Is Sheikh Nasrallah done and buried?

[jt512]

So you're not going to stop doubling down, you're not going to leave out the weasel words, you're not going to honestly and clearly explain how you parsed a reference that incorporates Jesus-worshiping as referring to Jews specifically.

I'm not "doubling down." I'm not using any "weasel words." I have already, twice, explained how I "parsed" your sentence. And I have already explained that the "Jesus-worshiping" part wasn't what was questionable about what you wrote because it is true. The question, therefore, for third time, is why in the world you would use references to Judaism to describe it.

To put it yet another way. If you call a Christian newspaper "Christian" or "Jesus-worshiping," that doesn't ring alarm bells because it is true. But to call something that isn't Jewish "properly kosher" and "sabbath-keeping" makes no sense, and therefore does ring alarm bells, because, as I have explained, it is usually antisemites who do that.

Maybe this is something that will hit the point home for you. Remember when it was acceptable to call things "gay"? At some point we got the message that gay people found that offensive, so we stopped doing it. Well, guess how Jews feel when people call things Jewish or use words that imply that they are. HTH.

 

[Chanakya]

I'm not "doubling down." I'm not using any "weasel words." I have already, twice, explained how I "parsed" your sentence. And I have already explained that the "Jesus-worshiping" part wasn't what was questionable about what you wrote because it is true. The question, therefore, for third time, is why in the world you would use references to Judaism to describe it.

To put it yet another way. If you call a Christian newspaper "Christian" or "Jesus-worshiping," that doesn't ring alarm bells because it is true. But to call something that isn't Jewish "properly kosher" and "sabbath-keeping" makes no sense, and therefore does ring alarm bells, because, as I have explained, it is usually antisemites who do that.

That's like looking at a reference to a hairy individual that speaks English with a <insert-whatever> accent; and then in your mind cutting out the latter portion; and then coming to the conclusion that what we're speaking about is a bear; and what's more going around merrily throwing hateful slurs on that basis. And refusing to acknowledge this, and continuing to double down on your mistake and your knee-jerk hateful behavior arising from that mistake, again and again and again.

...And here I go, compulsively responding to you again. I'll make sure to resist that impulse, now on.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's like looking at a reference to a hairy individual that speaks English with a <insert-whatever> accent; and then in your mind cutting out the latter portion; and then coming to the conclusion that what we're speaking about is a bear

No, it isn't like that. This is another case of a failed analogy in an argument, I told you that doesn't work. In this case, the analogy fails because "hairy" isn't specific to bears. But kosher and Sabbath are both specific to Judaism. Furthermore, even supposing we accept that analogy, we're still left with the possibility that, as much of a leap as such a conclusion might be, maybe you were speaking about a bear, or a dog, or some other hairy thing.

The simplest way to resolve this is not to argue that his interpretation is wrong, but to simply say what you meant. You've said he's wrong about what you meant, but notably you haven't said what the right answer is. If what you meant was innocuous, then the only remaining objections would be either that you badly expressed that meaning (which is not a terrible sin and is best rectified by stating plainly what you meant) or that you're lying about what you meant. In the former case, you will have done what is required, and in the latter case, you will know that you are at a true impasse. And if he finds what you did mean objectionable, then you'll be arguing about your actual position and not about a misunderstanding, which is a better thing to be arguing about.

But as it stands now, you have done nothing to advance the discussion, because you have resorted to a bad analogy to try to make a point that wouldn't help even if you had made it well.

 

[jt512]

n.m.

 

[jt512]

Haha, that's the properly kosher, Sabbath-keeping, Jesus-worshiping Onion.

Cool spoof. It does reflect the situation Hezb seem to finding themselves in.

While disagreeing completely with the corrupt Netanyahu that's latched on to this thing to save his corrupt ass from being booted out of power and maybe thrown in jail, and while unequivocally denouncing this utterly evil psychopath, this mass-murdering monster, this present-day Hitler ------- but nevertheless, grudging respect for the sheer efficiency and effectiveness of the Israeli blitzkrieg. They're doing so well, their intelligence and precision hits are so impressive, that you cannot help stand up and applaud.

(Applaud just the execution of it, not what they're out to do, as far as I'm concerned.)

The irony, Chanakya, is that I was so busy getting offended by your characterization of the Babylon Bee that I never read the rest of your reprehensible and, yes, antisemitic post, in which you equate Netanyahu to Hitler and call the necessary self-defense of Israel against a determined and barbaric enemy committed to its destruction "mass murder" and "Blitzkrieg."

 

[webfusion]

As I noted at some point earlier, the UNIFIL forces are going to interfere with IDF operations.
Their positions are being used as 'cover' for Hezbollah attacks upon Israelis.

And UNIFIL itself says:"UNIFIL peacekeepers are present in south Lebanon to support a return to stability under Security Council mandate."
Which is a huge joke, because all along, these paper tigers have done NOTHING to prevent any Hezbollah build-ups in the area and have IGNORED UN 1701 provisions consistently.

I believe the IDF is warning UNIFIL 'peacekeepers' to vacate their front-line bases and go north, to get out of the way as IDF advances.

If they don't move (they probably won't) then I'm pretty sure the IDF will roll right over them with tanks. (and uncover tunnels & rocket launchers that are adjacent or embedded within the UNIFIL posts).

 

[Myriad]

No, it isn't like that. This is another case of a failed analogy in an argument, I told you that doesn't work. In this case, the analogy fails because "hairy" isn't specific to bears. But kosher and Sabbath are both specific to Judaism. Furthermore, even supposing we accept that analogy, we're still left with the possibility that, as much of a leap as such a conclusion might be, maybe you were speaking about a bear, or a dog, or some other hairy thing.

Many (most) Protestant Christians also use the word sabbath and the phrase "keeping the sabbath." Catholics don't, because long ago they decided to call Sunday "The Lord's Day" instead, specifically to distinguish their holy day from the Jews' sabbath. But it's the Protestant fundamentalist Christian world view that's associated with The Bablyon Bee.

In the King James Bible favored by fundamentalist Christians (as well as in every one of another dozen versions I consulted just now), the Fourth Commandment (of the ten that fundamentalist Christians are fond of posting in classrooms and courthouses) reads "Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy." I grew up in the U.S. attending Protestant church services and definitely do not associate sabbath-keeping specifically with Jews or Judaism. When comparing Christians, it means roughly the same as "churchgoing" as opposed to e.g. "casual" or "lukewarm."

"Kosher" is of course specifically associated with Judaism but in modern parlance it's also taken on a common secular meaning something like "proper" or "conforming." Used in the case at hand in a context of religion makes it seem to imply its original religious meaning, but in its context that's open to interpretation. Until reading the flame war that followed I read "properly kosher sabbath-keeping Jesus-worshipping Onion" as purely an accurate characterization of the Babylon Bee as being conservative protestant/fundamentalist Christian.

 

[Ziggurat]

Many (most) Protestant Christians also use the word sabbath and the phrase "keeping the sabbath." Catholics don't, because long ago they decided to call Sunday "The Lord's Day" instead, specifically to distinguish their holy day from the Jews' sabbath. But it's the Protestant fundamentalist Christian world view that's associated with The Bablyon Bee.

You... really don't know the Bee, do you? Yeah, they're protestant Christian, but fundamentalist? Nope. Not even close. You should see how much they make fun of religion. It's a whole category. Two categories, in fact.

"Kosher" is of course specifically associated with Judaism but in modern parlance it's also taken on a common secular meaning something like "proper" or "conforming." Used in the case at hand in a context of religion makes it seem to imply its original religious meaning, but in its context that's open to interpretation.

Which is why Chanakya should clarify what he meant. But so far he has chosen no to.

 

[dudalb]

Can we take the debate over the Babylon Bee to another thread?
Is has been described as right wing Onion.

 

[Myriad]

You... really don't know the Bee, do you? Yeah, they're protestant Christian, but fundamentalist? Nope. Not even close. You should see how much they make fun of religion. It's a whole category. Two categories, in fact.

They make fun of religious practices and religion-related events they don't like, along with other things not really related to religion. First six at the first link:

- Repurposing a medieval church being repurposed in modern times into a gay nightclub. Is this an actual event or trend? Who cares? Complete with stated wish that the Lord destroys the club with fire and brimstone.

- Repetitious choruses in church hymns. As opposed, presumably, to the five to eight slow wordy verses in traditional hymns.

- Megachurches (whose pastors will have to suffer living in humbler dwellings in heaven than hardworking small-church pastors).

- Writing new hymns with repetitious choruses.

- Moral perfectionism among congregations.

- The Pope writing and saying things, as far as I can tell. Apparently making fun of an imagined Papal response to past anti-Catholic Bee headlines in the Bee.

- (Have to add the seventh here because...) It's repetitious choruses in hymns! AGAIN! Clearly this is the ultimate evil of the modern world!

Second link:

- Teens using Christian concepts to justify sexual attraction, or perhaps just teens having sexual attraction

- People who refuse to memorize Bible verses even though they're capable of memorizing other things.

- Clickbait clichés on YouTube

- Women expecting their husbands to be capable and virtuous

- Thinking one is resisting temptation when actually just too lazy to act

- Atheists

Okay I agree, not fundamentalist, but very conservative which was my main point anyhow. They don't make fun of religion in general, they make fun of other people's religions or lack thereof, and of foibles that their own religion considers faults. Making fun of gays, Catholics, atheists, women, and teens isn't making fun of religion. But mostly, for some reason, they make fun of church songs that repeat their choruses too many times. The next article after the third one of those makes fun of people who leave church early to watch football games, a very sabbath-keeping sentiment.

 

[trustbutverify]

Can we take the debate over the Babylon Bee to another thread?
Is has been described as right wing Onion.

Except the Onion is funny.

 

[jt512]

Except the Onion is funny.

Except the Babylon Bee is funnier.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay I agree, not fundamentalist, but very conservative which was my main point anyhow.

Very conservative in what sense? That they take religion seriously?

You’re setting the bar pretty low there.

They don't make fun of religion in general, they make fun of other people's religions or lack thereof, and of foibles that their own religion considers faults.

It’s all foibles. That’s sort of the point. Nobody is immune to foibles, including the religious.

I think you’re looking for something that isn’t really there.

 

[webfusion]

A bit of news that went largely unnoticed -- they finally recovered the rotting corpse of Brigadier General Nilforoushan, a ranking Iranian commander who died alongside Nasrallah in that targeted attack on 27-9
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-recovers-body-general-killed-lebanon-alongside-nasrallah

Nilforoushan began overseeing operations in Syria and Lebanon after his predecessor, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, was killed in an Israeli strike on an Iranian consulate building in Damascus in April.

Qaani, (whereabouts unknown, presumed dead in IAF airstrike) was named as new head of the Quds Force in January 2020 after his predecessor, Qassem Soleimani, was killed in a US drone strike in Baghdad.

These types of replacements are the subject of the satirical material offered above.
Just to keep the record straight.

 

[Myriad]

Very conservative in what sense? That they take religion seriously?

You’re setting the bar pretty low there.

I mean they're homophobic, classist, racist, anti-Democrat, anti-democracy, pro-Trump, anti-science, anti-environment, corporate kleptocracy complacent, hypocrites who take religion seriously as long as it's their favorite variety of Christianity and they can use it to justify their overarching greed and power-hunger.

In other words, contemporary American conservatives, so called despite their opposition to conserving anything of value that they themselves don't own.

 

[webfusion]

Israelis are being supported in Hyde Park, London.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f26a388bIqI

(Comments are nearly universal in their love of God and love of the Jewish people).

 

[Chanakya]

I mean they're homophobic, classist, racist, anti-Democrat, anti-democracy, pro-Trump, anti-science, anti-environment, corporate kleptocracy complacent, hypocrites who take religion seriously as long as it's their favorite variety of Christianity and they can use it to justify their overarching greed and power-hunger.

In other words, contemporary American conservatives, so called despite their opposition to conserving anything of value that they themselves don't own.

Indeed.

And, as far as the highlighted, projection’s clearly a thing. Not coming myself from a position of either bad faith or of that kind of vileness, I was for the longest time completely oblivious to these, perhaps embarrassingly and autistically so. And, having finally recognized them now, I’d myself suggest simply saving one’s breath; but this works too, works better in fact.

 

[Chanakya]

Israelis are being supported in Hyde Park, London.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f26a388bIqI

(Comments are nearly universal in their love of God and love of the Jewish people).

Facepalm

Talk about irony, and talk about complete utter lack of self-awareness


The very first comment there reads: "UK is a Christian country and will continue to support Israel NO MATTER WHAT "

Another comment among the top few reads: "As I christian who believes Yeshua IS the Jewish Messiah, I stand with Israel..."

Not to forget that the “universal in their love of God” comments that, even when not voiced in quite those crazy terms as the two above, nevertheless find expression in crassly sectarian sentiment: so that clearly, to these people, their God apparently does not equally love and support the Palestinian people as He does the Jewish people.


Does awareness of just what is being supported and celebrated here, in posts like this, not begin to seep in, even now?


Just in case there is a small bit of moral coherence that still remains, in this less than sane support of naked evil:

(Support for) “the Jewish people” =/= (Support for) Bibi's murderous butchery of Palestinian civilians


They’re two completely different things. And it is completely disingenuous, completely dishonest, and a vile thing to do, to attempt to conflate the two.


No sane decent person can fail to have complete goodwill for the Jewish people. But nor can any sane decent person fail to have goodwill for the Palestinian people either. It is not an either-or situation, not from any sane perspective, not as far as the people themselves. The butchery of a few thousand innocents is condemnable, certainly, and in the strongest terms; but how can the butchery of tens of times that number of innocents, and the utter destruction of the lives of hundreds of times that number of innocents, not be just as condemnable, and indeed more so given the larger numbers?

 

[Hercules56]

Israelis are being supported in Hyde Park, London.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f26a388bIqI

(Comments are nearly universal in their love of God and love of the Jewish people).

One cannot support the brutal murderous regime of netanyahu and also claim to love God.

 

[Steve]

One cannot support the brutal murderous regime of netanyahu and also claim to love God.

Claiming love of a non-existent entity leaves the door open to pretty much any other weird idea a person cares to claim. Nothing is excluded.