Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

ERROR: Aboce should read Murdered 107 hungery people, injuring 1000+

[Sy Borg]

However, the focus on this issue over far worse ones is anti-Semitic, being passed on via the broad tentacles of Palestine's global PR machine, driven by a deeply biased UN, with its obvious anti-Semitic elements.

Says the guy how was taken in by the lies of the Israeli state.
That UNRWA were involved in defence of Gaza, causing the divestment of million of aid to strving people.
That babies were beheaded by Palestinians.
Both these were fake propaganda spewed by Isreal.

You last sentence is pure propoganda. Millions of people know what is happening in Gaza, you seem to want to ignore.
100s o AID vehiclws at seven entry points waiting to bring aid to starving people, yet the IOF refuse to let them pass.
That is genocide.

Not only have you drunk all the Kool Aid, you don't even know the gender of people you speak to for years. You are the propagandist, projecting onto me.

You conveniently ignored that the UNRWA had a dozen members confirmed to be involved in the attack, and that dozens of others openly celebrated the Palestinian terror attack on Israel. You conveniently ignored who sent the missiles and the geopolitical intent of it, despite knowing it would rain hell on their own people.

Yes, I know millions like you are concerned about Gaza. They are as just concerned about Palestinians as much they don't give a damn about Sudanese. You are all hypocritical in your selective crocodile tears.

LOL
And now you double donw on your own gullibility.
"UNRWA: Sweden and Canada resume funding for UN agency for Palestinian refugees"
WHy? because Israel was caught out in a lie, and screwed themselves by murdering 1007 hungry people and ran tanks over their dying bodies, also injuring a 1000+ people becasue IOF was "feeling threatened" by people cattying bags of flour to take back to their tempory shleters where their straving childen are dying.

This is genocide.

... to go along with the other genocides happening in the world that you don't care about.

1) I note that you have never admitted being wrong once in your years on the forum. You wrongly assumed that I'm male, forgetting that mu UN was Greta for years (which I changed to a neutral because I was copping harassment). Even after you misgender me, you are incapable of admitting it. No one on the forum who knows you will be surprised by this. You have a reputation.

2) Children are dying he complains ... while not caring even a bit about Sudan. You won't even acknowledge Sudanese existence, let alone their problems. Pure hypocrisy, never acknowledged, never addressed. Palestinians have become a fetish for people like you, who closely document their every problem while ignoring the plights of those doing it far worse.

3) You remain in denial about the corrupt UNRWA. The conspirators were convicted. The public celebrators were filmed. You remain blinkered.

4) Hamas brought all this on the Palestinian people, not Israel. Israel is just following through n what Hamas delivered, as Hamas knew they would. You won't question the wisdom of Hamas's initial attack, only Israel's loss of patience with seventy years of war. They are trying to stop Hamas once and for all.

If I was in Israel's position, I'd do the same. If I'd been in Hamas's position, I would have tried to placate Israel the way China's neighbours placate them (knowing what happens if you defy China). Given that seventy years of fighting have only made things progressively worse for local Arabs, you'd think Hamas might have tried a new way.

Why do people care about dead Palestinian children but not dead Sudanese children?

[Sculptor1]

Says the guy how was taken in by the lies of the Israeli state.
That UNRWA were involved in defence of Gaza, causing the divestment of million of aid to strving people.
That babies were beheaded by Palestinians.
Both these were fake propaganda spewed by Isreal.

You last sentence is pure propoganda. Millions of people know what is happening in Gaza, you seem to want to ignore.
100s o AID vehiclws at seven entry points waiting to bring aid to starving people, yet the IOF refuse to let them pass.
That is genocide.

Not only have you drunk all the Kool Aid, you don't even know the gender of people you speak to for years. You are the propagandist, projecting onto me.

You conveniently ignored that the UNRWA had a dozen members confirmed to be involved in the attack, and that dozens of others openly celebrated the Palestinian terror attack on Israel. You conveniently ignored who sent the missiles and the geopolitical intent of it, despite knowing it would rain hell on their own people.

Yes, I know millions like you are concerned about Gaza. They are as just concerned about Palestinians as much they don't give a damn about Sudanese. You are all hypocritical in your selective crocodile tears.

LOL
And now you double donw on your own gullibility.
"UNRWA: Sweden and Canada resume funding for UN agency for Palestinian refugees"
WHy? because Israel was caught out in a lie, and screwed themselves by murdering 1007 hungry people and ran tanks over their dying bodies, also injuring a 1000+ people becasue IOF was "feeling threatened" by people cattying bags of flour to take back to their tempory shleters where their straving childen are dying.

This is genocide.

... to go along with the other genocides happening in the world that you don't care about.

1) I note that you have never admitted being wrong once in your years on the forum.

Maybe I've never been wrong. I tend to take more care than you.

You wrongly assumed that I'm male, forgetting that mu UN was Greta for years (which I changed to a neutral because I was copping harassment). Even after you misgender me, you are incapable of admitting it. No one on the forum who knows you will be surprised by this. You have a reputation.

Sy Borg is a masculine handle. Your gender is neither relative not important.
If you claim to be female I'll use those pronouns

2) Children are dying he complains ... while not caring even a bit about Sudan.

Whataboutery. Does not exuse the generations of persecution suffered by Palestine at the hands of the invader.

[quote} ...

3) You remain in denial about the corrupt UNRWA. The conspirators were convicted. The public celebrators were filmed. You remain blinkered.
[/quote]
"corrupt UNRWA" what an absurd thing to say. WHy don't you look up al the countries that are handing them cash. Yet can you explain why Netanyahu was funding Hamas??
THe facts are out there. Get your head out of the sand.

4) Hamas brought all this on the Palestinian people, not Israel. Israel is just following through n what Hamas delivered, as Hamas knew they would. You won't question the wisdom of Hamas's initial attack, only Israel's loss of patience with seventy years of war. They are trying to stop Hamas once and for all.

Garbage. 12,000 childern are not mambers of Hamas, and Palestinians did not vote for them.

If I was in Israel's position, I'd do the same. If I'd been in Hamas's position,
{/quote]
If you were an Israeli child you would have been tought White Jewish SUpremacy and learned to hate all Islam. But then that would be oaky with you since you are islamophobic.

I would have tried to placate Israel the way China's neighbours placate them (knowing what happens if you defy China). Given that seventy years of fighting have only made things progressively worse for local Arabs, you'd think Hamas might have tried a new way.

Why do people care about dead Palestinian children but not dead Sudanese children?

[Sy Borg]

1) I note that you have never admitted being wrong once in your years on the forum.

Maybe I've never been wrong. I tend to take more care than you.

You have been wrong here plenty of times, just that when you proven wrong you quietly sulk off rather than facing it.

You wrongly assumed that I'm male, forgetting that mu UN was Greta for years (which I changed to a neutral because I was copping harassment). Even after you misgender me, you are incapable of admitting it. No one on the forum who knows you will be surprised by this. You have a reputation.

Sy Borg is a masculine handle. Your gender is neither relative not important.
If you claim to be female I'll use those pronouns

Wrong again. Sy Borg is obviously gender neutral. In fact, was an appliance used as a sexual object in Zappa's Joe's Garage.

I'll refer to you as male, if that's what you claim to be too.

2) Children are dying he complains ... while not caring even a bit about Sudan.

Whataboutery. Does not exuse the generations of persecution suffered by Palestine at the hands of the invader.

You say I buy into Israeli propaganda and yet you are the one having a major reaction based purely on media reporting. If the media paraded pity pieces about Sudan every day you'd be just as desperate to stop that slaughter. Or perhaps not? It might simply be anti-Semitism on your part. Meanwhile, you no doubt swallowed images of injured children provided by Hamas which cam from Syria, falsely portrayed as Gaza.

There are many situations around the world worse than Gaza. Those who show inordinate focus on Gaza must logically either be:

1) anti-Semitic, or

2) easily lead by media anti-Semites, playing Gaza for all its worth while ignoring most other global disasters, or

3) Both, which appears to you, given the intensity of your partisanship.

3) You remain in denial about the corrupt UNRWA. The conspirators were convicted. The public celebrators were filmed. You remain blinkered.

"corrupt UNRWA" what an absurd thing to say. WHy don't you look up al the countries that are handing them cash. Yet can you explain why Netanyahu was funding Hamas??
The facts are out there. Get your head out of the sand.

I see, so you think it's fine that members of the UNRWA joined in the terrorist attack.

You think it's fine that UN RWA members were filmed celebrating the Hamas attack.

You think it's fine that their schools teach Palestinian children that martyrdom is noble.

You think it's fine that Israel is the only country that the UN has a permanent standing item on, never mind China, Russia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, etc.

The UN has obviously been corrupted. It's well-known.

4) Hamas brought all this on the Palestinian people, not Israel. Israel is just following through n what Hamas delivered, as Hamas knew they would. You won't question the wisdom of Hamas's initial attack, only Israel's loss of patience with seventy years of war. They are trying to stop Hamas once and for all.

Garbage. 12,000 childern are not mambers of Hamas, and Palestinians did not vote for them.

Garbage? You just agreed that Hamas has thrown their people under the bus. As usual, zero comprehension. If Hamas did not attack Israel, those children would have been much better off.


Again, If I was a Hamas leader, I would have tried to placate Israel the way China's neighbours placate them (knowing what happens if you defy China). Given that seventy years of fighting have only made things progressively worse for local Arabs, you'd think Hamas might have tried a new way.

And why do people care about dead Palestinian children but not dead Sudanese children? Could it simply be a Pavlovian response to intense media coverage?

[Sculptor1]

1) I note that you have never admitted being wrong once in your years on the forum.

Maybe I've never been wrong. I tend to take more care than you.

You have been wrong here plenty of times, just that when you proven wrong you quietly sulk off rather than facing it.

You wrongly assumed that I'm male, forgetting that mu UN was Greta for years (which I changed to a neutral because I was copping harassment). Even after you misgender me, you are incapable of admitting it. No one on the forum who knows you will be surprised by this. You have a reputation.

Sy Borg is a masculine handle. Your gender is neither relative not important.
If you claim to be female I'll use those pronouns

Wrong again. Sy Borg is obviously gender neutral. In fact, was an appliance used as a sexual object in Zappa's Joe's Garage.

I'll refer to you as male, if that's what you claim to be too.

I made no such claim.
And I've never gendered you to my knoweldge.

2) Children are dying he complains ... while not caring even a bit about Sudan.

Whataboutery. Does not exuse the generations of persecution suffered by Palestine at the hands of the invader.

You say I buy into Israeli propaganda and yet you are the one having a major reaction based purely on media reporting. If the media paraded pity pieces about Sudan every day you'd be just as desperate to stop that slaughter. Or perhaps not? It might simply be anti-Semitism on your part. Meanwhile, you no doubt swallowed images of injured children provided by Hamas which cam from Syria, falsely portrayed as Gaza.

There are many situations around the world worse than Gaza. Those who show inordinate focus on Gaza must logically either be:

1) anti-Semitic, or

2) easily lead by media anti-Semites, playing Gaza for all its worth while ignoring most other global disasters, or

3) Both, which appears to you, given the intensity of your partisanship.

Are you Jewish?

3) You remain in denial about the corrupt UNRWA. The conspirators were convicted. The public celebrators were filmed. You remain blinkered.

"corrupt UNRWA" what an absurd thing to say. WHy don't you look up al the countries that are handing them cash. Yet can you explain why Netanyahu was funding Hamas??
The facts are out there. Get your head out of the sand.

I see, so you think it's fine that members of the UNRWA joined in the terrorist attack.

No UNRWA emplyee took part in terrorism.
That is exposed as a lie.
Just like the baby beheading nonsense

You think it's fine that their schools teach Palestinian children that martyrdom is noble.

If they do then I would say that, that is all they have left to give their lives meaning. When you are likley to be shot in the street any day for no reason then that would seem to be a viable option.
THe October attack was done by young men under 24, 80% of them were orphans.
Palestine has one of the youngest populations in the world. WHy - because of 75 years of abuse and oppresion by Israel.

You think it's fine that Israel is the only country that the UN has a permanent standing item on, never mind China, Russia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, etc.

Isreal is in breach of seveal UN repsolution because it is a rougr state who pratice apartheid and are in the process os seeling land that they have stolen from the West Bank. They are STILL tdoing this NOW.

The UN has obviously been corrupted. It's well-known.

You saound exactly like TRUMP.

Garbage? You just agreed that Hamas has thrown their people under the bus.

No. Its TANKS, and the tanks are driven by Israelis.
Get your facts right!

[Sy Borg]

You just agreed that Hamas has thrown their people under the bus.

No. Its TANKS, and the tanks are driven by Israelis.
Get your facts right!

Quite correct, Hamas threw Palestinians under tanks.

They knew what would happen if they attacked Israel in the way they did. They care less about their people than media-controlled western useful idiots like you.

[Good_Egg]

I think what you're doing here is distinguishing different categories of speech, and asserting that the notion of discrimination is applicable to some categories and not others.

Yes. Discrimination is, near enough, hate speech. Political criticism, although it can get lively (), should not contain such elements. If it did, then of course it would be discriminatory. You seem to seek constraints, boundaries, or barriers in my thoughts that I don't think are there...?

I'm certainly trying to agree with you a well-defined (I.e. clearly-bounded) notion of "discrimination" in order to answer the question in the thread title.

It seems that there's a narrow sense of discrimination, referring to actions driven by an irrational aversion (hate? fear ?) to the group in question. And a broad sense which covers all actions where a double/irrelevant standard is detrimental to the group in question.

What I'm against in general is the double standards that can arise from this ambiguity. The people who try to apply the level of moral disapproval appropriate to the narrow sense ("hate speech") when the evidence warrants only the wider sense. The people who apply the wide sense to others' conduct ("society is racist") but the narrow sense to their own (I'm just...")

In this particular case, you've asserted that discrimination can be accidental, implying the wide sense. You can't hate Jews by accident. Whereas in suggesting that for your political criticisms of Israel to be discriminatory they would have to be hate-driven, you're appealing to the narrow sense.

But at least you've retreated from an apparent assertion that political criticism cannot possibly be an act of discrimination because it's a different type of speech act altogether. And now recognise that it could be, if it meets the criteria for the narrow sense.

Come on, PC. Argue consistently. Pick one notion of discrimination and stick to it.

The syllogism I'm working towards here is
- X is/isn't discriminatory
- X is a proposition about the Jewish state
- "antisemitism" is the label we apply to discrimination against Jews
- therefore X is/isn't antisemitic.
As a sound answer to the question.

The other way of weaselling out of the charge is to try to claim that you're biased against a nation (France? America?) without being biased against its people. That doesn't fly. French people have an attachment to France. The concept of "homeland" implies an emotional attachment (even though individuals' relationship with their home can vary). To be biased against France is to be biased against the French...

[Sculptor1]

You just agreed that Hamas has thrown their people under the bus.

No. Its TANKS, and the tanks are driven by Israelis.
Get your facts right!

Quite correct, Hamas threw Palestinians under tanks.

You are simply not to be taken seriously.
You are now scraping the bottom of a very deep deserate barrel

[Sy Borg]

You just agreed that Hamas has thrown their people under the bus.

No. Its TANKS, and the tanks are driven by Israelis.
Get your facts right!

Quite correct, Hamas threw Palestinians under tanks.

You are simply not to be taken seriously.
You are now scraping the bottom of a very deep deserate barrel

Resorting to ad hom. Noted.

As I said, Hamas started the war, figuratively throwing children under Israeli tanks. Hamas knew what would happen but they did it anyway - and they used civilians as human shields along the way, while being very careful to report their deaths to a gullible, and sometimes anti-Semitic, western media.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm certainly trying to agree with you a well-defined (I.e. clearly-bounded) notion of "discrimination" in order to answer the question in the thread title.

OK, it's not my words, but here is the first sentence from the Wikipedia page, which seems to sum it up quite well.

Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, religion, physical attractiveness or sexual orientation.

[Pattern-chaser]

- "antisemitism" is the label we apply to discrimination against Jews

I know this term is in the topic title, but it is problematic because it's ambiguous.

Most people indigenous to the Middle East are descended from the ancient Semite tribe (and presumably other tribes too). This includes Palestinians and Jews, provided they are, or are descended from, people indigenous to that area. And so the term "anti-Semitic" can correctly apply to Palestinians and Jews.

Then we have the 'wrinkle' introduced and encouraged by the modern state of Israel, that "anti-Semitic" can also apply to anti-Israeli comments or actions.

And so we have three possible meanings to this word, and in emotionally-charged discussions about this dreadful conflict, the difference matters; it matters a lot.

[Sculptor1]

No. Its TANKS, and the tanks are driven by Israelis.
Get your facts right!

Quite correct, Hamas threw Palestinians under tanks.

You are simply not to be taken seriously.
You are now scraping the bottom of a very deep deserate barrel

Resorting to ad hom. Noted.

As I said, Hamas started the war, figuratively throwing children under Israeli tanks. Hamas knew what would happen but they did it anyway - and they used civilians as human shields along the way, while being very careful to report their deaths to a gullible, and sometimes anti-Semitic, western media.

And so it begins. I imagine you will continue to find evidence to damn me as an antisemite then ban me. GO ahead.
It's no more than thousands of journalists have had to face from MOSAD, and the rest of the US/Isreal establishment.

[Pattern-chaser]

The other way of weaselling out of the charge is to try to claim that you're biased against a nation (France? America?) without being biased against its people. That doesn't fly. French people have an attachment to France. The concept of "homeland" implies an emotional attachment (even though individuals' relationship with their home can vary). To be biased against France is to be biased against the French...

The people of France are France, as you say. And yet it still seems reasonable to distinguish the political player on the world's stage, that we call "France", from the emotionally-, linguistically-, culturally-, and historically-bound people who are French, and who live in France.

There are other views of this, too:

• France is traditionally a Christian country. But criticism of Christianity, or of Christians, is not criticism of France. Just as criticism of Judaism, or of Jews, is not criticism of Israel.
• France is traditionally populated by a white-skinned majority (although this is less so in modern times). But criticism of Caucasians is not criticism of France.
• France is traditionally populated by a French-speaking majority. But criticism of the French language is not criticism of France.
• France has a long history of cheese-making. But criticism of French cheese is not criticism of France.
• And so on...

[LuckyR]

The other way of weaselling out of the charge is to try to claim that you're biased against a nation (France? America?) without being biased against its people. That doesn't fly. French people have an attachment to France. The concept of "homeland" implies an emotional attachment (even though individuals' relationship with their home can vary). To be biased against France is to be biased against the French...

The people of France are France, as you say. And yet it still seems reasonable to distinguish the political player on the world's stage, that we call "France", from the emotionally-, linguistically-, culturally-, and historically-bound people who are French, and who live in France.

There are other views of this, too:

• France is traditionally a Christian country. But criticism of Christianity, or of Christians, is not criticism of France. Just as criticism of Judaism, or of Jews, is not criticism of Israel.
• France is traditionally populated by a white-skinned majority (although this is less so in modern times). But criticism of Caucasians is not criticism of France.
• France is traditionally populated by a French-speaking majority. But criticism of the French language is not criticism of France.
• France has a long history of cheese-making. But criticism of French cheese is not criticism of France.
• And so on...

In my experience, when most criricize a nation they're specifically referring to that nation's governmental policies (typically foreign policy) and/or laws. Not the citizenry, who often share disagreement with those policies and laws.

[Good_Egg]

OK, it's not my words, but here is the first sentence from the Wikipedia page, which seems to sum it up quite well.

Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, religion, physical attractiveness or sexual orientation.

So how do you interpret that ?

I would tend to read that as saying that a necessary condition for negative comments to be discrimination is that they be "based on" an underlying animosity to the people.

So that unfair criticism of France is only discrimination if it comes from a position that what's wrong with France is that it's full of French people. And similarly, unfair criticism of Israel is only antisemitic if it's rooted in an aversion to the Jewishness of Israel.

If I take that view, I have to conclude that you're wrong when you say that a person can be accidentally antisemitic. (Because either you're prejudiced against Jews or you're not, and if you're not then nothing you do is based on such prejudice and therefore nothing you do can be antisemitic).

Do you agree with my parsing of the definition, or do you interpret it differently?