Hi Folks,
Michael Sylvester wrote:
> As previously mentioned,I am not anti-semitic.I have a super tolerance
> for the diversity of opinions on this list.
Perhaps, you are not. However, the comment and questions you have asked (in
gestalt and individually in some cases) certainly look to be anti-Semitic. They
fit the pattern of anti-Semitic ideas that date back over the past two thousand
years.
> The label of anti-semitism
> may tell me more about the defensive mechanisms of the postee than the
> ideas that I seek discussion on.
Yes, they tell you that I do not like anti-Semitic comments. They tell you that I
will not stand idly by in the face of prejudice and stereotype. I responded
similarly to a post that could be defined an anti-Gay/Lesbian a while back where
you insinuated that homosexuals could not be objective doing research. My
comments tell you that I am not super tolerant of prejudice, discrimination, and
hatred grounded in stereotypes.
>
> I get the impression that if I call into question any perceived negative
> comment about Israel,I am label anti-semite.
Most of your comments, as I said previously, have not been against Israel but
rather against Jews as a group. Anti-Semitism is not really an accurate term but
has common acceptance regarding usage. When most people say "anti-Semitic", they
are really saying that something was anti-Jew. Your comments consistently fit that
description.
As of yet, I have not seen any informed discussion about the State of Israel. The
closest you have come is your recent posting concerning blood donations. But
again, that was not the State of Israel but a private, non-profit medical
organization (an organization which did make some major mistakes). This would be
like saying the government of the United States is to blame because the Red Cross
limits blood donations by individuals who have recently traveled to an at-risk
country.
>
> Btw,an "official" story from the authorities does not mean that the story
> is true.
You argue that I am reporting the official story. However, this is not the case. I
am familiar with the official story. Additionally, I quoted at least one
scientific study and can quote others. When in Israel, this is one of the topics
that I discussed with others. The media had a field day with this topic - thus, a
variety of opinions and a wealth of information was available at the time. What I
do not see is *any* information or data beyond stereotype being presented on your
part.
I would reiterate that due to the plethora of scientific data at the time, certain
countries (then and now) have an alarming HIV-positive rate. Additionally, at the
time in Israel, there was risk of false negatives with the screening measures.
These are very serious medical concerns.
>
> Who was it that said: "I did not have sex with that woman".
> As someone who teaches my students critical thinking skills, I encouage
> them to even question and be even skeptical of official communiques'.
You are right. One must examine a body of evidence regarding an issue. I suggest
that you follow your own advice.
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
