That's only true if you view diversity as bad. If you view diversity as enrichening our lives, race has a great deal to contribute. People who discriminate on the basis of race are wrong, to say the least, but that doesn't negate the positive role race can play in society. Personally, although I am strongly secular, I don't want to see orthodox Judaism disappear, or the Jewish people to assimilate fully, because I know the world would be a less rich place because of it, and of course because of my emotional ties, which remain strong even though I share little in terms of culture and religion with them, what I share is race and ethnicity.
Did Palestine really exist?
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
That's only true if you view diversity as bad. If you view diversity as enrichening our lives, race has a great deal to contribute. People who discriminate on the basis of race are wrong, to say the least, but that doesn't negate the positive role race can play in society. Personally, although I am strongly secular, I don't want to see orthodox Judaism disappear, or the Jewish people to assimilate fully, because I know the world would be a less rich place because of it, and of course because of my emotional ties, which remain strong even though I share little in terms of culture and religion with them, what I share is race and ethnicity.
GarfieldLeChat said:
Genetically I have linked myself back to some Croatian individual who might have visited Israel/Palestine with Alexander, the Romans, or later, raped my gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg-grandmother, and left me with his genetic imprint. Apparently he has a great many Jewish descendents, but few others, suggesting that he died in Israel/Palestine.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Then prove this fact to me, or prove my assertion's absurdity, either is good.astronaut said:
I reject it because I've not yet studied any biology, social sciences or anthro texts written in the last 30-40 years that present a convincing argument to give the concept of race legitimacy.
Nice use of the "it's pointless" get out beloved of people who have no proof, though.
Come on, ply me with your arguments, present your proofs, convince me that "race" is an applicable denominator.
Most studies so far undertaken are of mitichondrial DNA, the "genetic closeness" this reveals is a genetic closeness that extends beyond Jews to every mother's child. Show me as many studies using other techniques to map genetic closeness and maybe people will gave the idea more credence, but as it is the proof isn't proof enough (except for quite a few unsavoury characters who've hijacked the idea to support particular (mostly rightist) agendas.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
and so this is relevant how?astronaut said:
what race are you or any of the others i have given as examples imperical evidence now please...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
astronaut said:
I've heard of it, I've read on it.
We're not talking about Jewry here though, are we?
Only about a section of Jewry.
Good try though.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
rachamim18 said:
History doesn't mean ANYTHING. If you're born there, it's your home and you have every right to fight for your freedom.
rachamim18 said:
Tell that to those who were born there, i think you'll find that they feel that it is their home and that they are 'natives'
rachamim18 said:
Just because they did not accept that deal does not negate their right to that land.
rachamim18 said:
Not mentioning the route of the wall winding its way through lots of Palestinian land.
rachamim18 said:
You have never given a set of options you would approve of, you just expressed your view.
rachamim18 said:
So you're saying that if a migrant is of the Jewish faith he is not entitled to automatic citizenship? Or at least preferential?
Perhaps you should look at that 'if only the Americans knew' website (here)
Pay special attention to the number of deaths, number of prisoners held, number of homes demolished and the biased US media stories.
Wake up!
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
no mor ethan your statment that there is more than one verison fo homo sapian no...astronaut said:
can you please define the other races other than homo sapiens of which you claim to be one (can we call inthe conspiracy peoples now to highlight that we have found one of the lizards thy are always going on about... by your own admission...)
can please state how you alone have managed to find another speicies of homo erectious where as countless sciencetise have been searching for countless years to discover the mising link...
come on it was your statement now back it up...
or with draw it as yet another comment from an ill informed numpty...
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Your evidence for this assertion is what? You're engaging in the usual game of lie, spin, weave and revise.
Moono: Perhaps in being overjoyed with Fridge's support of your racist comments you overlooked her threat to ban people who engage in personal insults in threads. Perhaps now might be a goodtime to review it.
Panda: I have to admit that I was wrong in my total agreement yesterday with your statement regarding "Jews as a race." They are NOT a race, true, but they do share a gentic bond as Astronaut correctly stated.
Garfield: See the comments to Moono. You are arguing apples and oranges [which you could do without insults]. Words mean different things to different people. It has already been proved that some people find it offensive.
GMArthews: "History does not mean anything." That is just crazy. I should not even have to respond to that. History means anything before this second. By your logic, it is pointless to even talk about invasion of "Palestine" because it is an allegedly historical incident!
"People that were born there..." Like 4 million plus Jews you mean?
"People born there should fight for their homes..." EXACTLY.
"Not accepting the deal did not negate their right to the land." CORRECT. However, it did preclude them from having a say in its adiministration [for the most part].
My options under the poll..." The poll is loaded with bias. It does not provide for an alternative viewpoint. IT is simply 4 choices, all of which are anti-Israel. I still offered my opinion on the issue.
"A migrant of the Jewish faith is entitled to automatic citizenship, or not?" All Jews, religious as well as atheists and everything in between are in fact automatically entitled but with a major exception. Jews that are deemed to be a danger to society are denied. Israel, like it or not, is a Jewish State. Minorities rights are protected with the equivalent of a Constitution without sacrificing the Jewish character of the state. You might also remind yourself that there are 21 Arab states that revel in their Arab heiritage. Why do you find the idea of a Jewish State so disturbing?
"IF only Americans Knew..." I am very familiar with that site. It is nonsense. Arab sites love using it as a source. I was involved in a debate over a page there on an Arab site yesterday. Thanks though.
"Pay special attention to..." OK, if you pay attention to the HAMAS Charter: Article #7: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims kill all the Jews..." Nuff' said.
Panda: I have to admit that I was wrong in my total agreement yesterday with your statement regarding "Jews as a race." They are NOT a race, true, but they do share a gentic bond as Astronaut correctly stated.
Garfield: See the comments to Moono. You are arguing apples and oranges [which you could do without insults]. Words mean different things to different people. It has already been proved that some people find it offensive.
GMArthews: "History does not mean anything." That is just crazy. I should not even have to respond to that. History means anything before this second. By your logic, it is pointless to even talk about invasion of "Palestine" because it is an allegedly historical incident!
"People that were born there..." Like 4 million plus Jews you mean?
"People born there should fight for their homes..." EXACTLY.
"Not accepting the deal did not negate their right to the land." CORRECT. However, it did preclude them from having a say in its adiministration [for the most part].
My options under the poll..." The poll is loaded with bias. It does not provide for an alternative viewpoint. IT is simply 4 choices, all of which are anti-Israel. I still offered my opinion on the issue.
"A migrant of the Jewish faith is entitled to automatic citizenship, or not?" All Jews, religious as well as atheists and everything in between are in fact automatically entitled but with a major exception. Jews that are deemed to be a danger to society are denied. Israel, like it or not, is a Jewish State. Minorities rights are protected with the equivalent of a Constitution without sacrificing the Jewish character of the state. You might also remind yourself that there are 21 Arab states that revel in their Arab heiritage. Why do you find the idea of a Jewish State so disturbing?
"IF only Americans Knew..." I am very familiar with that site. It is nonsense. Arab sites love using it as a source. I was involved in a debate over a page there on an Arab site yesterday. Thanks though.
"Pay special attention to..." OK, if you pay attention to the HAMAS Charter: Article #7: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims kill all the Jews..." Nuff' said.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
rachamim18 said:
I don't disagree there's some genetic contiguity, it's a matter of degree. Astronaut says that our genetic closeness is such that "it's one of our closest ties", I don't agree.
Rachamim;
Insults ? Calling you 'liarboy' might be considered an insult if I could not demonstrate that you lie, but I can. You know I can. You're the liarboy who called me a racist, for example.
What do you mean, 'support' ? 'Shyster' is not a racist term. Nobody is being 'supportive' by endorsing that truth, there is not even a debate. You were plain wrong. The comment from the forum moderator was to rule against your complaints. If you start to object to the term 'fascist' it will be no victory for me if you are told to stfu. Just another defeat for you.
Insults ? Calling you 'liarboy' might be considered an insult if I could not demonstrate that you lie, but I can. You know I can. You're the liarboy who called me a racist, for example.
Panda: "Closest tie" is something that is impossible to qualify. I will offer that it is an important factor but perhaps not a defining one for most.
Moono: I do not object to the word "fascist" because it is merely an unqualified opinion. I do not object to the word "shyster" personally, because words do not harm me. I do however recognise that others ARE offended by it, even if you and Fridge do not. What Fridge basically said, above the insult issue, is that personal comments should be relegated to personal messaging. Did you not understand that part?
Moono: I do not object to the word "fascist" because it is merely an unqualified opinion. I do not object to the word "shyster" personally, because words do not harm me. I do however recognise that others ARE offended by it, even if you and Fridge do not. What Fridge basically said, above the insult issue, is that personal comments should be relegated to personal messaging. Did you not understand that part?
If fascists object to the term 'fascist' that's too bad. If shysters object to the term 'shyster', well, tough titty. I wouldn't go any further to appease an injured fascist than I would to appease an injured shyster.
It's settled. Stfu.
It's settled. Stfu.
Oh yes, but your lies are public knowledge and referring to them is in the public interest. Nothing personal, old boy.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
so by this logic then it's perfectly unacceptable to call a man a man as someone might call them a dog... right... the general consensious is the thing which defines language, with out it no clear communication can be had at the moment you are playing the game to cover your idiotic asserations... it doesn't wash period...rachamim18 said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Which is pretty much what I said to astronaut.rachamim18 said:
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Very true, it is pointless, what matters is what is now. It should be borne in mind that many people who have been wronged in recent history will be VERY upset, so immediate history is relevant but that's it. The past is gone we should learn from it and move forward.rachamim18 said:
True they all should have the same rights. Religion should have nothing to do with running a state.rachamim18 said:
Exactly, Israelis and Arabs, with no discrimination based on religion. It is their home too!rachamim18 said:
It shouldn't have, they have therefore just become prisoners in their own homeland.rachamim18 said:
You still refuse to give an alternative, prefering to simply criticise. With the facts as they are it would be impossible to do this poll without it seeming to be biased because the Israelis were indeed the oppressors. You may as well ask me to produce a poll on whether black is white.rachamim18 said:
Because it puts Jews above everyone else. Pure discrimination. I don't agree with the Arabs doing it either. Religion cannot be part of the state. It is based on knowledge based on faith which is a personal issue.rachamim18 said:
In the two above quotes you give a fallacy to try and prove something. Two wrongs don't make a right. Here is a site to help you with this, see number 42.rachamim18 said:
So you accept that:
Israel is annexing land from the Palestinians through the wall?
The Palestinians are natives because they were born there?
That website might be dramatic but do you claim that the statistics are wrong? How about the number of deaths, number of prisoners held, number of homes demolished and the biased US media stories? Maybe it's dramatic for a reason?
Moono: Rather than offer a genericinsult, why not try a new tact and qualify it. I am a liar? Ex-plain what I have lied about and prove it [and saying that I lied by calling you a racist is nonsense since I am entitled to my opinion just much as anyone else].
Garfield: I am not too sure that I fully understand your "point" about "man being called a man" but will try to answer the little I understand. You are correct that the "general consensus" does define acceptability. Hence, most Jews finding it offensive is proof positive for most rational people.
Look, there is an ethnic minority in Iraq called the Dasni. They desist from ever mentioning a word which begins with the "s" sound. Outsiders could not care less. The question then, are "s" words offesnive? If you are Dasni, YES. So it is with most Jews. To an outsider like you it isnot. To most Jews it is. Some Jews frequent this board. If you are callous enough to insist on that word, and the moderators are in agreeance, more power to you.
GMArthews: What you apparently fail to understand is that by making your statement that "history is irrelevant," you negate your whole argument and premise for this thread. by your reasoning, it should not matter if Jews "invaded" the land because it is the past. If only the future and present matter, anyone can do whatever they want and have instant absolution.
Again, religion has NOTHING to do with running Israel. ALL PEOPLE DO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS, as long as they are citizens. What is it with you? How many times have I repeated that to you?
The only thing AT ALL different is the right of MOST [not all] Jews to get automatic citzenship upon setting foot in the country. You find that discriminatory? funny, but it is not an issue that concerns citizens, but only prospective citizens. Israel is a Jewsish State that was established for EXILED Jews. As such, it extends citizenship to Jews in EXILE. Still, others who are there asre not discriminated against and ANYONE may apply for citizenship. Granting them it though is on a case by case basis like almost all other nations.
Not accepting statehood should not have negated them from administering their own homeland? I AGREE. They SHOULD have not have allowed armed guerilla groups strategising to kill all Israelis [and some just Jews per se] to rise up within their midst. They refused to even field a preresentative to negotiate with Israel so how could Israel include them in any power sharing agreement.
You have not proven Israel oppressed anyone as a state directed policy. The nation's Basic LAw protects the rights of all Israelis and human rights are extended to non-citizens as well.
As for your poll, if you truly wwant peoples' bonafide opinions, you need to include points of view other than your own. Otherwise, it is merely the rantings iof an egoist.
How is the HAMAS Charter a fallacy? Futhermore, what the hell does it have to do with Nizkor? My usage of the listed Article has nothing to do with "2 wrongs do not make a right." It is used to demonstrate that Israel is forced to defend itself.
Do I accept that Israel is annexing land via the "BARRIER?" Yes, less than 6% for reasons of security and existing infrastructure.
Do I accept that "Palestinians" are "natives" because they were born there? No, I do not. If I am born in Beijing I am not Chinese. However, I am hopefully entitled to the same rights as other Chinese citizens. Ergo, the same applies with "Paklestinians."
Do I deny a media bias against "Palestinians in the US? YES, I ABSOLUTELY DO. In fact, I clam the opposite on a per capita basis.
Do I deny the number of "Palestinian" dead? No, not deny the number, just that Israel was responsible for all of them.
"Number of arrestees.." It is correct but instead of defaming Israsel, it defames "Palestinians." It is shameful that they have so many people doing so many illegal acts.
"Houses demolished." Houses are only demolished for criminal acts related to terrorism. America takes homes of those it arrests for drugs and profits fro that misery. Israel merely removes a key to the criminal activity.
Now, if you insist on maintaining that Israel is based on religion, PROVE YOUR ASSERTION.
IF you maintain that it discriminates on religion, PROVE IT.
Garfield: I am not too sure that I fully understand your "point" about "man being called a man" but will try to answer the little I understand. You are correct that the "general consensus" does define acceptability. Hence, most Jews finding it offensive is proof positive for most rational people.
Look, there is an ethnic minority in Iraq called the Dasni. They desist from ever mentioning a word which begins with the "s" sound. Outsiders could not care less. The question then, are "s" words offesnive? If you are Dasni, YES. So it is with most Jews. To an outsider like you it isnot. To most Jews it is. Some Jews frequent this board. If you are callous enough to insist on that word, and the moderators are in agreeance, more power to you.
GMArthews: What you apparently fail to understand is that by making your statement that "history is irrelevant," you negate your whole argument and premise for this thread. by your reasoning, it should not matter if Jews "invaded" the land because it is the past. If only the future and present matter, anyone can do whatever they want and have instant absolution.
Again, religion has NOTHING to do with running Israel. ALL PEOPLE DO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS, as long as they are citizens. What is it with you? How many times have I repeated that to you?
The only thing AT ALL different is the right of MOST [not all] Jews to get automatic citzenship upon setting foot in the country. You find that discriminatory? funny, but it is not an issue that concerns citizens, but only prospective citizens. Israel is a Jewsish State that was established for EXILED Jews. As such, it extends citizenship to Jews in EXILE. Still, others who are there asre not discriminated against and ANYONE may apply for citizenship. Granting them it though is on a case by case basis like almost all other nations.
Not accepting statehood should not have negated them from administering their own homeland? I AGREE. They SHOULD have not have allowed armed guerilla groups strategising to kill all Israelis [and some just Jews per se] to rise up within their midst. They refused to even field a preresentative to negotiate with Israel so how could Israel include them in any power sharing agreement.
You have not proven Israel oppressed anyone as a state directed policy. The nation's Basic LAw protects the rights of all Israelis and human rights are extended to non-citizens as well.
As for your poll, if you truly wwant peoples' bonafide opinions, you need to include points of view other than your own. Otherwise, it is merely the rantings iof an egoist.
How is the HAMAS Charter a fallacy? Futhermore, what the hell does it have to do with Nizkor? My usage of the listed Article has nothing to do with "2 wrongs do not make a right." It is used to demonstrate that Israel is forced to defend itself.
Do I accept that Israel is annexing land via the "BARRIER?" Yes, less than 6% for reasons of security and existing infrastructure.
Do I accept that "Palestinians" are "natives" because they were born there? No, I do not. If I am born in Beijing I am not Chinese. However, I am hopefully entitled to the same rights as other Chinese citizens. Ergo, the same applies with "Paklestinians."
Do I deny a media bias against "Palestinians in the US? YES, I ABSOLUTELY DO. In fact, I clam the opposite on a per capita basis.
Do I deny the number of "Palestinian" dead? No, not deny the number, just that Israel was responsible for all of them.
"Number of arrestees.." It is correct but instead of defaming Israsel, it defames "Palestinians." It is shameful that they have so many people doing so many illegal acts.
"Houses demolished." Houses are only demolished for criminal acts related to terrorism. America takes homes of those it arrests for drugs and profits fro that misery. Israel merely removes a key to the criminal activity.
Now, if you insist on maintaining that Israel is based on religion, PROVE YOUR ASSERTION.
IF you maintain that it discriminates on religion, PROVE IT.
Rachamim;
Having a private opinion is one thing, liarboy, stating that opinion as fact, publicly, requires proof if challenged. Your statement was libelous. You cannot offer any evidence whatsoever which proves your claim. You are a slander monkey. You are a liar, I have the evidence right here in this post.
Having a private opinion is one thing, liarboy, stating that opinion as fact, publicly, requires proof if challenged. Your statement was libelous. You cannot offer any evidence whatsoever which proves your claim. You are a slander monkey. You are a liar, I have the evidence right here in this post.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
rachamim18 said:
sorry it doens't wash you might wish that a word in general usuage was offensive but if the general concensious is that it isn't it simply isn't.
period.
if we look upon a glass of water and we agree that the container of water is called a glass this is general consensious as to the convention used to describe our enviorment. it is this very concensious which allows us to communicate at all, with out it, there could be no interpretation of information (or conversly all conversations would have to take a very long and explict in order to ensure there was no miscommunication/misunderstanding...)
this general consensuious applies to concepts of acceptable morality and therefore by default level of offensiveness of a particular mannerism, aciton or turn of phrase.
To exclude a phrase sentence or word becuase there is the potential that one person in a billion billion might get hold of the wrong end of the stick and find it offensive is preposturious, however to exclude a word which the majority of the concensious agreeds is offensive is on the other hand sensible...
for example, i had a teacher at school who found the word whoops more offesive than cunt, they'd throw board ereases at puplis banish them from lessons and so on to the point that some of the class thought this was a previously undiscovered swear word... it wasn't it was one person being daft, overly sensative and not being able to define within general concensious a context.
Some one i know calls pdf files acrobat files becuase they don't want people to be offended by the potential of hearing them talk about peadophiles, should this person pander to this level of idiocy?? no of course not.
So where does that leave this silly semantic debate?
well over all the general consensious and contextrualiseation of the word shyster is on this board as has been stated is that it's not judophobic; this is a concensious which all but you and one other poster agree on and has been ratified by the moderational team in the form of fridgemagnet.
if it offends you personally, sorry like but you'll have to grow a thicker skin, or accept that in this context it is not being used to in the manner you are taking offense too. and then not mention it, again please.
This matter has now been done to death and you have not provided one soild reason as to why it is a judophobic statment in this context.
Moono: OK, since the moderator is allowing you to run unbridled [along with others], I will respond. The simple fact that you used "Jewboy," and then defended it, proves my assertion. If you will recall, you were told by the moderator that it IS offensive, however she said that you did not use it again so it was not an issue to her. Still, that renders your remarks moot.
Garfield: General consensus of the offended party however DOES say it is racist. One in a billion? Perhaps you MIGHT have an argument. In this case there are over 14 million Jews in the world. While I highly doubt that a poll was ever taken, nor that it would be effective for non-English and non-German speaking Jews, I personally have NEVER met one who did not acknowledge that the word is INTENDED to offend Jews. Even those of us nont offended, and I am one, recognise that it IS intended todemean and demoralise. The person who iniated all this nonsense, Moono, repeatedly used it thus: "shyster Zionist lawyers." This was subsequent to Moono using the term "Jewboy." It is no great leap of faith to recognise that the intent, was to as the concensus evidently feels, to demean and demoralise Jews. Personally, I find it pretty tiring to debate this word but I do feel it is worth it because it brings the entire site down [in my eyes at least] to have unbridled bigotry.
The very fact that yopu state, "If it offends you personally...grow a thicker skin" just shows that you are not even debating here, merely pontificating because I have already stated at least 4 other times that I DO NOT GIVE A RATS ASS one way or another about that or any other word [talk about runoof sentencing]. I do find the emotions behind it though quite unpalatable.
Garfield: General consensus of the offended party however DOES say it is racist. One in a billion? Perhaps you MIGHT have an argument. In this case there are over 14 million Jews in the world. While I highly doubt that a poll was ever taken, nor that it would be effective for non-English and non-German speaking Jews, I personally have NEVER met one who did not acknowledge that the word is INTENDED to offend Jews. Even those of us nont offended, and I am one, recognise that it IS intended todemean and demoralise. The person who iniated all this nonsense, Moono, repeatedly used it thus: "shyster Zionist lawyers." This was subsequent to Moono using the term "Jewboy." It is no great leap of faith to recognise that the intent, was to as the concensus evidently feels, to demean and demoralise Jews. Personally, I find it pretty tiring to debate this word but I do feel it is worth it because it brings the entire site down [in my eyes at least] to have unbridled bigotry.
The very fact that yopu state, "If it offends you personally...grow a thicker skin" just shows that you are not even debating here, merely pontificating because I have already stated at least 4 other times that I DO NOT GIVE A RATS ASS one way or another about that or any other word [talk about runoof sentencing]. I do find the emotions behind it though quite unpalatable.
Rachamim;
No you don't, Rachamim. Like many jews, your indignation has a hair trigger. Lately, muslims are much worse but that's neither here nor there.
Racist ? Fuck off. Go issue your fatwah someplace else, liarboy.
No you don't, Rachamim. Like many jews, your indignation has a hair trigger. Lately, muslims are much worse but that's neither here nor there.
Racist ? Fuck off. Go issue your fatwah someplace else, liarboy.
It's you that's running unbridled. You 'disseminate misinformation' at every opportunity. That's not debate, that's lying.
Gmarthews said:
Why is no-one paying any attention to this sensible request?
Similar threads
