Direct human implications? No, it has animal implications, like pigs aren't kosher.
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.
No, you are chosen to keep the Scriptures and the Commandments. You will never "earn" heaven.
really? that's ALL I talk about----and I also talk about justifying "MY SLAUGHTER ......"" you are sick
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.
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:
that would be your opinion, yes.
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 orgasm
He gave it the New Testament meaning as inspired by God. Lots of OT traditions were changed to a higher meaning.
Even in its holy books that is said to be false.
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.
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.
you are starting with a number that came from Hamas and that even Hamas admits is wrong
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
So since the Irish were called "white slaves" they should be included in the term "blacks" because they were called "slaves."
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.
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!
