Sounds like the kinda event where people of all faiths come together to worship Jesus Christ.
In 1940. When they surrendered. 
First of all, they ripped that stuff off from us. Second of all, we don’t have giant three-headed beasts and raptures and whatnot.
I never had much faith in surveys before working in the industry, and I have even less now. There only being two responses allowed, both of them ‘probably’ is going to slant the results greatly by removing the ‘don’t know’ and ‘no opinion’ categories, and every shade of agreement from ‘maybe some of them’ to ‘all Jews are only loyal to Israel and conspiring to bring about the NWO and ZOG’ gets jammed into ‘probably true’.
What makes you think there wasn’t a “don’t know/no response” part?
I’d recommend reading the study rather than relying on CZ because he already made some serious factual errors regarding it.
I’ve never heard of a study not having a DK/NR part and I’ve read other studies done by the ADL and they’ve always included them.
Moreover as BG points out the ADL studies have always been considered reliable.
Don’t suppose today’s bombing-and-shooting in Oslo has aught to do with antisemitism?
I’d echo Ibn’s point, CZ’s take on the situation is not exactly worth reading… this is the same line of ‘reasoning’ that pretty much just argued that if a bunch of people in Europe hold anti-Semitic views then it totally doesn’t count and we can ignore those studies.
I haven’t found the full question script, but I’m not convinced that they’d discard/disallow any “not sure” answers. The “probably yes” and “probably no” phrasing may be an issue, but then again that sort of phrasing is also the norm in Conspiracy Theorist circles. Remember, people are Just Asking Questions and Jews may have dual loyalty and may perhaps be ready to betray their own homes to Global Jewry, and we have to be on our guard…
I’m also not convinced that it draws that wide a net so that informants would be responding with “well, a very small number of Jews I know happen to…”
At least in English, generally with some exceptions, if someone says “blacks are criminals” or “Jews are disloyal” or “religious people are crazy” (or whatever), they’re broad-brushing and not stating that there are more than 2 and less than infinity black criminals, disloyal Jews, or religious people with mental illnesses.
Even if we grant the fact that the “probably true” crowd includes everybody from hardcore Nazis to limp-minded academicians, other questions like whether or not Jews have too much power in the business world or the international financial markets are less open to abuse. Other questions like whether their opinions of Jews were influenced by the actions of the state of Israel are pretty clear cut.
Do you, of all people, actually need an example or two of that very thing happening? :dubious: Think just a moment before answering that.
Excluded middle. Typical.
You really don’t want to make that claim, friend.
Yes, that would be very nice, not that your silly little implication that I’ve ever, even once, done so isn’t appreciated. In point of fact, I’ only remember seeing it happen with one poster on the board, ever, and she was banned, and before she was banned I told her “you are an idiot and a bigot. Seriously, shut the fuck up and go away”.
Of course, the reason why you needed to use nonsense similar to “youuuuuuuu of all people!?!?!?” rather than simply providing a cite is because no such cite exists and insinuation serves your argument well enough when facts are notable in their absence.
Um… Elvis? The fallacy of the excluded middle has an actual definition.Coincidentally that definition isn’t whatever you seem to think it is.
Also noted is that you’ve tried to change the subject rather than simply providing proof for the claim that everybody (or almost everybody, or whatever weasel wording we’re using) who criticizes Israel is called an anti-Semite. Because, of course, it’s an absurd claim that isn’t born out by the facts. It’s fantasy.
Drop the smarmy “friend” bullshit, I don’t particularly like you.
Also, drop the disingenuous, fictitious innuendo. The fact is that in virtually no GD thread ever, has anybody been accused of anti-Semitism for not liking Israeli policies. You obviously cannot gainsay it with facts, with is why you have not one cite. You obviously cannot show that I’ve ever run afoul of this fact, since you can’t cite me doing so. Instead you’re just posting bullshit trying to imply that I have. Of course I’ve never even once claimed that someone is anti-Semitic because of holding anti-Israel policies. And while I believe you when you say that you don’t know that to be true, you really should if you were paying attention.
Unfortunately, you didn’t cite it for the same reason that you won’t cite it. You can’t cite something that doesn’t actually exist.
Then again, I feel like I may be barking up the wrong tree, and perhaps I’m the canary in the coalmine for demonstrating what your argument is like. Then again, I’ve often been accused of being a bull in a china shop when it comes to refuting weaksauce nonsense, and using a sledgehammer to swat flies. Perhaps it’s best for me not to change horses in mid-stream, so I might as well go whole hog when it comes to shredding nonsense. I’d rather not hold my horses on that count, and I’ve often been busy as a beaver when it comes to pointing out logical and factual errors in some of the more egregious bits of monkey business that get trotted out for the dog and pony show, because if often if someone with a command of the facts doesn’t take the bull by the horns, nonsense will be raining down like cats and dogs. Now, not to piggyback onto this tangent, but holy cow your accusation reeks of an argument that cannot support itself with accurate accusations and is instead crying wolf. So I’m sorry that I’ve let the cat out of the bag, but your argument really is in the doghouse and for the birds. I know that the belief that your anti-Israel cohort are being persecuted is a sacred cow, and maybe I shouldn’t try to lock the barn door once the horse has already bolted, but it’s generally best not to bet on the wrong horse, and instead to cleave to a factual, logical argument.
So got those cites yet, or cat got your tongue?
The whole concept is silly.
Oh, it’s not that we’re chosen, no… we’re just chosen to have more responsibilities which is different than being chosen. Oh, man… :rolleyes:
Chosen or more responsibilities - still a load of BS, regardless how you spin it.
Do you really think that being “chosen” is interpreted as being better and “having more responsibilities” is not? Really?!
It’s a religion, a set of superstitious beliefs based on made up stories and myths with stupid and borderline inhumane rituals. Just like any other religion. It should be able to suffer from the same general critique just like any other religion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Please, don’t let a total absence of knowledge get in the way of arguing about the facts.
In Judaism, gentiles are considered 100% as righteous and beloved by God if they simply follow the Noahide Laws. An added burden is just that, not an Awesomeness Quotient.
Maybe it was the Mossad, showing the Norwegians what’s coming to them if they don’t start supporting Israel more.
Your particular ignorance on the topic of the understanding of the phrase “Chosen People” can be corrected if you exert the energy to study it. OTOH, snide dismissals of a topic on which you are displaying massive ignorance simply raises a flag above your posts that you are neither knowledgeable nor interested in actually understanding the topic. We are supposed to be fighting ignorance, here, not fighting for it.
The phrase “Chosen People” as understood by Jewish and Christian theologians as far back as anyone has studied Trito-Isaiah, is an indication that God has placed a burden on the Jewish people to adhere to His commands so that, in the fullness of time, their example will lead the whole world to worship him in righteousness.
Any other meaning imputed to the phrase is merely anti-semitic propaganda or the result of reading the phrase in utter ignorance of its historical context. Even if you want to mock Judaism, (in or out of the context of mocking religion), your claims regarding that phrase are simply wrong.
It is, but then the following statement is close enough to the line to cause one’s toes to smoke:
That said, Capitaine Zombie, you do need to pull \back from making accusations of dishonesty.
In addition both Capitaine Zombie and Ibn Warraq need to rein in your personal hostility.
That actually goes for everyone posting in the last day or so. Back off and cool down.
[ /Moderating ]
What makes you think I relied on CZ and didn’t read the study? My comments were based upon reading the study, thank you very much.
No mention of ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ or other(specify) options appears anywhere in the study, and the two possible options of ‘probably true/false’ will tend to lump any positive possibility of truth to the statements to be ‘probably true’ even if that was not how the respondent actually felt; again an answer of ‘I don’t know, maybe some of them do’ is lumped in with ‘all Jews are part of a worldwide conspiracy to bring about the NWO and ZOG, loyal only to Israel’ as ‘probably true’. The methodology of having only 2 extreme options to hold the entire spectrum of opinions necessarily slants the results of the study to extremes of conclusions; the ‘NWO and ZOG’ answer is clearly antisemitic, but the ‘I don’t know, maybe some of them, never gave it any thought before’ is at best possibly mildly antisemitic.
Tom, did you actually check up on the exchange between myself and Dick Dastardly before making such an assertion.
Dick made a very specific factual assertion about Alan Dershowitz in post #2; that Dershowitz “anything that goes against the current policy of the Israeli government, particularly Palestinian issues.”
Since Dershowitz is a strong critic of the occupation and a strong supporter of both Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution this struck me as a moronic assertion.
I asked Dick to provide me a cite where Dershowitz had a ever made such a definition(which would mean that Dershowitz defined himself as an anti-Semite:eek:).
Here’s what Dick provided after probing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-lobby-jews-and-antise_b_18998.html
Nowhere in that essay does Dershowitz give such a definition of anti-Semitism.
That’s what prompted me to make a completely factual assertion, that either Dick had not read the citation or he was being intellectually dishonest.
I asked him to provide a quote from the source where Dershowitz, a supporter of both Palestinian Statehood, proponent of the two-state solution and advocate for the rights of Palestinians gives such a definition of anti-Semitism.
Since you’re going to chastise me for that then please show me where in the article that Dershowitz makes that definition.
Otherwise, please explain why I was wrong to say that Dick either hadn’t read the article or was being intellectually dishonest.
Is your position that if someone makes a factual claim about an essay that is blatantly wrong I’m not allowed to say that either they hadn’t read it or were being intellectually dishonest.
Second, I’m sorry but trying to compare my dismemberment of Dick’s claims about Dershowitz to CZ’s attempt to discredit me is asinine. Dick was demonstrably wrong about the Huffpo piece.
Show me where I was substantively wrong about the ADL’s study.
Third, you have yet to answer my question from earlier.
You claim I’m not allowed to criticize a person’s use of wikipedia, though you have yet to give any reason why I’m wrong to claim that wikipedia is grossly unreliable as most reasonable people think it is.
Does that also mean I’m not allowed to say that it’s “naive and foolish” to use the National Enquirer, Stormfront, or various partisan blogs that have a long record of being riddled with errors?
If I’m allowed to say that it’s “naive and foolish” to use the National Enquirer or various scandal sheets as a source, then why?
Why is wikipedia exempt from such criticism?
That was a pretty long post to avoid the pretty obvious point that I was telling you not to accuse another poster of being “intellectually dishonest” or getting personal in your disagreements.
(And I have no idea why you think that Wikipedia is exempt from ANY criticisms, at least as an official policy of this board.)
[ /Modding ]
Er… all such studies generally contain “Don’t know/no response” if for no other reason than they can’t make people answer the question.
That includes studies done by the ADL.
Sorry, but unless the report says it excluded such an option it strikes me as absurd to to assume they didn’t.
Anyway anyone who thinks it’s “probably true” that French Jews are more loyal to Israel than to France is an anti-Semite.
Maybe not a “kill all Jews” anti-Semite but an anti-Semite nonetheless.
Still, I’ll agree that anti-Semitism in France isn’t nearly as bad as anti-Arab racism.
That’s why I’d like to see the actual script that their employees used, and/or whether or not they even allowed a “no answer” response assuming it wasn’t offered as a prompt. If they didn’t include that, yes, the methodology if flawed.
However:
It’s true that they’re not making anti-Semitic views particularly granular. But anybody who’d answer with “probably yes” has some degree of antisemitic feelings. Just like if the question was “blacks are inferior to whites”, even if there was a continuum from “Send the apes back to Africa!” to “They fall a few standard deviations lower than proper genetic stock, like Asian and European…”, then everybody answering in the afermative
Well, I didn’t say he was being intellectually dishonest, I said that only someone who hadn’t read the post or who was being intellectually dishonest could think that it contained sentences where Dershowitz defined anti-Semitism the way Dick claimed it did.
Was I making a factually inaccurate statement?
No.
Furthermore, no I wasn’t accusing him of being intellectually dishonest.
You claimed in post #31 that I wasn’t allowed to tell someone they were being “naive and foolish” for using wikipedia as a source.
By that standard then doesn’t that mean that I can’t say someone is being “naive or foolish” if they use Stormfront, the National Enquirer etc. as a source?
Or did I misinterpret you or have you reconsidered your statement and that I can tell people that wikipedia is an extremely unreliable source.
Finally, I haven’t been “getting personal” in my disagreements. I’ve been making accurate criticisms of people’s arguments and explaining why their reasoning was flawed.