I echo Sam's entry, Jews have been persecuted heavily throughout certains periods of history.
Even in England during the middle ages there was a time when if you were found out to be a Jew you were put to summary execution. This was mainly done on the say so of the Christian churchs so they in turn could seize the property of Jewish individuals whom by tradition of hard work have always been better off and consequently subject to envy. Add to that they supposedly bumped off Christ hardly gace anyone cause to blink an eye back in darker times.
In fact if you delve deeply into the histories of Europe from about 1200 to 1400 pretty much every country in Europe at the time got stuck into the Jews in some form or another.
Hitler merely perfected an already established practice.
Jews? What is a Jew?
-
justincyder
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jews? What is a Jew?
I wish I could keep up with your debate between the two of you its very interesting ( not being sarcastic by the way )but I'm struggling with the big words as I'm very tired. ANd it makes a pleasant change from someone just shouting you're shit you're wrong etc
The only thing I would like to add and I can't remember who said it but like it or not theories need not be backed up by physical evidence in order to be taken seriously or vindicated. ie Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawkings are but 2 huge examples that I can think of.
i'm off to bed now
The only thing I would like to add and I can't remember who said it but like it or not theories need not be backed up by physical evidence in order to be taken seriously or vindicated. ie Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawkings are but 2 huge examples that I can think of.
i'm off to bed now
-
Mysteryman
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jews? What is a Jew?
Reggie,
I brought my wife into it because I've learned a great deal about methodology from her - I could also have cited certain of my teachers, many eminent scientists I've worked with and for, and much I've read.
Perhaps you don't understand the process of learning from others is not the same as claiming to be as one with them, or them as one with you.
As you must (or should be) well aware there are many scientific models which are held as truths which are untested but which have been derived by maths, observation and/or deduction. Much of astronomical physics and particle physics is unproven by methods you seem to accept and, as you must also be aware, all science and its understanding changes and grows decade by decade. There are many proven and inalienable truths which have been established but a large amount of work in psychology is subject to a great deal of debate, opinion with acceptance by some and criticism by others, of theory, methodology and outcome - for instance, various forms of psychological testing have been, and continue to be, the matter of heated debate.
We aren't going to agree on Chomsky. Having worked a great deal with academics over the last 40 years, listened to their debates, been present at many ceremonies honouring research and heard the back biting that goes on, from invitees, at the receptions following the conferring of honours, I'm happy to accept that Chomsky isn't universally adored.
Nonetheless, he is widely respected as a theorist, thinker and intellectual on many levels and does not deserve the comments you made.
I brought my wife into it because I've learned a great deal about methodology from her - I could also have cited certain of my teachers, many eminent scientists I've worked with and for, and much I've read.
Perhaps you don't understand the process of learning from others is not the same as claiming to be as one with them, or them as one with you.
As you must (or should be) well aware there are many scientific models which are held as truths which are untested but which have been derived by maths, observation and/or deduction. Much of astronomical physics and particle physics is unproven by methods you seem to accept and, as you must also be aware, all science and its understanding changes and grows decade by decade. There are many proven and inalienable truths which have been established but a large amount of work in psychology is subject to a great deal of debate, opinion with acceptance by some and criticism by others, of theory, methodology and outcome - for instance, various forms of psychological testing have been, and continue to be, the matter of heated debate.
We aren't going to agree on Chomsky. Having worked a great deal with academics over the last 40 years, listened to their debates, been present at many ceremonies honouring research and heard the back biting that goes on, from invitees, at the receptions following the conferring of honours, I'm happy to accept that Chomsky isn't universally adored.
Nonetheless, he is widely respected as a theorist, thinker and intellectual on many levels and does not deserve the comments you made.
-
Mysteryman
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jews? What is a Jew?
Justincyder,
I don't think there has been a century since the fall of Jerusalem when Jews have not been persecuted.
I don't think there has been a century since the fall of Jerusalem when Jews have not been persecuted.
-
Mysteryman
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jews? What is a Jew?
Now Reggie, you are getting confused. How can there be "very many brilliant people" on the one hand and at the same time those same people be "very, very rare".
"Rarity" depends on scarcity for its existence as a condition, whereas "very many", as an expression indicates a regular occurrence of, or even fecundity.
You can't have it both ways.
Banging on with the same statements isn't going to have me change my mind. I'm quite prepared for you not to like him, even to not accept his theories, but you have to accept his position in the academic firmament, placed there by people far more expert in their fields than you or I.
This link from Minnesota State gives a brief, factual, statement of his achievements from an unbiased source. Wikipedia lists most of his honours, which are factual, but I wouldn't push the text at you as it may well have been written/edited by an admirer and I'd prefer to stay with the cold facts of how he has been accepted and honoured.
"Rarity" depends on scarcity for its existence as a condition, whereas "very many", as an expression indicates a regular occurrence of, or even fecundity.
You can't have it both ways.
Banging on with the same statements isn't going to have me change my mind. I'm quite prepared for you not to like him, even to not accept his theories, but you have to accept his position in the academic firmament, placed there by people far more expert in their fields than you or I.
This link from Minnesota State gives a brief, factual, statement of his achievements from an unbiased source. Wikipedia lists most of his honours, which are factual, but I wouldn't push the text at you as it may well have been written/edited by an admirer and I'd prefer to stay with the cold facts of how he has been accepted and honoured.