Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Direct human implications? No, it has animal implications, like pigs aren't kosher.Well yes I did. I also noticed that the specific reason given by God why the flesh of swine is unclean is because swine do not ruminate , chew the cud, which has direct human implications.
And so? If I call you a horse, or a fly, who cares? You are straining at gnats. You want the text not to mean what it says. That's fine. It still says what it says.Didn't you notice that in every nation tribe kingdom and language people have compared other people to lower beasts to either praise or insult ever since people could talk. Think already!
appealing to the majority? You also know very little about the concept of rhetorical fallacies. I'm citing the history and intent of the word. You again claim that there is a monopoly but there isn't any more than there is a monopoly on people with no hair when they get to be called "bald." You don't like the meaning and want it to change. So what? There are people who want to expand the word (instead of using another available term, or coining a more appropriate one) but so what? There are a lot of people who try to redefine "marriage" or "family" or "female." Do you follow along with every linguistic fad?
No, you are chosen to keep the Scriptures and the Commandments. You will never "earn" heaven.We were chosen to shoulder the burden of God's additional commandments and we are subject to a higher standard than non-Jews if we want to earn a place in "heaven."
really? that's ALL I talk about----and I also talk about justifying "MY SLAUGHTER ......"" you are sickYou're the one with the mind full of filth and rape, not me. That's all you talk about to justify your slaughter of those 33 thousand Gazan civilians, at least half of them were minors. Children. The world is watching.
- seems pretty straight forward to me.
that's because they wrote lies in their book for those that will use them to promote their own self interest as is their own objective - and obviously not a shred of evidence for any of their claims than their own self serving premonitions.
so why do they chose to be called semitic ... when that includes so many more. the rabbits think they are so clever.
Exactly, justifying your slaughter of 33 thousand civilians in Gaza, by claiming that supposedly the Muslims in the past, in another century, killed..blah blah blah...blah blah...hence we can today in 2024 kill 33 thousand Palestinian civilians with impunity. You're so out of it that you compare what you're doing in Gaza to the Allies fighting Nazi Germany. You bombing apartment complexes full of women, children, and the elderly, under the pretense of eliminating Hamas, have the gall to compare yourselves to the Allies of WW2 fighting the most powerful, advanced army in human history.really? that's ALL I talk about----and I also talk about justifying "MY SLAUGHTER ......"" you are sick
oof...not an auspicious start. Are you new at this? One of the things that many newer posters have wrong is this notion that there exists any rhetorical approach which is uniquely and inevitably fallacious. One of the early assignments I have for my students is to have them research a "fallacy" and present a discussion as to when, why and how it might not be a fallacy. Even just the labeling of something betrays facts about the labeler. You, for example, are cutting and pasting because this is material you don't really understand. And you haven't thought through the logic of your position. Had you really worked through it, you would have come up with rational questions and objections, like "wouldn't this mean that no dictionary is valid because it just perpetuates the tradition of lexical meaning?" or "so if the US Supreme Court rules 5-4 that something is settled as a matter of law, then does it not become, by some definition, "true" my the will of the majority?" or other obvious problems.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition or appeal to antiquity) is a fallacy that occurs when something is considered true or better simply because it is older, traditional, or "has always been done."- Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the majority or appeal to the people) is the fallacy of concluding that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. It often involves appealing to the emotions and values of a group to accept a claim as true.
so words, to you, have no particular meaning...if people want "no" to include "yes" then so be it. Have you ever noticed that Jews don't answer these charges by saying "Jews are Semites to the exclusion of ________"? You probably haven't been listening. Jews generally answer that the word "anti-semitic" was coined to refer to being against Jews not that Jews are Semites, alone. And since "semite" has to do with a language group are you claiming to be a language group? You haven't thought this through, have you?You're appealing to all of the above, stating that the term anti-Semiticism should continue to mean what it does now, irrespective of the fact that Jews aren't the only Semites.
you really don't get it, do you? Are you even reading the conspiratorial ramblings you cut and paste? Sometimes it seems like people don't even try -- if they want to play some troll role, at least rise above the insane...I and many others disagree with you and with the Western culture that has been hoodwinked by Jews playing the victims and pretending that term should only apply to them (Even when you're the ones doing much of the victimizing vs non-Jewish Semites).
look at this...possibly the single most perfect analog for the Middle East conflict:You xenophobic, misanthropic ZioNazis don't deserve to have that term exclusively refer to you, when you're not the only Semites. That's what I said and what many other people are saying too. How you and your buddies feel about our opinion is irrelevant, we don't care.
that would be your opinion, yes.No, you are chosen to keep the Scriptures and the Commandments. You will never "earn" heaven.
it is a christian vs jewish POV----christian theologians (at least, it seems, most of them) EMPHASIZE "faith" over works. Just BELIEVE and you get to PARADISO----uhm---the celestial rose of Dante. For jews---works---ie one's conduct in life is paramount. Muslims are more into "belief" than are jews but they also deal in "works" -----like "kill a jew and get jannah and whories and eternal orgasmthat would be your opinion, yes.
that would be your opinion, yes.
you do realize that it all can be untrue.
He gave it the New Testament meaning as inspired by God. Lots of OT traditions were changed to a higher meaning.Going to mikvah is not inherently tied to the temple and the fact that he took a jewish practice and twisted it doesn't change the fact that he was taking a Jewish practice.
oof...not an auspicious start. Are you new at this? One of the things that many newer posters have wrong is this notion that there exists any rhetorical approach which is uniquely and inevitably fallacious. One of the early assignments I have for my students is to have them research a "fallacy" and present a discussion as to when, why and how it might not be a fallacy. Even just the labeling of something betrays facts about the labeler. You, for example, are cutting and pasting because this is material you don't really understand. And you haven't thought through the logic of your position. Had you really worked through it, you would have come up with rational questions and objections, like "wouldn't this mean that no dictionary is valid because it just perpetuates the tradition of lexical meaning?" or "so if the US Supreme Court rules 5-4 that something is settled as a matter of law, then does it not become, by some definition, "true" my the will of the majority?" or other obvious problems.
so words, to you, have no particular meaning...if people want "no" to include "yes" then so be it. Have you ever noticed that Jews don't answer these charges by saying "Jews are Semites to the exclusion of ________"? You probably haven't been listening. Jews generally answer that the word "anti-semitic" was coined to refer to being against Jews not that Jews are Semites, alone. And since "semite" has to do with a language group are you claiming to be a language group? You haven't thought this through, have you?
you really don't get it, do you? Are you even reading the conspiratorial ramblings you cut and paste? Sometimes it seems like people don't even try -- if they want to play some troll role, at least rise above the insane...
look at this...possibly the single most perfect analog for the Middle East conflict:
a European sets aside a [word/land] for Jews based on history, biblical and linguistic
b. well after the fact, Muslims and other assorted Jew Haters decided that Jews shouldn't get to have a [word/land]
c. Muslims do have a [word/land] but they insist that, never-the-less there should be no word that would exclude them
d. Muslims insist that this [land/word] set aside for Jews has to be given to anyone who claims to be a descendant of a biblical personage
e. Jews point to fact A and Muslims insist that no one had the right to define a [land/word] that Muslims claim is historically theirs
f. The world begins to call a Jew's use of the [word/land] misappropriation, a cultural genocide, colonialism
g. Jews point again to fact A, confused as to why this is leaving any room for doubt.
h. The haters, all who, holders of developed lands/vocabularies and free to make up whatever laws they want, have benefit of vast resources still demand this one, single [word/land].
I'm sure many people could keep finding more connections.
Even in its holy books that is said to be false.good definition----Jews have their own religion and have been struggling
for millennia to keep it that way
You see, you completely miss the point and try to impose your misunderstanding on the situation. I am not claiming that jews have a monopoly on anything -- you are. I'm saying that definitions of words are not monopolies (or else you would argue that all words should be expanded to include whatever we want, so yes can include no). It isn't a privilege to be the subject of anti-semitism any more than it is a privilege to be the subject of any other irrational hatred. It isn't a privilege to be called "brown haired" nor is it a monopoly for brown-haired people. It is about what a word means.What a word salad. You're claiming Jews should have the monopoly or exclusive right to the term "anti=semiticism" or "anti-semitic" because the majority of people in the English-speaking world recognize that term as referring only to Jewish Semites, but my position and of those who agree with me is that Jews don't deserve the privilege or favor of the English speaking world applying that term exclusively to Jews.
The "de facto standard"? is that how you classify any definition of a word? In your world, is "tuna" applied to the proper species of fish because it is a defacto standard that could change tomorrow? Or is it just the specific term for a specific fish and that is just the function of a definition?You're being pedantic and disingenuous with your objections to my opinion, pretending my criticism is invalid because the de facto standard is to recognize the term in question as only referring to Jewish Semites.
Appealing to the authority of both the history and the current use in line with that history debunks everything you said. If you want to reject history and any established and codified language system, feel free.Appealing to the De Facto reality doesn't debunk anything that I've said despite your wordy response.
Actually, you haven't been arguing for broadening, but against a claimed monopoly which doesn't exist. You don't want an expansion because it will benefit others, but you want a breaking of the monopoly you perceive because you are against Jews.Here is my word salad, in response to yours (Isaac and Ishmael throwing lettuce at each other):
My Position
- Broadening the Definition: I'm arguing for extending the definition of "anti-Semitism" to include all Semitic peoples, reflecting a more inclusive understanding of the term.
That's not an actual argument about linguistics. Maintaining the actual definition of the word has no impact on world events (and Orthodox Jews don't identify Western Europeans as "Edomites" but it is fun to watch you try to tell me what I do). Maintaining one word just means that others that exist should be used when the extant word is inapplicable.
- Ethical Considerations: I and those who agree with me, highlight the ethical implications of maintaining an exclusive definition of that term for xenophobic, narcissistic murderous Jews, especially given the current geopolitical tensions involving Jewish actions in Gaza against non-Jewish Semites (civilians). For way too long, the Jewish Zionist (ZioNazi) narrative has been blindly accepted in the Western Christian world, especially among American Evangelicals and self-hating Western Europeans (i.e. "Edomites" as Orthodox Jews hatefully, pejoratively identify them), leading to bigotted sentiments against non-Jewish Arab Muslim Semites in the Western world, and a foreign policy that undermines Muslim interests not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.
Over time, words can (not must or even will) change. Some words don't, and the process of change is incremental. But again, a change in a word doesn't come from insisting that it can't mean what it says because a group doesn't deserve it.Points To Consider:
- Historical Flexibility: Language and terms evolve. Historical definitions can change as social attitudes and understandings develop. Want some examples? Let me know.
so "anti-Christian" should include Muslims then so it can be more inclusive, right? Maybe "Islamaphobia" should include sentiments against athiests and hamsters. You know, for inclusivity. We can then require that "male" includes "female". For inclusivity.
- Inclusivity in Language: There should be more inclusivity, especially in terms of who is a Semite. Exclusive use of terms identifying Semites can and does perpetuate negative Western sentiments against non-Jewish Semites, specifically Arab Muslims (i.e. Which includes Palestinians).
Then you don't know the history of the term, as it was designed and intended to make a scientific claim about how semitic identity (though, because that is a label for a language group, this requires a changing of the word to include people) is the same as handedness. Your ignornace of this history is feuling a foolish approach on your part.
- Logical Consistency: I'm highlighting that social and racial identities are qualitatively different from preferences or physical characteristics like handedness. The impact of your disingenuous, flippant mislabeling of social identities can have profound implications compared to less impactful distinctions.
You are mixing up your arguments. No where in any Israeli law is there mention that a "Semite" from anywhere has a right to migrate and receive citizenship. So changing the term wouldn't change anything. Since you feel comfy conflating terms and then misrepresenting laws, you might not understand this little bit of intellectual honesty which i just presented. Maybe someone can explain it to you better.
- Appeal to Ethical Standards: The ethical, real-world implications of exclusive language when it comes to identifying Semites or anti-Semiticism in shaping social justice and recognition of Palestinian human rights, legitimizing their national and cultural identity, and right to self-determination and statehood. If a Jewish Semite from Poland, Germany or Crown Heights Brooklyn, supposedly has a right to migrate to the Middle East and receive citizenship in a Jewish State on what was once Palestinian indigenous land, how much more do Palestinian indigenous Semites living there have the right to citizenship and being treated equally with Jews? My argument isn't that Jews have no right to live there, but that all parties should be treated equally.
Except that the category doesn't actually exist and no one is trying to exclude anyone from any label of "semite" (in whatever sense you think it exists). The problem is that the word "anti-semitic" and its forms were coined not as an adjunct to an existing "semite" label. It was created as a unit to mean "anti-Jew". You have no appreciation for the history of the word so you try to insist that your breaking it down and rebranding it has any value.Addressing Your Unnecessarily Complex, Pedantic Sophistry:
- Your Misunderstandings: My argument is not against the existence of a term but against the restrictive application that excludes other groups of the same category (Semite)
You see, you completely miss the point and try to impose your misunderstanding on the situation. I am not claiming that jews have a monopoly on anything -- you are. I'm saying that definitions of words are not monopolies (or else you would argue that all words should be expanded to include whatever we want, so yes can include no). It isn't a privilege to be the subject of anti-semitism any more than it is a privilege to be the subject of any other irrational hatred. It isn't a privilege to be called "brown haired" nor is it a monopoly for brown-haired people. It is about what a word means.
The "de facto standard"? is that how you classify any definition of a word? In your world, is "tuna" applied to the proper species of fish because it is a defacto standard that could change tomorrow? Or is it just the specific term for a specific fish and that is just the function of a definition?
Appealing to the authority of both the history and the current use in line with that history debunks everything you said. If you want to reject history and any established and codified language system, feel free.
Actually, you haven't been arguing for broadening, but against a claimed monopoly which doesn't exist. You don't want an expansion because it will benefit others, but you want a breaking of the monopoly you perceive because you are against Jews.
That's not an actual argument about linguistics. Maintaining the actual definition of the word has no impact on world events (and Orthodox Jews don't identify Western Europeans as "Edomites" but it is fun to watch you try to tell me what I do). Maintaining one word just means that others that exist should be used when the extant word is inapplicable.
Over time, words can (not must or even will) change. Some words don't, and the process of change is incremental. But again, a change in a word doesn't come from insisting that it can't mean what it says because a group doesn't deserve it.
so "anti-Christian" should include Muslims then so it can be more inclusive, right? Maybe "Islamaphobia" should include sentiments against athiests and hamsters. You know, for inclusivity. We can then require that "male" includes "female". For inclusivity.
Then you don't know the history of the term, as it was designed and intended to make a scientific claim about how semitic identity (though, because that is a label for a language group, this requires a changing of the word to include people) is the same as handedness. Your ignornace of this history is feuling a foolish approach on your part.
You are mixing up your arguments. No where in any Israeli law is there mention that a "Semite" from anywhere has a right to migrate and receive citizenship. So changing the term wouldn't change anything. Since you feel comfy conflating terms and then misrepresenting laws, you might not understand this little bit of intellectual honesty which i just presented. Maybe someone can explain it to you better.
Except that the category doesn't actually exist and no one is trying to exclude anyone from any label of "semite" (in whatever sense you think it exists). The problem is that the word "anti-semitic" and its forms were coined not as an adjunct to an existing "semite" label. It was created as a unit to mean "anti-Jew". You have no appreciation for the history of the word so you try to insist that your breaking it down and rebranding it has any value.
You lack any understanding of how words (and how logic and rhetorical devices) work. You are letting your vitriol drive your approach and it is making you look dumber than anyone thought possible.
You see, you completely miss the point and try to impose your misunderstanding on the situation. I am not claiming that jews have a monopoly on anything -- you are. I'm saying that definitions of words are not monopolies (or else you would argue that all words should be expanded to include whatever we want, so yes can include no). It isn't a privilege to be the subject of anti-semitism any more than it is a privilege to be the subject of any other irrational hatred. It isn't a privilege to be called "brown haired" nor is it a monopoly for brown-haired people. It is about what a word means.
The "de facto standard"? is that how you classify any definition of a word? In your world, is "tuna" applied to the proper species of fish because it is a defacto standard that could change tomorrow? Or is it just the specific term for a specific fish and that is just the function of a definition?
Appealing to the authority of both the history and the current use in line with that history debunks everything you said. If you want to reject history and any established and codified language system, feel free.
Actually, you haven't been arguing for broadening, but against a claimed monopoly which doesn't exist. You don't want an expansion because it will benefit others, but you want a breaking of the monopoly you perceive because you are against Jews.
That's not an actual argument about linguistics. Maintaining the actual definition of the word has no impact on world events (and Orthodox Jews don't identify Western Europeans as "Edomites" but it is fun to watch you try to tell me what I do). Maintaining one word just means that others that exist should be used when the extant word is inapplicable.
Over time, words can (not must or even will) change. Some words don't, and the process of change is incremental. But again, a change in a word doesn't come from insisting that it can't mean what it says because a group doesn't deserve it.
so "anti-Christian" should include Muslims then so it can be more inclusive, right? Maybe "Islamaphobia" should include sentiments against athiests and hamsters. You know, for inclusivity. We can then require that "male" includes "female". For inclusivity.
Then you don't know the history of the term, as it was designed and intended to make a scientific claim about how semitic identity (though, because that is a label for a language group, this requires a changing of the word to include people) is the same as handedness. Your ignornace of this history is feuling a foolish approach on your part.
You are mixing up your arguments. No where in any Israeli law is there mention that a "Semite" from anywhere has a right to migrate and receive citizenship. So changing the term wouldn't change anything. Since you feel comfy conflating terms and then misrepresenting laws, you might not understand this little bit of intellectual honesty which i just presented. Maybe someone can explain it to you better.
Except that the category doesn't actually exist and no one is trying to exclude anyone from any label of "semite" (in whatever sense you think it exists). The problem is that the word "anti-semitic" and its forms were coined not as an adjunct to an existing "semite" label. It was created as a unit to mean "anti-Jew". You have no appreciation for the history of the word so you try to insist that your breaking it down and rebranding it has any value.
You lack any understanding of how words (and how logic and rhetorical devices) work. You are letting your vitriol drive your approach and it is making you look dumber than anyone thought possible.
though this all belongs on another thread, I'll put here that you are wrong. No one is demanding "exclusive rights". You keep stamping your feet and insisting it is so, but all people are asking for is that words that mean something are used to mean that. You would prefer a language that has no meaning because anything can mean anyone.First and foremost,the ongoing situation in Gaza underscores a grave irony that cannot be ignored: the group most vocally demanding exclusive rights to the term "anti-Semitism" is actively involved in actions that result in the loss of countless innocent lives, including those of Semitic Palestinians.
you are starting with a number that came from Hamas and that even Hamas admits is wrongThe stark figures as of today—33,000 civilians, half of whom are children, slaughtered in a brutal, criminal bombing campaign
www.fdd.org
why does any action against any group change the meaning of a word or mean that it shouldn't mean what it means? The answer is is can't. The language expanded in 1923 to include a word that relates to Muslims.—highlight an ironic contradiction. How can one justify monopolizing the term "anti-Semitism" for Jews, while these same Jews are simultaneously perpetrating such violence against Semitic people? The answer is clear, we can't.
Your claim is that a word should mean whatever you think it should mean. That leads to an anarchic approach to language and communication. The fact that you are relying on the structure of English to write your posts means that you explicitly cede authority to the dictionary and rules of English. Except you don't when it comes to one word because you don't like it. That doesn't change the reality of language no matter how many times you insist it could.Furthermore, you've elaborated on many things, yet fundamentally, you’ve skirted the central issue: the need to reconsider the restrictive use of "anti-Semitism." It’s clear from your verbose response that you prefer clinging to a narrow, historically contingent definition, one that, in effect, sidelines countless others who also endure the harsh realities of bigotry under the broad Semitic umbrella. Your claim—that Jews don't monopolize victimhood and that word definitions aren't monopolies either—ironically supports the very expansion of the term that I’m advocating.
So when you go to a restaurant, feel free to order the tuna and be happy when they serve you salmon. Your want words to believe whatever you want. That's not how reality works. You want "inclusivity" then you want it across the board or you are being a hypocrite.Definitions of words, as you yourself acknowledged, are not immutable laws but social constructs that should adapt to the evolving understanding of the world. “Tuna,” as you quizzically mentioned, wasn't always strictly defined, and even now, different cultures might include species that others wouldn’t. Thus, sticking to a rigid interpretation when more inclusive alternatives exist isn’t just pedantic—it’s intellectually stagnant.
No it doesn't, any more than using any word in the way that the dictionary and history dictate is "sleight of hand." Your jealousy is really pathetic.When you argue about the function of a definition, you seem to miss the point deliberately: language is a living, breathing entity that morphs as society does. Holding onto the original meaning of "anti-Semitism" as strictly anti-Jew is an intellectual sleight of hand that ignores centuries of linguistic evolution and social dynamics.
WITHIN IT'S TAXONOMIC GROUPING! How monopolistic of you! How can you limit it like that? What about inclusivity? This is hateful. Why do you choose to be hateful to all the other fish who want to be called tuna? Pity the poor carp and the shark, both of which might be called tuna by people and therefore, they should be included in the title of "tuna."Just as we don’t require that "tuna" exclusively refer to one specific type of fish to the exclusion of all others within its taxonomic grouping, we shouldn’t limit "Semitic" to Jewish individuals alone.
I am appealing to authority as it relates to the coining and meaning of the word. You reject that authority as it relates to a single word. That's hypocritical of you.You invoke history selectively, appealing to authority when it suits your argument
So you are ignoring that the term is "semitic languages" because people aren't actually "semitic". But hey, that's just the history and use of the word. Feel free to change that because you want to., yet you dismiss the broader historical context that includes all Semitic peoples.
not only isn't that a case of reductio anything, but it isn't flippant. It is the natural and logical extension of your position. You are against "exclusivity in language" but don't embrace inclusivity for another word. Strange.Your arguments about orthodoxy in definitions, your flippant reductio ad absurdum examples of "Islamophobia" including atheists and hamsters, are not just unhelpful, they’re deliberately obfuscating the real issue—exclusivity in language that leads to exclusivity in understanding and empathy.
So since the Irish were called "white slaves" they should be included in the term "blacks" because they were called "slaves."The issue at hand is not about dismantling the linguistic identity of a word but expanding it to reflect a broader truth that encompasses more than just one group’s experiences.
You have this urge to muddy the water. There is a clear linguistic point here but you are so angry about a word that you try to drag in all sorts of irrelevancies to fuel your baseless linguistic wishes.Moreover, your attempt to trivialize the ongoing and legitimate concerns of non-Jewish Semites, particularly Palestinians, under the guise of maintaining linguistic purity, is not just intellectually dishonest—it’s morally disgusting. It ignores the lived realities of millions and prioritizes semantic gatekeeping over human empathy and understanding.
And "bird" should include paper airplanes. And hamsters can be victims of Islamophobia. Break the monopoly that Muslims have on the word and be more inclusive!Thus, I stand firmer than ever on the need to broaden the definition of "anti-Semitism" to encompass all forms of bigotry against Semitic peoples. If words can evolve to include new realities like digital technology and internet slang, they can and should evolve to reflect deeper, more inclusive understandings of race, ethnicity, and bigotry. This isn't about undermining Jewish experiences of anti-Semitism; it's about acknowledging that they do not stand alone in facing hostility and prejudice. The true monopoly here isn’t over a word—it’s over who gets to claim legitimacy in suffering and resistance, and it's time that monopoly was broken.
