So just to clear it up, you are totally unable to address the actual facts of history, totally unwilling to retract your mistakes, and will continue this absurd spectacle of calling actual history a “persecution complex”.
Have I missed anything?
You know that a forum labelled Great Debates is not, in fact a good forum for deliberately trying to avoid debate while reiterating your mantra about how Jews who aren’t totally secure in the belief that they’ll never need a refuge again, ever, have a “persecution complex”.
No not really. Just the same general apologia. His argument boiled down to him alleging that claims of an international Jewish conspiracy dedicated to murdering gentiles and stealing their ‘vital essence’ could not be called anti-Semitic, because other cultures had similar slanders applied to them, too.
I kinda doubt that Treis would even apply this rationalization to other situations, it seems to be useful only in attacking those who notice anti-Semitism. I don’t think anybody would use such a rationalization anything but selectively, because it’s such a patent absurdity that it’s generally an embarrassing claim to be making.
If you heard someone saying “You can’t trust blacks in America, they’re all predisposed to thievery.” would you say that’s not racist because, dag gum, people also say the same thing about the Rom?
If someone said that “you can’t ever try to negotiate with an Irish person because they only understand or respect violence”, would you say it’s not racist because some people say the same thing about Arabs?
If someone said that “the Chinese are inherently duplicitous, clannish and only care about money” would you say that’s not racist because some people say the same thing about Jews?
Can you even imagine anybody arguing any of that? If someone said that you can’t trust a black man alone with a white woman, because he might rape her and someone then verbally attacked you for calling that racism since, after all, people said the same thing about the Huns (or what have you), would you think that their argument was… a little off? To say the least?
But of course, when the cause of the day is repeating the “You can’t criticize Israel without being called an anti-Semite! Help help I’m being repressed!” meme, why, then the Blood Libel isn’t notable because similar slanders have been applied to other groups, too. And, of course, direct claims of an international, murderous Jewish conspiracy to extract the ‘vital essence’ of gentiles is just like a nebulous claim about not spending enough money on certain things.
Yes, and parents who tell their children that they did something wrong are against the entire institution of child bearing and artists who think that a particular piece lacks merit are against paint, itself.
Quit this bombast.
Asking someone to condemn something while not restricting its continuation, at all, is not condemning free press. And it says nothing good that you’re reduced to such absurd overreaching to make a case. It should also be noted that “freedom of the press” does not cover libel.
Gorsh!
Let me guess, this is because anybody who ever criticizes Israel, about anything, is always called an anti-Semite. Right? Right?
Except, ya know, anti-semitism is still a problem in Europe in crime statistic after crime statistic and survey after survey. The common apologia for that, by the way, is generally "But it’s our immigrants who are jerks! Even though they’re members of our countries, it doesn’t count! "
Also, of course, Israel isn’t an “apartheid” state but hey, why stop bombastic rhetoric now? Would you care to accuse the of genocide while you’re at it?
Then I suggest that you read the thread. The OP, for instance, mentions how Sweden’s ambassador’s comments were removed.
Yes, I ignored your comments by directly addressing them. And to really throw you off the scent, I also directly rebutted your claims by discussing the cites that have been given that show that there is no such law in Swedish jurisprudence barring them from expressing aesthetic displeasure, that they do in fact officially engage in censorship and that hate speech, in any case, is criminalized…
Look, rather obviously you’re not able to discover the explicit meaning of some comments here, let alone their implicit meaning. If you’re this confused, why not just ask me to help you understand?
Instead of relying on constant, blatant strawmen, you could actually either address what I actually say or even admit you’re wrong on certain points and retract your mistakes. It’s pretty much the same thing, for instance, as when faced with the UK’s actual conduct relating to the Jews during and before WW II and the creation of the state of Israel, showing that you were totally wrong… you did your best to change the subject very quickly.
