Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Misread this as Ian Livingstone and wondered what he was ranting about
Nazi Orks?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is the largest majority the same as everyone in a group? Is it fair to say that the Pope speaks for Christians as a collective or not?

When you talk about the Vatican you think of catholicism and christianity. When you think of Israel you think of jews. So that is why you anology wasn't the best

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.

Where else in the world can a Jew go and be given automatic citizenship?

And? Anyone who lives locally to me can go and get a membership of the local library. That doesn't mean everyone locally is a member of aforementioned library.

This is some pretty poor logic.

 Ustrello wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is the largest majority the same as everyone in a group? Is it fair to say that the Pope speaks for Christians as a collective or not?

When you talk about the Vatican you think of catholicism and christianity. When you think of Israel you think of jews. So that is why you anology wasn't the best

That erroneous assumption is the point I'm trying to argue against. I absolutely cannot understand how you believe that doubling down on equating a subset of a group* when that very practice is what I'm arguing against is in any way to your advantage.


*This is assuming that Israel is a subset of the group Jews, which it, as has already been pointed out, isn't.

 Ketara wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.

Where else in the world can a Jew go and be given automatic citizenship?

And? Anyone who lives locally to me can go and get a membership of the local library. That doesn't mean everyone locally is a member of aforementioned library.

This is some pretty poor logic.

That is probably one of the worst Straw Man arguments I have ever heard or read on the internet LMAO.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

That is probably one of the worst Straw Man arguments I have ever heard or read on the internet LMAO.

How is that a straw man? Its perfectly accurate and its a pretty good example of the flaw in your argument.

Bringing the thread back on subject, here's a concise summary from Antony Beevor re: Hitler and Zionism.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/725709944863903744

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

That is probably one of the worst Straw Man arguments I have ever heard or read on the internet LMAO.

How is that a straw man? Its perfectly accurate and its a pretty good example of the flaw in your argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

MdlBuildr, could you please restate your original point in different wording, then? Because my reading reflects the library card analogy as spot on. Perhaps you were being unclear?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

That is probably one of the worst Straw Man arguments I have ever heard or read on the internet LMAO.

How is that a straw man? Its perfectly accurate and its a pretty good example of the flaw in your argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

I'll break it down further for you into simple steps then.

Claim is as follows:- All Israelis are Jews, and all Jews are Israelis. (If this is not your claim, then you need to be clearer)

The logic being used to substantiate the mutually interdependent linking is that all Jews can by given 'automatic membership' to citizenship of the state of Israel, merely by applying. Ergo, all Jews are de facto Israelis.

The problem with this logic is that if equivalent logic is applied, it works for anything that anyone can get automatic membership to merely by applying for it. In my example, the local library. Yet clearly, it would absurd to say that just because all people who live locally to me can apply to be a member of that library, and will be automatically approved, that they are therefore de facto members of the library.

In the same way, it is absurd to make such a claim of Jews and Israelis. If you care to disagree further, try and pick apart the above reasoning rather than shouting 'strawman', and then I know whether to respond or ignore as appropriate.

 Ketara wrote:


Claim is as follows:- All Israelis are Jews, and all Jews are Israelis. (If this is not your claim, then you need to be clearer)

I never stated this in any of my posts. Please show me where I said this specifically.

I SPECIFICALLY said that Israel was created as a Jewish State which is FACT. I also said that Israel takes everyone in. Even those that wish to destroy them. I also said that if you are Jewish you are automatically given citizenship in Israel.

You might be referring your interpretation of what I wrote SPECIFICALLY, but I have no control over that.

If not all Jews are Israeli, why are you arguing against me?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If not all Jews are Israeli, why are you arguing against me?

I am clarifying what I wrote, as requested.

Here's the quote in question:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.

Where else in the world can a Jew go and be given automatic citizenship?

It is a Jewish State. It was created as such. It is open to anyone and erveryone, however. Even those whose own people seek it's destruction.
 

If you are not arguing against my statement, what is the point of your post?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Here's the quote in question:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.

Where else in the world can a Jew go and be given automatic citizenship?

It is a Jewish State. It was created as such. It is open to anyone and erveryone, however. Even those whose own people seek it's destruction.
 

If you are not arguing against my statement, what is the point of your post?

I am clarifying my statement as requested. Read my posts and the responses to them and you will understand. Maybe.

I read them and I do not understand your point. Could you please expand on it to add precision. Say exactly what you mean rather than just saying enough for it to be "obvious", which it isn't. And please, please do not refer to any previous posts. If they were clear, no one would have misunderstood you in the first place.

I'm asking you because you're not making sense. In the quote that I linked above you responded to my claim that not all Jews are Israeli by stating that being a Jew means that one gets automatic citizenship in Israel and that Israel was founded as a Jewish state. What I want to know is what your point was when making that post, since you apparently weren't trying to equate Jews and Israel. If that wasn't a post aimed at countering my claim then it becomes a non sequitur, so I'm asking you what the point of the post was.

Mdlbuildr wrote:


Where else in the world can a Jew go and be given automatic citizenship?

It is a Jewish State. It was created as such. It is open to anyone and erveryone, however. Even those whose own people seek it's destruction.

Please explain where in this post I say that all Israelis are Jews and all Jews are Israeli.

You read this and didn't understand my position?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


Claim is as follows:- All Israelis are Jews, and all Jews are Israelis. (If this is not your claim, then you need to be clearer)

I never stated this in any of my posts. Please show me where I said this specifically.

I SPECIFICALLY said that Israel was created as a Jewish State which is FACT. I also said that Israel takes everyone in. Even those that wish to destroy them. I also said that if you are Jewish you are automatically given citizenship in Israel.

One would assume that when you quote a rebuttal to a specific statement with a contending point of your own, that you agree with the initial point being rebutted. One would also assume that the content of that post would be linked to the original discussion. Otherwise, it seems like an entirely random thing to say, A bit like saying:-

That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.

All Jews can be Israeli citizens

or

That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.

A lot of Israeli citizens are Jews

If your comment is separate, and you're denying all linkage between your post and the one AlmightyWalrus was contending with, one wonders why on earth you bothered to use the quote function.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm asking you because you're not making sense. In the quote that I linked above you responded to my claim that not all Jews are Israeli by stating that being a Jew means that one gets automatic citizenship in Israel and that Israel was founded as a Jewish state. What I want to know is what your point was when making that post, since you apparently weren't trying to equate Jews and Israel. If that wasn't a post aimed at countering my claim then it becomes a non sequitur, so I'm asking you what the point of the post was.

I wasn't arguing your point. I was stating fact.

These are the facts about Israel as a nation.

Specifically because any Jew can set foot in Israel and become a citizen, so effectively every Jew can indeed be an Israeli citizen.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm asking you because you're not making sense. In the quote that I linked above you responded to my claim that not all Jews are Israeli by stating that being a Jew means that one gets automatic citizenship in Israel and that Israel was founded as a Jewish state. What I want to know is what your point was when making that post, since you apparently weren't trying to equate Jews and Israel. If that wasn't a post aimed at countering my claim then it becomes a non sequitur, so I'm asking you what the point of the post was.

I wasn't arguing your point. I was stating fact.

These are the facts about Israel as a nation.

Specifically because any Jew can set foot in Israel and become a citizen, so effectively every Jew can indeed be an Israeli citizen.

The Blue Whale is the biggest animal to ever live on Earth.

Now that you mention it, The Blue Whale can be a citizen of Israel too if it wants.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The Tories are on the ropes: they're floundering on issues left, right, and centre, with Cameron all over the shop because of the Panama papers and the deep divisions in the Tory party over Europe.

Any half-decent opposition party should be landing knock out blows on this government.

But as always, Labour shoot themselves in the foot and let Cameron and Osborne off the hook.

It annoys the feth out of me!

Quite.

But its what you get when your supposed core labour values only go as deep as the sixties, seventies and eighties.

Polytechnic princes and princesses, and militant supporters who still have an unhealthy obsession with Maggies crew.

It almost, almost makes me yearn for 1997 and the rise of the red tories!

Ketara, after our conversation I looked into the arsehole in the title.

I don't agree that criticism of Israel = Antisemitism either, but Ken is an arse and his stupid comments are harming the chances of the organization he claims to want to support.

Labour are better off without him.

Oh, definitely. Ken did some good material stuff over the course of his political career, but he's always been tainted by the fact that he liked to snuggle up to dictators, a mild anti-semitism, a thoroughly self-righteous attitude, links to somewhat morally dubious organisations, and a hardcore desire to scrap with the right wing regardless of the consequences to anyone else.

Ken himself, much like Corbyn, was a throwback to the 70's, and he never got over the fact Johnson beat him as Mayor and got him relegated to the dustheap. He must have been thrilled when Corbyn tried to give him a comeback, but it seems it's gone up in smoke a bit. I doubt Corbyn will be able to use him again now, there's just too much dirt and bad history.

 Ketara wrote:
a mild anti-semitism

"Mild"?

Does it matter to what degree you are an anti-semite?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
a mild anti-semitism

"Mild"?

Does it matter to what degree you are an anti-semite?

That would depend upon the opinion of each individual person.

 Ketara wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
a mild anti-semitism

"Mild"?

Does it matter to what degree you are an anti-semite?

That would depend upon the opinion of each individual person.

What's your opinion since you wrote it?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
a mild anti-semitism

"Mild"?

Does it matter to what degree you are an anti-semite?

That would depend upon the opinion of each individual person.

What's your opinion since you wrote it?

My opinion on what? You'd need to provide a subject matter which his anti-semitism impacts specifically. His worth as a person? His ability as a politician? His past accomplishments? My likelihood to vote for him? The potential list is endless. What precisely do you wish to know?

In your opinion should it matter whether some one is "mildly" or "severely" anti-semitic? Does it make them less of a despicable human being if they only display mild racism as opposed to severe racism?

You used a very specific adjective. You didn't just write anti-semitism. You wrote "mild" anti-semitism. Any particular reason for that?