This is concerning Jewish actions and Judaism. Someone saying but not all jews did that or not all jews follow Judaism is true, but jews still need to be eradicated, but how can I say that without the not all argument getting in the way?
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
Gottmituns_ on scored.co
1 year ago0 points(+0/-0)
First, it's helpful to properly define what you're talking about. Read about Aristotle's four causes if you're interested, but it's usually sufficient to provide a teleological definition i.e. defining something based on its purpose, or "end". This is helpful because now you've changed classification from a binary to a spectrum, as in a thing is more of something the better it fulfills its end. This also let's you avoid an endless discussion on essential vs accidental properties. You'll still have to agree on what a thing's purpose is, but most people have never thought of anything teleologically so it's an easier conversation. Now it changes from "I know an x who doesn't do y, therefore y is not an essential property" to "I know an x who doesn't do y, therefore he's a bad x".
For a normie-friendly example, let's say the purpose of a jew is to fulfill the mandates of Judaism. Most normies can't comprehend race so this is a good place to start. Then when someone says "what about Mr Jew, he's charitable and uncircumcised", you can respond with "I agree that Mr Jew is charitable and uncircumcised, but does that make him more or less jewish?". You probably see where this is going: to answer that you get to crack open the talmud and show them the terrible things jews ought to do. Most importantly though, this changes the definition of a thing to one not predicated on examples of a thing, but instead on the "ideal" of the thing. Very Platonic, and as all here will know the ideal of the jew is the devil himself (John 8).
For a normie-friendly example, let's say the purpose of a jew is to fulfill the mandates of Judaism. Most normies can't comprehend race so this is a good place to start. Then when someone says "what about Mr Jew, he's charitable and uncircumcised", you can respond with "I agree that Mr Jew is charitable and uncircumcised, but does that make him more or less jewish?". You probably see where this is going: to answer that you get to crack open the talmud and show them the terrible things jews ought to do. Most importantly though, this changes the definition of a thing to one not predicated on examples of a thing, but instead on the "ideal" of the thing. Very Platonic, and as all here will know the ideal of the jew is the devil himself (John 8).