|
Grex > Agora41 > #135: Why Israel isn't interested in UN investigation of Jenin | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 129 responses total. |
drew
|
|
response 100 of 129:
| 
May 17 23:55 UTC 2002 |
What about Messianic Jews?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 101 of 129:
|
May 18 03:36 UTC 2002 |
Which kind? The kind who thought an old man in Brooklyn was the Messiah, or
the ones who pass out Jews for Jesus bumper stickers?
|
lk
|
|
response 102 of 129:
|
May 18 04:39 UTC 2002 |
While I do not belong to any "sect" of Judaism, I am both a Jew and
an atheist (see item in M-Net's Hitone cf if you want to talk atheism).
I'm also a Zionist.
|
oval
|
|
response 103 of 129:
|
May 18 07:32 UTC 2002 |
how do you know you're a jew?
|
drew
|
|
response 104 of 129:
|
May 18 19:36 UTC 2002 |
Re #101:
The Jews for Jesus people I guess. I've never heard anything about a guy
from Brooklyn.
|
lk
|
|
response 105 of 129:
|
May 19 02:58 UTC 2002 |
Strange, oval, but most people usually ask how I know I'm an atheist.
|
oval
|
|
response 106 of 129:
|
May 20 20:03 UTC 2002 |
well i'm asking how you know you're a jew.
|
lk
|
|
response 107 of 129:
|
May 21 03:32 UTC 2002 |
Because having traced back my family history for hundreds of years,
my ancestors were all Jewish.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 108 of 129:
|
May 21 13:14 UTC 2002 |
totally? 100% *jewish blood quantum*?
|
lk
|
|
response 109 of 129:
|
May 21 17:09 UTC 2002 |
Best I can tell. But does it have to be "100%" for me to be considered a Jew?
(Like, if you have one great-grand-parent who is black, are you not white?
If I do have some unknown ancestor who was not Jewish, am I not Jewish?)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 110 of 129:
|
May 21 17:26 UTC 2002 |
wow!
|
slynne
|
|
response 111 of 129:
|
May 21 18:22 UTC 2002 |
As long as that unknown ancestor was a dude, I think you are safe. It
was my understanding that a person only needed to be 50% Jewish to be
considered Jewish as long as it was their *mother* that was Jewish.
|
klg
|
|
response 112 of 129:
|
May 21 21:52 UTC 2002 |
Guess again. Current Orthodox & Conservative practice is that
anybody born of a Jewish mother or who goes through the prescribed
conversion process is Jewish. The belief that a person can be
"50%" Jewish is fiction. It is either 100% or 0%.
|
lk
|
|
response 113 of 129:
|
May 22 00:46 UTC 2002 |
Let's just say that the Spanish inquisitors recognized my family as
Jewish, that the Ukranians, Russians and Poles had no doubt that they
were holding pogroms in the right place, and that when members of my
family were taken away by the nazis, to be gassed and cremated, it
was because they were Jewish.
For hitler and his ilk, one drop of Jewish blood defined the Jewish "race"
(the same world oval likes to use) was too much, no matter where it came from.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 114 of 129:
|
May 22 01:25 UTC 2002 |
Re #112: Depends on whether you're talking about formal religious law, in
which case you're right, or colloquial description of ethnicity,
in which case you're wrong.
|
lk
|
|
response 115 of 129:
|
May 22 06:36 UTC 2002 |
When Arabs killed my grand-uncle in 1948, it was because he was Jewish.
When Arab terrorists operating from Lebanon in the early 1980s killed a
cousin, it was because he was Jewish. When terrorists attacked Gaash
beach (my sister's kibbutz), just a few hundred yards away from where
my parents were sleeping, they were murdering Jews. When a suicide bomber
in Jerusalem 5 years ago nearly killed my sister, Jews were being murdered.
When a bomb blew up outside my mother's office building in Jerusalem last
year, they were murdering Jews.
How do I know I am a Jew? Humph! While it doesn't compare to the above,
I knew I was Jewish even before some classmate -- right here in Ann Arbor --
spat on me and called me a "dirty Jew".
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 116 of 129:
|
May 22 17:43 UTC 2002 |
I think that's one element that's been applied with many groups. Take,
for instance, that silly "one drop rule" that defines people as black
or not.
|
other
|
|
response 117 of 129:
|
May 23 05:38 UTC 2002 |
re #115: Don't you think that the factors you describe make it pretty
plain that you are not really capable of being objective, and that your
obvious and determined bias make it much more difficult for those who do
wish to make an objective analysis to rely on the information you present
to be both accurate and in context?
|
lk
|
|
response 118 of 129:
|
May 23 06:17 UTC 2002 |
If this were the case, then people would focus on the message, errors in
the argument, rather than on painting the messenger as "biased" simply
so that the message can safely be ignored.
As pthomas just expressed in item 37, it is possible to maintain the
arguments even absent any bias.
Is it too much to ask, on Grex, to be judged based on what I say? If
what I said was shown not to be "accurate" or "in context" I could
certainly understand why people would dismiss what I say. What is
astounding, however, is that despite the volumes I've written, no one
has shown one instance of such intellectual dishonesty, let alone a
pattern of such.
So let's drop the BS "cart in-front-of-the horse" arguments that what I
say *might* be inaccurate or out of context because I have a "bias".
Take this as a challenge to demonstrate that my bias impacts my arguments
by showing that what I say is inaccurate or out of context.
|
scott
|
|
response 119 of 129:
|
May 23 12:48 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, what you present is a *barrage* of "facts", some quite true, some
questionable, and a lot in between. When people question the marginal stuff,
you either try to swamp them in other details or just duck their questions
by focusing on some minutae of their argument. Faced with somebody with a
similar style (Aaron, perhaps), you end up in a stalemate.
Ultimately it does come back to you personally, because this is a discussion
between people instead of a formal debate where people win by scoring points.
|
lk
|
|
response 120 of 129:
|
May 23 19:18 UTC 2002 |
Scott, that's an interesting condemnation: I provide facts that are either
"true", "questionable" or "in between". So unlike some of the falsehoods
others have propogated, I'm not in the business of spreading myths to support
my conclusions, the behavior I'd expect from a "biased" person.
I have no problem if people want to "question" what I provide as fact. I've
encouraged it and when this is done I'm happy to supplement the data with more
background and sources. The question I would ask is what makes these facts
"questionable"? Is it because they conflict with other facts -- or because
people want to wish away these facts and dismiss me as "biased"?
Perhaps you can help me understand what you are saying by providing examples
of questionable facts?
|
scott
|
|
response 121 of 129:
|
May 23 20:05 UTC 2002 |
You do indeed spread myths, Leeron. And yes, you are indeed biased.
I say that which just as much authority as you have when you accuse me of
being biased.
|
aaron
|
|
response 122 of 129:
|
May 24 00:27 UTC 2002 |
"Myths" is about as flattering a description as one could give to what
Leeron spreads....
scott, you will find that unlike Leeron, I argue from the facts. I do
agree that arguing with Leeron will get you absolutely nowhere - but
that is because Leeron does not care about the facts, and cannot admit
he is wrong even when it is obvious to the world.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=153413
|
lk
|
|
response 123 of 129:
|
May 24 02:01 UTC 2002 |
I don't recall calling you biased, Scott. I think I said you chose to
cut & paste propaganda (which I refuted and to which you were unable to
respond) from electricintifadah.com.
In item #37 I had no problem rattling of a dozen or two myths that
others have propogated. I asked you to list some of the "questionable"
facts I have made. Aren't there even a few at the tip of your fingers?
|
scott
|
|
response 124 of 129:
|
May 24 03:26 UTC 2002 |
Indeed there are. Some of them come from sites you've written off as
"biased", even though they seem quite as accurate as your typical sources.
|