You don't care that your position is logically fallacious?
Cycloptichorn
FreeDuck wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Is there a reasonable conclusion to reach when one is anti-Israel other than they are anti-Jew?
Whoa Nelly! Tico, this surprises me coming from you. Let's see, would being against Sudan mean that you were a racist? Anti-Saudi Arabia = anti-semitic? (Semites include more than just Jews) Anti-Mexico = racist against hispanics?
No, don't be absurd. But since Israel is the only Jewish state, it is an easy conclusion to reach.
Quote:So to your original question, the answer is yes. One can be against the actions of Israel, even against its very existence, and still not be anti-Jew.
In my opinion you're threading a very small needle to claim that one who does not want Israel to exist is not anti-Jew. Anti-Zionism may not equal anti-Jewish, but it's awful close. Close enough for me to conclude Sheehan fits the description. Again, you might not agree ....
I care less and less for your opinions, as well. Despite evidence of intelligence, you let yourself be overwhelmed with partisan bigotry and hateful invective. Your opinions are disgusting.
Being opposed to the policies of the Israeli government does not by definition make her anti-Zionist. Even were she anti-Zionist, that does not make her by definition anti-semitic. You've let your partisan obsessions overwhelm what passes for intellect in your noggin.
How did you arrive at the brilliant conclusion that Sheehan does not want Israel to exist?
Setanta wrote:I care less and less for your opinions, as well. Despite evidence of intelligence, you let yourself be overwhelmed with partisan bigotry and hateful invective.
Apparently you forgot you held me in contempt. I hadn't thought that had changed. I'm glad I could remind you.
Quote: Your opinions are disgusting.
So are yours.
Quote:Being opposed to the policies of the Israeli government does not by definition make her anti-Zionist.
The lady does not want Israel to exist. That is anti-Zionist.
Quote:Even were she anti-Zionist, that does not make her by definition anti-semitic.
Perhaps not by definition, but it does in my view.
Quote:You've let your partisan obsessions overwhelm what passes for intellect in your noggin.
Partisan? Hardly.
Ticomaya wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:You don't care that your position is logically fallacious?
Cycloptichorn
No, I don't.
This pretty much sums up your side of the argument, doesn't it?
Logic has nothing to do with your reason for coming to conclusions in this case; therefore, your opinion is less than meaningless, it is destructive to the conversation...
Cycloptichorn
Well, this certainly has been a bravura performance on Tico's part--innuendo, statements from opinion and authority without support, post hoc fallacies, strawmen . . . the range of his devotion to partisan hatred at any intellectual cost is truly astounding.
Ticomaya wrote:No, don't be absurd. But since Israel is the only Jewish state, it is an easy conclusion to reach.
Let's not be intellectually lazy. Easy conclusions are often the most faulty.
Quote:In my opinion you're threading a very small needle to claim that one who does not want Israel to exist is not anti-Jew. Anti-Zionism may not equal anti-Jewish, but it's awful close. Close enough for me to conclude Sheehan fits the description. Again, you might not agree ....
The fact that you can say that it's close, or that it's a small needle, to me means that you know they are not the same. It's true that the uniqueness of the state of Israel and the fact that it is the only modern nation I know of that was established exclusively for one religion can make it difficult to discern sentiments regarding it. But don't settle for the simplest answer.
Ticomaya wrote:Quote:Even were she anti-Zionist, that does not make her by definition anti-semitic.
Perhaps not by definition, but it does in my view.
That's interesing, especially for a lawyer.
Do courts accept your views instead of legal definitions as well? :wink:
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:You don't care that your position is logically fallacious?
Cycloptichorn
No, I don't.
This pretty much sums up your side of the argument, doesn't it?
Logic has nothing to do with your reason for coming to conclusions in this case; therefore, your opinion is less than meaningless, it is destructive to the conversation...
Cycloptichorn
Please feel free to ignore me, Cyclops.
Setanta wrote:Well, this certainly has been a bravura performance on Tico's part--innuendo, statements from opinion and authority without support, post hoc fallacies, strawmen . . . the range of his devotion to partisan hatred at any intellectual cost is truly astounding.
What's astounding is your gift for hyperbole and rhetoric. Truly.
You want to talk about devotion to an issue at any intellectual cost, talk to those who wish that everyone would ignore everything Ms Sheehan says, all her screwball and wacky views, other than her one question: "What noble cause did my son die for?"
And what makes you think I hate her?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Quote:Even were she anti-Zionist, that does not make her by definition anti-semitic.
Perhaps not by definition, but it does in my view.
That's interesing, especially for a lawyer.
Do courts accept your views instead of legal definitions as well? :wink:
You might not have noticed, but we're not in court. :wink:
FreeDuck wrote:The fact that you can say that it's close, or that it's a small needle, to me means that you know they are not the same.
Plus the fact that I've admitted as much. Don't forget that.
Quote:It's true that the uniqueness of the state of Israel and the fact that it is the only modern nation I know of that was established exclusively for one religion can make it difficult to discern sentiments regarding it. But don't settle for the simplest answer.
Israel was established both for the religious and secular jews, not just the religious.
Maybe Sheehan will come out and clarify her remarks ... that remains to be seen, although I doubt she will. Thus far she's denied making them on several occasions.
Ticomaya wrote:FreeDuck wrote:The fact that you can say that it's close, or that it's a small needle, to me means that you know they are not the same.
Plus the fact that I've admitted as much. Don't forget that.
No, I didn't forget that. But there's some conflict in that you seem to be saying, "I know they're not the same but I still feel like they are." Not something I'm used to coming from you.
Quote:Israel was established both for the religious and secular jews, not just the religious.
Ok, didn't want to turn this into another long Israel thread, but we are getting into the nitty-gritty of what makes a Jew. Is it a religion or an ethnicity? This is essentially where all the problems are and you are making my point. Israel is an anomaly in modern day geography, so to speak, and so these lines are easily blurred. That's my point.
FreeDuck wrote:No, I didn't forget that. But there's some conflict in that you seem to be saying, "I know they're not the same but I still feel like they are." Not something I'm used to coming from you.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying, I know they're not the same, but I still feel she is. That may also be something you're not used to hearing me say.
FD wrote:Tico wrote:Israel was established both for the religious and secular jews, not just the religious.
Israel is an anomaly in modern day geography, so to speak, and so these lines are easily blurred. That's my point.
I agree, and that's why I took issue with you when you said:
Quote:Whoa Nelly! Tico, this surprises me coming from you. Let's see, would being against Sudan mean that you were a racist? Anti-Saudi Arabia = anti-semitic? (Semites include more than just Jews) Anti-Mexico = racist against hispanics?
Ticomaya wrote:I'm not saying that. I'm saying, I know they're not the same, but I still feel she is. That may also be something you're not used to hearing me say.
No offense, but that doesn't sound that different. You say you know they are not the same, but in this case, you think they are because... well just because.
Quote:FD wrote:Tico wrote:Israel was established both for the religious and secular jews, not just the religious.
Israel is an anomaly in modern day geography, so to speak, and so these lines are easily blurred. That's my point.
I agree, and that's why I took issue with you when you said:
Quote:Whoa Nelly! Tico, this surprises me coming from you. Let's see, would being against Sudan mean that you were a racist? Anti-Saudi Arabia = anti-semitic? (Semites include more than just Jews) Anti-Mexico = racist against hispanics?
Fair enough, though for the record you didn't really take issue. The fact that it is an anomaly doesn't mean that we can't still differentiate between a nation (ie. a government) and its people. We do this just about everywhere else. It may be more difficult to interpret the sentiments behind a political comment in this case, but that doesn't mean that we should be lazy and choose the most convenient (and most damning) interpretation.
OK, wait.
First, according to Tico, those who want Israel to give up the occupied territories are "anti-Jewish". That was Tico's initial assertion, after all.
The problem here, obviously, is that a sizable chunk of Israeli Jews themselves want Israel to do so. Are those Israeli Jews anti-Jewish, then? The Meretz party, former government coalition member, an anti-Jewish party?
But now the discussion has moved on to another level: at least, those who are anti-Zionist - who are opposed to the foundation of the state of Israel itself - are anti-Jewish.
Well, they're not really, Tico admits that it's not quite the same thing - but he feels like they are.
Again, there's a significant tradition in Jewish history opposed to Zionism to discount here in order to feel that way. But I'd like rather to take a step back first. To Tico's initial assertion.
There's no point really in arguing with him about whether those who oppose Zionism are necessarily anti-Semite if he believes even those who merely want Israel to return the occupied territories are anti-Jewish. All those Israelis who think so too included, I suppose.
That's the truly bizarre statement we're letting him get away with here.
FreeDuck wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I'm not saying that. I'm saying, I know they're not the same, but I still feel she is. That may also be something you're not used to hearing me say.
No offense, but that doesn't sound that different.
It is different.
FD wrote: You say you know they are not the same, but in this case, you think they are because... well just because.
Because that is how I interpret what she has said on the subject, in the context of her entire message.
FD wrote:Fair enough, though for the record you didn't really take issue. ...
I didn't? What did you think I was doing when I said:
No, don't be absurd. But since Israel is the only Jewish state, it is an easy conclusion to reach"?
FD wrote:... The fact that it is an anomaly doesn't mean that we can't still differentiate between a nation (ie. a government) and its people. We do this just about everywhere else. It may be more difficult to interpret the sentiments behind a political comment in this case, but that doesn't mean that we should be lazy and choose the most convenient (and most damning) interpretation.
As I've said, Sheehan can come out and clarify her remarks. I don't think she will.
