"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

[Gondwanaland]

Defensive and angry.

Hm, looks like someone trying to declare what is going on in my subconscious.

[Gondwanaland]

There is no twisted logic - as I previously noted none of us know what is going on in Gondwanaland's subconscious - not even him.

That hasn't stopped you from proclaiming that you magically know, you pathetic hypocrite.

[Gondwanaland]

You have never provided any accredited historical evidence to support of your contention that within the Graeco-Roman world anti-Semitism,as we now understand that term, existed. Your repeated refusal and feeble excuses exemplify that fact.

Nor will I ever leap through your hoops, so go choke.

Had you such evidence you would have produced it with alacrity.

If I were speaking to someone other than yourself, certainly.

It does not to conform to modern understanding of that term.

There is nothing in the modern understanding of that term that requires it to be institutionalized or systematic.

No one is disputing there were anti-Judaic sentiments and animosity that on occasion led to violence

Hence, antisemitism.

. However, In Rome there were also anti-Egyptian sentiments [given the events with Cleopatra] and some anti-Greek feeling against bearded men and their philosophy leading young men astray. It is possible there were distinct anti-Germanic sentiments after the events of 9 CE However, none of this was institutionalised and no group was deliberately targeted for its religion and religious practises

And? That there were other racist sentiments present does not negate the antisemitism. Otherwise the Nazis were not anti-semitic because they targeted homosexuals, Romani, etc..

As anti-Semitism as we now understand the term was institutionalised by the Nazis via the Nurnberg Laws you are [once again] writing nonsense.

More nonsense.

You have dug yourself in to your own metaphorical hole in these exchanges.

I asked you a carefully worded question.

You asked a carefully worded strawman.

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum/social-studies/civics-101/1329148-i-think-we-should-throw-those-books-in-a-fire/page31#post1332642

Post # 456

You replied at post # 458

My emphasis.

Your reply in that opening paragraph confirmed your acknowledgement of my question to you. You continued that it was not simply according to you but “it’s according to actual historians”. You even used the word “Correct”.

And yet when I used the word 'correct', you bleated that I had not answered your question. You don't get to have it both ways, bimbo.

[Gondwanaland]

But you aren't "beating her at her own game". She won the game the moment you followed her down her subject change. I.E. Its like when democrats claim something is racist to shift the focus from the corruption that a politician is doing. The minute you decide to engage with their argument about that something being racist, you lose, because you are doing what they want, which is ignore the corruption of the politician.

Literally don't care.

See, here's the thing. This is her thread. If it were mine she'd have been booted within the first couple pages. But we can't boot her, nor keep her on topic (which she's clearly not interested in). What we can do is turn it into a massive monument to her own idiocy and numerous losses of argument that result in her subject changes. That's better than just ignoring her.

[rogue06]

HAtroll.jpg

Did someone say squirrel?



Smiley squirrel.gif

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Deh. She derails when she can't substantiate her argument. It's a non-admission of defeat.

Given that I have provided citations from various academics in support of my contentions and you have provided practically nothing I do not think I am the one who cannot substantiate my argument,

I thought you might have a little more probity.

[CivilDiscourse]

Literally don't care.

See, here's the thing. This is her thread. If it were mine she'd have been booted within the first couple pages. But we can't boot her, nor keep her on topic (which she's clearly not interested in). What we can do is turn it into a massive monument to her own idiocy and numerous losses of argument that result in her subject changes. That's better than just ignoring her.

I've found the better thing to do is call out her tactic, and immediately re-direct back to the topic she was trying to avoid or distract from:

I'd have gone with something akin with:

Post # 466


Post # 496


Two comments within two pages that refer to spanking a women. Hmmm. You do seem to like making allusions to administering corporal punishment. Is there something you would like to share with us all?

I'm not going to bother with your distraction tactic.

Instead, lets continue on dealing with your inaccuracies, and inability to recognize Hellenistic Scholars.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That hasn't stopped you from proclaiming that you magically know, you pathetic hypocrite.

You do not seem to be able to grasp the use of a qualified statement. Unlike you I do not make dogmatic pronouncements and then expect everyone to unquestioningly accept what I have written.

[Gondwanaland]

You do not seem to be able to grasp the use of a qualified statement. Unlike you I do not make dogmatic pronouncements and then expect everyone to unquestioningly accept what I have written.

You do not seem to be able to grasp your hypocrisy.

[tabibito]

Given that I have provided citations from various academics in support of my contentions and you have provided practically nothing I do not think I am the one who cannot substantiate my argument,

The basic premise of racism is that another race is somehow inferior: morally, intellectually, or in other ways. It would be possible to add faithism and culturism to the list of isms, again attributing moral, intellectual, or other deficiencies to the out-group. Practicing racism is not restricted to any one race, nor faithism to any one faith, nor culturism to any one culture. Quite simply, Jewish cultural isolationism was certain to provoke antagonism in any culture coming into contact with Judaism.
These problems have been a feature of civilisation for as far back as tracing has been possible. Your citations did not demonstrate a lack of racism in BCE cultures, and anti-Semitism specifically. Nor have any of your arguments addressed the Judaist anti-Christian faithism.

I thought you might have a little more probity.

You thought what? Pull the other one.

[Gondwanaland]

Given that I have provided citations from various academics in support of my contentions and you have provided practically nothing I do not think I am the one who cannot substantiate my argument,

Nothing you have provided supports your absurd claims that antisemitism didn't exist before Christianity, nor your claims that somehow a culture being discriminatory and racist toward other peoples somehow makes their discrimination and racism toward jews magically not anti-semitism.

I thought you might have a little more probity.

Lol, the person who posted scantily clad pictures of young children last year, accusing someone of a dearth of probity?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Nor will I ever leap through your hoops, so go choke.

If I were speaking to someone other than yourself, certainly.

There is nothing in the modern understanding of that term that requires it to be institutionalized or systematic.


Hence, antisemitism.

And? That there were other racist sentiments present does not negate the antisemitism. Otherwise the Nazis were not anti-semitic because they targeted homosexuals, Romani, etc..

More nonsense.

You asked a carefully worded strawman.


And yet when I used the word 'correct', you bleated that I had not answered your question. You don't get to have it both ways, bimbo.

You are quite correct I did make an erroneous remark at post #460. You did acknowledge, if not directly address, my question.

However, your unsupported opinion is still misguided and flawed and no amount of metaphorically stamping your foot or making pejorative remarks towards me will alter that fact.

[Cow Poke]

You do not seem to be able to grasp your hypocrisy.

Is that the case?
OR is it just so much arrogance that she simply doesn't care?

I honestly can't tell.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The basic premise of racism is that another race is somehow inferior: morally, intellectually, or in other ways.It would be possible to add faithism and culturism to the list of isms, again attributing moral, intellectual, or other deficiencies to the out-group. Practicing racism is not restricted to any one race, nor faithism to any one faith, nor culturism to any one culture.

Firstly the term "racism" first occurs in the OED in 1910. The term "racialism" first appeared in print a little earlier and secondly you are utilising aspects of a specific form of racism which did not exist until the nineteenth century.

No one disputes that notions of cultural or racial superiority existed in the ancient world. The ancient Egyptians were somewhat chauvinistic and the Greeks considered anyone who did not speak Greek to be a barbarian [the word is still in use today to denote someone who uncultured and/or wantonly destructive].

No one has ever disputed the possibility that group hatred and bigotry may have existed in many forms in the course of human history but the attitudes of the Graeco-Roman world were not the same as those which produced the [supposedly] scientific racism of the nineteenth century.

The Greeks and Romans described other peoples and explained their own superiority as well as the good values or and/or inferiority of other groups.. Tacitus writes of the Germanic tribe the Chatti as being given to orderly judgement and sagacity. However, other writers including Strabo and Manilius considered the Germans to be untrustworthy and liars. However, their views cannot be taken as a consensus and those opinions may have something to do with the disastrous event of 9 CE.

As to religions, Rome took a dim view of any religion that threatened the status quo. Egyptian and Asiatic cults were deemed a threat because they appealed to Romans. Other religions were considered primitive and barbaric. However, there was a distinction between attitudes towards those religions and cults practised in Rome and those only practised in the provinces. As long as human sacrifice did not take place and anti-Roman rebellions were not encouraged or fomented under religious groups [the Druids for example] foreign cults in the provinces were generally left alone, especially if they could claim to be ancient practises.

Quite simply, Jewish cultural isolationism was certain to provoke antagonism in any culture coming into contact with Judaism.

Given that Jews lived in the diaspora and what would become various parts of the Roman empire your comment concerning isolationism is questionable. Furthermore, despite the initial uprising by the Maccabees, the Hasmoneans readily adopted many aspects of Hellenistic culture. Nor can the later Hasmoneans working with Rome be discounted in creating further tension between the Greeks and the Jews, from which some Greek hostility was inevitable.

However, without an understanding of the history of this region from the Persian period onward vague generalisations pertaining to the Jews have no validity.

These problems have been a feature of civilisation for as far back as tracing has been possible. Your citations did not demonstrate a lack of racism in BCE cultures, and anti-Semitism specifically.

Once again I have never disputed the existence of what we might term proto racism within the ancient world but the reasons behind those attitudes are complex and you cannot apply a blanket assertion to widely differing ancient cultures.

Nor have any of your arguments addressed the Judaist anti-Christian faithism.

Along with the dates of the Passover as recounted in the gospels that appears to be another of your hobbyhorses.

You thought what? Pull the other one.

To which I can only reply, those are your words, not mine.

[rogue06]

[FONT=Arial]Firstly the term "racism" first occurs in the OED in 1910.

Oh my. We have retreated to the same failed ploy you attempted with respect to homosexuality. Saying it didn't exist until someone coined the term in the 1860s

Buffoonery.gif