2 of 3
2
Anti-Semitism Means What?
Posted: 12 October 2007 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

yowza!

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

We have to recognize that words change in the meanings commonly assigned to them.  Worship used to mean worthiness.  If I said, in the 19th century, that I had intercourse with my neighbor’s wife today, everyone would have assumed I meant that I had a nice conversation with her.  If I said that today, it would cause an entirely different response and understanding.  Similarly, better is rapidly replacing more as the comparative of much, nauseous is coming to mean nauseated when it used to mean nauseating. 

So, let’s stop arguing about what anti-semitic means, used to mean, and should mean.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 06:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

Some of you guys are just outright silly. I’m loving it.

*Mriana raises a questioning eyebrow like Spock*  I’m not saying another word, TA.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 09:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  245
Joined  2007-07-27

I have been accused of being anti-Semitic because I do not like Israelis. But I am half Hebrew, but not Jewish in the sense of religion. My mother who was Hebrew claimed Hebrew was the race or nationality while Jewish or a being a Jew was only a religion.

She said just because one is Hebrew does not make them a Jew. And that a full blood Irishman could be a Jew and a full blood Hebrew could be a Christian.

In college my professor claimed that Hebrew was another word for a Jew. And if you do not like Jews you are anti-Semitic even if you are a Hebrew (Jew), which is like saying “I do not like myself.”

I disagree with the idea of the professor over my mother who said she was Hebrew but not a Jew. (She was a Christian, therefore Jewish being a religion, she was not Jewish, but she was indeed Hebrew.)

So if you are anti-Semitic do you hate the Jewish religion only, but not the Hebrew people?

That is a tough one.

 Signature 

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holely Goat I bring the truth

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18
Holely Goat - 12 October 2007 09:54 PM

So if you are anti-Semitic do you hate the Jewish religion only, but not the Hebrew people?

That is a tough one.

According to the only cohesive sources of definition (dictionary based on common use) yes And you are antisemitic if you hate non-hebrew (and one supposes also non semitic, as polish or russian jews do not speak semitic languages) jews.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 11:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4051
Joined  2006-11-28

TA,
Once again your political biases trump logic or reason. Can you seriously be arguing that the etymology of the word “anti-semitic” is more important that its commonly understood meaning? As Occam pointed out, you’d have to re-interpret a hell of a lot of the language to follow that logic. No, you are simply politically and morally offended by Israel and its political/military behavior, so you try to find in the change in meaning of this word an example of some kind of injustice against Arabs. And to think you accused me of arguing mere semantics for not agreeing with the “obvious” interpretation of language in our discussion about WWII. And then you even go so far as to say others here are being silly?!! Unbelievable! Despite agreeing with a lot of your politics, I have to say you seem more and more to me like a liberal/secular example of unreasoning, blind fundamentalism and faith, only with a faith in your own political biases instead of god and scripture.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 11:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21

Rhetorical questions:
1. Could a person who is not semitic be termed “asemitic?”
2. If so, does being asemitic mean that a person posseses any certain beliefs or just that they do not posses semitic beliefs?
3. Would being asemitic necessarily lead to being antisemitic?
4. Would being asemitic necessarily lead to committing hostile actions against Jews?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 01:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Why not, if we are making up our own language anything can mean anything. My eldest brother, when he was about 18 and high most of the time made up his own language and spoke it for an entire summer. He seemed to enjoy himself, but I can honestly report there was one teen who really no one understood.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

brennen,

Once again my political views colors your interpretation of what I am saying.

First, Im not trying to “find” anything. As I said, my attention of this was brought to me by an Arab friend. I am opposed to all forms of racism and feel that anti-semitism should apply to all semites.

Second, I did accuse of arguing semantics on an issue that was not about semantics. This issue is about semantics. This is completely about semantics. A memo about the “situation” and “recommendations” that call for leading Japan “into an overt act of war” so we could enter WW2 was not (except when Doug and yourself made it one). You are just reaching around to find anything to dispute because of the source: me. Let it go or my next post is that the sky is blue.

Again, semites are more than those who are Hebrew so it just seems right and common sense that anti-semitism would apply to ALL semites and not just one particular group. Some of the past comments I have heard - though not here - is that it devalues prejudice against Jews. I completely disagree. The claim was completely hollow. But what the “common usage” does is devalue prejudice to other semites and thats the irony I think should be rectified.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4051
Joined  2006-11-28

Well, if you can find a way to “rectify” the semanitic injustice by single-handedly changing what the word means, go right ahead. But the reality is that language expresses what people mean to say, and when people say anti-semitic they mean anti-Jewish. It really doesn’t matter whether you or your friend think the word should mean something else.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

One way of clarifying this whole silly argument would be for each combatent to define succinctly for himself a three or four word definition of anti-semitic and Jew, Isreal, etc.  Then replace each of words in question by what his definition of them.  While this would make the paragraphs a bit ponderous, I’ll be willing to bet that the agrument would fade into nothing because everyone would see that each was talking past the other, and not really about the same thing.

It would also make it easy to identify the demegoguery implicit in some of the posts.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2007 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21
Occam - 12 October 2007 06:04 PM

We have to recognize that words change in the meanings commonly assigned to them.  Worship used to mean worthiness.  If I said, in the 19th century, that I had intercourse with my neighbor’s wife today, everyone would have assumed I meant that I had a nice conversation with her.  If I said that today, it would cause an entirely different response and understanding.  Similarly, better is rapidly replacing more as the comparative of much, nauseous is coming to mean nauseated when it used to mean nauseating.

Here’s a related article that just came out in Scientific American a couple of days ago.  I think that it furthers your point Occam.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2007 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Great find Erasmus!!!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2007 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Yes, very interesting find, although I do still use ‘slunk’ and ‘smote’ ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2007 03:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22
dougsmith - 14 October 2007 11:49 AM

Yes, very interesting find, although I do still use ‘slunk’ and ‘smote’ ...

Doug, don’t you mean, “have slunk”?  The past would then be “slank”, right?  And is it “smite”, “smote” and “have smitten” or is the past perfect, “have smut”?  LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2