Is Anti-Zionism the Same as Anti-Semitism?

[rosends]

Again I've seen it all before, read about it for years.

You see the approach isn't to justify this or that act of violence or explain this or that case as due to some details of which we are unaware, no, that isn't the aproach.

Then what is the approach? denial, complete blatant denial, we are asked to not trust our own eyes and ears, we are told that we have completely misjudged the situation, that the reality is the exact opposite of what or common sense reveals to us.

This is how Hitler demonized the Jews, not on some case by case examples but as a complete narrative, Jews are a threat to Germans and Germany, they are akin to rats, they refuse assimilate, they cannot be trusted.

It's sad, truly sad that you embrace the same strategy to lie about victims as the Nazis did to lie about Jews.

As I said already I don't need a Nazi to "explain" Nazism to me, we didn't need it 80 years ago when my ancestors fought against them and we didn't accept their claptrap at Nuremberg either.

You cannot fool me.

I can't fool you because you have already been fooled. That's a you problem. Keep avoiding so you don't risk learning anything.

 

[Churchill]

I can't fool you because you have already been fooled. That's a you problem. Keep avoiding so you don't risk learning anything.

The Nazis used a similar retort when accused of crimes against humanity. You see I learned from the Holocaust, from history and that's why I can't be fooled. You've learned nothing from it.

 

[rosends]

The Nazis used a similar retort when accused of crimes against humanity. You see I learned from the Holocaust, from history and that's why I can't be fooled.

You claim this and yet you know nothing. Fascinating. Just make sure you don't ask a mathematician about math. You might learn something.

 

[Churchill]

You claim this and yet you know nothing.

How did you establish that? by me disagreeing with you?

Fascinating. Just make sure you don't ask a mathematician about math.

Asking a mathematician about mathematics is not analogous to asking a Nazi about Nazism.

You might learn something.

But not from you.

 

[rosends]

How did you establish that? by me disagreeing with you?

No, by your making claims that show ignorance. You know, your fruits.

Asking a mathematician about mathematics is not analogous to asking a Nazi about Nazism.

Asking an expert about an area of personal knowledge and expertise? Yeah...totally different

But not from you.

Because you might learn something. Got it.

 

[Churchill]

No, by your making claims that show ignorance. You know, your fruits.

Asking an expert about an area of personal knowledge and expertise? Yeah...totally different

So you'd believe a Nazi if he said Jews were a threat to Germany, likes rats they must be ejected from society, an inferior race of primitives etc?

Because you might learn something. Got it.

Like you might learn something from reading Mein Kampf? start to see Hitler and the Nazis as victims of a huge Jewish conspiracy? correct the unfair interpretation of their ideology all these years?

You're an idiot and any rational open minded person reading this conversation will quickly come to see that.

 

[rosends]

So you'd believe a Nazi if he said Jews were a threat to Germany

No, I would believe a Nazi if he said that a core element of Nazi belief was that Jews are a threat to Germany.

, likes rats they must be ejected from society, an inferior race of primitives etc?

If a Nazi told me that those were beliefs of Nazism, I would believe him. I guess you wouldn't.

Like you might learn something from reading Mein Kampf? start to see Hitler and the Nazis as victims of a huge Jewish conspiracy?

Not sure why you have gone so far off the rails. Try to make sense and stick with relevant points.

 

[Churchill]

No, I would believe a Nazi if he said that a core element of Nazi belief was that Jews are a threat to Germany.

But not if he said Jews were a threat to Germany, were akin to rats? after all, as you say, he's an expert why not believe him? you might learn something.

If a Nazi told me that those were beliefs of Nazism, I would believe him. I guess you wouldn't.

But not if he told you his beliefs were true? facts based on evidence? that the Holocaust was justified?

Not sure why you have gone so far off the rails. Try to make sense and stick with relevant points.

If you're confused then I can't help you, don't start debates if you are ill prepared.

There, now you've learned something.

 

[rosends]

But not if he said Jews were a threat to Germany, were akin to rats? after all, as you say, he's an expert why not believe him? you might learn something.

I am not asking him about his opinion, but about the stance/position of his ideology. Try to keep focus.

But not if he told you his beliefs were true? facts based on evidence?

I'm not asking that. The question was whether an expert in a group can define that group. You are having a hard time sticking to the point, aren't you? Glad I could help.

 

[Anarchy666]

Most of the time, it is. But not always.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Like you might learn something from reading Mein Kampf?

The most boring book l’ve ever read.

 

[Churchill]

I am not asking him about his opinion, but about the stance/position of his ideology. Try to keep focus.

His opinions reflect his ideology. That's why Nazis exterminated six million Jews, their devotion to the ideology led to them act upon those beliefs.

I'm not asking that. The question was whether an expert in a group can define that group.

No, the question was whether one should trust a purported expert in a group when what they say contradicts the actions of said group. Why do you think a Nazi is the best source of information of Nazism? What do you do when the claims of a Nazi are contrary to observed actions of Nazis?

You are having a hard time sticking to the point, aren't you? Glad I could help.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, get's you thinking doesn't it.

No. Your fallacies and would-be “arguments” only make me laugh harder at you, Pooh.

I don't know the answer.

A fine confession.

I chose Nazi Germany as an example because it's in the past, over and we can use hindsight to help answer it.

No. You were attempting to use a fallacy to make your “position” seem as though it could have had any merit. It doesn’t.

Since you can't answer whether it had a right to exist,

Can’t? A refusal to play your childish games is not an inability.

what chance do we have of answering the question with respect to Israel?

Since there is no valid nexus between your fraudulent question and the one I asked, you shouldn’t have any difficulty answering it. But I knew you wouldn’t. And it’s obvious why you instead chose to suck, cover and run away.

I mean explain please how do we decide if some state has a "right" to exist or not, what is the test we must apply?

That’s not the worst question a poseur like you could ask, Pooh. I’m mildly surprised.

But who says it’s up to you?

 

[rosends]

His opinions reflect his ideology.

Or they don't. That's why i would ask his ideology, not his opinions.

That's why Nazis exterminated six million Jews, their devotion to the ideology led to them act upon those beliefs.

Right -- so we can talk about the beliefs.

No, the question was whether one should trust a purported expert in a group when what they say contradicts the actions of said group.

So if a Nazi says "Nazism says that Jews are inferior and need to be killed" you wouldn't believe him. Got it. You would wait until he actually kills someone to believe that about the group.

Why do you think a Nazi is the best source of information of Nazism? What do you do when the claims of a Nazi are contrary to observed actions of Nazis?

Then I continue to believe that the ideology of Nazism is as explained. If the Nazi goes and buys ice cream, I don't connect it to his beliefs.