Is this anti-semitism?

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.

Also, I'm not saying the law is _treated as_ an opinion, I'm saying it _is_ an opinion.

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

The prevailing view: public opinion.

Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

And "Killing is wrong" is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".

(The last clause of that definition is a coincidence, and not what I was aiming at really, 'opinion' seems to be fairly slight homonym.)

That's all I'm saying.

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.

That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

Also "playing the victim" in regards to the Holocaust has that vomit-inducing ring of Holocaust denial.

That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

I think N made his point well, actually, in that within the matrix of (especially central and eastern) European culture, the link between Jews and banking/trade was made into an ideological justification for anti-semitism, and was therefore more harmful than in other contexts. Stereotyping according to race/culture is a touchy area, but the association, or the making of associations, is/are not in themselves bad.

bnw - I know that about the money thing. But the question didn't ask 'are Jews intrinsically obsessed with money?'. I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be. 'Vomit inducing rings' are what all these questions work with, but I prefer my anti-racism to be less 'you must mean that really', in character.

My problem with it is how reasonable and academic it makes anti-semitism sound. It allows people to hold onto their suspicions about Jews, and not have to consider themselves anti-semites.

Really, what's the point of the association between jews and money if not anti-semitism? Have you heard this made in a positive light?

Stuart - oops! I pasted all the text anyway but the link is here

It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.

Lots of murderers believe killing is wrong, too.

I think calling these ethical viewpoints "opinions" trivializes the amount of importance we place on them. "Opinion" also implies some sort of choice in the matter, whereas we often perceive the truth of ethical standpoints so deeply that we cannot imagine thinking they are wrong, or relative, or whatever.

1) 50 years is not such a long time, after all, is it
2) It wasn't the first time
3) Of course Europe doesn't understand Jews - they killed 'em all

and here's the official chain of events for the start of this
conflict:

1) Jews move into Palestine
2) Jews declare nation of Israel
3) Arab neighbors invade with no other provocation beside step 2
4) ALL OTHER SHIT GOES DOWN (repeat step 3 in the 60s and 70s)

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?

I reckon a lot of murderers think killing is wrong, but they do it anyway.

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3

Mmmm! If only all those Palestinians who were displaced/denied the right to a homeland by step 2 could see things so lucidly, eh?

(I'm saying nothing about the validity of the points, but just using maths style logic)

er, isn't that Step 0: Jews promise themselves this land??

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?

Relativism has it that all beliefs are, well, relative. Against this is the idea that beliefs are either right or wrong, warranted or unwarranted, universalisable or merely partisan, and so on and so forth. I was suggesting that the 'belief' that murder is wrong is not a belief in the relativist sense of the word. On my side is the argument that killing must be wrong for everyone (not just those who believe killing is wrong - the relativist's error) or else you are left with the (relativist) situation that killing is only wrong for those who have that opinion, in which case the people actually committing murders get off ethically scot-free, so to speak. Something like that.

That's a bit clearer. Ta.

I think that killing is 'wrong'. Another person may disagree and think killing is 'not-wrong'. We would both be correct.

I think I'm right, but so does the other person. Whose to say which of us is correct? And who is to say that the person who decides which of us is correct is correct. And so on.

As for the hypothetical person who disagrees, thinking that killing is right, we need to ask them to defend their position. It's not enought just to speculate that someone might disagree with us in order for us to 'relativise' our beliefs (although this is exactly what relativists do all the time.) In the absence of an argument - good reasons - in favour of killing, I think we can safely say that killing is wrong.

I couldn't honestly argue that killing is wrong or that killing is right.

I don't think the person who believes killing is right need defend their position. It's just a belief, no more or less valid than my belief that killing is wrong.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 28th, 2004.

This is where it's most clear that I'm NOT getting my point across:
YOU CANNOT ARGUE OR REASON TOWARDS A CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER SOMETHING IS 'RIGHT' OR 'WRONG'.

There is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong', the division is arbitrary.

I'm interested in this. I've never heard the term 'relativise' before. Do you think that's what I'm trying to do? Can you explain that a bit please.

At the same time, as with the above two it may also be a form of group dynamics and not necessarily something thought out or explainable, and that these dynamics can continue even when not in the group situation

New thread:

Anti-semitism thread: onwards from 2023