This thread is a joke. First we have a guy who doesn't know what the definition of anti-Semitic is, and secondly the whole premise is stupid. Nothing is more about hating Jewish people for being Jewish than a philosophy that the should all be in one state.
Another simple-minded approach, like I said, it's easy to pull up google and believe anything it tells you, brainless.
Wikipedia is incredibly accurate. The wikipedia moderators/editors are obsessed with maintaining factual integrity. Are you suggesting that there is an ongoing hoax in which pranksters are constanatly editing the wikipedia page for anti-semitism? That is ridiculous. Maybe I used yahoo, or bing, or something else. Maybe I just knew the URL of the website (now i'm just messing with you).
Occam's razor. Read that. The wikipedia page for occam's razor is more comprehensive, but you seem to be afraid of peer edited encyclopedia entries/democracy.
Just a note on this, wrong again, scholars and students avoid use of Wikipedia, yes of course some posts are moderated, although you see many people writing crap that actually gets approved. Secondly, a lot of it is written with tendency for bias, after all it's a western source for one, but most people have motives for writing, and even if partially correct, a lot gets approved, sure it is relevant to specific topics though, but one thing is sure, Wikipedia is not a credible source of information.
The word sinister refers to those who are left-handed; it acquired its current definition because left-handedness was associated with the devil during the Middle Ages. By your logic, however, it would be perfectly appropriate to use this word in its most literal sense, even if nobody understood this foreign definition.
It's embarrassing that such a simple concept has to be explained.
Quite possibly the worst context I've ever seen, not even closely relevant on any level. Firstly you ignored the fact that antisemitic and anti-semetic are two different words. But sure yes, the term antisemitic was used a long long time ago to express anti-Jewish sentiment, but that doesn't mean to say that it's impossible for someone to be anti-semite. To be honest, it's not even important to the topic, some people just like to ignore anything meaningful and try and pick and something that they feel they don't agree with, however ill-educated it may make them look. There's nothing intelligent about trying to argue in what google told you, clearly I'm already aware of that, yet don't agree with it. If the whole world was brain dead enough to believe everything we read or so, without questioning some things, where would we be...
I'll help you out because you seem very confused. The thread asks you if you agree with the stance that Zionism movement is anti-jewish or not, irrespective of what I consider the term to mean, because there are many more points than just that. So instead of sitting here repeating what someone else has already said, effectively spamming, why don't you actually put your point across, if you even have one.
This is like a debate where the gov misinterprets the resolution. The judge will give you the loss, because you're stupid. This doesn't belong in a debate forum, this has turned into a shouting match over a single word from the original question.
JamRsPins, you tried to interpret anti-semitism literally, as opposed to the accepted meaning, and Nero called you out on it. You can close this thread, the jig is up. There is no more debate here, since you limited the topic to your own warped interpretation of a word.
Also, what happened to refraining from posting your viewpoint?? In your very first post, you said "look at this map of stolen land!!!!
That's exactly my point, people are ignoring the topic at hand, not me. I havn't limited the topic, it is merely other posters that are picking out on something rather irrelevant, instead of actually posting a viewpoint on this. It's rather silly and stupid. But it's not me, I have my viewpoint, sorry it might not conform with a sheep-like viewpoint, but if we were all silly enough to believe everything and anything we read, where would we be.
Also, I did not post my viewpoint at first, and in my response I posted a fact, not a viewpoint, for the poster to comment on. I felt his response was limited and wanted him to comment more on it.
You complain about the thread being off-topic, yet you foolishly make a post that does exactly the same thing. Bravo sir, really, bravo.
