Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens next

[Apocalypse]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

It is irrelevant what a dictionary description of the term moderate is. You believe that a 'moderate' will be the same in any situation and I have shown that that is not the case. The term moderate is simply that, a term. What I would think a moderate person is would be very different to what you would believe a moderate person is. For instance avoiding extremes of behaviour. Who is to decide what are extremes of behaviour? Or a person may avoid extremes of behaviour but by their actions allow others to do it. You cannot describe what it is just by a dictionary definition, you need to see how it is practised.

I have given three situations and they are all different so you cannot look at the term 'moderate' without looking at the situation. Generally it is in comparison to others but each situation will be different.

It is relevant what a dictionary description of the term moderate is as frankly this is the definition of the term, dictionaries are merely sources of definitions.
By denying the definition of the term you mark your comments where you're using the term wrongly, irrelevant.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

Actually you show rather clearly that you did misquote him and, like I said, you also took his words out of context, inserted your own biased interpretation of what he said, and then after all this claimed it was anti-Semitic.

Yes well I've already proven that I was quoting him as his statement appeared in the text, hence no need to prove that you're the one misquoting him and hence I'll ignore your future remarks on it unless you'll show evidence as to how I was misquoting him by quoting him from the text of the article.

Everyone considers double standards irrational and if you think there is not a double standard then it is only because your own position is irrational. I am not anti-Israel either as I have told you many times before.

If you think it is a double standard that this is but your own biased opinion and I can't say your position is rational.
I don't see how it fits the definition of a double standard.

They exist within any group. For instance, towns have their own local brand of politics. As it concerns ethnicity it generally depends on the nature of an ethnic group. For instance, white Americans have a much more diverse political spectrum because there is no strong sense of identity.

There's no such thing as an ethnicity's 'political spectrum' as people of a certain ethnicity are born all over the world and do not have one single hive mind.

Saying otherwise would be like saying a person's social status, religion, or country cannot be a decisive factor.

Well then I'm saddened that this is your belief as that is the definition of racial discrimination. The belief that ethnicity is a decisive factor in a person's attitude.

Anyone could make countless factual statements seem racist by citing other comments that are racist. I have used this example several times but when someone says black people commit more crimes than whites, a technically true statement, it can be easily compared to other comments among racists. Many in the white nationalist community say that blacks have a predisposition to crime and cite statistics showing more blacks commit crimes. If someone wanted to slander any acknowledgment of a social problem in the black community, like higher crime rates, all they would have to do is point out what white nationalists say and therefore imply anyone criticizing a real problem among blacks is actually just using racist rhetoric in furtherance of an agenda against black people.

That is what you are doing here with anti-Semitism. The Commissioner notes a real problem in the Jewish community, a stubborn refusal among most to accept certain legitimate criticisms of Israel, and you come in and compare it to the Nazis describing the attitudes of Jews. As a result you seek to slander a legitimate criticism by conflating it with a bigoted one.

The commissioner doesn't note more of a real problem than noting that most Jews are greedy or any other statement that bases an attitude on an ethnicity. He makes a ridiculous statement that also happens to be racist by definition.

Did you just ignore the first and second point because you felt the third point was the only one you could attack without looking like a moron? Honestly, anyone can tell you that kids often take after their parents. As such when someone is born into a certain ethnicity that person is likely to take after his or her parents who are more likely to share the views of others of their ethnicity.

The 'points' you've brought up when asked why are you so certain about it where baseless points such as the claim that it is backed by statistical data (false) the claim that it is a matter of family and childbearing (irrationality? I think not) and the claim that one can observe the irrationality of a Jew in his life (what?).

It compares the position of two ethnicities on a specific issue.

It is a comparison between two ethnic groups as if they are each a monolithic group following similar opinions.

Not at all.

I'm afraid your words leave no room for doubt.

I was explaining that all I found about the view of the Arab world on the Holocaust was in that poll I cited earlier concerning how they feel after watching a movie or program about the Holocaust. That is they resent that it makes Israel more sympathetic than the Palestinians.

However they engage in the denial of the Holocaust, something that cannot be considered rational, so whatever reason you may bring up is really irrelevant.

Once more you ignore one part in favor of another, while also misrepresenting it. Did I say supporting terrorism is more rational? What I said is that the Arab position on the Middle East was more rational than the Jewish position. Even if they supported terrorism, I have not seen anything indicating most even consider it justifiable let alone something they should support, it does not make their position on the issue in general automatically less rational.

So you basically say that the support for terrorism does not make the position taken by the majority of the populations of most of the Arab states more irrational than that taken by the majority of the population of the Jewish state?
That's exactly what you're saying.

 

[alexa]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

It is relevant what a dictionary description of the term moderate is as frankly this is the definition of the term, dictionaries are merely sources of definitions.
By denying the definition of the term you mark your comments where you're using the term wrongly, irrelevant.

A dictionary gives a description. In this case a type of behaviour to be compared to others. You believe that every identified moderate group will be exactly the same simply because of a dictionary definition of the term moderate. In reality as I have shown, this is not the case. Your black and white view is incorrect.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

A dictionary gives a description. In this case a type of behaviour to be compared to others. You believe that every identified moderate group will be exactly the same simply because of a dictionary definition of the term moderate. In reality as I have shown, this is not the case. Your black and white view is incorrect.

Alexa, a dictionary defines terms.
When you refuse to acknowledge the definition of a term and use your own definition you cut any relation between you and the term itself and by that you're marking your comment as irrelevant.

Now I really have better things to do than argue with a person about whether or not a dictionary is a legitimate source of definitions. (What the ****.)

 

[Demon of Light]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

Yes well I've already proven that I was quoting him as his statement appeared in the text, hence no need to prove that you're the one misquoting him and hence I'll ignore your future remarks on it unless you'll show evidence as to how I was misquoting him by quoting him from the text of the article.

Actually, your own post proves you misquoted him.

If you think it is a double standard that this is but your own biased opinion and I can't say your position is rational.
I don't see how it fits the definition of a double standard.

When you demand someone accept conditions you would never accept for yourself it is the definition of a double standard.

There's no such thing as an ethnicity's 'political spectrum' as people of a certain ethnicity are born all over the world and do not have one single hive mind.

That might have been a reasonable thing to say centuries ago, but in the modern age it is far from the truth. Jewish organizations have been networking on a global scale since the beginning of the 20th Century. These organizations extend into every sphere of Jewish society.

Well then I'm saddened that this is your belief as that is the definition of racial discrimination. The belief that ethnicity is a decisive factor in a person's attitude.

You said "can" not "is" and there is a pretty huge difference. One refers to a possibility the other to a certainty. I am only noting that ethnicity is a possible decisive factor in a person's attitude. If it was the decisive factor then there would be no difference in Jewish attitudes and as I have said several times, no one is claiming such a thing.

Claiming it cannot be a decisive factor is just plain absurd. Like I said, it would like saying a person's religion or social status cannot be a decisive factor in a person's behavior.

The commissioner doesn't note more of a real problem than noting that most Jews are greedy or any other statement that bases an attitude on an ethnicity.

There is a pretty huge difference between remarking on a general characteristic, greed, and one specific to an ethnicity, feelings towards their homeland. To suggest one is like the other is just plain wrong.

The 'points' you've brought up when asked why are you so certain about it where baseless points such as the claim that it is backed by statistical data (false)

Statistical data on the likelihood of a person's upbringing resulting in similar views to those who raise them is all over the place. Since it is also obvious I would think I wouldn't have to provide such proof.

the claim that it is a matter of family and childbearing (irrationality? I think not)

Are you really serious? To suggest a person's upbringing has nothing to do with their behavior later in life only seems to demonstrate complete ignorance of human psychology.

and the claim that one can observe the irrationality of a Jew in his life (what?).

You throw in a strawman to boot! What I said was that one can observe the phenomenon of most people sharing the views of their parents in real life.

It is a comparison between two ethnic groups as if they are each a monolithic group following similar opinions.

I am comparing the majority positions. Rather than saying "majority position" every time I just note the group.

However they engage in the denial of the Holocaust, something that cannot be considered rational, so whatever reason you may bring up is really irrelevant.

Like I said, I found nothing indicating any such thing being the case.

So you basically say that the support for terrorism does not make the position taken by the majority of the populations of most of the Arab states more irrational than that taken by the majority of the population of the Jewish state?
That's exactly what you're saying.

First of all, as I said the evidence says there is not such support, but more importantly it is precisely one issue that does not automatically make every other position less rational.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

Actually, your own post proves you misquoted him.

Keep telling yourself a lie and maybe you'd believe it.

When you demand someone accept conditions you would never accept for yourself it is the definition of a double standard.

Those were not demands but conditions and they were absolutely generous considering the natural limit on how much Israel can conceed while the peace treaty still being equal.

That might have been a reasonable thing to say centuries ago, but in the modern age it is far from the truth. Jewish organizations have been networking on a global scale since the beginning of the 20th Century. These organizations extend into every sphere of Jewish society.

I insist, your claims are nothing more than bullcrap, people who happen to be born into an ethnicity do not gain an attitude or an opinion with it.

You said "can" not "is" and there is a pretty huge difference. One refers to a possibility the other to a certainty. I am only noting that ethnicity is a possible decisive factor in a person's attitude. If it was the decisive factor then there would be no difference in Jewish attitudes and as I have said several times, no one is claiming such a thing.

Claiming it cannot be a decisive factor is just plain absurd. Like I said, it would like saying a person's religion or social status cannot be a decisive factor in a person's behavior.

You've maintained the possibility that ethnicity might be a decisive factor in a person's attitude (a racist opinion), and now you claim that it is not a decisive factor?
Seems like you yourself are not a decisive factor.

There is a pretty huge difference between remarking on a general characteristic, greed, and one specific to an ethnicity, feelings towards their homeland. To suggest one is like the other is just plain wrong.

Your argument holds no water, both are attitudes.

Statistical data on the likelihood of a person's upbringing resulting in similar views to those who raise them is all over the place. Since it is also obvious I would think I wouldn't have to provide such proof.

Even if true that would not imply on the parents upringing the child on one certain attitude or another merely because they are Jewish parents.

Are you really serious? To suggest a person's upbringing has nothing to do with their behavior later in life only seems to demonstrate complete ignorance of human psychology.

Please do explain how you believe that Jewish parents are upbringing their children to become irrational, because even if you believe that they sit and explain to them on how Jerusalem should not be divided that is but an opinion, not an irrational view.
Unless of course you admit to labeling anything that isn't aligned with your radical view to be irrational.

You throw in a strawman to boot! What I said was that one can observe the phenomenon of most people sharing the views of their parents in real life.

No straw man there at all buddy, merely your dishonesty.
You said: "we can say with a fair degree of certainty that it is more likely"
On me saying: "what I'm saying however is that you cannot claim that people whose entire connection to each other is that they were born to the same genetic system, to the same race or ethnicity, would follow a certain attitude."

And then when asked where this degree of certainty is coming from, you've replied with:
"First of all, this is something statistics generally bear out. Second of all, it is the natural result of childbearing. Finally, anyone can observe this phenomenon in his or her daily life. "

Now by saying that one can observe this phenomenon in his or her daily life, and by "this phenomenon" you're referring to the one in my statement; "that people whose entire connection to each other is that they were born to the same genetic system, to the same race or ethnicity, would follow a certain attitude", you're claiming that one can see people who are connected to each other by race or ethnicity share a specific common attitude, in this case Jews being irrational on the mideast.

I am comparing the majority positions. Rather than saying "majority position" every time I just note the group.

You were comparing between ethnicities saying that the world's Arab population (anyone who's born into the Arab ethnicity) are less irrational in their view on the mideast than the world's Jewish population (anyone who's born into the Jewish ethnicity).
Well done.

Like I said, I found nothing indicating any such thing being the case.

So you're denying that a great portion of the populations of every Arab country are denying the Holocaust?

First of all, as I said the evidence says there is not such support, but more importantly it is precisely one issue that does not automatically make every other position less rational.

Really, I believe that last I've checked Lebanon's support for terrorism was placed at 40% of the population.
I can refer you to a poll if you'd like to.

And I can't see how the support for terrorism does not make the person irrational, after all a moment ago you've claimed that holding bigotry towards a group of people is making a person irrational on the conflict, so supporting the cold blooded murder of the civilians of the other group in the conflict is not? How lovely.

 

[Demon of Light]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

Keep telling yourself a lie and maybe you'd believe it.

:roll: Here is what you claimed he said:

He's implying that most Jews are 'following a religion that they are right' (Cannot accept that they are wrong, are irrational), and that it is not easy to have a rational discussion with a moderate Jewish individual on the subject of the Mideast.

Here is what you later quoted from the article:

"That is the best organized lobby that exists there," De Gucht was quoted by The Associated Press as telling VRT, a Dutch-language radio network. "There is, indeed, a religion, I can hardly describe it differently, among most Jews that they are right. So it is not easy to have a rational discussion with a moderate Jew about what is happening in the Middle East. It is a very emotional issue."

You also say "and" before mentioning his comment about having a rational discussion with a moderate Jew, separating the two. In fact, the two claims go together. He is saying most Jews have a sort of religious devotion to the idea they are in the right on the Middle East. You make it seem like he was saying Jews just think they are right, without noting that it was connected to discussing the Middle East. Your butchering of what he said creates an entirely different impression than his actual words in context. I agree with what he actually said, not the distortion you put off as what he said.

Those were not demands but conditions and they were absolutely generous considering the natural limit on how much Israel can conceed while the peace treaty still being equal.

What does that mean?

I insist, your claims are nothing more than bullcrap, people who happen to be born into an ethnicity do not gain an attitude or an opinion with it.

You see, you are still putting up this strawman of me somehow claiming that people of a certain ethnicity are born with an attitude. You just took the words "born into" to make it seem like you are finally actually describing my opinion then tossing "gain with it" to create the same meaning as if you said "born with" a certain attitude, something I have reminded you several times that no one is saying.

You've maintained the possibility that ethnicity might be a decisive factor in a person's attitude (a racist opinion), and now you claim that it is not a decisive factor?

I never claimed it was a decisive factor, only that it can be decisive. Once more you are putting forward strawman arguments. There are other factors that may be decisive.

Seems like you yourself are not a decisive factor.

Was that some sort of insult? It wasn't a very good one.

Your argument holds no water, both are attitudes.

One attitude is a general human attitude that should not be affected by a person's ethnicity or race, while the other is an attitude specifically regarding one's ethnicity or race. To say claiming most in an ethnicity hold an attitude in the former category is the same as claiming they hold an attitude in the latter category is just ridiculous.

Even if true that would not imply on the parents upringing the child on one certain attitude or another merely because they are Jewish parents.

Typically the attitude or views of the parents pass on to the child and when people of a certain ethnicity commonly hold a certain attitude or view it means their children will typically hold the same views and attitudes.

Please do explain how you believe that Jewish parents are upbringing their children to become irrational, because even if you believe that they sit and explain to them on how Jerusalem should not be divided that is but an opinion, not an irrational view.

Are you somehow suggesting an opinion cannot be an irrational view? I mean, that just plain don't make sense.

Unless of course you admit to labeling anything that isn't aligned with your radical view to be irrational.

There is nothing radical about suggesting Jerusalem should divided on some level between Palestinians and Jews. In fact, there is nothing irrational about suggesting the 1967 borders. Demanding all of Jerusalem is quite irrational.

No straw man there at all buddy, merely your dishonesty.
You said: "we can say with a fair degree of certainty that it is more likely"
On me saying: "what I'm saying however is that you cannot claim that people whose entire connection to each other is that they were born to the same genetic system, to the same race or ethnicity, would follow a certain attitude."

And then when asked where this degree of certainty is coming from, you've replied with:
"First of all, this is something statistics generally bear out. Second of all, it is the natural result of childbearing. Finally, anyone can observe this phenomenon in his or her daily life. "

Now by saying that one can observe this phenomenon in his or her daily life, and by "this phenomenon" you're referring to the one in my statement; "that people whose entire connection to each other is that they were born to the same genetic system, to the same race or ethnicity, would follow a certain attitude", you're claiming that one can see people who are connected to each other by race or ethnicity share a specific common attitude, in this case Jews being irrational on the mideast.

Well, technically neither claim would be false, but in fact you said "born to" not simply connected. The phenomenon I was referring to is that of people born to the same race or ethnicity sharing a common attitude or view.

You were comparing between ethnicities saying that the world's Arab population (anyone who's born into the Arab ethnicity) are less irrational in their view on the mideast than the world's Jewish population (anyone who's born into the Jewish ethnicity).

It was a comparison of their views or attitudes on the subject specifically.

So you're denying that a great portion of the populations of every Arab country are denying the Holocaust?

I haven't seen any evidence that any great portion of them do deny the Holocaust. Do you have any proof of your claim?

Really, I believe that last I've checked Lebanon's support for terrorism was placed at 40% of the population.

That would be this poll, of course it didn't actually use the term "support" and your description is not nearly specific enough. Rather they were asked if it was "justifiable" and this was not the limit of the question. They were asked if it was often or sometimes justifiable and those two results were put together. I cannot find anything indicating what the split on the question was. Also the question is sufficiently broad to include any number of responses. The question they were asked was:

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

That is hardly specific enough to make the claim that any Arabs support targeting civilians themselves. Civilian targets are hit all the time in war with most feeling it is justifiable. Of course, you are isolating Lebanon, where this proportion is highest but still short of a majority, when the other Arab countries show much smaller percentages.

And I can't see how the support for terrorism does not make the person irrational, after all a moment ago you've claimed that holding bigotry towards a group of people is making a person irrational on the conflict, so supporting the cold blooded murder of the civilians of the other group in the conflict is not? How lovely.

The nature of the question is different. One concerns what constitutes an acceptable tactic in war, the other concerns something that has no direct connection to war. Also, this is not about a person being irrational in general nor would one position make this the case.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

:roll: Here is what you claimed he said:



Here is what you later quoted from the article:



You also say "and" before mentioning his comment about having a rational discussion with a moderate Jew, separating the two. In fact, the two claims go together. He is saying most Jews have a sort of religious devotion to the idea they are in the right on the Middle East. You make it seem like he was saying Jews just think they are right, without noting that it was connected to discussing the Middle East. Your butchering of what he said creates an entirely different impression than his actual words in context. I agree with what he actually said, not the distortion you put off as what he said.

Yes, thanks for proving that I did not misquote the person.

What does that mean?

It means that the concessions on both sides need to be equal for a peace agreement to be effective.

You see, you are still putting up this strawman of me somehow claiming that people of a certain ethnicity are born with an attitude. You just took the words "born into" to make it seem like you are finally actually describing my opinion then tossing "gain with it" to create the same meaning as if you said "born with" a certain attitude, something I have reminded you several times that no one is saying.

That's what you're arguing for.
That most of the people who are born into Jewish families become irrational on the Mideast subject.

I never claimed it was a decisive factor, only that it can be decisive. Once more you are putting forward strawman arguments. There are other factors that may be decisive.

If you claim that it can be a decisive factor then it's like saying that it is possible.
You're saying that the definition of racial discrimination, the belief that a person's race or ethnicity can be a decisive factor in his attitude, is possible.

Was that some sort of insult? It wasn't a very good one.

What was so insultive about it?
Merely pointing out a fact, haven't meant to offend.

One attitude is a general human attitude that should not be affected by a person's ethnicity or race, while the other is an attitude specifically regarding one's ethnicity or race.

You believe that the second attitude "is regarding one's ethnicity or race" because you believe this case to be true.
However if we are to examine the facts both are attitudes, and if you'd claim the same on the former (that it is decided by the person's race) you would also be claiming that it is an attitude that is regarding one's ethnicity or race.
Both of the attitudes are indeed attitudes and neither are regarding a race or an ethnicity.

Typically the attitude or views of the parents pass on to the child and when people of a certain ethnicity commonly hold a certain attitude or view it means their children will typically hold the same views and attitudes.

Yes, but you believe that people of a certain ethnicity commonly hold a certain attitude or view, and that's the part that I'm strongly against here.
I find such opinion to be highly immoral and repulsive.

Are you somehow suggesting an opinion cannot be an irrational view? I mean, that just plain don't make sense.

Irrationality is an attitude, not a belief.
A person can hold the opinion that Jerusalem should maintain its status quo and not be irrational about this position (reasoning his position with illogical reasons), and another person can be irrational about his opinion.
Unless we're speaking about an opinion that has no logical backing, then an opinion cannot be automatically considered irrational merely because it isn't aligned with your radical world view.

There is nothing radical about suggesting Jerusalem should divided on some level between Palestinians and Jews. In fact, there is nothing irrational about suggesting the 1967 borders. Demanding all of Jerusalem is quite irrational.

People aren't demanding all of Jerusalem, they are merely not willing to divide it and wish to maintain its current status.
I'm not saying that wishing to divide Jerusalem is extreme, but neither is the opposite, both are opinions held by moderates from the left/right/center.

Well, technically neither claim would be false, but in fact you said "born to" not simply connected. The phenomenon I was referring to is that of people born to the same race or ethnicity sharing a common attitude or view.

That's exactly what I said you've stated, hence no straw man here.
Now as I said I don't find this degree of certainty to be established at all, and I can't observe such phenomenon in my daily life.
Perhaps if I would share your world view I'd suddenly be able to observe such a phenomenon?

It was a comparison of their views or attitudes on the subject specifically.

It was a comparison between two ethnicities on an attitude that they allegedly hold, and that's the immorality I'm pointing out in your belief.

I haven't seen any evidence that any great portion of them do deny the Holocaust. Do you have any proof of your claim?

Survey finds nearly half of Israeli Arabs deny Holocaust - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

That would be this poll, of course it didn't actually use the term "support" and your description is not nearly specific enough. Rather they were asked if it was "justifiable" and this was not the limit of the question. They were asked if it was often or sometimes justifiable and those two results were put together. I cannot find anything indicating what the split on the question was. Also the question is sufficiently broad to include any number of responses. The question they were asked was:

That is hardly specific enough to make the claim that any Arabs support targeting civilians themselves. Civilian targets are hit all the time in war with most feeling it is justifiable. Of course, you are isolating Lebanon, where this proportion is highest but still short of a majority, when the other Arab countries show much smaller percentages.[/quote]

First of all if you wish to play semantics the question was about suicide bombing specifically and not about terrorism in general, hence there are many people who might support rockets launching or shooting at civilians and not suicide bombings.
Secondly whether a person answers 'yes' to any of the questions; "do you think terrorism is justified", "do you think terrorism is often justified" or "do you think terrorism is sometimes justified" I will be labeling him as a terrorist supporter.
I believe you are quite biased on this one as you yourself has stated that the attack of noncombatants can sometimes be acceptable, but from a non-radical and peaceful point of view such beliefs constitute as a support for terrorism.

The nature of the question is different. One concerns what constitutes an acceptable tactic in war, the other concerns something that has no direct connection to war. Also, this is not about a person being irrational in general nor would one position make this the case.

You base the simple and clear differences between the two actions but at the end of the day you deny in one case what you promote on another - that a person who is bigoted is irrational and a person who supports the cold blooded murdering of non-combatants of the other side is not irrational.
That for itself tells more about your own irrationality than anything else, in your double-standards crusade.

 

[Demon of Light]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

Yes, thanks for proving that I did not misquote the person.

I am beginning to think there must be some sort of language barrier, because that is the only nice way I can explain your apparent disconnect with the reality of what anyone with a command of the English language can see.

It means that the concessions on both sides need to be equal for a peace agreement to be effective.

I agree, but it seems we have a pretty huge difference of opinion on what constitutes an equal concession. Israel has essentially made no concession and only made gains with every plan. What do you think have been their concessions and how are they equal to the concessions demanded of the Palestinians?

That's what you're arguing for.
That most of the people who are born into Jewish families become irrational on the Mideast subject.

While you have phrased it in the ugliest terms possible you finally have pretty much nailed what I said. Not that Jews are born irrational (what you have been trying to claim is what I said), but that most Jews will adopt the views and attitudes of their families on the subject with this translating into most being irrational on the subject.

You're saying that the definition of racial discrimination, the belief that a person's race or ethnicity can be a decisive factor in his attitude, is possible.

That is not the meaning of racism or racial discrimination. Racism implies that somehow a person's biology is the decisive factor. I am talking about cultural attributes common in a group. While Jews share some common genetic markers these are hardly a factor in Jewish attitudes. It is the Jewish culture that brings about these attitudes.

What was so insultive about it?
Merely pointing out a fact, haven't meant to offend.

Saying I am not a decisive factor certainly seemed like an insult and calling that a fact is just downright arrogant. For one it's based on you frequently misrepresenting my comments and then me correcting you over and over until you finally get it. You seem to have been convinced of your distortions so me correcting your misstatements is seen to you as some sort of flip-flopping, when my position has actually been perfectly consistent.

You believe that the second attitude "is regarding one's ethnicity or race" because you believe this case to be true.
However if we are to examine the facts both are attitudes, and if you'd claim the same on the former (that it is decided by the person's race) you would also be claiming that it is an attitude that is regarding one's ethnicity or race.
Both of the attitudes are indeed attitudes and neither are regarding a race or an ethnicity.

Israel is a self-declared "Jewish state" so yes their attitudes on it do specifically regard their ethnicity. That is not a matter of believing anything, it is just the reality.

Yes, but you believe that people of a certain ethnicity commonly hold a certain attitude or view, and that's the part that I'm strongly against here.
I find such opinion to be highly immoral and repulsive.

:doh It is not mere belief when every poll bears it out. This would be like saying most Jews identify themselves as Jewish. Would it be "racist" to say that is the case?

Irrationality is an attitude, not a belief.

Irrationality is a description of one's beliefs or attitudes.

People aren't demanding all of Jerusalem, they are merely not willing to divide it and wish to maintain its current status.
I'm not saying that wishing to divide Jerusalem is extreme, but neither is the opposite, both are opinions held by moderates from the left/right/center.

It is an extreme opinion and quite irrational.

That's exactly what I said you've stated, hence no straw man here.

No, what you have said is that I am claiming one can observe the phenomenon of Jews holding the same opinions and attitudes. I was addressing an entirely different matter on the tendency for people born into a certain culture to adopt the views and attitudes of that culture. Anyone halfway educated in the fields of psychology, sociology, or anthropology could tell you there is nothing controversial in what I am saying.

It was a comparison between two ethnicities on an attitude that they allegedly hold, and that's the immorality I'm pointing out in your belief.

There is no allegation, however, it is simply what has been borne out by the evidence. It is a comparison that is fully justified and you would find countless people who have no possible bias for or against anyone that would make such comparisons.

Survey finds nearly half of Israeli Arabs deny Holocaust - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Nearly half of Israeli Arabs meaning not a majority and not Arabs in general. Fail. Try again.

First of all if you wish to play semantics the question was about suicide bombing specifically and not about terrorism in general, hence there are many people who might support rockets launching or shooting at civilians and not suicide bombings.

Actually no, if you bothered to actually read the site I posted it listed the question exactly as it was put to the respondents (they put a greatly shortened version above the results). It specifically mentions suicide bombing, but also includes any "forms of violence against civilian targets" and as I noted that does not actually limit the question to attacks on civilians themselves.

Secondly whether a person answers 'yes' to any of the questions; "do you think terrorism is justified", "do you think terrorism is often justified" or "do you think terrorism is sometimes justified" I will be labeling him as a terrorist supporter.

There you go and generalize again. No doubt when I tell you this is not the same, you are going to insist it is, and you will take my response and claim somehow that I am flip-flopping when in fact I am only pointing out the serious problems with your distortions.

However, let's review the facts:

1. Most said it was rarely or never justified.

2. The question says "civilian targets" and that is broad enough to include what most people around the world would consider legitimate targets in war.

3. It only asks if these are "justified" and not whether the individuals support them.

You take that and claim it translates to support for terrorism, when it in no way does. It does not translate into support for anything.

I believe you are quite biased on this one as you yourself has stated that the attack of noncombatants can sometimes be acceptable, but from a non-radical and peaceful point of view such beliefs constitute as a support for terrorism.

Attacking non-combatants is not the same as terrorism. Saying in certain circumstances it becomes acceptable is also not the same as expressing support for it. I think war in general is sometimes acceptable, but that does not mean I support war. It certainly doesn't mean I consider it rational.

You base the simple and clear differences between the two actions but at the end of the day you deny in one case what you promote on another - that a person who is bigoted is irrational and a person who supports the cold blooded murdering of non-combatants of the other side is not irrational.

The distortions just keep on coming. Nowhere did I say any individual or group was rational or irrational in general. I did not say supporting the cold-blooded murdering of non-combatants was rational or "not irrational" either. You are the one who seems to think one position on one issue makes a person rational or irrational in general. I never made such an absurd claim.

 

[alexa]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

Alexa, a dictionary defines terms.
When you refuse to acknowledge the definition of a term and use your own definition you cut any relation between you and the term itself and by that you're marking your comment as irrelevant.

Now I really have better things to do than argue with a person about whether or not a dictionary is a legitimate source of definitions. (What the ****.)

Apocalypse you are changing what the argument is about. I am not refusing to accept the dictionary term, simply pointing out that this will appear differently in different situations. That is what this argument is about. You believe the situation for everyone labelled moderate will be the same. That is what you have been arguing. I have shown by examples that this is not the case.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

I am beginning to think there must be some sort of language barrier, because that is the only nice way I can explain your apparent disconnect with the reality of what anyone with a command of the English language can see.

Well that's where we differ, as I can find no explanation at all for the absence of connection between what you claim the commissioner has stated and what he has stated in reality, as portrayed by the given article.

I agree, but it seems we have a pretty huge difference of opinion on what constitutes an equal concession. Israel has essentially made no concession and only made gains with every plan. What do you think have been their concessions and how are they equal to the concessions demanded of the Palestinians?

I believe that so far such concessions were one-sided in an absolute fashion, and such mentality that demands Israel to concede and concede without the Palestinians replying with equal good faith moves is only doomed to end with an unequal peace agreement.

I cannot see an equal to the Gaza withdrawal, the freezing of the West Bank settlements natural growth for 10 months, the freeing of thousands of Palestinian prisoners, etc. on the Palestinian side.

While you have phrased it in the ugliest terms possible you finally have pretty much nailed what I said.

It is not an easy thing to get you to agree on the words that you yourself use.
Nevertheless since you finally did agree, then I will state again that I find it to fit the definition of racial discrimination.

That is not the meaning of racism or racial discrimination. Racism implies that somehow a person's biology is the decisive factor. I am talking about cultural attributes common in a group. While Jews share some common genetic markers these are hardly a factor in Jewish attitudes. It is the Jewish culture that brings about these attitudes.

There's absolutely no difference there and you're simply playing semantics as the only connection between the people we're talking about is their ethnicity.

Saying I am not a decisive factor certainly seemed like an insult and calling that a fact is just downright arrogant. For one it's based on you frequently misrepresenting my comments and then me correcting you over and over until you finally get it. You seem to have been convinced of your distortions so me correcting your misstatements is seen to you as some sort of flip-flopping, when my position has actually been perfectly consistent.

Well I'm sorry that you took it that way, this was absolutely not my intention.
I'm a bit surprised by your reaction, it is downright arrogant.

Israel is a self-declared "Jewish state" so yes their attitudes on it do specifically regard their ethnicity. That is not a matter of believing anything, it is just the reality.

Jewish as in the nation state of the Jewish people.
The Jewish people however are not an ethnic people, but an ethnoreligious people, hence a hole in your {allegedly} argument.

It is not mere belief when every poll bears it out. This would be like saying most Jews identify themselves as Jewish. Would it be "racist" to say that is the case?

No, but a poll has never declared that the majority of the Jewish population of planet Earth would engage in the mentality known as irrationality when discussed with about the Mideast, just like a poll has never reached the conclusion that most of the Black people are violent.

Irrationality is a description of one's beliefs or attitudes.

False, irrationality is a mentality, it is taking to an action or a thought that has no logical reasoning behind it.
And as I said, merely because you disagree with someone's opinion doesn't make him irrational for taking to this opinion. The condition is whether or not he reasons his opinion with logical reasoning, something that you for example have failed to do with your shared opinion with the Belgian commissioner.

It is an extreme opinion and quite irrational.

It's neither.

No, what you have said is that I am claiming one can observe the phenomenon of Jews holding the same opinions and attitudes. I was addressing an entirely different matter on the tendency for people born into a certain culture to adopt the views and attitudes of that culture. Anyone halfway educated in the fields of psychology, sociology, or anthropology could tell you there is nothing controversial in what I am saying.

If only because they are halfway educated.
Nevertheless I've already pointed out that I was indeed quoting your own words and have backed it in my previous comment with direct quotes on the subject, so I will ignore future remarks on it unless they'd be holding any water.

There is no allegation, however, it is simply what has been borne out by the evidence. It is a comparison that is fully justified and you would find countless people who have no possible bias for or against anyone that would make such comparisons.

I would find none, as this is a purely racial discriminating remark that has no basis in statistics or facts.

Nearly half of Israeli Arabs meaning not a majority and not Arabs in general. Fail. Try again.

You've asked, and I directly quote, for "a great portion" of the population.
Nearly half is indeed a great portion of the population.
Hence, and may I directly quote once more, "Fail. Try again".

Actually no, if you bothered to actually read the site I posted it listed the question exactly as it was put to the respondents (they put a greatly shortened version above the results). It specifically mentions suicide bombing, but also includes any "forms of violence against civilian targets" and as I noted that does not actually limit the question to attacks on civilians themselves.

Yes and I can also see that they've referred to it specifically "in defense of Islam" and that they put those who've answered "rarely justified" together with "never justified".

There you go and generalize again. No doubt when I tell you this is not the same, you are going to insist it is, and you will take my response and claim somehow that I am flip-flopping when in fact I am only pointing out the serious problems with your distortions.

However, let's review the facts:

1. Most said it was rarely or never justified.

2. The question says "civilian targets" and that is broad enough to include what most people around the world would consider legitimate targets in war.

3. It only asks if these are "justified" and not whether the individuals support them.

You take that and claim it translates to support for terrorism, when it in no way does. It does not translate into support for anything.

1. Most have either said that it was rarely justified or never justified. Yes.
We have no information however on how many of those consider it to be rarely justified and how many consider it to be never justified.
How many embrace the belief that there are times when terrorism can indeed be justified and how many do not.

2. False, civilians do not constitute as legitimate targets.

3. If they think terrorism is justified then they do indeed support it. Seems like a non-brainer, but we do indeed live in tough times.

Attacking non-combatants is not the same as terrorism. Saying in certain circumstances it becomes acceptable is also not the same as expressing support for it. I think war in general is sometimes acceptable, but that does not mean I support war. It certainly doesn't mean I consider it rational.

And yet since you've given examples of attacks on non-combatants that you believe are justified (the attacks on the non-combatant Jewish civilians during the British Mandate of Palestine, the attacks on non-combatant European settlers during the American conquest, etc.) one can tell that your opinion on the subject is indeed biased towards the justification of such actions.

The distortions just keep on coming. Nowhere did I say any individual or group was rational or irrational in general.

I was clearly speaking about irrational on the conflict, in the context of this discussion it should have been obvious.

I did not say supporting the cold-blooded murdering of non-combatants was rational or "not irrational" either. You are the one who seems to think one position on one issue makes a person rational or irrational in general. I never made such an absurd claim.

You have argued that justifying the terrorist attacks on civilians from the other side of the conflict does not make a person irrational on the conflict, yet holding bigoted views towards the other side does.
That's double standards and that's an absurd claim that you have indeed made, regardless of future denial.

Apocalypse you are changing what the argument is about. I am not refusing to accept the dictionary term, simply pointing out that this will appear differently in different situations. That is what this argument is about. You believe the situation for everyone labelled moderate will be the same. That is what you have been arguing. I have shown by examples that this is not the case.

Besides not being what I have been arguing about, you have indeed refuted the dictionary definition and you have claimed that the definition is something that has to do with justice, which is wrong.
Nevertheless I have never claimed that all moderates are the same, but that in the case of two people who hold similar opinions and only differ by ethnicity, the standards for being labeled as a moderate do not change.
Ethnicity is not a factor in the standards required of an opinion to be considered moderate, the standards for all ethnic groups in a state is the same.

 

[Demon of Light]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

I believe that so far such concessions were one-sided in an absolute fashion, and such mentality that demands Israel to concede and concede without the Palestinians replying with equal good faith moves is only doomed to end with an unequal peace agreement.

What good faith moves would that be now? Abbas has given up violence and cracked down on those who engage in it against Israel despite many territories remaining under military occupation. I cannot think of any other possible concessions they can make outside negotiations.

I cannot see an equal to the Gaza withdrawal, the freezing of the West Bank settlements natural growth for 10 months, the freeing of thousands of Palestinian prisoners, etc. on the Palestinian side.

How exactly can the Palestinian side make an equal concession? The only real concessions they can make are in negotiations.

It is not an easy thing to get you to agree on the words that you yourself use.

Actually it is rather easy. You just have to avoid corrupting or completely changing the meaning of my words. Plenty of other people I have debated with have not struggled with this, but you obviously do struggle with it for some reason.

Nevertheless since you finally did agree, then I will state again that I find it to fit the definition of racial discrimination.

You can find it to be anything you like. Reality need not guide your opinion.

There's absolutely no difference there and you're simply playing semantics as the only connection between the people we're talking about is their ethnicity.

There is a huge difference. Racism involves biology being the causation. Like saying a black person will have black attitudes no matter the environment said person is raised in. Racism does not consider culture or environment as a possible decisive factor, but instead declares biology the sole decisive factor.

I'm a bit surprised by your reaction, it is downright arrogant.

Why is it that I feel like I've stepped into the movie Clerks?

Jewish as in the nation state of the Jewish people.
The Jewish people however are not an ethnic people, but an ethnoreligious people, hence a hole in your {allegedly} argument.

That's right the Jews are not an ethnic people when being an ethnic people would make Israel's policies racist, but they are an ethnic people when someone is criticizing Jews making such criticism racist. Watch out, I think there's something on the wing of the plane.

No, but a poll has never declared that the majority of the Jewish population of planet Earth would engage in the mentality known as irrationality when discussed with about the Mideast, just like a poll has never reached the conclusion that most of the Black people are violent.

What is called irrational are the opinions and attitudes held on the subject and thus polls will identify the opinions and attitudes that would be considered irrational.

False, irrationality is a mentality, it is taking to an action or a thought that has no logical reasoning behind it.

I highlighted the part of what you said that verifies my point.

And as I said, merely because you disagree with someone's opinion doesn't make him irrational for taking to this opinion.

That is true, but that does not mean every point of disagreement is rational.

If only because they are halfway educated.

Someone who is fully educated would have a quite a few choice words for your absurd position and they wouldn't be words of praise.

Nevertheless I've already pointed out that I was indeed quoting your own words and have backed it in my previous comment with direct quotes on the subject, so I will ignore future remarks on it unless they'd be holding any water.

You have done no such thing. You have been consistently distorting and rewriting my comments to mean something entirely different than claiming you refuted me after attacking a position I never took. That is a classic strawman argument. Anyone reading this can see what I actually said and what you claim I said so continuing to insist that you were not distorting my comments is just deception on your part.

I would find none, as this is a purely racial discriminating remark that has no basis in statistics or facts.

:doh Clearly you just aren't even trying to express a credible opinion anymore.

You've asked, and I directly quote, for "a great portion" of the population.
Nearly half is indeed a great portion of the population.

I didn't ask for a great portion of Israeli Arabs (never mind whether the poll is actually legitimate), but Arabs in general.

Yes and I can also see that they've referred to it specifically "in defense of Islam" and that they put those who've answered "rarely justified" together with "never justified".

Given the other wording, "defense of Islam" and "rarely" are far less relevant to understanding what the results actually mean. "Rarely" is a common hedging term. A person may often say something is "rarely justified" if that person is not confident in saying "never" and "defense of Islam" is so broad as to accommodate any number of cases. Unfortunately we do not have a break down between all four possible answers, which would be far more helpful.

How many embrace the belief that there are times when terrorism can indeed be justified and how many do not.

Attacks on civilian targets are not inherently terrorism. Otherwise you would have to call Israel a terrorist state.

2. False, civilians do not constitute as legitimate targets.

Civilian targets is a sufficiently broad term to include civilian infrastructure. Many power plants are civilian-run and owned, but militaries target these on a regular basis regardless. When analyzing a poll one has to consider all possible meanings a respondent might consider. If someone hears "civilian targets" it is quite possible that person will be thinking it refers to more than direct attacks against civilians. A shopping mall after closing time is a civilian target by anyone's definition, but some may think it is justified to attack such a target when there are no people around while others think it is justified when there are people around.

Had the question been "other forms of violence against civilians" we would likely see different results.

3. If they think terrorism is justified then they do indeed support it. Seems like a non-brainer, but we do indeed live in tough times.

Well, I would probably not use the term justified to refer to something I opposed but many people would not make that distinction. Believing an action is justified is not the same as supporting it.

And yet since you've given examples of attacks on non-combatants that you believe are justified (the attacks on the non-combatant Jewish civilians during the British Mandate of Palestine, the attacks on non-combatant European settlers during the American conquest, etc.) one can tell that your opinion on the subject is indeed biased towards the justification of such actions.

I talked about what could be considered acceptable, not justified.

I was clearly speaking about irrational on the conflict, in the context of this discussion it should have been obvious.

Honestly, I can't know with you because you seem to have no understanding of how important the particulars of language are to a discussion and frequently claim one word means the same as another even when it doesn't.

You have argued that justifying the terrorist attacks on civilians from the other side of the conflict does not make a person irrational on the conflict, yet holding bigoted views towards the other side does.

That is a generalization that does not fit with what I actually said, once again. Supporting the use of a certain tactic in war is not the same as viewing the other party in the conflict as such an enemy that all members of that ethnicity are enemies.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

What good faith moves would that be now? Abbas has given up violence and cracked down on those who engage in it against Israel despite many territories remaining under military occupation. I cannot think of any other possible concessions they can make outside negotiations.

But we're speaking about concessions that they can make within negotiations.

Actually it is rather easy. You just have to avoid corrupting or completely changing the meaning of my words. Plenty of other people I have debated with have not struggled with this, but you obviously do struggle with it for some reason.

As I said, it is not an easy thing to do.

You can find it to be anything you like. Reality need not guide your opinion.

Yet it does and the definition of racial discrimination is the belief that race and ethnicity are decisive factors in a person's attitude.

There is a huge difference. Racism involves biology being the causation. Like saying a black person will have black attitudes no matter the environment said person is raised in. Racism does not consider culture or environment as a possible decisive factor, but instead declares biology the sole decisive factor.

Yet you're speaking about a group that shares ethnicity not culture.
"Most Jews", not "Most of the people who are exposed to the Jewish culture".
Jewish ethnicity does not imply on a Jewish culture, like an African ethnicity does not imply on an African culture.

Why is it that I feel like I've stepped into the movie Clerks?

Because you're disconnected from reality.

That's right the Jews are not an ethnic people when being an ethnic people would make Israel's policies racist, but they are an ethnic people when someone is criticizing Jews making such criticism racist. Watch out, I think there's something on the wing of the plane.

The Jewish people are an ethnoreligious people.
Study the term, it appears like you've never even heard about it.

What is called irrational are the opinions and attitudes held on the subject and thus polls will identify the opinions and attitudes that would be considered irrational.

No, the irrationality as implied by the commissioner is the way they discuss the subject.
"Almost a religion that they are right". "Not easy to have a rational discussion".
You're once more butchering the commissioner's words to suit your agenda.

I highlighted the part of what you said that verifies my point.

And I repeat that such opinions are not irrational.

Someone who is fully educated would have a quite a few choice words for your absurd position and they wouldn't be words of praise.

It is usually those with zero education on a subject that speak in the name of the educated.

You have done no such thing. You have been consistently distorting and rewriting my comments to mean something entirely different than claiming you refuted me after attacking a position I never took. That is a classic strawman argument. Anyone reading this can see what I actually said and what you claim I said so continuing to insist that you were not distorting my comments is just deception on your part.

I do not doubt that you think so, yet that doesn't bring you closer to reality, even by an inch.

I didn't ask for a great portion of Israeli Arabs (never mind whether the poll is actually legitimate), but Arabs in general.

There we go wishing to compare ethnicities again.
I've already told you that I'm willing to compare between populations of countries and not world populations of a certain ethnic group or another.
I did however base my case.

Given the other wording, "defense of Islam" and "rarely" are far less relevant to understanding what the results actually mean. "Rarely" is a common hedging term. A person may often say something is "rarely justified" if that person is not confident in saying "never" and "defense of Islam" is so broad as to accommodate any number of cases. Unfortunately we do not have a break down between all four possible answers, which would be far more helpful.

There's no basis to your words, I've never heard people saying that they have rarely killed a human being when they've never done so, and defense of Islam is regarding taking the actions that are used in the poll question, hence not a broad definition as you absurdly claim.

Attacks on civilian targets are not inherently terrorism. Otherwise you would have to call Israel a terrorist state.

Attacking civilians involves deliberateness.
Israel attacks terrorists. Civilians are caught in the crossfire.

Civilian targets is a sufficiently broad term to include civilian infrastructure. Many power plants are civilian-run and owned, but militaries target these on a regular basis regardless. When analyzing a poll one has to consider all possible meanings a respondent might consider. If someone hears "civilian targets" it is quite possible that person will be thinking it refers to more than direct attacks against civilians. A shopping mall after closing time is a civilian target by anyone's definition, but some may think it is justified to attack such a target when there are no people around while others think it is justified when there are people around.

I have no doubts at all that the term civilian targets as used along suicide bombing does not imply on civil infrastructures but on civilians themselves.
A person that is asked in such a poll if he advocates suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets would clearly connect civilian targets with the civilians, especially considering the implication of the term 'violence'.

Well, I would probably not use the term justified to refer to something I opposed but many people would not make that distinction. Believing an action is justified is not the same as supporting it.

Bollocks.
If someone believes terrorism is justified then he supports terrorism.

I talked about what could be considered acceptable, not justified.

If you find something acceptable you find it justified.
Once more, bollocks, and you're resorting to desperate methods to defend your argument when you yourself no longer see any rationality within it.

That is a generalization that does not fit with what I actually said, once again. Supporting the use of a certain tactic in war is not the same as viewing the other party in the conflict as such an enemy that all members of that ethnicity are enemies.

That's exactly what you said, Demon. Your posts have not been somehow deleted and are still up in this thread.

 

[Demon of Light]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

But we're speaking about concessions that they can make within negotiations.

You obviously weren't because the disengagement from Gaza was not made within negotiations. As far as concessions in negotiations they have made plenty, but Israel wants them to make even more concessions to the point where the end result is essentially preserving the status quo relationship.

As I said, it is not an easy thing to do.

Easy enough for most people.

Yet it does and the definition of racial discrimination is the belief that race and ethnicity are decisive factors in a person's attitude.

No, that is not what it means at all. Discrimination means to differentiate, particularly in how one behaves towards a given individual. Racial discrimination means treating people differently based solely on their race. Saying race or ethnicity can be a decisive factor in a person's attitude is not discriminatory, that's just an observation about reality.

Yet you're speaking about a group that shares ethnicity not culture.
"Most Jews", not "Most of the people who are exposed to the Jewish culture".
Jewish ethnicity does not imply on a Jewish culture, like an African ethnicity does not imply on an African culture.

Ethnicity includes, among other things, culture. So ethnicity does in fact imply a culture.

The Jewish people are an ethnoreligious people.
Study the term, it appears like you've never even heard about it.

I have heard the term, but I am pretty sure I was getting an entirely different term from you just ten seconds ago (look up).

No, the irrationality as implied by the commissioner is the way they discuss the subject.

Do you realize that what I am saying is in fact not in any way contradicting anything he said? He did not define rationality in any of his comments and what I am saying in no way suggests a different use of the term than his use.

There we go wishing to compare ethnicities again.
I've already told you that I'm willing to compare between populations of countries and not world populations of a certain ethnic group or another.

I am thinking maybe you just do not like the idea that what I am saying is actually true and non-controversial. That poll from Pew Research was widely reported as the opinion of the Arab world and it is taken by many around the world as a gauge of Arab opinion. You refuse to accept this because it would make similar statements about Jewish attitudes legitimate thus destroying your entire claim of anti-Semitism. Then you might actually have to try and justify the attitudes and opinions rather than denying them outright.

I did however base my case.

Uh, no, you didn't. You posted a link to an article discussing a poll of Israeli-Arabs when I asked you about all Arabs, not just a particular group.

There's no basis to your words, I've never heard people saying that they have rarely killed a human being when they've never done so

People tend to be a lot more definite about things they have or have not done. However, if someone was asked if there are occasions when he or she would kill someone aside from self-defense that person may not feel confident saying there are no occasions and thus say there are "rare" occasions when he or she might kill someone aside from self-defense.

and defense of Islam is regarding taking the actions that are used in the poll question, hence not a broad definition as you absurdly claim.

People engage in suicide bombings and attacks on civilian targets for a variety of reasons. The suicide bombing of the Beirut barracks in 1983 was a distinctly nationalist action to expel foreigners from Lebanon, but for some it was in "defense of Islam" as well. My point being that any struggle in a Muslim country against non-Muslims, maybe even other Muslims, can be considered to also be a fight in "defense of Islam" thus accommodating countless situations. Basically if they asked the question without the phrase "defense of Islam" it is quite likely the result would have been essentially the same.

Attacking civilians involves deliberateness.
Israel attacks terrorists. Civilians are caught in the crossfire.

Like those horrible terrorists running Lebanese milk plants and driving in their terrorist minivans. Don't forget those terrorist powerplants providing terrorist electricity to their terrorist cities.

I have no doubts at all that the term civilian targets as used along suicide bombing does not imply on civil infrastructures but on civilians themselves.
A person that is asked in such a poll if he advocates suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets would clearly connect civilian targets with the civilians, especially considering the implication of the term 'violence'.

Of course that's what you would think, but that does not mean every single person would feel the same. Any pollster will tell you that the wording of the question is everything. Different terms have different connotations to different people. Some people infer a meaning from words that other don't or they answer it as it is posed to them despite inferring another meaning. A person hearing "civilian targets" might assume it is about attacks on civilians, but still answer differently as the question itself does not state this to be the meaning.

If someone believes terrorism is justified then he supports terrorism.

You may think a person is justified in being angry without supporting them being angry.

If you find something acceptable you find it justified.

Acceptable means that one can accept it. That is not the same as considering it just. These are two terms with very different connotations.

That's exactly what you said, Demon. Your posts have not been somehow deleted and are still up in this thread.

That is not "exactly" what I said no matter how you define the term. You generalized my comment to make it seem like I said any bigoted opinions make a person irrational on a subject. In fact, I did not say such a thing.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

You obviously weren't because the disengagement from Gaza was not made within negotiations. As far as concessions in negotiations they have made plenty, but Israel wants them to make even more concessions to the point where the end result is essentially preserving the status quo relationship.

What plenty of concessions have they made during negotiations?
And no I was speaking about negotiations that they can make within negotiations, I've given concessions that Israel has made unconditionally (out of negotiations) to present Israel's good faith and nothing more.

Easy enough for most people.

I'm afraid that if most people had a say they'd have strongly disagreed.

No, that is not what it means at all. Discrimination means to differentiate, particularly in how one behaves towards a given individual. Racial discrimination means treating people differently based solely on their race. Saying race or ethnicity can be a decisive factor in a person's attitude is not discriminatory, that's just an observation about reality.

Bollocks.
Racism and racial discrimination are the beliefs that race (or ethnicity, or genetics) are a decisive factor in a person's traits and attitudes.
It mostly refers to the superiority of one race/ethnicity over another.
For example, "this ethnicity is more rational on this subject than that ethnicity".

Ethnicity includes, among other things, culture. So ethnicity does in fact imply a culture.

False, ethnicity does not imply on a culture. A person born into an ethnically African family in the US would not necessarily be exposed to African culture.
Such belief merely seeks to base one's racist opinions as it implies that the racist beliefs can be 'blamed' on the existence of a culture that causes such attitudes in a person.
For example, that Arabs are violent because their culture causes them to be violent, or that Jews are irrational because their culture causes them to be irrational.

I have heard the term, but I am pretty sure I was getting an entirely different term from you just ten seconds ago (look up).

Not that I'm aware of.

Do you realize that what I am saying is in fact not in any way contradicting anything he said? He did not define rationality in any of his comments and what I am saying in no way suggests a different use of the term than his use.

He doesn't need to define rationality, it has a known definition, and he has clearly referred to the lack of rationality in discussions with "a moderate Jew" about the mideast.

I am thinking maybe you just do not like the idea that what I am saying is actually true and non-controversial. That poll from Pew Research was widely reported as the opinion of the Arab world and it is taken by many around the world as a gauge of Arab opinion. You refuse to accept this because it would make similar statements about Jewish attitudes legitimate thus destroying your entire claim of anti-Semitism. Then you might actually have to try and justify the attitudes and opinions rather than denying them outright.

And I'm thinking that maybe you're getting further and further away from reality.
The Poll was referring to the Arab world, correct, not to the Arab ethnicity.
The Arab world is a term that refers to the Arab countries around the world, look it up.
Besides that the legitimacy of one claim doesn't base the legitimacy of another.
Saying that "Most of the dogs have a tail" does not base the claim that "most of the cats don't have a tail" if the former is legit.

Uh, no, you didn't. You posted a link to an article discussing a poll of Israeli-Arabs when I asked you about all Arabs, not just a particular group.

Uh, yes I did, I've referred to the opinion of an Arab population of a country, as you did when you've referred to the opinion of American Jews alone.

People tend to be a lot more definite about things they have or have not done. However, if someone was asked if there are occasions when he or she would kill someone aside from self-defense that person may not feel confident saying there are no occasions and thus say there are "rare" occasions when he or she might kill someone aside from self-defense.

Exactly, and if someone says that there are rare occasions where one would murder another person (kill not from self-defense) then he's a potential murderer in my opinion, as opposed to a person who'd say that he'd never do such thing.
Once more, "I will rarely justify terrorism" speaks on a rare occasion where one does engage in the justification of terrorism, in the belief that terrorism was acceptable.

People engage in suicide bombings and attacks on civilian targets for a variety of reasons. The suicide bombing of the Beirut barracks in 1983 was a distinctly nationalist action to expel foreigners from Lebanon, but for some it was in "defense of Islam" as well.

Attacking barracks is an example for attacks on civilian targets how exactly?

My point being that any struggle in a Muslim country against non-Muslims, maybe even other Muslims, can be considered to also be a fight in "defense of Islam" thus accommodating countless situations. Basically if they asked the question without the phrase "defense of Islam" it is quite likely the result would have been essentially the same.

Doesn't matter, the question was suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians, hence not leaving room for doubt.

Like those horrible terrorists running Lebanese milk plants and driving in their terrorist minivans. Don't forget those terrorist powerplants providing terrorist electricity to their terrorist cities.

Well those were certainly not civilians.

Of course that's what you would think, but that does not mean every single person would feel the same. Any pollster will tell you that the wording of the question is everything. Different terms have different connotations to different people. Some people infer a meaning from words that other don't or they answer it as it is posed to them despite inferring another meaning. A person hearing "civilian targets" might assume it is about attacks on civilians, but still answer differently as the question itself does not state this to be the meaning.

Again that is absurdly wrong and incorrect, a person hearing the question that involves "violence against civilian targets" would take to the belief that the question speaks of attacks on civilians, I don't see any better way to describe the attacking of civilians than "violence against civilian targets".

You may think a person is justified in being angry without supporting them being angry.

If you believe terrorism is justified then you are a terrorism supporter.
You wish to dance around it, do so, won't change the sane world's opinion on people who justify terrorism.

Acceptable means that one can accept it. That is not the same as considering it just. These are two terms with very different connotations.

For something to be acceptable it needs to be justified.
If you find terrorism acceptable then you find it legit, and justify its existence, and frankly you become a terrorist supporter.

That is not "exactly" what I said no matter how you define the term. You generalized my comment to make it seem like I said any bigoted opinions make a person irrational on a subject. In fact, I did not say such a thing.

You said that the people's allegedly bigoted view on the ethnicity makes them irrational on the subject.
That is exactly what you said, no matter how hard you'd try to deny it, your words are up there fully exposed.

 

[Demon of Light]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

What plenty of concessions have they made during negotiations?

I have actually made a point of noting all the concessions they have been willing to make in negotiations several times in other threads and I do not feel like repeating myself.

Bollocks.
Racism and racial discrimination are the beliefs that race (or ethnicity, or genetics) are a decisive factor in a person's traits and attitudes.
It mostly refers to the superiority of one race/ethnicity over another.
For example, "this ethnicity is more rational on this subject than that ethnicity".

Behold the power of looking up words before using them:

racism or racialism
— n
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

Source: Dictionary.com

False, ethnicity does not imply on a culture.

Watch me demonstrate my amazing power a second time:

eth·nic
–adjective
1. pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

Source: Dictionary.com

Not that I'm aware of.

Really so you forgot all about saying this:

Yet you're speaking about a group that shares ethnicity not culture.
"Most Jews", not "Most of the people who are exposed to the Jewish culture".
Jewish ethnicity does not imply on a Jewish culture, like an African ethnicity does not imply on an African culture.

If you like I can point to the countless other instances in this very thread where you describe Jews as an ethnicity.

He doesn't need to define rationality, it has a known definition

Exactly and the way I am using the term is no different.

And I'm thinking that maybe you're getting further and further away from reality.
The Poll was referring to the Arab world, correct, not to the Arab ethnicity.
The Arab world is a term that refers to the Arab countries around the world, look it up.
Besides that the legitimacy of one claim doesn't base the legitimacy of another.

So even though you concede the poll represents the views of the different national groupings of the Arab ethnicity you will not acknowledge this also means the Arab ethnicity share common views. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

Uh, yes I did, I've referred to the opinion of an Arab population of a country, as you did when you've referred to the opinion of American Jews alone.

I did not refer to them alone as I mentioned the views of Israeli Jews as well. That is the overwhelming majority of Jews in the world. However, here is poll of British Jews as well and most notable is their position on Operation Cast Lead.

Exactly, and if someone says that there are rare occasions where one would murder another person (kill not from self-defense) then he's a potential murderer in my opinion, as opposed to a person who'd say that he'd never do such thing.

Personally, I think anyone who says he or she would never do such a thing is either a liar or has an overly optimistic opinion of his or her own character.

Attacking barracks is an example for attacks on civilian targets how exactly?

I was not using that as an example of attacking a civilian target, but as an example of how "defense of Islam" can be conflated with any number of resistance actions.

Doesn't matter, the question was suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians, hence not leaving room for doubt.

It said "civilian targets" not civilians.

Well those were certainly not civilians.

Do you mind explaining that position?

Again that is absurdly wrong and incorrect, a person hearing the question that involves "violence against civilian targets" would take to the belief that the question speaks of attacks on civilians, I don't see any better way to describe the attacking of civilians than "violence against civilian targets".

How about "violence against civilians"? You see I showed a better phrasing and actually made it shorter at the same time.

If you believe terrorism is justified then you are a terrorism supporter.

These are two words with very different connotations and I already gave you an example of such an instance where the difference is clear.

For something to be acceptable it needs to be justified.
If you find terrorism acceptable then you find it legit, and justify its existence, and frankly you become a terrorist supporter.

For the third time I use my awesome powers:

ac·cept·a·ble
–adjective
1. capable or worthy of being accepted.

4. capable of being endured; tolerable; bearable

Source: Dictionary.com

jus·ti·fy
–verb (used with object)
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded.

5. Law .
a. to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.

Source: Dictionary.com

You said that the people's allegedly bigoted view on the ethnicity makes them irrational on the subject.
That is exactly what you said, no matter how hard you'd try to deny it, your words are up there fully exposed.

I was not referring to them thinking that Arabs are filthy or something like that, but considering marriage to an Arab as an act of national treason. The key part there is "national treason" as that implies every Arab is an enemy of Jews and Israel to the point that even associating with them is a betrayal. It is also just an example of one irrational view, which you keep neglecting to mention.

 

[Orion]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency

A politician makes a fairly accurate observation and is immediately labeled an anti-Semite by World Jewry. Unfortunately, he gave them exactly what they wanted a comment they can call an apology. In essence they can say he acknowledged what he said was wrong and anti-Semitic.

Honestly, he should have just said, "They ain't nothing anti-Semitic 'bout what I say! Y'all are stupid!"

The comment was in poor taste because the commentator failed to separate the issue of the Israeli lobby from Jews. Some might think there is no difference but I think it matters in politics to be specific. The lobby for Israel in the U.S. is definitely highly organized and vocal, but it's quite another thing to say that the Jews in the U.S. are highly organized and vocal. Big difference.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

I have actually made a point of noting all the concessions they have been willing to make in negotiations several times in other threads and I do not feel like repeating myself.

In other words, failure to comply.

Behold the power of looking up words before using them:


Source: Dictionary.com

And..?
In no part did I claim that race and ethnicity are not matters of heritage.
However your definition does provide the basis for my claim that your remark was racist, that your belief that races/ethnic groups have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors.
This is exactly what you were promoting with your claim about the Jewish culture making Jews irrational on the subject of the mideast.

Watch me demonstrate my amazing power a second time:


Source: Dictionary.com

Yes that's the definition of an ethnic group and for an ethnic group to be considered one it needs to share a culture like the Jews have the Jewish culture and the Arabs the Arab culture, sure.
However the point you refuse to understand is that not every single member of an ethnicity will be exposed to his ethnicity's culture.

Really so you forgot all about saying this:

If you like I can point to the countless other instances in this very thread where you describe Jews as an ethnicity.

The Jews are an ethnicity, the Jewish people however are an ethnoreligious group and both members of Judaism and members of the Jewish ethnicity exist within this group.

Exactly and the way I am using the term is no different.

Don't know how you use the term really, can't tell with you it seems.

So even though you concede the poll represents the views of the different national groupings of the Arab ethnicity you will not acknowledge this also means the Arab ethnicity share common views. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

The Arab ethnicity exists all over the world and not merely in the Arab world (Arab countries).
There are millions of Arabs who do not exist within those Arab countries that are listed in the poll.
I repeat, an ethnicity and a race are not some united monolithic beings.

I did not refer to them alone as I mentioned the views of Israeli Jews as well. That is the overwhelming majority of Jews in the world. However, here is poll of British Jews as well and most notable is their position on Operation Cast Lead.

That's just one more state, still far from being conclusive on the entire population of the Jewish ethnicity.
And what is so irrational about those opinions anyway?
The support for two-states solution? For Israel?

Personally, I think anyone who says he or she would never do such a thing is either a liar or has an overly optimistic opinion of his or her own character.

Yes, that's what you personally think about murder, enlightening really.

I was not using that as an example of attacking a civilian target, but as an example of how "defense of Islam" can be conflated with any number of resistance actions.

Defense of Islam in the text is united with attacks on civilian targets.

Do you mind explaining that position?

Those were civilian infrastructures used commonly by terrorists.
Those were not "civilians".

How about "violence against civilians"? You see I showed a better phrasing and actually made it shorter at the same time.

Violence against civilians and violence against civilian targets sees no difference in the average mind.
If you put him one next to the other and ask a person to compare, sure, but that is not the case.
The term "targets" merely implies to a person that they're speaking about targeting them with deliberateness, those civilians become targets.

These are two words with very different connotations and I already gave you an example of such an instance where the difference is clear.

No you have not.
Justifying terrorism is indeed supporting terrorism in my book, and you'd find that to be the same in the books of many others.

For the third time I use my awesome powers:



Source: Dictionary.com



Source: Dictionary.com

And if one finds terrorism to be acceptable, if one believes terrorism is something that he can accept, then he clearly justifies terrorism and makes it acceptable.

I was not referring to them thinking that Arabs are filthy or something like that, but considering marriage to an Arab as an act of national treason. The key part there is "national treason" as that implies every Arab is an enemy of Jews and Israel to the point that even associating with them is a betrayal. It is also just an example of one irrational view, which you keep neglecting to mention.

As I said, double standards.
Bigotry is ultimately causing irrationality on the subject, support for the murdering of the civilians of the other side does not.

 

[Demon of Light]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

However your definition does provide the basis for my claim that your remark was racist, that your belief that races/ethnic groups have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors.

No, that is not at all what I was saying and I have been telling you as much for almost this entire thread. Hereditary refers to something a person is born with and nowhere have I said anyone is born with a certain attitude.

However the point you refuse to understand is that not every single member of an ethnicity will be exposed to his ethnicity's culture.

What you apparently refuse to understand is that no one here was ever saying anything about "every single member" of any ethnicity.

The Jews are an ethnicity, the Jewish people however are an ethnoreligious group and both members of Judaism and members of the Jewish ethnicity exist within this group.

You know, I bothered looking up the term and, just like I figured, you are misusing the term. Basically it just means an ethnicity that also shares a religion. Your argument that somehow the religion and ethnicity are separate as a result is invalid.

The Arab ethnicity exists all over the world and not merely in the Arab world (Arab countries).
There are millions of Arabs who do not exist within those Arab countries that are listed in the poll.

Most Arabs overwhelmingly are in the Arab countries. Hence, saying most Arabs hold a view need not include Arabs overseas to be accurate, which, if you recall, is what we were talking about this whole time. The "Arab position" referring to the common Arab position i.e. that position held most commonly among Arabs.

I repeat, an ethnicity and a race are not some united monolithic beings.

Never said they are, if you recall correctly.

That's just one more state, still far from being conclusive on the entire population of the Jewish ethnicity.

Do you realize with just American Jews and Israeli Jews I covered the overwhelming majority of Jews? Hence that "most Jews" hold a certain attitude or view has already been backed up. I cannot find any polling data on other Jewish communities, though I can tell you that the dominant Jewish organizations in every country I have looked at are strongly pro-Israel.

Yes, that's what you personally think about murder, enlightening really.

It indicates I am honest with myself while most people try to kid themselves about their own nature. People like the idea that they would "never" do something really bad because it allows them to consider themselves better than others. That can be very comforting for people.

Defense of Islam in the text is united with attacks on civilian targets.

Yeah, so? Like I said "defense of Islam" can refer to any struggle by Muslims against pretty much any power.

Those were civilian infrastructures used commonly by terrorists.
Those were not "civilians".

Well yes, I imagine terrorists do drink milk and use electricity, but that hardly makes the people working in those industries terrorists.

The term "targets" merely implies to a person that they're speaking about targeting them with deliberateness, those civilians become targets.

Targets implies it is something civilian being targeted. It does not imply civilians as targets, though it can include that. You see, that's the issue. A person can just as easily argue it refers to an attack on a power plant or some other strategic infrastructure typically run by civilians.

No you have not.

Yes I did:

You may think a person is justified in being angry without supporting them being angry.

You completely ignored the example.

And if one finds terrorism to be acceptable, if one believes terrorism is something that he can accept, then he clearly justifies terrorism and makes it acceptable.

It would appear you have a similarly amazing power: the ability to deflect facts. Look at the definitions and you will see a clear different between justifying something and accepting something. For instance, I do not think division of territories along ethnic lines is justified, but I can find it acceptable. That is to say I do not consider there to be a satisfactory reason for dividing territories along such lines, but I can find such division tolerable. However, even if I felt it were justified that does not mean I would support it.

I may think a person is justified in wanting revenge for some horrible wrong against them, but that does not mean I would support that person wanting revenge. Do you see the difference now?

Bigotry is ultimately causing irrationality on the subject, support for the murdering of the civilians of the other side does not.

Pull back a bit and look at what was said. I did not say either position was rational. What I said is that one position did not automatically suggest more general irrationality. Supporting certain tactics in war does not suggest an irrational position on the other group. Mere bigotry also does not suggest this, but you seem interested only in obfuscating the real issue. Believing that marriage to a member of the other group is akin to "national treason" is quite a bit different from thinking all Arabs are dirty or something similarly bigoted.

 

[Tashah]

Re: Eu Trade Commissioner says something bad about some Jews, you know what happens n

Moderator's Warning:

Get this thread back on topic or begin anew elsewhere