Is Anti-Zionism the Same as Anti-Semitism?

[Churchill]

No. Your posts instead reveal your inability and unwillingness to discuss facts or to use logic. Adding “modern” as a modifier doesn’t change anything since it’s just verbal clutter.

Yes. It is.

You already tried that canard. What possible purpose would be served by “reporting” your anti Semitism? It’s not like any action would ever be taken.

So what evidence do you have that I am an antisemite?

 

[Churchill]

But you don't know modern Zionist ideology and you don't want an actual Zionist to explain it to you. So there's that.

My position as I said already, is a Jewish position, the same as many notable Jewish intellectuals. You could argue "anyone who is opposed to Zionism is either an antisemite or doesn't understand Zionism" but that's a fallacy.

Chomsky, Pape, Finkelstein, the late Hajo Meyer (Holocaust survivor) are not antisemites and they do understand Zionism and they disapprove of it.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is not a rational argument.

 

[rosends]

My position as I said already, is a Jewish position, the same as many notable Jewish intellectuals.

why do the statements of indivudal Jews make a stated position "Jewish"?

You could argue "anyone who is opposed to Zionism is either an antisemite or doesn't understand Zionism" but that's a fallacy.

No, I couldn't. That wouldn't be a true argument so I wouldn't make it. One can understand Zionism and be against it and not be against Judaism.

Chomsky, Pape, Finkelstein are not antisemites and they do understand Zionism.

No, they actually don't. Why would you think a linguist would be informed about world geopolitics? Why are these names somehow persuasive to you? I can give you loads of actual representative voices who support Zionism. Is their position a Jewish one?

The No True Scotsman fallacy is not a rational argument.

Good thing I didn't make it.

 

[BackAgain]

So what evidence do you have that I am an antisemite?

Your posts.

 

[Churchill]

Your posts.

Why not report them then? surely a post that is antisemitic cannot be ignored? surely as a forum member you'd do something to right such a wrong? perhaps you are the antisemite here a person who refuses to report antisemitism to the moderators.

 

[BackAgain]

Why not report them then? surely a post that is antisemitic cannot be ignored? surely as a forum member you'd do something to right such a wrong? perhaps you are the antisemite here a person who refuses to report antisemitism to the moderators.

A canard. “Reporting” your imbecility is meaningless, as I already correctly noted.

 

[Churchill]

why do the statements of indivudal Jews make a stated position "Jewish"?

Because its a position espoused by Jews as opposed to non-Jews.

No, I couldn't. That wouldn't be a true argument so I wouldn't make it. One can understand Zionism and be against it and not be against Judaism.

Indeed.

No, they actually don't. Why would you think a linguist would be informed about world geopolitics?

Why do you think his professional title has any bearing on the legitimacy of his arguments on other subjects?

Why are these names somehow persuasive to you?

Their names are not persuasive, where did you get that idea?

I can give you loads of actual representative voices who support Zionism. Is their position a Jewish one?

Not unless they are Jews.

Good thing I didn't make it.

 

[Churchill]

A canard. “Reporting” your imbecility is meaningless, as I already correctly noted.

Why do you have a policy of not reporting antisemitic posts?

 

[BackAgain]

Why do you have a policy of not reporting antisemitic posts?

Buy a new line or even a clue.

 

[Churchill]

Buy a new line or even a clue.

Would you say a person who refuses to report antisemitism to the relevant authorities must be an antisemite?

 

[BackAgain]

Would you say a person who refuses to report antisemitism to the relevant authorities must be an antisemite?

I would say that your idiotic current line of “argument” only serves to establish what a moron you are.

 

[rosends]

Because its a position espoused by Jews as opposed to non-Jews.

so anything a Jew says makes it a Jewish position? If one Jew likes vanilla, well then, that makes it a Jewish position. Got it.

Why do you think his professional title has any bearing on the legitimacy of his arguments on other subjects?

Because it shows his area of expertise. Why would anyone assume that an expert on waterlillies has an informed opinion about space travel that should be heeded?

Their names are not persuasive, where did you get that idea?

because you didn't cite anything other than their names. Certainly not their relevant qualifications.

Not unless they are Jews.

ah, but then, "Jewish position" even if it flatly contradicts Judaism or has nothing to do with it. Got it.

 

[rosends]

Would you say a person who refuses to report antisemitism to the relevant authorities must be an antisemite?

this is patently false. Why would anyone say this?

 

[Churchill]

I would say that your idiotic current line of “argument” only serves to establish what a moron you are.

Well you sir are an antisemite, prepared to tolerate and take no action when you see antisemitic acts taking place, look the other way, make up some excuse as to why you won't report such things, you're a good actor, but you didn't fool me.

 

[BackAgain]

Well you sir are an antisemite, prepared to tolerate and take no action when you see antisemitic acts taking place, look the other way, make up some excuse as to why you won't report such things, you're a good actor, but you didn't fool me.

You’re too stupid to breathe without written instructions.

 

[Churchill]

so anything a Jew says makes it a Jewish position? If one Jew likes vanilla, well then, that makes it a Jewish position. Got it.

I said it's "a" Jewish position not "the" Jewish position, perhaps that helps you understand better.

Because it shows his area of expertise. Why would anyone assume that an expert on waterlillies has an informed opinion about space travel that should be heeded?

Please explain how one's job title restricts the areas of knowledge they can be proficient in? What prevents an expert on waterlilies developing expertise in space travel?

Why do you think I assumed anything? I judge their arguments on their merits or want thereof, why do you assume a person's professional title and specialty bars them from being proficient in other areas?

Michael Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, Ada Lovelace had no degrees yet was the first programmer, Gregor Mendel was a Monk with no degrees yet is regarded as the father of genetics, the Wright Brothers had no degrees yet were the originators of powered flight, Thomas Edison too, must I go on or do you understand now?

No wonder you are so confused about Zionism.

because you didn't cite anything other than their names. Certainly not their relevant qualifications.

Well when we cite people it is understood we are referring to their publications not their names alone, I assumed you understood that.

ah, but then, "Jewish position" even if it flatly contradicts Judaism or has nothing to do with it. Got it.

 

[rosends]

I said it's "a" Jewish position not "the" Jewish position, perhaps that's help you understand better.

but you didn't say "it was a left-hander's opinion" or "a grandmother's opinion". You called it "a Jewish position." What about it makes it Jewish? Simply that a Jew said the words? Are you really that simple minded?

Please explain how one's job title restricts the areas of knowledge they can be proficient in? What prevents an expert on waterlilies developing expertise in space travel?

Nothing but until I see evidence of that expertise, I don't assume that "expert in X means expert in Y."

Michael Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, Ada Lovelace had no degrees yet was the first programmer, Gregor Mendel was a Monk with no degrees yet is regarded as the father of genetics, the Wright Brothers had no degrees yet were the originators of powered flight, Thomas Edison too, must I go on or do you understand now?

about people proving expertise? I have always known that. Why are you moving to this line of thought. This is the position I was espousing -- prove expertise. Can you show me Chomsky's bona fides regarding Zionism?

Well when we cite people it is understood we are referring to their publications not their names alone, I assumed you understood that.

When one cites Chomsky, one is referring to his linguistic publications. Why would anyone assume you refer to anything outside of his accredited expertise?