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

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry, actions speak louder than words. You show TOTAL concern for Palestine, vastly more concern than you have shown for anything else in the many years I've known you online. This is the first time you have been white-hot about a topic. Given the many horrors in the world, you have simply exposed your blatant and obvious anti-Semitism.

Sorry, actions speak louder than words. You show TOTAL concern for Israel and Judaism, vastly more concern than you have shown for anything else in the many years I've known you online. This is the first time you have been white-hot about a topic. Given the many horrors in the world, you have simply exposed your blatant and obvious hard-line Zionism.



No, I don't mean to be facetious, or even challenging. I simply offer my own perception, that seems to parallel your own, in an odd way. One of us might be right...

[Pattern-chaser]

The marchers are peace-lovers. They are not marching *against* anything, they are marching *for* something, something worthwhile: peace.

Again, you appear to be making the argument that acting from good motive is evidence against actions being antisemitic.

Whilst refusing to recant your stated view that discrimination can be accidental, and should in such cases be apologised for and not repeated.

Can you not see that you are holding two incompatible views of discrimination and trotting out one or the other according to where your emotional sympathies lie ?

'Cos that's what it looks like from here....

As ever, you use the misleading term "anti-Semitic". If you accept Israeli misinformation, then you believe that "Jew = Israeli; Israeli = Jew", and you use the term "anti-Semitic" to describe anti-Israeli political criticism, then you are quite right. The marches are profoundly anti-israel, in the sense that they oppose the political/military violence by Israeli forces in occupied Palestine, against Palestinians.

If this is anti-Semitism, then yes, the marches and the marchers are anti-Semitic. And, if this is anti-Semitism, then I am loudly and proudly anti-Semitic.

But if anti-Semitism communicates anti-Jewish sentiments, then I oppose it, as I always have, and always will.

So, am I "anti-Semitic" in your eyes? For I am strongly opposed to the geopolitical state of Israel's actions, but adamantly opposed to any and all forms of religious discrimination.

[Pattern-chaser]

The Ten Commandments are a pretty good basic standard of social and personal behaviour. Moreover the Old Testament contains the early history of how my Judeo-Christian moral code developed. These sincere claims confirm that I am semite.

Semites is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group associated with people of the Middle East, including Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics. First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen school of history, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis, together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites.

In archaeology, the term is sometimes used informally as "a kind of shorthand" for ancient Semitic-speaking peoples.

It seems that the tribe called "Semites" are more a historical myth than anything substantial. I didn't expect to discover that, when I searched the interweb just now. But it does confirm my simple and basic understanding, that all those indigenous to the Middle East, including Jews, are collectively 'Semitic'.

They are Semites, as you are not a Semite, yes? Are you descended from indigenous Middle Eastern people?

[Belinda]

The Ten Commandments are a pretty good basic standard of social and personal behaviour. Moreover the Old Testament contains the early history of how my Judeo-Christian moral code developed. These sincere claims confirm that I am semite.

Semites is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group associated with people of the Middle East, including Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics. First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen school of history, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis, together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites.

In archaeology, the term is sometimes used informally as "a kind of shorthand" for ancient Semitic-speaking peoples.

It seems that the tribe called "Semites" are more a historical myth than anything substantial. I didn't expect to discover that, when I searched the interweb just now. But it does confirm my simple and basic understanding, that all those indigenous to the Middle East, including Jews, are collectively 'Semitic'.

They are Semites, as you are not a Semite, yes? Are you descended from indigenous Middle Eastern people? I do however follow a moral code that developed from a middle eastern people's moral code. As a child I was taught Judeo Christianity among a quite liberal church and family culture and so I easily became Humanist in later life.

No I am pretty sure I am not descended from any ME people.
I do however follow a moral code that developed from a middle eastern people's moral code. As a child I was taught Judeo Christianity among a quite liberal church and family culture and so I easily became Humanist in later life.

I have been trying to explain that Judaism has much the same moral code as Christianity, Islam, and all the other main religions, and that the difference between religions is not the moral codes but the relative values allocated to authority and punishment. For instance we often find that religious scriptural literalists /or devotees of authoritarian religious sects are sententious and punitive whereas such as Humanists, Quakers, and Unitarians , and often mystics too, are forgiving and liberal. And so if 'semitic' means agreeing with the Jewish religious moral code I am semitic. I am not 'semitic' if semitic means being descended from recent middle eastern ancestors.

I would like to promote liberal Judaism as a medium of a virtuous moral code. Judaism has had a bad press recently due to Zionist infiltration by politicians and others who are unable to accept that religions are best when they develop and change as circumstances alter.

[Sy Borg]

Sorry, actions speak louder than words. You show TOTAL concern for Palestine, vastly more concern than you have shown for anything else in the many years I've known you online. This is the first time you have been white-hot about a topic. Given the many horrors in the world, you have simply exposed your blatant and obvious anti-Semitism.

Sorry, actions speak louder than words. You show TOTAL concern for Israel and Judaism, vastly more concern than you have shown for anything else in the many years I've known you online. This is the first time you have been white-hot about a topic. Given the many horrors in the world, you have simply exposed your blatant and obvious hard-line Zionism.



No, I don't mean to be facetious, or even challenging. I simply offer my own perception, that seems to parallel your own, in an odd way. One of us might be right... 😉

Seriously, that is purely facetious but it does lead us to the crux of the issue.

This is where your double-standards and hypocrisy are brought into sharp relief. Like you, I don't care at all about about Sudan.The difference is that I don't care about Palestine or Israel either. Nor do I care about Syria and Yemen - between them, almost a billion between them were slaughtered and NONE of Palestine's intense supporters gave a damn.

What I care about is honesty. There is 100% no reason to be especially wired about Israel if there is zero care for anyone else. That's partisanship. It's Iran's anti-Semitism and the East's increasingly ability to manipulate and control narratives in western media.

There is little reason for us to care and take sides in regional conflicts unless some of our own are involved. There's certainly no cause to treat one slaughter as an emergency while other slaughters are treated as non-events. That's just anti-Semitism ad there is no way around it.

The world is too big for us to care about everyone. At least we can be straight about it rather than always attacking just one group of people while treating their violent fanatical opposition as reasonable and fair.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have been trying to explain that Judaism has much the same moral code as Christianity, Islam, and all the other main religions...

Judaism shares much with Christianity and Islam, both being Abrahamic in origin. The similarities to other religions are much less clear and obvious.

And so if 'semitic' means agreeing with the Jewish religious moral code I am semitic. I am not 'semitic' if semitic means being descended from recent middle eastern ancestors.

Exactly. "Semitic" is a tribal word, not a religious one. I cannot see how we could possibly think or believe that 'semitism' involves a moral code, wherever it is derived from. Does "Celtic" presume adherence to ancient Celtic religious/moral principles? No, the word describes a tribal kinship.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is little reason for us to care and take sides in regional conflicts unless some of our own are involved. There's certainly no cause to treat one slaughter as an emergency while other slaughters are treated as non-events. That's just anti-Semitism ad there is no way around it.

If we examine this sentiment, using *only* Logic and Reason – and assuming that Logic and Reason are appropriate tools to apply here...? — the holes in your argument quickly become clear. All of these conflicts are undesirable, and most decent people, across the world, would seek to end them all if they could. But to assert that focussing on one is unfair to that 'one', simply doesn't compute. All of these conflicts are wrong, unavoidably including whichever of them we are currently discussing. Your conclusion does *not* follow from ... anything.

[Pattern-chaser]

Like you, I don't care at all about about Sudan.The difference is that I don't care about Palestine or Israel either. Nor do I care about Syria and Yemen - between them, almost a billion between them were slaughtered and NONE of Palestine's intense supporters gave a damn.

You keep on ascribing to me beliefs that are not mine. I wish you wouldn't. You care as you describe, but I care about all of them. No one conflict is 'worse' than another. Even ranking them by body-count is inadequate. My focus is mainly on injustice, in all of these cases. And Israel has perpetrated great injustice upon the Palestinian people. This is no worse than Saudi Arabia firing British-made missiles at neighbouring civilians, and no better. The two aren't even comparable, because there is no applicable standard/criterion by which to sort/rank them. Both are wrong. And so are all the others. And I care about them all, as you say you do not. We are poles apart here.

[Sy Borg]

There is little reason for us to care and take sides in regional conflicts unless some of our own are involved. There's certainly no cause to treat one slaughter as an emergency while other slaughters are treated as non-events. That's just anti-Semitism ad there is no way around it.

If we examine this sentiment, using *only* Logic and Reason – and assuming that Logic and Reason are appropriate tools to apply here...? — the holes in your argument quickly become clear. All of these conflicts are undesirable, and most decent people, across the world, would seek to end them all if they could. But to assert that focussing on one is unfair to that 'one', simply doesn't compute. All of these conflicts are wrong, unavoidably including whichever of them we are currently discussing. Your conclusion does *not* follow from ... anything.

Disingenuous.

There is no comparison. The Sudan conflict is far worse but you, an other blind followers of anti-Semitic thought leaders, ignore that but are WHITE HOT about Palestine. Ukraine? Ho hum. Yemen. Zzzz. Syria? Who? Uyghurs? Boring. Palestine - THE JEWS MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!

Don't you see how irrational and hypocritical your disproportionate responses are?

[Sy Borg]

Like you, I don't care at all about about Sudan.The difference is that I don't care about Palestine or Israel either. Nor do I care about Syria and Yemen - between them, almost a billion between them were slaughtered and NONE of Palestine's intense supporters gave a damn.

You keep on ascribing to me beliefs that are not mine. I wish you wouldn't. You care as you describe, but I care about all of them. No one conflict is 'worse' than another. Even ranking them by body-count is inadequate. My focus is mainly on injustice, in all of these cases. And Israel has perpetrated great injustice upon the Palestinian people. This is no worse than Saudi Arabia firing British-made missiles at neighbouring civilians, and no better. The two aren't even comparable, because there is no applicable standard/criterion by which to sort/rank them. Both are wrong. And so are all the others. And I care about them all, as you say you do not. We are poles apart here.

You don't care about any of them. You are simply being sentimental. There is no weight - no substance behind the crocodile tears you shed for Palestinians that you do not shed for any other. It's just words. Words are not care.

I feel sentimental about these things too but I do not care because I can't care about all suffering on Earth. As we speak, some people and animals are right now the most horrific possible circumstances - losing offspring, being eaten alive etc.

Singling out one group - who happen to be mortal enemies of Jews - to support amongst the mess of conflicting interests can only be anti-Semitism. There is nothing else it can be.

[Sy Borg]

Popeye, on the Israel/Palestine thread calls for death to Zionists. I believe he is on your side in this debate.

[Belinda]

I have been trying to explain that Judaism has much the same moral code as Christianity, Islam, and all the other main religions...

Judaism shares much with Christianity and Islam, both being Abrahamic in origin. The similarities to other religions are much less clear and obvious.

And so if 'semitic' means agreeing with the Jewish religious moral code I am semitic. I am not 'semitic' if semitic means being descended from recent middle eastern ancestors.

Exactly. "Semitic" is a tribal word, not a religious one. I cannot see how we could possibly think or believe that 'semitism' involves a moral code, wherever it is derived from. Does "Celtic" presume adherence to ancient Celtic religious/moral principles? No, the word describes a tribal kinship.

Yes, but there is no word 'anticeltic' in general use. If there were, I'd probably support Celtic Christianity like I support Judaism.
'Antisemitic' is a term, like 'woke' ,which are words used by the opposition to make liberals and peacemakers look like fools, fanatics, or phobics. In actual fact it's the opposition who have turned their backs on Judaism ,and some of the opposition have substituted Zionism for Judaism and Christianity.

PS, Semites, meaning ME ancestry ,doesn't apply to Jews whose ancestors were Nordic or Slav. I am not so sure about Sephardic Jews. Anyway, territorial rights matter more to most people nowadays than genetic ancestry

[Pattern-chaser]

There is little reason for us to care and take sides in regional conflicts unless some of our own are involved. There's certainly no cause to treat one slaughter as an emergency while other slaughters are treated as non-events. That's just anti-Semitism ad there is no way around it.

If we examine this sentiment, using *only* Logic and Reason – and assuming that Logic and Reason are appropriate tools to apply here...? — the holes in your argument quickly become clear. All of these conflicts are undesirable, and most decent people, across the world, would seek to end them all if they could. But to assert that focussing on one is unfair to that 'one', simply doesn't compute. All of these conflicts are wrong, unavoidably including whichever of them we are currently discussing. Your conclusion does *not* follow from ... anything.

Disingenuous.

There is no comparison. The Sudan conflict is far worse but you, an other blind followers of anti-Semitic thought leaders, ignore that but are WHITE HOT about Palestine. Ukraine? Ho hum. Yemen. Zzzz. Syria? Who? Uyghurs? Boring. Palestine - THE JEWS MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!

Don't you see how irrational and hypocritical your disproportionate responses are?

Over and over again, I assert that all conflicts are wrong, and yet you continue to observe that I don't. You are wrong.

Palestine? Wrong.
Ukraine? Wrong.
Yemen? Wrong.
Syria? Wrong.
Uyghurs? Wrong.

This discussion concerns only one conflict. This topic was, according to its title, *created* to discuss just one of many conflicts. Such a focus is not wrong, or immoral, nor does it give undue priority to one conflict over another.

We can discuss jazz, without demeaning or diminishing Abba...

[Pattern-chaser]

You don't care about any of them. You are simply being sentimental. There is no weight - no substance behind the crocodile tears you shed for Palestinians that you do not shed for any other. It's just words. Words are not care.

Words *are* care. There is much more than words, that can or could be done, but words can and do show care. At my time of life, I have few options open to me to show that I care. I'm no longer able to march on the streets, but I can use words, and I can use my vote (where that is relevant or helpful), but little else. Do not deny me the avenues that remain open to me, to stand up for what I believe.

Perhaps my main point here is that my posts are sincere and honest. I can be mistaken, or just plain wrong, but I am always honest. And I strongly resent that you deny my honesty, and tell me (and anyone else who reads your comments) that I believe things I don't believe, or don't believe things that I *do* believe. This is not philosophy, it is character assassination for the purposes of advancing your own argument. Please stop doing it.

[Pattern-chaser]

Popeye, on the Israel/Palestine thread calls for death to Zionists.

Any such calls are as wrong as the murderous Zionist actions in occupied Palestine. I unreservedly oppose both.

I believe he is on your side in this debate.

More character assassination. Do you have any actual arguments, outside of ad hom attacks?