The Star is obviously used to mean “Jews”.
Equally obviously, sometimes the “Jews” in question are religious Jews, and sometimes they are not.
You are attempting to prove that, because it is sometimes used by religious Jews, that’s what it means. Which is like trying to argue that because some Churches have the American Flag hanging in them, the American Flag is a religious symbol.
First, you explain to me what the star is doing on the Israeli flag.
Because one of the groups involved in that are Jews, who are symbolized as a tribal group by the Magen David. Could’ve sworn that were several mentions of that in this thread. Guess you must’ve missed 'em.
You didn’t “address” anything. You voiced ignorance-based errors about linguistics and used them to support ignorance-based errors about Jewish symbolism. At least your argument is consistent…
It’s not the “affected population”, it’s native-speakers who are informants. You were ignorant earlier, you are now being willfully ignorant after I pointed out the facts to you. The analogy to asking native English speakers to define Swahili while ignoring actually native Swahili speakers’ denial of that meaning) phrases is asking gentiles to define Jewish symbols, and then ignoring Jews when they tell you that you’re wrong.
And you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. Saying that they can define what Jewish symbols mean is saying that they can redefine Jewish beliefs, because part of Jewish beliefs are the symbols we use. Do you truly not comprehend that? Seriously?
No, gentiles do not get to define Jewish symbolism if they disagree with Jews about what Jewish symbols mean.
If they disagree with Jews about what Jewish symbols mean, they get to be wrong about Jewish symbolism.
Actually, I was responding to him claiming that he hadn’t said what he said and that I was wrong. Of course, as per standard, it’s not an issue of “interpretation”. Just simple semantic value. It’s just another example of a Doper trying to sugar coat his words and protesting when the semantic value of their words is pointed out. It’s the Murder One Fallacy, our Scientific Racists were quite good at it. “I’m only saying that blacks are mentally, emotionally and socially lower than all other races. I never said they were inferior!”
You should be familiar with that by now, Tom. For instance, how many anti- black racists do we see who self-identify as such? How many do you know who couch their rhetoric in implausibly-deniable nonsense that they think fools folks? But I guess we’re just mistakenly interpreting things by taking the actual meaning of their actual statements. Racists don’t actually think that blacks are inferior, they just think they’re worse in every measure of virtue than whites. Someone who says that puppies should be beaten most certainly does not support animal cruelty, after all, they didn’t use the word “cruelty”. So obviously they just support beating puppies, and only a fool could “interpret” that as supporting animal cruelty without seeing the word “cruelty”. So noted Tom.
If someone is saying that, because the U.S. government uses the Magen David as a religious symbol, the Magen David is properly classified as a religious symbol? Well, as they’re using prettier language than saying that the US government can run roughshod over the actual beliefs inherent to Judaism, then we can just go on and ignore the fact that they’ve just argued that the U.S. government can run roughshod over the actual beliefs inherent to Judaism. After all, they didn’t use the words “run roughshod”. Just like if I ask if you want to eat a meal at my home at 7:00 pm, I most certainly have not invited you to dinner, and how dare you distort my words with your interpretation that a meal eaten at night is dinner!
Despite your claim, this is not an accurate analogy to courts (allegedly) ignoring how something is actually used and instead inventing their own gloss. This is equivalent to hearing someone ranting about how blacks are less intelligent than anybody, worse family members and prone to crime… and then getting annoyed if someone says that our friendly racist has just called blacks inferior.
I will follow your moderation instructions, however, silly as they are.
Thing is, the US cases have (in the one case I’ve actually examined - the first mentioned in the letter) made no such finding. It merely mentions the Star of David in a footnote. The case wasn’t about the Star at all, but about the use of the two tablets of the law - something everyone agrees is a religious symbol.
Oddly, no-one arguing for the star as religious symbol has so much as mentioned that fact. They all assume the case law does, in fact, stand for the proposition that it is, in fact, legally a religious symbol, when the law cited for that “fact” does not, in fact, state as much - at least, in the one case so cited that I actually examined.
Perhaps other cases have in fact so held, I cannot say; but given that the first case was incorrectly cited for that proposition, I have not examined all of the others.
My instructions are pretty much as silly as the nitpicking feud in which you two (and a couple of others) are engaging.
Please stop so cruelly and unfairly misinterpreting my words. Obviously I never used the phrase “I will nitpick your argument now”. Moreover, even if you believe my points were picayune and/or myopic while being focused on trivial points, and even if I were to say “I am using a picayune and/or myopic argument which focuses on trivial points”, you may not describe my argument as ‘nitpicking’. No no no! Because, clearly, I did not use that word.
And now if you excuse me, I need to start a thread about how people should be able to ignore a lack of consent and use force or the threat of force to compel someone to engage in carnal activities with them. And how dare you say I’m supporting rape. Why, I am shocked and offended that you would think I hold such views. Shocked. And offended! Now, I must get back to composing that OP. Speaking of which, do you happen to know the pharmaceutical name for roofies? Ya know, that drug that’s vernacularly called: “The Significantly Impair Your Date’s Mental and Physical Processes To The Point Where Consent Is Impossible And Then Have Sex With Them Anyway… Drug.”
But yep, I won’t post to Czar to call him on the carpet, and I will be following your instructions. Which are totally not silly.
At all.
Which you’ve pointed out and I’ve reiterated.
Have any of those who claimed the course case did refer to the Star offered a retraction somewhere that I missed, or alternate substantiation for their legal claims, or did they just try to change the subject to something else they felt they could argue? Serious question. I doubt that there is any such retraction or substantiation in this thread, but I’m curious and it’s possible I missed something.
Eh, some people are trying to argue that a cultural symbol shouldn’t be used on public projects… because people who aren’t part of that culture, who are ignorant of that culture, and who are contradicted by virtually every member of that culture, say that it’s actually a religious symbol. It’s not exactly a rational argument, let alone a cogent and compelling one. Defending shit-arguments tends to render one’s ‘proof’ into rationalizations whose substantiation often crumbles at the faintest touch of disinfectant sunlight.
Le shrug.
I object to the religious symbol that consists of a curved line, a smaller and more sharply curved line, a zigzag line and another curvy line.
It looks like this:
Jews
This is obviously a symbol of Judaism and its use is unfair!
Additionally, many, perhaps even most people think that “Jew” means someone who’s religious, not an atheist member of the tribe. Therefore, that’s what it means now. All self-identified Jews who don’t believe in God are officially expelled from the tribe, as per gentiles’ correction on what “Jew” means.
…which is an ethnicity.
It was a mistake to ever read the posts in this thread.
Last night I was checking out the lineup on the Discovery Channel, and I could have sworn they had back-to-back programs titled “I Escaped From Jews” and “Spawn of Jews”.
It was actually “Jaws”, not “Jews”. Shark Week, you know. 
Well, you know, lots of people believe that being a Jew means you’re a clannish, money-grubbing, sexually ‘impure’, part-of-a-or-at-least-admissible-to a cabal which controls the US media and/or government…so I suppose that’s what being a Jew means now. It’s a shame we can’t look at what actually is, though.
However, I can now admit that I was wrong. Treis is totally correct. In fact, he doesn’t go far enough.
I mean, just look at the phrase “the Chosen People”.
Sure sure, them Jews would tell ya that it’s not about being better than anybody at all, but a unique burden placed on the Jewish people that’s virtually ‘superfluous’ as gentiles can be just as righteous in God’s eyes simply by following the Noahide Laws. But who cares about the way that thang is used by the people who use it? Obviously, now, “the Chosen People” means that Jews think they’re better than everybody else, because lots of people think that’s what it means. Just like the Magen David is now a religious symbol because people who wouldn’t know a Jew from a Quaker, well, they think that’s what it means.
A slight hijack, but I had to look, here is an article on the Sandhill Crane emblem:
(it isn’t religious).
Do as you like, I suppose, but if you are going to BE “clannish” then don’t complain when people CALL you “clannish.”
Or “tribal” if you prefer.
I just think that the less people divide themselves into “tribes” the better they tend to get along.
So, just to keep score, Spoke isn’t calling Jews clannish. Nope, he used hard quotes. And when he says that by having a symbol for our tribe that we are “BE[ING]” clannish, I’m sure he means in-other-people’s-opinions-which-he-is-innocently-relating. Evidently, simply self-identifying as a Jew is being clannish. Why, it’s almost as if as long as Jews exist and identify as such, certain types of people will ascribe negative traits to 'em.
Totally unexpected.
And one again we see that Finn is chatting with his invisible (imaginary?) audience rather than addressing a point directly.
If you’re saying (as you seem to be in this thread) that the identification is tribal rather than religious, then it seems to me that “tribal” is a perfect synonym for “clannish.”
You are evidently unable to understand the difference between claiming membership in a group, and being clannish. At least when Jews are concerned. But it’s not a double standard, I’m sure. In fact, I’m sure that you can point to a whole mess of posts you’ve made here where you lay into the Irish. Or Russians. Or Germans. Or Italians. Or Sioux. Or…
You will of course link to those posts right away, which certainly actually exist in reality, yes?
Who’s not tribal? Everybody self identifies as something, or usually multiple things.
When you’re claiming a “tribal” identity (as opposed to a religious one) after 2000 years in diaspora, then yeah, that sounds pretty clannish to me.
Imagine if the people of Britain were still identifying as “Saxons,” “Angles,” “Danes,” “Celts,” “Romans,” and “Normans” and segregating themselves accordingly, each tribe with its own identifying symbols.
Religious identification is one thing, but if you are talking about some supra-national “tribe,” then yeah, you are feeding right into the stereotypes.
Well , Spoke’s spot on. Damn the Jews for having the temerity to not be exterminated or otherwise eliminated as a cohesive entity. (Undoubtedly, Spoke feels the same about those damned Chinese, what with their millennia old culture. Assholes.) If there just weren’t any Jews anymore, that’d solve the problem of anti-Semitism . But if any Jews actually go about existing? Nope, clannish.
It seems that Spoke’s figured out a solution to the Jews’ troubles. All you need is for all the Jews to renounce our heritage, culture, beliefs, and traditions. I mean, how couldn’t we see it, it’s so obvious! Clearly, the best way to deal with anti-Semitism is to have no Jews for anti-Semites to hate. The issue, as Spoke so insightfully understands, is evidently that, if you’re an uppity kyke who doesn’t have the good sense to have been born a gentile, or even the decency to be afraid to self-identity lest you cause anti-Semitism? Well, you’re just proving how clannish Jews are.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Thanks for summarizing. :rolleyes: