Semites who are also subjected to discrimination and violence, notably the Palestinians.You are stupid and your logic analysis is stupid.
The first argument DOES NOT MEAN that an appeal to an old argument is ipso facto wrong !!!!
Same with the second, what is true will tend to be thought true by the majority.
ANd you abuse language because anti-Semitic does mean Jews.
Godawful stupid !!!
Swine (of the human sort) aren't kosher specifically because they do not ruminate. They "just believe" without thinking about what they are putting in their head. Who knows better than you what that does to people? Teeming vermin who go down on all fours aren't kosher too and also has direct human implications. According to God they are vile and loathsome creatures whose flesh (TEACHING) defiles and contaminates (the mind). Don't you agree? Here's a visual to help;Direct human implications? No, it has animal implications, like pigs aren't kosher.
Right it still says what it says. And it doesn't matter what you call me, I am talking about how God's sees different types of people, everything from bottom feeders, swine, cattle, wolves, sheep, goats, dogs, maggots, serpents, teeming vermin, worms, to vultures in kosher law are metaphors for people in the vernacular of every language. How is that straining at a gnat?And so? If I call you a horse, or a fly, who cares? You are straining at gnats. You want the text not to mean what it says. That's fine. It still says what it says.
So swing and a miss on your part. A month ago and further back, media outlets parroted the Hamas released numbers. A week ago, Hamas admits that those numbers are flawed. Check the dates on what you just posted. All you did was reinforce my point. Good work. And if you call statistical analyses by experts and Hamas' own admission to be hasbara then you haven't a clue. I'll add it to the words that you don't understand.
View attachment 933337NPR
Gaza death toll surpasses 30,000 but it's an incomplete count
Gaza's health ministry announced Thursday that 30035 Palestinians have been killed in the war. A close look at how the ministry counts those...
.
1 month ago
View attachment 933345
View attachment 933342AP News
Live updates | UN court keeps genocide case against Israel alive as Gaza death toll surpasses 26000
The death toll from the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 26000 as the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to limit...
.
Jan 26, 2024
View attachment 933341
View attachment 933336PBS
More than 29,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since war’s start, health ministry says
Gaza's Health Ministry said 107 bodies were brought to hospitals in the last 24 hours. That brings the total number of fatalities to 29092...
.
Feb 19, 2024
View attachment 933344
View attachment 933343UN News
UN chief appalled by 'tragic human toll' of Gaza war
The UN Secretary-General said on Thursday he was “appalled by the tragic human toll of the conflict in Gaza” where more than 30000 people...
.
1 month ago
View attachment 933338
View attachment 933347Reuters
How many Palestinians have died in Gaza? Death toll explained
Israeli forces unleashed an aerial and ground blitz against Hamas in Gaza after a cross-border rampage by the enclave's ruling Islamist...
.
Dec 6, 2023
View attachment 933339
View attachment 933335The New York Times
U.N. Chief Says Gaza Death Toll Is 'Unacceptable' as It Passes 25000
Palestinian authorities said on Sunday that more than 25000 people had been killed in the Gaza Strip in the Israel's military response to...
.
Jan 21, 2024
View attachment 933346
View attachment 933340Al Jazeera
Israel's war on Gaza updates: New mass grave found at al-Shifa Hospital
Palestinian doctors tell Al Jazeera they have discovered another mass grave in the vicinity of Gaza City's al-Shifa Hospital,...
.
23 hours ago
Widely recognized, legitimate international institutions and organizations placed the death toll at 30K a month ago.
that's not the heart of the matter. That's your jealousy that there is a word that refers to Jews. The heart of the matter is your jealousy.The heart of the matter remains unaddressed: the ethical implications of monopolizing the term "anti-Semitism"
why is it outdated? Did Arabs change into "Semites" recently? Or were they "Semites" when the word was coined? If nothing changed and the word was intended to refer to Jews then it isn't outdated. Another term you seem unfamiliar withBy insisting on an outdated and exclusive definition of "anti-Semitism,"
No, by definition it refers to an attitude towards Jews. It is not emphasizing anything any more than any word "emphasizes" what it means.that only emphasizes Jewish suffering,
So you are claiming victimhood because you don't get to use a word to describe actions against you even though there are other words available. All you want is to be included in that one word regardless of anything else. Sad. When you grow up and develop a respect for language, feel free to reach out and ask about things you don't yet understand.Your pathetic, disgusting trivialization of this issue serves no one and merely highlights resistance to acknowledging the complexities of Semitic identity beyond a single group (The Jews).Language evolves as society does; it's a tool for communication and understanding, not a weapon to gatekeep suffering and empathy. The insistence on maintaining a rigid, exclusive definition of "anti-Semitism" that does not reflect the lived experiences of all Semitic people is both morally and intellectually insufficient.
---Jews have their own religion and have been struggling
for millennia to keep it that way
Then there was zero need to build an ark. Simply moveThere have been local floods forever. People tended to live near rivers all over the world. There was no global flood.
well, actually, they are not kosher because God said so by delineating the qualities of an animal that is kosher and pointing out that pigs, among other animals, do not have those qualities.Swine (of the human sort) aren't kosher specifically because they do not ruminate.
Nope, I don't. The text is talking about animals and whether they are kosher (which has implications in a number of areas). This isn't about people.They "just believe" without thinking about what they are putting in their head. Who knows better than you what that does to people? Teeming vermin who go down on all fours aren't kosher too and also has direct human implications. According to God they are vile and loathsome creatures whose flesh (TEACHING) defiles and contaminates (the mind). Don't you agree?
I didn't call you anythingRight it still says what it says. And it doesn't matter what you call me,
So you aere working to make a symbolic connection and reinterpreting the text so that it only refers to that symbolic level. Worrying about your interpretation and trying to find metaphorical meaning so that you can claim the text has relevance to a context outside of what it says it is about is straining at gnats, making too much of something and working too hard to try and make a point.I am talking about how God's sees different types of people, everything from bottom feeders, swine, cattle, wolves, sheep, goats, dogs, maggots, serpents, teeming vermin, worms, to vultures in kosher law are metaphors for people in the vernacular of every language. How is that straining at a gnat?
I don't recall feigning ignorance.Its a fact. I know that you are well aware of the language of the prophets. Why feign ignorance?
so? I mean, you must think this verse is significant because you cited it. But why? Yes, it is the law, but do you understand how the law works?"No one whose balls have been crushed can become a member of the assembly of the Lord."
it refers to wild beasts of the field. Why assume it means anything else? Think!What do 'the wild beasts of the field' represent if not lawless barbarians? Think! You can do it!
God spoke through Moses by giving him precise words to use. Though this was sometimes the case with prophets, sometimes they chose their own wordsGod spoke through the prophets in metaphors and allegories. Why would this God who spoke through Moses, a prophet, speak in any other way when giving the Law? Think! You can do it!
Its not an assumption. When the talking serpent, an obvious metaphor for a narcissist, was condemned by God for 'beguiling" Adam and Eve he was condemned as "lower than cattle and all the wild beasts of the field" which in this context is most definitely about human lowlifes.it refers to wild beasts of the field. Why assume it means anything else? Think!
Then there was zero need to build an ark. Simply move
you have decided that the serpent was an "obvious" metaphor. (I bolded it) That isn't at all obvious. It isn't even persuasive. That is your personal interpretation.Its not an assumption. When the talking serpent, an obvious metaphor for a narcissist, was condemned by God for 'beguiling" Adam and Eve he was condemned as "lower than cattle and all the wild beasts of the field" which in this context is most definitely about human lowlifes.
Who is assuming that everything that Moses spoke was a metaphor or allegory? I am specifically referring to the figurative language used in the Law and subsequently the not so hidden subjectsSo assuming that God dictated the metaphors and allegories for the prophets isn't completely accurate. And assuming that everything Moses spoke was an allegory or metaphor because some prophets used those devices is specious reasoning at best.
well, actually, they are not kosher because God said so by delineating the qualities of an animal that is kosher and pointing out that pigs, among other animals, do not have those qualities.
So the fact that the serpent was talking isn't an obvious metaphor for a narcissistic con to you?you have decided that the serpent was an "obvious" metaphor. (I bolded it) That isn't at all obvious. It isn't even persuasive. That is your personal interpretation.
Except that it isn't figurative language unless you, personally, decide it is.Who is assuming that everything that Moses spoke was a metaphor or allegory? I am specifically referring to the figurative language used in the Law and subsequently the not so hidden subjects
"I will give you treasures from dark vaults, hoarded in secret places ...."
"Time was when many were aghast at you, my people, so now many nations recoil at sight of him, and kings curl their lips in disgust; for they see what they had never been told and things unheard before fill their thoughts."
No it isn't. It isn't even a non-obvious metaphor for a narcissistic con.So the fact that the serpent was talking isn't an obvious metaphor for a narcissistic con to you?
Don't need them but thanks.Thats a shame.
You do have my condolences.....
Right.Except that it isn't figurative language unless you, personally, decide it is.
thanks but I'll stick with the teachings about the text that well predate your personal ideas.Right.
Thats why it is so important to RUMINATE when reading about talking serpents, etc., otherwise you will be diverted by ignorance and superstition, as intended by the authors, and miss the entire point of what is being taught about the hard learned lessons of the past that are still very relevant while a direct descendant of that ever elusive talking serpent of old is trying to become a dictator with throngs of his gullible possessions beguiled by his deadly poison are doing his bidding as if it was both a patriotic and religious duty to destroy democracy. Damn. Smarten up!
No problem! I just thought that you might want to know that any story that starts with "In the beginning" just like "Once upon a time" and immediately intrudes a crafty talking serpent is a children's story with a sublime teaching essential to a fruitful life that was never written down....No it isn't. It isn't even a non-obvious metaphor for a narcissistic con.
Right. No condolences necessary? lol....Don't need them but thanks.
You can call it a children's story if that makes you feel better. The text begins with breisheet which is not "once upon a time".No problem! I just thought that you might want to know that any story that starts with "In the beginning" just like "Once upon a time" and immediately intrudes a crafty talking serpent is a children's story with a sublime teaching essential to a fruitful life that was never written down....
If you study the text and really learn its meanings, you will see that your conclusions are imamture at best, uninformed more likely.If you don't think and think and keep on thinking about what that teaching is you will never find it
You can't accept that your personal interpretation isn't obvious or particularly convincing so you try to guess my motives. I'm currently neither dead, nor hiding anything.You can't admit the obvious which means that either you are dead, or trying to hide something..
