Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I was trigerred by this quote from poster Shafique:

We are not going to agree on your views of who is an anti-semite etc - so let's not go there

I cannot find the right words, but there is something very off with above quote IMO. It looks like poster Shafique is trying to say that there is no reason at all to discuss something if posters find they cannot agree on it beforehand.

I like to express my thoughts and ideas, and whether or not people agree is not that important to me, and is certainly not a reason for me to not start a discussion if I think beforehand we cannot agree. Some discussions do make me look up things and make me read more about a certain subject, but the need that others need to agree beforehand is something I cannot relate to. I am a bit allergic to BS though.

What do other poster think? Why do you post in here? And Shaf, why is it so important to you that others need to agree? I have not seen this intense desire to agree anywhere else. Even if you disagree, you want others to agree to disagree.

Flying Dutchman wrote:It looks like poster Shafique is trying to say that there is no reason at all to discuss something if posters find they cannot agree on it beforehand.

Interesting mis-interpretation of what I wrote - and I hope it is unintentional on your part.

As my quote states - on the specific question on who you consider an anti-semite, we are not going to agree. This is not because I refuse to discuss this topic, but rather because we have ALREADY discussed this at length in multiple threads. Your definition of anti-semitism changes the dictionary definition - and I do not agree with your change.

I also do not agree with who you apply the term to.

Just to prove my point, here are multiple threads where this has been discussed:

1. Thread about my views concerning Judaism and Jews - and my views on violence against any civilians:
philosophy-dubai/questions-for-shaf-for-the-record-t46569.html

2. Thread about an author you accused of being an anti-Semite by producing a misleading quote in another thread (and not linking to the full quote - I had to search for it):
philosophy-dubai/hasan-karmi-anti-semite-t43065.html

3. But most relevant - an 8 page thread on anti-semitism from the perspective of those who are pro-Israel (including yet another discussion of FD's selective quote from Karmi):
dubai-politics-talk/anti-semitism-fanbois-perspective-t47663.html

4. FD's redefinition of anti-semitism:
philosophy-dubai/difference-between-antisemitism-and-islamophobia-t40515.html

a further discussion on the same topic:
dubai-politics-talk/how-spot-islamophobe-t41888-45.html

Now, my quote in context is quite clear - we are not going to agree on who FD considers an anti-semite, so why rehash the same ground again?

Cheers,
Shafique

The general question was why is it so important for you that other posters and other people in general agree with you, but never mind.

You seem to have misunderstood my quote above - I didn't state that you should agree with me, but rather that there's no point discussing a subject that has been discussed at length, and where we have a fundamental difference in definition.

I have absolutely no problems with people having different views, opinions and beliefs - even ones that may seem illogical to me or others. Indeed there are many alternative views on many subjects that I disagree with others on and yet still have fruitful discussions - Chocs, Kanelli, Arniegang (RIP), Dubai Knight etc etc all have/had differing views than me on a range of subjects and yet we have good discussions and respect each others right to their views.

I do make a distinction between people having their own opinions and having their own facts - facts are facts, opinions based on facts we can differ on, but we should be able to agree on facts at least. I do find it interesting to therefore bring out the basis for people's beliefs and whether it can be traced back to verifiable and agreed facts, or differing accounts that claim to be factual. That in itself is an interesting discussion.

I refer you back to the early discussions we had : we agreed on Finkelstein's assessment of the Palestine/Israeli conflict and how at the fundamental level it was straightforward, but we had different opinions on how the way forward:

dubai-politics-talk/demystifying-the-palestinian-issue-t25254.html

That's an example where we discussed, agreed on the facts and agreed to disagree on opinions. Worked fine then. My approach and the facts haven't changed since that discussion.

You are free to continue to state your opinions of me and others, but I think it futile to discuss further why I disagree with your definition and opinion based on the definition.

Cheers,

Shafique