Jeroen wrote:
> At 17:24 03-10-2002 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
> >I have presented eight valid sources (most accepted
**internationally** in
> >their fields) that explain that proper usage of a particular word
in
> >English is not what you, in your opinion, consider the 'logical'
> >definition of it to be.
> >
> >You want me to accept that your postulated argument is more valid
than the
> >one I've proven? Show me the authorities and source materials that
agree
> >with you.
>
> The authority on this is called "plain and simple logic". If X
equals Y,
> then -X equals -Y. If X equals Y, then -X does not equal -0.5Y.
>
> A lot of people choose (intentionally or unintentionally) to
misinterpret
> the actual meaning of the word "anti-Semite" (they believe that X
equals Y,
> but -X does not equal -Y). But the fact that there are a lot of them
does
> not make their misinterpretation the new and correct meaning.
It's not misinterpretation, Jeroen. It's using a word AS IT IS
DEFINED BY THE RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY ON ETYMOLOGY AND USAGE - the
Oxford English Dictionary.
Common usage also applies - Dan's reply to you pointed out several
other words in English that mean something other than a literal
reading of their components would suggest. It may seem
counterintuitive, but that's the way the English language works.
> >Otherwise you're wrong, and I've proved my point.
>
> You have not proven me wrong. All you have essentially done is state
that
> while "Semite" refers to both Jews and Arabs, the opposite of the
word
> ("anti-Semite") does not correspond with the opposite meaning of the
word
> ("hatred of Jews and Arabs").
>
> Again, the fact that a lot of people choose to misinterpet the
meaning of a
> word does not make their interpretation valid.
There is no misinterpretation - the commonly understood meaning of
"anti-Semite" is one who harbors hostile feelings towards Jews either
as a religious sect or an ethnic group.
> But you have proven something: my other point. In my previous post I
wrote:
>
> >>If both Jews and Arabs are Semitic, than *by definition* the word
> >>anti-Semitic must mean anti-Jew *and* anti-Arab -- just like
> >>"anti-American" means "hatred of anything American" and not "only
hatred
> >>of anything Texan". What the pro-Israel crowd is doing, is
ignoring part
> >>of the meaning of the word because it does not suit their needs.
> >>
> >>But then, they really have no choice -- if they were to admit that
> >>"anti-Semite" also means "anti-Arab", they would end up having to
admit
> >>that their logic is fatally flawed.
>
> You show precisely the behaviour I described for the pro-Israel
crowd. Your
> Israel-related posts from earlier this year show that you are in
fact part
> of that crowd. So, you have a very good reason for your
(mis)interpretation
> of the word "anti-Semite" -- admitting that your interpretation of
the word
> is wrong would seriously undermine the most favourite tactic of said
> population group.
Um, no. You appear hell-bent upon reserving for yourself the right to
define words the way you *want* to define them. I consider this
reason enough to determine that you are not inclined to discuss this
topic in good faith.
> Jeroen "Likud Delenda Est" van Baardwijk
Adam C. "Foolishness Delenda Est" Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
