You are stupid and your logic analysis is stupid.
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
Hamas-Run Gaza Health Ministry Admits to Flaws in Casualty Data
The Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health said on April 6 that it had “incomplete data” for 11,371 of the 33,091 Palestinian fatalities it claims to have documented. In a statistical...www.fdd.org
Gaza Fatality Data Has Become Completely Unreliable
Given the discrepancies in official Palestinian counts and their growing reliance on questionable data from media reports, the credibility gaps revealed by a previous Washington Institute study have become yawning chasms.www.washingtoninstitute.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.
Islamophobia - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
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!
Firstly, the argumentum ad antiquitatem doesn't imply that all traditional beliefs are inherently incorrect, but it cautions against assuming something is correct simply because it is traditional. The critical issue here isn't that the current definition of "anti-Semitism" as exclusively anti-Jewish is wrong solely because it's an old definition, but that it fails to account for the full spectrum of Semitic peoples, which includes non-Jewish Semites who are also subjected to discrimination and violence, notably the Palestinians.
Swine (of the human sort) aren't kosher specifically because they do not ruminate. They "just believe" without thinking about what they are putting in their head. Who knows better than you what that does to people? Teeming vermin who go down on all fours aren't kosher too and also has direct human implications. According to God they are vile and loathsome creatures whose flesh (TEACHING) defiles and contaminates (the mind). Don't you agree? Here's a visual to help;
Right it still says what it says. And it doesn't matter what you call me, I am talking about how God's sees different types of people, everything from bottom feeders, swine, cattle, wolves, sheep, goats, dogs, maggots, serpents, teeming vermin, worms, to vultures in kosher law are metaphors for people in the vernacular of every language. How is that straining at a gnat?
So swing and a miss on your part. A month ago and further back, media outlets parroted the Hamas released numbers. A week ago, Hamas admits that those numbers are flawed. Check the dates on what you just posted. All you did was reinforce my point. Good work. And if you call statistical analyses by experts and Hamas' own admission to be hasbara then you haven't a clue. I'll add it to the words that you don't understand.
that's not the heart of the matter. That's your jealousy that there is a word that refers to Jews. The heart of the matter is your jealousy.
why is it outdated? Did Arabs change into "Semites" recently? Or were they "Semites" when the word was coined? If nothing changed and the word was intended to refer to Jews then it isn't outdated. Another term you seem unfamiliar with
No, by definition it refers to an attitude towards Jews. It is not emphasizing anything any more than any word "emphasizes" what it means.
So you are claiming victimhood because you don't get to use a word to describe actions against you even though there are other words available. All you want is to be included in that one word regardless of anything else. Sad. When you grow up and develop a respect for language, feel free to reach out and ask about things you don't yet understand.
Then there was zero need to build an ark. Simply move
well, actually, they are not kosher because God said so by delineating the qualities of an animal that is kosher and pointing out that pigs, among other animals, do not have those qualities.
Nope, I don't. The text is talking about animals and whether they are kosher (which has implications in a number of areas). This isn't about people.
I didn't call you anything
So you aere working to make a symbolic connection and reinterpreting the text so that it only refers to that symbolic level. Worrying about your interpretation and trying to find metaphorical meaning so that you can claim the text has relevance to a context outside of what it says it is about is straining at gnats, making too much of something and working too hard to try and make a point.
I don't recall feigning ignorance.
so? I mean, you must think this verse is significant because you cited it. But why? Yes, it is the law, but do you understand how the law works?
it refers to wild beasts of the field. Why assume it means anything else? Think!
God spoke through Moses by giving him precise words to use. Though this was sometimes the case with prophets, sometimes they chose their own words
Its not an assumption. When the talking serpent, an obvious metaphor for a narcissist, was condemned by God for 'beguiling" Adam and Eve he was condemned as "lower than cattle and all the wild beasts of the field" which in this context is most definitely about human lowlifes.
you have decided that the serpent was an "obvious" metaphor. (I bolded it) That isn't at all obvious. It isn't even persuasive. That is your personal interpretation.
Who is assuming that everything that Moses spoke was a metaphor or allegory? I am specifically referring to the figurative language used in the Law and subsequently the not so hidden subjects
So the fact that the serpent was talking isn't an obvious metaphor for a narcissistic con to you?
Except that it isn't figurative language unless you, personally, decide it is.
No it isn't. It isn't even a non-obvious metaphor for a narcissistic con.
Don't need them but thanks.
Right.
thanks but I'll stick with the teachings about the text that well predate your personal ideas.
No problem! I just thought that you might want to know that any story that starts with "In the beginning" just like "Once upon a time" and immediately intrudes a crafty talking serpent is a children's story with a sublime teaching essential to a fruitful life that was never written down....
Right. No condolences necessary? lol....
You can call it a children's story if that makes you feel better. The text begins with breisheet which is not "once upon a time".
If you study the text and really learn its meanings, you will see that your conclusions are imamture at best, uninformed more likely.
You can't accept that your personal interpretation isn't obvious or particularly convincing so you try to guess my motives. I'm currently neither dead, nor hiding anything.
