One last try before I write you off. Antisemitism exists regardless of the existence of Israel. there have been many rises in antisemitism throughout history ALL BEFORE 1947 so Israel’s governmental policy can’t be blamed. They all had differing causes though. If the cause can be random, how can you blame a government when it is obvious the cause is something much deeper.
There’s a lake in my town which exists (antisemitism).
The reason it exists is it is fed by a stream (deep-rooted cultural antisemitist sentiment as a cultural practice that uses desire to scapegoat, etc).
However, events such as storms, droughts, human water use (crusades, nazism, nakba) have caused this lake to rise higher or lower over the years.
To acknowledge that events contribute to the rise or the fall of the water level is not the same as claiming that the events are the cause of it existing per se.
The reason it exists is it is fed by a stream (deep-rooted cultural antisemitist sentiment as a cultural practice that uses desire to scapegoat, etc).
Wait, what part of this seems flippant? That seems to me like a succinct and accurate characterization of the enduring presence of antisemitism since antiquity. I don’t see anything dismissive about this.
Von den Juden und ihren Lügen {On The Jews And Their Lies) is a little 65K word book that will show you how trite that statement is. BTW, if you didn’t know. that little tome was written by the father of the protestant reformation Martin Luther and it was used as a major means of justification for the holocaust. So cultural, no, that doesn’t cut it. Nice try though but it falls way short of the mark.
If you think someone is making light of a serious situation and you want people to know that, I think you should say it in words. Speaking for myself, I’m not making light of anything, and that characterization seemed respectful. I’m not sure what part you read as glib or jokey, and your response when asked to clarify seems needlessly cryptic.
I do this sometimes, all of my arguments have been countered, but I’m so sure I’m right. I’m probably just phrasing it wrong or thinking too slow, yeah thats it.
If I don’t realize what I’m doing I’ll go spend the next hour trying to solve the puzzle of “what I could have said to win the argument”.
Hopefully they come back and think on it again when they are less defensive.
One last try before I write you off. Antisemitism exists regardless of the existence of Israel. there have been many rises in antisemitism throughout history ALL BEFORE 1947 so Israel’s governmental policy can’t be blamed. They all had differing causes though. If the cause can be random, how can you blame a government when it is obvious the cause is something much deeper.
There’s a lake in my town which exists (antisemitism).
The reason it exists is it is fed by a stream (deep-rooted cultural antisemitist sentiment as a cultural practice that uses desire to scapegoat, etc).
However, events such as storms, droughts, human water use (crusades, nazism, nakba) have caused this lake to rise higher or lower over the years.
To acknowledge that events contribute to the rise or the fall of the water level is not the same as claiming that the events are the cause of it existing per se.
line 1 and line 3 are fine. Line 2 is where you and most likely tons of others make light of the problem. Bye.
@philo thanks. If line 3 is fine then I’ve sucessfully made my point, since line 3 is the part you had a problem with above.
Wait, what part of this seems flippant? That seems to me like a succinct and accurate characterization of the enduring presence of antisemitism since antiquity. I don’t see anything dismissive about this.
Von den Juden und ihren Lügen {On The Jews And Their Lies) is a little 65K word book that will show you how trite that statement is. BTW, if you didn’t know. that little tome was written by the father of the protestant reformation Martin Luther and it was used as a major means of justification for the holocaust. So cultural, no, that doesn’t cut it. Nice try though but it falls way short of the mark.
Can you just summarize?
If you think someone is making light of a serious situation and you want people to know that, I think you should say it in words. Speaking for myself, I’m not making light of anything, and that characterization seemed respectful. I’m not sure what part you read as glib or jokey, and your response when asked to clarify seems needlessly cryptic.
I do this sometimes, all of my arguments have been countered, but I’m so sure I’m right. I’m probably just phrasing it wrong or thinking too slow, yeah thats it.
If I don’t realize what I’m doing I’ll go spend the next hour trying to solve the puzzle of “what I could have said to win the argument”.
Hopefully they come back and think on it again when they are less defensive.
You are being ridiculous and I have a hard time believing that you are making this argument earnestly.
Your argument: there were sometimes fires before there was home electricity, therefore how can we blame electricity for causing fires?