re israel an apartheid state in article sm h qek cville srv wam umd edu aap wam umd edu alberto adolfo pinkas writes in article may colorado edu perlman qso colorado edu eric s perlman writes in article slo e ag cville srv wam umd edu aap wam umd edu alberto adolfo pinkas writes i do not want to convince anyone this is just usenet not the real world i just read the opinions others have about a subject and sometimes i present my opinion i think that this net is only useful to exchange ideas i never wanted nor i want now to convince anyone of anything fine now if your opinion isn t convincing anyone and it s getting refuted regularly by the facts which is the case isn t it likely that your opinions need some revision as i said i do not want to convice anyone so why should my opinions convince anyone i do not believe that my opinions are refuted by facts then you haven t been paying attention to the arguments levelled against them they have been over and over again they will be again first and i repeat it i never said that the idea of jews having the right to have a state is racist zionism as a movement is more than just that idea in a word utter and complete horse puckey look the term up in the dictionary maybe youy view of a dictionary is the problem here one thing is the accepted meaning of a word by a dictionary and sometimes a completely different thing is what that word came to mean after a long time hey what do you think dictionaries are for you quite obviously need one a good dictionary gives both and you well know it i think that zionism in the way it defines who is a jew for example is racist like ok now how would you define it and by the way you re wrong again there is no uniformity of this definition among zionist movements you know this is the case it s been pointed out on the net directly to you before and yet you continue to maintain this delusion ok tell me how many people in zionist movements define a jew in a different way and how many are who define jew based on a religious way i don t think that data exist on this directly in the same way i believe that irish have a right to nationalism but i do not support the bombing and killing of the ira i believe that jews have a right to nationalism but i do not support zionism as it is right now comparing the actions of israel to that of the ira is like comparing those of the us to those of chile under pinochet for example with the ira in the role of pinochet you really need to get your history straight you also need a basic dictionary you need to start reading before answering my point was that because some movement claims to be nationalistic it does not mean that i consider it to be nationalistic i did not comapre israel to the ira i think that you are starting to put words on my mouth and that is wrong that is no problem but once again you are defining zionism as one movement you are implying that it is monolithic you know this is not and has never been the case stuff deleted by pinkas his statement which i was responding to with the below asserted that zionism was uniform and monolithic i never said that zionism is monolithic if you are going to attribute me things present the quotes where i said that you don t say it directly you implied it and i showed explicitly where and how you implied it now you re trying to wriggle out of it won t wash and you know it that is what makes the basis for zionist movements however i am not considering just that but the rest of it in a word i don t believe you your words tell a very different story especially since they are not based on fact but innuendo and misrepresentation that is your problem i could certainly interpret this like you are running out of arguments first you put words in my mouth now you say you do ot believe me it s you not me who is running out of arguments which makes an interesting point people living in a jewish state have shown that jewish culture includes in it jewish religion but they are not the same so the jewish people living in the jewish state have shown us that there are some problems in a state where of the people is secular but judaism is define according to religious standards or where marriage is a religious stage or where the law of return defines a jew according to a religious standard no it doesn t nowhere does the law of return demand that one must be religious or even believe in g d to become a citizen of israel thereunder why don t you try reading for a change did i say that the law of return demand a person to be religious now how does the law of return define who is a jew and who is not i said that it uses a religious standard if your mother is a jew you are a jew if your mother is not jewish neither you are do not twist my words please what you said is that judaism is defined according to religious standards now this can have several different meanings and you know it one of the meanings that it can have is to say that only those who are religious are defined as jews another is to say that only those who meet the religious definition of a jew is one and there are others i m not twisting your words i m trying to make you aware that your words don t mean what you think they do true there are debates in israel and abroad about who is a jew but those debates are taken up by both religious and secular would you say that religious people should not have a say in that would you deny them their right of free speech i am not talking about the debate i am talking about how things are right now when the debate is over i ll see what happens right now things are like they are let me ask you one thing i understand that israel differenciates between citizenship and nationality suppose m ale and f emale have a child in israel which nationality will the child s id show according to each one of the following cases actually it doesn t and the citizens rights are exactly the same in both cases anyway a f and m are both jewish jewish b f is jewsh and m is not jewish c f is muslim and m is jewish d f is christian and m is jewish it ll depend on what religion is practiced in the house the original law of return would still admit such a person if they were jewish if memory serves e f and m are both non jewish not jewish did those israelis who do not believe in god and will never do become non jews why should they still define then a jew based on what is a religious definition it s called history how do you think jews stuck together through pogroms for millenia in europe we had to know who was our own i for one do think that some change is in order and that patrilineal descent is no less legit than is matrilineal which is not the religious jew s point of view there s plenty of room for that in zionism as you well know it called history at some point it was ok now i believe it is not that s valid as far as i can see according to webster s ninth new collegiate dictionary merriam webster inc publishers springfield massachusetts u s a page hy poc ri sy a feigning to be what one is nnot or to believe one does not so saying that one believes in zionism as a simple matter of people having the right to nationalism but disregarding the right of the palestinian people to do the same according to this dictionary is hypocrisy utter baloney by the way i do believe the palestinians have a right to self determination have stated so on this net and i know you ve seen it interesting how do you know had i ever talked to you about this and forgotten about that more than once as have others but that right to self determination cannot be at israel s expense israel s security comes first and that security must be maintained you re also twisting words now beyond belief if you think that s what that definition means in this context you need a first grade course in english which definition are you now talking here about the very one you give above it is absolutely inconsistent with the twist you put on it i do not know why you are so touchy i never said that you did not support palestinian self determination i just gave an example of hypocrisy no you didn t you had to twist the definition of the word degrees in order to do so and everyone else knows it i m not being touchy i never said that someone in this net is guilty of it it was just an example nothing more nothing less than that why did you have to clarify what you think because what you gave was not an example it was an example of how the definition of a word can be twisted around degrees if you didn t use different meanings of words than are in the dictionary you might be believable here you have several problems first you should know that words have more meanings than those given in the dictionary oh so now what are dictionaries for second it may come to be a shock for you to know that there are more words than those in the dictionary duh as a scientist whose technical terms are very often not found in common dictionaries i know this but when a term is common like hypocrisy a good dictionary can be regarded as an authoritative source third we can exchange ideas if you want but you come out with this nonsense about being believable using the definitions given in a dictionary it s not nonsense when people read what you write they have to try to associate a meaning to those words dictionaries give the meanings of words don t they now i assume that you d like to have the words you use mean what you d like them to but the fact is you re using very different meanings than are in the dictionary or you would like the reader to assign them new meanings which they never had it seems that you cannot answer to the ideas given by others without insulting others sad not at all what i cannot abide is utter bombast when you ve been proven completely wrong if your facts at all resembled even the slightest bit of truth which they do not you might be believable if you did not put words in my mouth it might be that you might start reading what i had actually said i never put even one syllable in your mouth you have tried to prove this and you failed so far you come over and over twisting what i said or presenting things i never said as if i had said them poppycock in this way you are answering to yourself that is why you do not find it believable maybe if you start reading what i had actually said and not what you added you might change your mind i read what you said i did not add anything you simply either don t know that the words don t mean what you d like them to which cannot be the case now since you ve been proven wrong and you quite obviously don t have a defense against the arguments presented or you re twisting the meanings which is it but the fact is that there is nothing resembling fact in what you ve said on this thread and the fact also is that you re using different definitions for your words based on baloney than anyone else does first there is nothing resembling a fact in what you added to what i said as if i had said it ha there s nothing resembling fact in what you ve said i never added anything to what you said how sad to see a model of decorum and tranquillity become like any other sport a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee tim rice chess eric s perlman perlman qso colorado edu center for astrophysics and space astronomy university of colorado boulder
