Boycott The Guardian
 | By Real Real Zionist
January 31, 2012 | Share |
For happygoldfish ......since I was so rudely interrupted by Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Or rather Mr Hyde and Mr Hyde.
There is nothing wrong with the English in the sentences you example. I never said there was anything wrong with the English in " Anti Zionism is anti semitism " , merely that it was a dumb thing to say.
It is often used in such a way that the speaker seems to employing the " is " of identity, even interchanging between " is " and " same as " ," equivalent to " etc. There is no point in arguing about this, it is a purely empirical observation. Advs3r/ Jose/ Anthony/ blackie does so his very self on the previous blog if you would care to take a look and see. If your experience is different to mine we will just have to leave it at that.
While there often seems to be a number of different " is's " there is really just the is of identity and the ontological is ( unless we admit the dubious case of the existential is ) " I think therefore I am " ( is )..
So if on any occasion we don't have the is of identity we have the ontological is.The is that refers to the being of a person or thing or phenomenon. Anti Zionism consists of anti semitism, anti semitism is a property of anti Zionism, anti Zionism is made up of, among other things, anti semitism. Monkey chanting on the terraces is made up of racism.
But there is a great deal of difference between " chicken is meat " and " anti Zionism is anti semitism ".
" Chicken is meat " is a NECESSARY TRUTH because being meat is a NECESSARY PROPERTY of chickens. You can't be a chicken if you aren't meat.
Famous examples provided by Saul Kripke include the queens parentage and the atomic number of gold. Could the queen have had different parents to the ones she actually had ? Not if we mean Elizabeth. How could this very woman have had different parents ? It could only be true that the queen had parents other than those people >> if the queen was someone other than Elizabeth. And how could something with an atomic number other than 12345 ( whatever it is ) be gold ? And how could something with atomic number 12345 not be gold ? Having atomic number 12345 is a necessary property of gold. Having atomic number 12345 is the ESSENCE of gold.
Are you claiming the same status for " Anti Zionism is anti semitism " ? And " monkey chanting on the terraces is racism " ? Are you saying antisemitism is the essence of anti zionism ? That you cant be anti zionist without being anti semitic ? That only anti semites can be anti zionist in the same way that only meat can be a chicken ?
We can argue phiosophically about whether only meat can be a chicken but since every chicken ever known to man has been meat just as every piece of gold has had atomic number 12345 is strong empirical evidence in favour of a particular view.
Are you saying that every anti zionist there is or ever has been is or was anti semitic ? What about people like Einstein who change their mind quite a bit ? Was Einstein anti semitic on some days but not others ?
It doesn't even have the status of monkey chanting on the terraces is racism.
The reality is that anti Zionism is anti semititism is purely stipulative. It is because I AND/OR SOME COMMITTEE OR OTHER SAYS SO.
So here we are trapped in the contradiction of trying to speak a private language, just like humpty dumpty. And as I pointed out on another blog, speaking a private language was the surest sign that humpty was nuts.
COMMENTS
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 14:02 Rate this: -1 points | It seems that dumbo-Millis doesn't like to see his stupidity exposed, by an number of posters, not just me. |
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 14:05 Rate this: -1 points | Dumbo-Millis still confuses the 'is of identity' and the 'is of classification'. |
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 14:17 Rate this: 0 points | So, what dumbo has proven here is that his assumption that we are dealing here with an 'is of identity' is plainly wrong. Then he gets to the conclusion, based on this false assumption, that the statement itself is wrong. Ever seen worse logic ? |
Tue, 01/31/2012 - 14:30 Rate this: -1 points | oh get off the page, you idiot … go back to the other blog and blather on there
|
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 14:42 Rate this: -1 points | And you'll never make me believe rrz is not a troll since he used my profile picture and seems to see me in every poster, although I haven't been posting on the JC for a year and a half. |
Tue, 01/31/2012 - 14:52 Rate this: -1 points | (jose, you don't blog, you clog
what are you talking about? the other blog is still at http://www.thejc.com/blogs/real-real-zionist/boycott-the-guardian-0 or http://www.thejc.com/node/62762
|
)jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 14:59 Rate this: 0 points | Anyway, wherever dumbo-Millis posts his stupidities with my profile picture and goes calling all people by my name is obviously a case of provocation. So don't be sorry, rrz had it coming. |
Tue, 01/31/2012 - 15:37 Rate this: -1 points | RRZ Millis or whatever your name is please explain what is dumb in saying Anti-Zionism is (a form of) anti-Semitism? Nothing you have so far said actually addresses the point. Maybe to return to a previous post you should tell us what Zionism means. Many of your arguments are fallacious because you are mixing identity with condition. Simple example 100 degrees centigrade is boiling point - identity, 100 degrees centrigrade is hot - condition. Someone inadvertenly may say something which in context is anti-Semitic but out of context is not. That is why the EU working definition says "could taking into account the overall context". Here the overall context is a denial of the Jewish people's aspirations towards the establishment of their own state and so denying the Jewish people such a right could in context be construed as being anti-Semitic. Furthrmore anti-Semitism is in the eye of the beholder as is all forms of discrimination. Let's see you go up to a group of black kids and jokingly call them the N word. Your life would be measured in milliseconds and rightly so but you didn't mean to be racist after all they use the word among themselves don't they? So in context it is racist just as I consider someone denying my right as a Jew to have my own State is anti-Semitic which is anything but dumb. |
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 15:47 Rate this: 0 points | Dumbo-Millis is unable to make a correct argument. It is not worth trying to educate him, he is just trolling the JC. |
Tue, 01/31/2012 - 16:26 Rate this: 1 point | "Advs3r/ Jose/ Anthony/ blackie does so his very self on the previous blog if you would care to take a look and see. If your experience is different to mine we will just have to leave it at that." Wriggle wriggle just like a worm. But Millis that is what you have always done right? Given his previous form I would not be surprised if "Jose" is Millis too after all he uses the same picture. |
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 16:53 Rate this: 1 point | Advis3r, do my arguments look as dumb as those of Millis? |
Tue, 01/31/2012 - 17:19 Rate this: -1 points | I don't think I have witnessed anything as amazing as this in my entire life. Not even when I taught primary school. Advis3r/Jose you do know what they say about talking to one's self, don't you? JC, do you want your blogs to become known as a safe house for nutters? |
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 17:40 Rate this: 1 point | Well, since paranoids are nutters and your "Advis3r/Jose" betray you as such, I may keep the key of the asylum. |
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 17:46 Rate this: 1 point | For the moment, the JC is a safe house for all that hates Israel and Jews in England. Well, not all. Millis is unpacking and has little time to post. But he'll be back soon. |
Tue, 01/31/2012 - 17:52 Rate this: -1 points | happy goldfish there is little point in responding to you at the moment. I will do so after Jose has come out of his current major episode. |
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 18:12 Rate this: 1 point | Hey rrz, did you quit calling me "Anthony" or "Blackie" or "Advis3r"? |
jose (not verified) Tue, 01/31/2012 - 18:16 Rate this: 0 points | Anyway, you cannot answer to Goldfish or whoever because your whole argument is based on a false premise that we are dealing here with an 'is of identity'. |
Wed, 02/01/2012 - 10:15 Rate this: -1 points |
i have to agree with you |
Wed, 02/01/2012 - 10:34 Rate this: -1 points | Seriously, I hope he's ok. He didn't seem too well. |
jose (not verified) Wed, 02/01/2012 - 14:23 Rate this: 1 point | @goldfish: agree with an idiot, be one ! |
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 13:45 Rate this: 0 points |
jose's profile has now been removed, so it seems the moderators have banned him, at last! so let's start again …
and i replied:
and you replied:
i take it that you now accept that in the phrase "Anti Zionism is anti semitism", the "is" does not have to be (your phrase) "the is of identity"?
(of course, if you'll quote an example (preferably with a link) in which the context shows otherwise, then i'll comment on it |
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 14:04 Rate this: 0 points | Yes that discussion did rather get forgotten amid the mayhem. Ok |
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:26 Rate this: 0 points | Yes I was wrong. I wrote as if " anti Zionism is anti semitism" ( hereafter referred to as aZas) was invariably and always an identity statement. Clearly that isn't the case. It very often is but not always. You will recall the point was that aZas was a dumb thing to say, and gave the fact that it was an obviously false identity statement as the demonstration of that. So while aZas is ALWAYS a dumb thing to say it is not ALWAYS for that reason. I think you will accept that where it IS an identity statement it is dumb. But where it isn't an identity statement what is it ? Well it isn't a necessary truth like " chicken is meat", or "gold has atomic number 1234." So all we are left with is that it is an EMPIRICAL statement. Now your problem here is that left as it is, unqualified, we only need ONE counter example to show it to be false. So even where aZAs is not an identity statement it remains dumb. It is so OBVIOUSLY false it is a dumb thing to say. |
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:39 Rate this: 0 points |
ok, that's the only point i was making
careful! "anti Zionism is always a form of anti semitism" is not an identity … maybe it's true and maybe it isn't!
(as "anti Zionism is always a form of anti semitism") it can be automatically true without being an identity (ie automatically true one-way but not both-ways)
it depends what is meant by "Anti Zionism" … racists tend to mean different things by "Zionism", sometimes in the same sentence often they use "Zionism" to mean (eg) religious dogmatism that the west bank belongs to jews, and then use "Zionism" in its usual sense, of supporting the (continued) existence of a jewish state … then, since almost all british jews do the latter, it follows that they are "Zionists" and therefore also do the former i think you know that my position is to follow the Interparliamentary Coalition for combating Antisemitism (http://www.antisem.org) … see its Ottawa Protocol (november 2010) at http://www.antisem.org/archive/ottawa-protocol-on-combating-antisemitism... in which (after citing the eumc (now fra) definition of antisemitism) it makes the following unconditional condemnation: rrz, singling out israel for destruction is obviously anti-israeli racism …
and (ok, less obviously) also antisemitism, since it singles out jews as the one people whose national home is to be destroyed
|
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 14:02 Rate this: 0 points | Well that didn't turn out to be very good advice ? How's your weather forecasting ? |
MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
LATEST COMMENTS
happygoldfish
Tue, 01/31/2012 - 13:40
Rate this:
yes, the usual suspects were rather dragging your original blog about
let's recap where we'd got to: you started …
and i replied:
or, closer to your example …
what is the difference between those examples and
and you replied:
i take it that you now accept that in the phrase "Anti Zionism is anti semitism", the "is" does not have to be (your phrase) "the is of identity"?
that is all i was saying … there is nothing wrong with the english in those perfectly natural examples, in which the "is" is not "the is of identity" …
so you were wrong to claim that "Anti Zionism is anti semitism" cannot possibly be true (ie, to claim that it was an identity)
(of course, if you'll quote an example (preferably with a link) in which the context shows otherwise, then i'll comment on it
)