Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

A word is what man makes it to be, and that is what is was refered to when it was coined in the 1860's in German.

[venator]

superskippy wrote: Not really. Name a person who has labeled you an Anti-Semite in this thread.

Has Saracen been labeled an Anti-Semite?

Criticism exits, it is a myth that it is quashed in the manner you describe.

On this thread no one (yet);
1. because if they did I would have made my point, or,
2. I have the honor to discuss this issue with civilized, knowledgeable and selfcritical people... (for once).

However, would I have made these opinions go public (like at University)- then I wouldnt have to wait long to be labeled as one...

[superskippy]

Which I disagree with, their have been truckloads of papers written at Universites that criticise Israel.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Has Saracen been labeled an Anti-Semite?

I think we all know who comes into mind first when the issue of labelling arises.

HINT: It's not you, skippy. ;)

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The day Henry Kissinger won the Nobel "Peace" Prize was the day that Nobel Prizes ceased to have any serious (at all) on this planet.

I would say the day that Yasser Arafat, a guy who has beaten people (fellow Palestinians, no less) to death with a baseball bat while they were hanging by their ankles on a rope, had a lot more to do with it.
That's a beautiful Hegelian/Marxist dialectic way of responding..

Here learn something.
Quote: Hegelian dialectic

Hegel's dialectic, which he usually presented in a threefold manner, was vulgarized by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. Hegel rarely used these terms himself: this model is not Hegelian but Fichtean.

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being; but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing. When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (consider life: old organisms die as new organisms are created or born), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.

As in the Socratic dialectic, Hegel claimed to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit: each stage of the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage. For Hegel, the whole of history is one tremendous dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from self-alienation as slavery to self-unification and realization as the rational, constitutional state of free and equal citizens. The Hegelian dialectic cannot be mechanically applied for any chosen thesis. Critics argue that the selection of any antithesis, other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective. Then, if the logical negation is used as the antithesis, there is no rigorous way to derive a synthesis. In practice, when an antithesis is selected to suit the user's subjective purpose, the resulting "contradictions" are rhetorical, not logical, and the resulting synthesis not rigorously defensible against a multitude of other possible syntheses. The problem with the Fichtean "thesis — antithesis — synthesis" model is that it implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things. Hegel's point is that they are inherent in and internal to things. This conception of dialectics derives ultimately from Heraclitus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

The Hegelian dialectic is not a covert conspiratorial technique. It's an epistemological theory.

[cap'n queasy]

Some more information for you.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

[venator]

superskippy wrote: Which I disagree with, their have been truckloads of papers written at Universites that criticise Israel.

Oh, indeed- papers and studies might defend themselves; however giving opinions in public discussions is another story... :-|

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The day Henry Kissinger won the Nobel "Peace" Prize was the day that Nobel Prizes ceased to have any serious (at all) on this planet.

I would say the day that Yasser Arafat, a guy who has beaten people (fellow Palestinians, no less) to death with a baseball bat while they were hanging by their ankles on a rope, had a lot more to do with it.
That's a beautiful Hegelian/Marxist dialectic way of responding..

Here learn something.
Quote: Hegelian dialectic

Hegel's dialectic, which he usually presented in a threefold manner, was vulgarized by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. Hegel rarely used these terms himself: this model is not Hegelian but Fichtean.

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being; but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing. When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (consider life: old organisms die as new organisms are created or born), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.

As in the Socratic dialectic, Hegel claimed to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit: each stage of the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage. For Hegel, the whole of history is one tremendous dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from self-alienation as slavery to self-unification and realization as the rational, constitutional state of free and equal citizens. The Hegelian dialectic cannot be mechanically applied for any chosen thesis. Critics argue that the selection of any antithesis, other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective. Then, if the logical negation is used as the antithesis, there is no rigorous way to derive a synthesis. In practice, when an antithesis is selected to suit the user's subjective purpose, the resulting "contradictions" are rhetorical, not logical, and the resulting synthesis not rigorously defensible against a multitude of other possible syntheses. The problem with the Fichtean "thesis — antithesis — synthesis" model is that it implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things. Hegel's point is that they are inherent in and internal to things. This conception of dialectics derives ultimately from Heraclitus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

The Hegelian dialectic is not a covert conspiratorial technique. It's an epistemological theory.
Hegelian dialectics is a way of hyponotizing the masses into thinking there are only two (opposing) ways of looking at something.

When I say Kissinger, you say Arafat
When I say Republican, you say Democrat
When I say US, you say USSR (or perhaps these days, UN)

These are all examples of Hegelian dialectics.

[cap'n queasy]

No, they aren't.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: No, they aren't.
Fine, they aren't..

Then let's think up a new label for you, to describe what I'm talking about. Surely you understand the concept I'm trying to communicate? The idea that the public can be hyponized into thinking that there are just two possible (no more, no less) answers for any particular problem or issue..

It's either Democrat or Republican..
It's either US or USSR..
It's either conservative or liberal..

Let's call this idea or concept a "purple flarf choi".. :-D

The fact is, cap'n, you think in terms of "purple flarf chois" more than just about anyone else on this forum.. You should know also that "purple flarf chois" are the foundation upon which all of Communism is built. That's why I find it amusing that you're so quick to label others around you as "Marxists", even though you yourself greatly enjoy reducing the world into little more than "purple flarf chois"..

There.. you happy now? :lol:

[bob.appleyard]

psholtz wrote: The idea that the public can be hyponized into thinking that there are just two possible (no more, no less) answers for any particular problem or issue..

Let's call this idea or concept a "purple flarf choi"..

There's already a term. False Dilemma.

[Clara Listensprechen]

Quote: Seems like some people don't like them Jews. Looks like hating them is not very new.

David, I note with interest that NOWHERE IN YOUR LIST is there an account of the Ottomans persecuting the Jews, and yet these were the Muslim masters of the Palestine region until the end of World War I. There are Jews out there that would have us believe that all Muslims are necessarily anti-Jew (not "anti-semitic"--anti-Jew; Arabs are semitic).

Judaism is a relgion; it is not a race.

[Clara Listensprechen]

superskippy wrote: A word is what man makes it to be, and that is what is was refered to when it was coined in the 1860's in German.

...and embraced, in all its error, by the group that was persecuted by just such nonsense in Germany. Ironic, that.

Who's really semitic:

Accadians
Aramaeans
Himyaritians
Arabians
Hebrews
Phoenicians

=============================

Now, before some yayhoo pops up and points at the Hebrew entry and makes the stereotypical linguistic argument, I hasten to point out that Yiddish is NOT on this list. Not only that, but just learning speaking a language doesn't automatically put you into an ethnic group. Me speaking Spanish does not make me a Spaniard, either.

And even if there was no error to the designation, just what the heck is supposed to be the point of equating a religion to a race EXCEPT to exercise some kind of God-given right to be racist? The very notion of an article of faith which declares a particular chosen people having a higher regard by God than enjoyed by any other people made by God is racism at its most odious point.

[cap'n queasy]

Phoenicians were not semitic, and they are extinct.

And the insinuation that the Ashkenazim are not Hebrew is unfounded.

Quote: Jewish men from communities which developed in the Near East -- Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Yemen -- and European Jews have very similar, almost identical genetic profiles.


http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."
(M.F. Hammer, Proc. Nat'l Academy of Science, May 9, 2000)
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp