Another Lib Dem anti-Semite

[DotCommunist]

Ahh. The glimmer of a straw man appears ...

perhaps it will provide you with more straws to clutch while backpedaling. You fucking circus act

 

[Falcon]

I have no idea what you're on about.

That's evident. I was trying to build consensus, and I suspect that is novel in this subject area.

 

[Falcon]

perhaps it will provide you with more straws to clutch while backpedaling. You fucking circus act

Thanks Dot. I enjoyed your previous reference to back-pedalling and, indeed, responded in some depth. I don't recall you defending your point and must conclude you couldn't.

Going forward, in any conversation there is signal, and there is noise. For avoidance of doubt, you are the latter, and I skip over your bits.

 

[frogwoman]

That's evident. I was trying to build consensus, and I suspect that is novel in this subject area.

And I am saying that we don't need a consensus to be built with the sort of people who are committed to a political position that says "the jews" all support israel and the other things you've been saying here.

 

[DotCommunist]

of course you were

 

[Random]

What proposition, exactly? If someone does something of which others disapprove, and those others mistake you for one of them, then it would be wise to dissociate yourself, particularly if you also disapprove, and your silence is likely to be interpreted as evidence of association. You don't have to, but if doing so will improve your situation, why would you not if it costs you nothing?

Have I missed the bit where you disassociate yourself from jew-haters, antisemites and fascists?

 

[DotCommunist]

Thanks Dot. I enjoyed your previous reference to back-pedalling and, indeed, responded in some depth. I don't recall you defending your point and must conclude you couldn't.

Going forward, in any conversation there is signal, and there is noise. For avoidance of doubt, you are the latter, and I skip over your bits.

Mr. Logic doesn't get it

while responding to the bits he skips over. You are all over the shop

 

[Falcon]

And I am saying that we don't need a consensus to be built with the sort of people who are committed to a political position that says "the jews" all support israel and the other things you've been saying here.

I understand. And all I am saying is that, therefore, you can't expect those sort of people to change. Since you are the one who wants change, and they don't, that seems rather a sad conclusion.

 

[Falcon]

Have I missed the bit where you disassociate yourself from jew-haters, antisemites and fascists?

You mean the "Likes" on Frogwomans posts, agreement with parts of her argument, agreement that the Holocaust is deplorable, agreement that anti-Semitism is uncomfortable, etc. etc.?

Evidently you have. Or do you imagine it is possible to do those things and be a jew-hater, antisemite and fascist? But for avoidance of doubt - I dissociate myself from jew-haters, antisemites and fascists.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is unfortunate that Israel defines itself in its basic laws as a "Jewish" state and, in fact, is the only Jewish state in the sense that it is the only Jewish-majority state. So "The Jews" and "Israel" do tend to be conflated, not least by Israel, and many Jews when advancing a Jewish political agenda.

Really? "Many", eh? Not a phenomenon I've ever noticed in synagogue. Although it's fair to say that "the Jewish Establishment" in most western nation-states do tend to see their own interests and those of the state of Israel as synonymous, to conflate the interests of such establishments with the mass of Jewry is anile at best.

It seems a little skewed to assert that Israel represents the interests of all Jews when it is promoting their interests, and doesn't represent them when it is harming them.

How does the state of Israel perform this promotion of the interests of "all Jews"? We are, after all, not exactly a homogeneous culture, even in religious observance (for those of us who go for that sort of thing). Most of us are well aware of the claims that the state of Israel makes in this regard. We are, however, equally well-aware of the speciousness of such claims, and therefore the speciousness of anyone who perpetuates and disseminates such claims.

Furthermore, I think we can assert the principle that, in many matters, "silence is consent", and that this is one of those matters. So can anyone provide any material evidence of institutions representing non-Israeli Jews deploring Israeli atrocities in Palestine in pursuit of a greater Jewish state? I expect there will be individuals - I'm interested in representative institutions.

That would be fascinating.

Representative of whom, "non-Israeli Jews"? Do we, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what Jewry, after all, IS) have to organise under a "not in our name" banner in order to satisfy your criteria for evidence disproving your fatuous asserted principle? It certainly seems that way.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I come across more anti semitism coming from asians and arabs than any other grouping.

Same here, with a rather humunguous "but"...
But, a lot of it is an artefact of the same sort of "religious" programming that many Catholics were heir to with regard to Jews, and foor the greater part can be dealt with in much the same way - education and critical thinking. For the rest, no amount of education or crritical thinking will suffice.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ahh. The glimmer of a straw man appears ...

How so? Unfortunately English is an ambiguous language when it comes to the word 'you', which can be both singular and plural. I took the bit I highlighted to be a plural 'you' - 'youse' as some dialects would have it. If I'm mistaken, tell me. If I'm not mistaken, then this is not a straw man at all.

 

[Random]

But for avoidance of doubt - I dissociate myself from jew-haters, antisemites and fascists.

I don't believe you. I think you're propagating the same myths that antisemites like - a view of jewishness that is just a mirror image of Zionism, and which exists symbiotically with it.

 

[Falcon]

Most of us are well aware of the claims that the state of Israel makes in this regard. We are, however, equally well-aware of the speciousness of such claims, and therefore the speciousness of anyone who perpetuates and disseminates such claims.

Really? "Most of us", eh? Not a phenomenon I've observed in public discourse. Let's be clear - your awareness - as a synagogue goer - of the speciousness of such claims is irrelevant. "Most of us" in the sense of public opinion have no idea whether the claims are specious or not. Only that they are made.

Representative of whom, "non-Israeli Jews"? Do we, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what Jewry, after all, IS) have to organise under a "not in our name" banner in order to satisfy your criteria for evidence disproving your fatuous asserted principle? It certainly seems that way.

We, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what being a gentile is, after all) had to organise under a "not in our name" Anti Holocaust banner in order to satisfy your criteria for disproving the principle that silence was consent on this matter, and rightly so. Can you imagine if someone asserted some notional right to remain silent on the matter, in our society?

Aren't you just advancing Exceptionalism?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what being a gentile is, after all) had to organise under a "not in our name" Anti Holocaust banner in order to satisfy your criteria for disproving the principle that silence was consent on this matter, and rightly so.

When did this happen?

 

[DotCommunist]

you genuinely don't see how you're pissing your chips here do you?

 

[DotCommunist]

When did this happen?

nobody told the NF and BM

 

[Falcon]

I don't believe you. I think you're propagating the same myths that antisemites like - a view of jewishness that is just a mirror image of Zionism, and which exists symbiotically with it.

OK. Good luck with that. And, by the way, that's an affirmation of the consequent fallacy. ("If I'm an antisemite, then I propagate myth A. I've propagated myth A. Therefore I'm an anti-Semite"). Don't be discouraged - it's almost the default fail in Urban arguments.

 

[DotCommunist]

yeah you've definitely managed to pull this one out of the fire falcon, everybody including that audience you appeal to will be convinced.

 

[frogwoman]

Really? "Most of us", eh? Not a phenomenon I've observed in public discourse. Let's be clear - your awareness - as a synagogue goer - of the speciousness of such claims is irrelevant. "Most of us" in the sense of public opinion have no idea whether the claims are specious or not. Only that they are made.

even if this is true and most jews do support israeli policies (i would not argue that most jews support zionism in its current form, but what i would say is that most jews do not oppose, and probably support, israel's right to exist as a state) this does not justify the rest of your statements

We, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what being a gentile is, after all) had to organise under a "not in our name" Anti Holocaust banner in order to satisfy your criteria for disproving the principle that silence was consent on this matter, and rightly so. Can you imagine if someone asserted some notional right to remain silent on the matter, in our society?

Aren't you just advancing Exceptionalism?

no "gentiles" didn't, nobody organised "we as gentiles" to do anything, with one notable exception

 

[littlebabyjesus]

OK. Good luck with that. And, by the way, that's an affirmation of the consequent fallacy. ("If I'm an antisemite, then I propagate myth A. I've propagated myth A. Therefore I'm an anti-Semite"). Don't be discouraged - it's almost the default fail in Urban arguments.

Kind of like 'People who support Israel don't criticise Israel. These people aren't criticising Israel. Therefore these people support Israel.'

 

[Random]

We, as a heterogeneous spread of cultural subsets (which is what being a gentile is, after all) had to organise under a "not in our name" Anti Holocaust banner in order to satisfy your criteria for disproving the principle that silence was consent on this matter, and rightly so. Can you imagine if someone asserted some notional right to remain silent on the matter, in our society?

You're talking about British citizens protesting against what was done with bombs paid for with British tax money. Not the same as some idea of "Jewishness" involving an apology for the state of Israel.

 

[Falcon]

When did this happen?

Nip out to your local shopping mall and assert, in a loud voice, your right to remain silent on the matter of whether the Holocaust was carried out in your name as a gentile. Come back and tell us whether a Not In Our Name banner has, in fact, been erected. (Usual disclaimer - I do not for a moment suggest it should not have. I enquire in the context of wondering what is so mysterious about inviting Jews to state clearly whether or not Israeli atrocities are being carried out in their name).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The holocaust wasn't carried out in my name. There are several reason why I would have been considered an enemy of the state in Nazi Germany. There you go with your bad categories again.

 

[Falcon]

Kind of like 'People who support Israel don't criticise Israel. These people aren't criticising Israel. Therefore these people support Israel.'

Actually, nothing like that. But this is hardly the place for parsing propositional logic.

 

[Random]

what is so mysterious about inviting Jews to state clearly whether or not Israeli atrocities are not being carried out in their name).

Because it's creepy and weird.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Actually, nothing like that. But this is hardly the place for parsing propositional logic.

It is. And it is. But I'll leave it at that. Others can decide for themselves who's right.

 

[frogwoman]

Actually, nothing like that. But this is hardly the place for parsing propositional logic.

Exactly like that actually.

 

[Falcon]

The holocaust wasn't carried out in my name. There are several reason why I would have been considered an enemy of the state in Nazi Germany. There you go with your bad categories again.

I didn't invite you to state your position. I invited you to state your right *not* to state your position. Do keep up.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I didn't invite you to state your position. I invited you to state your right *not* to state your position. Do keep up.

Stumbling around a shopping mall shouting crap about the Holocaust is not in any way 'not stating a position'.