posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by Eidolon23
if the meaning of a word originally meant excrement and someone decided a new 'context' should be created for it so it could be used, would that be
ok with you?
THE context of the word is in its original meaning. My stance is clear...the word originally meant 'burnt offering', can you tell me what would
motivate someone to connect the slaughter of millions to a burnt offering? it just does NOT make any sense at all to me. Please explain to me how it
makes sense to use that word, which originally referred to a desirable process of offering a burnt animal to a god, to refer to an UNDESIRABLE act
against a group of people? Your example of the word 'depression' is without merit in the context of this discussion. There are many words that are
spelled the same but have different meanings, what does that have to do with using ONE word that ONLY had one meaning in antiquity, to now using it to
refer to something EXTREMELY horrible?
so let me ask you a very pointed question which i think deserves a direct answer: Do you think its ok to use a word which in antiquity was used to
refer to a burnt offering to a god, to now refer to the mass extermination of millions of people...and why?
as to the other semitic groups. I dont think i would be the only one who could interpret the manner in which you referred to other semitic groups as
biased. You inferred this by the way you constructed your questions, and the tone of your words, as if 'where is THEIR DNA database that shows the
purity of their race?', as the Jews have done. It really isnt up to you or me to establish who is pure enough to be considered semitic. If those
people consider themselves to be racially pure thats up to them. Furthermore it has been the study of anthropologists and other academics to conclude
what the other semitic groups are.....so are you denying their conclusions in that regard?
you say you havent heard of anyone being called anti semitic for making statements against turks or others....well you prove my point for me in that
regard.....the word 'anti semitic' has been hijacked by popular media to ONLY refer to Jews...and if one were to use the word in reference to anyone
OTHER than jews THAT person would probably suffer judgement as well.
so i ask you, should a person who makes anti statements about any of the other semitic groups be called an 'anti semite'? if not, why not?
we're supposed to be all about the truth here arent we? Im showing objective evidence that there are OTHER semitic groups that are marginalised in
terms of how they are referenced in the popular media. Does this NOT show a bias?