<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama Forces Israel to Release Muslim Murderer of Holocaust Survivor, Gets Holocaust Award</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:21:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5415410</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 19:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5415410</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Still dodging.  Sound reasoning does not require a particular &lt;i&gt;mindset&lt;/i&gt; to understand.  

I&#039;ve yet to claim that you have an obligation to explain anything &lt;i&gt;to me. &lt;/i&gt;.  Your assertion is dangling out there unsupported, and I am drawing attention to that fact.  Whether you choose to try to make your reasoning explicit, or you choose to leave it as another bit of internet windbaggery, is entirely your decision.  

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Still dodging.  Sound reasoning does not require a particular <i>mindset</i> to understand.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve yet to claim that you have an obligation to explain anything <i>to me. </i>.  Your assertion is dangling out there unsupported, and I am drawing attention to that fact.  Whether you choose to try to make your reasoning explicit, or you choose to leave it as another bit of internet windbaggery, is entirely your decision.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5415402</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 19:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5415402</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The topic is esoteric because you lack the mindset to understand its basic premises. Your exchange with Truebearing established that.

Claiming that I have an obligation or a burden to explain it to you is delusional entitlement.

You&#039;re confusing me with Kipling.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The topic is esoteric because you lack the mindset to understand its basic premises. Your exchange with Truebearing established that.</p>
<p>Claiming that I have an obligation or a burden to explain it to you is delusional entitlement.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re confusing me with Kipling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5415256</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 15:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5415256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You&#039;re calling me out on a topic you don&#039;t understand and are incapable of understanding.&quot;

You appear to find that a comforting mantra, but it&#039;s transparent posturing.  As I&#039;ve noted, there&#039;s nothing esoteric about the topic, the vocabulary, or the concepts.  

Quite plainly, the majority of the Jewish population finds no insuperable barrier between liberalism and being Jewish.  You contend that there is such a barrier.  

Plainly, you have a burden to show that your attempt to revise what it means to be Jewish has merit.  Hiding behind &quot;you wouldn&#039;t understand&quot; or &quot;it&#039;s too deep for you&quot; is transparently an attempt to avoid making the transition from outrageous public statement to reasoned argument.



&quot;Surprisingly it&#039;s not working out so well for you.&quot;

As I&#039;ve mentioned before, if you have to tell the other fellow he&#039;s getting the worst of it, chances are that he isn&#039;t.

My goal, of course, is to either have you explain precisely what insuperable obstacle to being Jewish is presented by liberalism, or to highlight your failure to do so.  Either is a satisfactory outcome.  So far, I see no indication that it&#039;s not being achieved.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You&#8217;re calling me out on a topic you don&#8217;t understand and are incapable of understanding.&#8221;</p>
<p>You appear to find that a comforting mantra, but it&#8217;s transparent posturing.  As I&#8217;ve noted, there&#8217;s nothing esoteric about the topic, the vocabulary, or the concepts.  </p>
<p>Quite plainly, the majority of the Jewish population finds no insuperable barrier between liberalism and being Jewish.  You contend that there is such a barrier.  </p>
<p>Plainly, you have a burden to show that your attempt to revise what it means to be Jewish has merit.  Hiding behind &#8220;you wouldn&#8217;t understand&#8221; or &#8220;it&#8217;s too deep for you&#8221; is transparently an attempt to avoid making the transition from outrageous public statement to reasoned argument.</p>
<p>&#8220;Surprisingly it&#8217;s not working out so well for you.&#8221;</p>
<p>As I&#8217;ve mentioned before, if you have to tell the other fellow he&#8217;s getting the worst of it, chances are that he isn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>My goal, of course, is to either have you explain precisely what insuperable obstacle to being Jewish is presented by liberalism, or to highlight your failure to do so.  Either is a satisfactory outcome.  So far, I see no indication that it&#8217;s not being achieved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5415230</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 14:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5415230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re calling me out on a topic you don&#039;t understand and are incapable of understanding.


Surprisingly it&#039;s not working out so well for you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re calling me out on a topic you don&#8217;t understand and are incapable of understanding.</p>
<p>Surprisingly it&#8217;s not working out so well for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5415024</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 04:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5415024</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;You can comment or criticize all you like a topic that you&#039;re incapable 
of understanding. That doesn&#039;t mean you&#039;re participating in a debate. It
 just means that you&#039;re annoying more knowledgeable people.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Sorry, won&#039;t wash.  Your contention wasn&#039;t esoteric; it didn&#039;t invoke specialized or professional knowledge inaccessible to the unwashed masses.  It was simple and direct: you claimed that Mr. Spielberg could not be Jewish because he was liberal.  

&lt;blockquote&gt;This was a discussion between people who understood the subject. Writing
 10 page letters demanding that we &quot;prove&quot; our assertions to you is 
ignorant and entitled.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I&#039;m not demanding that you prove your assertions &lt;i&gt;to me.&lt;/i&gt;  I&#039;m calling you out on your assertions in public.  I&#039;m inviting you to support a claim that is absurd prima facie, given the large number of Jewish liberals.  This was not a &quot;discussion between people who understood the subject.&quot;  This was a discussion between people whose shared political biases led them to agree on a logically flawed and baseless attempt to redefine an identity to exclude those with whom you disagree.  

You are now trying to find anything - a personal attack, a posture, a diversion - to free you from the obligation of supporting your statement.  &quot;Ignorant?&quot;  Show it to be so.  Ignorant &lt;i&gt;of what?&lt;/i&gt;  &quot;Entitled?&quot;  There&#039;s nothing entitled about pointing out the flaws in an outrageous statement.  You seem unclear on the concept of public discourse.  When you say something silly, others are free to point it out.  

&quot;It&#039;s also mildly amusing.&quot;

Have you ever noticed how frequently the term &quot;amused&quot; seems to be used to substitute for emotions of an entirely different nature?  If it is important to you that I believe you to be amused, okay, Daniel, I believe that you are amused.  

Now how about explaining just what it is that a liberal believes that prevents him from being (or remaining) Jewish?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>You can comment or criticize all you like a topic that you&#8217;re incapable<br />
of understanding. That doesn&#8217;t mean you&#8217;re participating in a debate. It<br />
 just means that you&#8217;re annoying more knowledgeable people.</p></blockquote>
<p>Sorry, won&#8217;t wash.  Your contention wasn&#8217;t esoteric; it didn&#8217;t invoke specialized or professional knowledge inaccessible to the unwashed masses.  It was simple and direct: you claimed that Mr. Spielberg could not be Jewish because he was liberal.  </p>
<blockquote><p>This was a discussion between people who understood the subject. Writing<br />
 10 page letters demanding that we &#8220;prove&#8221; our assertions to you is<br />
ignorant and entitled.</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;m not demanding that you prove your assertions <i>to me.</i>  I&#8217;m calling you out on your assertions in public.  I&#8217;m inviting you to support a claim that is absurd prima facie, given the large number of Jewish liberals.  This was not a &#8220;discussion between people who understood the subject.&#8221;  This was a discussion between people whose shared political biases led them to agree on a logically flawed and baseless attempt to redefine an identity to exclude those with whom you disagree.  </p>
<p>You are now trying to find anything &#8211; a personal attack, a posture, a diversion &#8211; to free you from the obligation of supporting your statement.  &#8220;Ignorant?&#8221;  Show it to be so.  Ignorant <i>of what?</i>  &#8220;Entitled?&#8221;  There&#8217;s nothing entitled about pointing out the flaws in an outrageous statement.  You seem unclear on the concept of public discourse.  When you say something silly, others are free to point it out.  </p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s also mildly amusing.&#8221;</p>
<p>Have you ever noticed how frequently the term &#8220;amused&#8221; seems to be used to substitute for emotions of an entirely different nature?  If it is important to you that I believe you to be amused, okay, Daniel, I believe that you are amused.  </p>
<p>Now how about explaining just what it is that a liberal believes that prevents him from being (or remaining) Jewish?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5415011</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 03:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5415011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You can comment or criticize all you like a topic that you&#039;re incapable of understanding. That doesn&#039;t mean you&#039;re participating in a debate. It just means that you&#039;re annoying more knowledgeable people.


This was a discussion between people who understood the subject. Writing 10 page letters demanding that we &quot;prove&quot; our assertions to you is ignorant and entitled.


It&#039;s also mildly amusing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can comment or criticize all you like a topic that you&#8217;re incapable of understanding. That doesn&#8217;t mean you&#8217;re participating in a debate. It just means that you&#8217;re annoying more knowledgeable people.</p>
<p>This was a discussion between people who understood the subject. Writing 10 page letters demanding that we &#8220;prove&#8221; our assertions to you is ignorant and entitled.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also mildly amusing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5415009</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 03:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5415009</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good idea. There&#039;s a lot that I would forget if I could]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good idea. There&#8217;s a lot that I would forget if I could</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chavi Beck</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414788</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chavi Beck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 23:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Most people today have never had the chance to comprehend the impossible scale of the Shoah. At best they&#039;ve spoken to maybe one survivor. They make light of the Shoah the way people make light of anything that is tiresomely heavy. But Spielberg has enough information to know better. He&#039;s sat with many, many survivors and heard their own words. For him to behave this way shows a complete lack of humanity that is positively scary.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most people today have never had the chance to comprehend the impossible scale of the Shoah. At best they&#8217;ve spoken to maybe one survivor. They make light of the Shoah the way people make light of anything that is tiresomely heavy. But Spielberg has enough information to know better. He&#8217;s sat with many, many survivors and heard their own words. For him to behave this way shows a complete lack of humanity that is positively scary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chavi Beck</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414784</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chavi Beck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 23:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks.
But as Sherlock Holmes said, now that I have learned a perfectly useless-to-me piece of information, better do all I can to forget it...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks.<br />
But as Sherlock Holmes said, now that I have learned a perfectly useless-to-me piece of information, better do all I can to forget it&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414197</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 10:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414197</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
&quot;You just barged into a discussion that you&#039;re incapable of understanding and you&#039;ve been told that you&#039;re incapable of understanding it.&quot;

No, on every account.  First, you&#039;re offering controversial statements in an open, public forum.  When you receive comments or criticisms on such, you are not being &quot;barged in on.&quot;  Second, you&#039;ve yet to offer a comment that can&#039;t be understood.  You&#039;ve offered comments that haven&#039;t been supported, and you are trying to obscure that lake of support by asserting that your assertions are &quot;irreducible truths.&quot;  This contention alone demonstrates that you either don&#039;t understand the terms you are using, or that you are using them in bad faith.  &quot;Liberals can&#039;t be Jewish&quot; is not an irreducible truth.

&quot;A debate between two theoretical physicists can&#039;t be settled with &quot;You&#039;re not smart enough.&quot;&quot;

And, again, you manage to pack multiple inanities into one sentence.  &quot;Spielberg isn&#039;t Jewish, because he&#039;s liberal&quot; isn&#039;t theoretical physics.  It&#039;s not even really metaphysics.  It&#039;s political demagoguery.  If we were to dignify it as a philosophical discussion, then your contention would cast you and true bearing as trained philosophers.  Just out of curiosity, are you?  (One wonders, because true bearing, for example, repeatedly resorts to the formulation &quot;moral clarity,&quot; which is a political, not philosophical, term.). Your comment further fails because I, at any rate, have not tried to &quot;settle&quot; anything with &quot;you&#039;re not smart enough.&quot;  I&#039;ve asked you to lay out the specific reasoning behind your contention that a liberal can&#039;t be Jewish.  You&#039;ve completely ducked, relying on the sort of posturing evident in this last post of yours.  Truebearing started to make an attempt, asserting first a vague contention that liberals were &quot;cultural Marxists,&quot; then shifting to liberals are &quot;humanists,&quot; but he seems to gave lost his taste for either after seeing the logic laid out explicitly.


&quot;However if Bozo the Clown wanders in off the street and demands that the discussion be explained to him in terms he can understand, they are well within their rights to tell him that.&quot;

But when Bozo stands up in public and cries &quot;liberals can&#039;t be Jewish,&quot; he doesn&#039;t get to silence criticism and questioning by asserting that the critics &quot;just don&#039;t understand.&quot;

Again, instead of laying out your logic and showing why it&#039;s defensible, you are simply asserting that &quot;the topic us too deep for you, and it&#039;s none of your business!&quot;  The topic is not deep at all.  Trying to exclude members of a community because if their politics is an old, simple, and transparent maneuver, and it&#039;s that very transparency you are trying to cloak with your &quot;irreducible truth&quot; nonsense.  As for the &quot;barging in&quot; bit, pull on your big boy pants, Daniel.  If you want to influence public perceptions by making public statements, be grown up enough to expect public reaction.

&quot;We are not obligated to try and break down a discussion that all the parties understand to a level at which you would be able to grasp.&quot;

You finally got something right.  You&#039;re not &quot;obligated&quot; to do a blessed thing.  I&#039;ve pointed out a flaw in your comment.  I will continue to point out that flaw.  Whether you choose to address it is entirely up to you.  I&#039;m more than happy for you to decline, and to leave your comment exposed for the cheap slur that it is.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You just barged into a discussion that you&#8217;re incapable of understanding and you&#8217;ve been told that you&#8217;re incapable of understanding it.&#8221;</p>
<p>No, on every account.  First, you&#8217;re offering controversial statements in an open, public forum.  When you receive comments or criticisms on such, you are not being &#8220;barged in on.&#8221;  Second, you&#8217;ve yet to offer a comment that can&#8217;t be understood.  You&#8217;ve offered comments that haven&#8217;t been supported, and you are trying to obscure that lake of support by asserting that your assertions are &#8220;irreducible truths.&#8221;  This contention alone demonstrates that you either don&#8217;t understand the terms you are using, or that you are using them in bad faith.  &#8220;Liberals can&#8217;t be Jewish&#8221; is not an irreducible truth.</p>
<p>&#8220;A debate between two theoretical physicists can&#8217;t be settled with &#8220;You&#8217;re not smart enough.&#8221;&#8221;</p>
<p>And, again, you manage to pack multiple inanities into one sentence.  &#8220;Spielberg isn&#8217;t Jewish, because he&#8217;s liberal&#8221; isn&#8217;t theoretical physics.  It&#8217;s not even really metaphysics.  It&#8217;s political demagoguery.  If we were to dignify it as a philosophical discussion, then your contention would cast you and true bearing as trained philosophers.  Just out of curiosity, are you?  (One wonders, because true bearing, for example, repeatedly resorts to the formulation &#8220;moral clarity,&#8221; which is a political, not philosophical, term.). Your comment further fails because I, at any rate, have not tried to &#8220;settle&#8221; anything with &#8220;you&#8217;re not smart enough.&#8221;  I&#8217;ve asked you to lay out the specific reasoning behind your contention that a liberal can&#8217;t be Jewish.  You&#8217;ve completely ducked, relying on the sort of posturing evident in this last post of yours.  Truebearing started to make an attempt, asserting first a vague contention that liberals were &#8220;cultural Marxists,&#8221; then shifting to liberals are &#8220;humanists,&#8221; but he seems to gave lost his taste for either after seeing the logic laid out explicitly.</p>
<p>&#8220;However if Bozo the Clown wanders in off the street and demands that the discussion be explained to him in terms he can understand, they are well within their rights to tell him that.&#8221;</p>
<p>But when Bozo stands up in public and cries &#8220;liberals can&#8217;t be Jewish,&#8221; he doesn&#8217;t get to silence criticism and questioning by asserting that the critics &#8220;just don&#8217;t understand.&#8221;</p>
<p>Again, instead of laying out your logic and showing why it&#8217;s defensible, you are simply asserting that &#8220;the topic us too deep for you, and it&#8217;s none of your business!&#8221;  The topic is not deep at all.  Trying to exclude members of a community because if their politics is an old, simple, and transparent maneuver, and it&#8217;s that very transparency you are trying to cloak with your &#8220;irreducible truth&#8221; nonsense.  As for the &#8220;barging in&#8221; bit, pull on your big boy pants, Daniel.  If you want to influence public perceptions by making public statements, be grown up enough to expect public reaction.</p>
<p>&#8220;We are not obligated to try and break down a discussion that all the parties understand to a level at which you would be able to grasp.&#8221;</p>
<p>You finally got something right.  You&#8217;re not &#8220;obligated&#8221; to do a blessed thing.  I&#8217;ve pointed out a flaw in your comment.  I will continue to point out that flaw.  Whether you choose to address it is entirely up to you.  I&#8217;m more than happy for you to decline, and to leave your comment exposed for the cheap slur that it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414193</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 09:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Who left?

You&#039;ve yet to identify a tenet or belief of all liberals that is incompatible with being Jewish.  Falling back on platitudes and assurances that you&#039;re really sure that you&#039;re right is no substitute.

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who left?</p>
<p>You&#8217;ve yet to identify a tenet or belief of all liberals that is incompatible with being Jewish.  Falling back on platitudes and assurances that you&#8217;re really sure that you&#8217;re right is no substitute.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414145</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 04:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It would be empty if were debating the topic with you.


You just barged into a discussion that you&#039;re incapable of understanding and you&#039;ve been told that you&#039;re incapable of understanding it.


A debate between two theoretical physicists can&#039;t be settled with &quot;You&#039;re not smart enough.&quot;


However if Bozo the Clown wanders in off the street and demands that the discussion be explained to him in terms he can understand, they are well within their rights to tell him that.


This is not a debate between us.



This is a discussion between people who understand a topic. You are incapable of understanding it.


We are not obligated to try and break down a discussion that all the parties understand to a level at which you would be able to grasp. Truebearing has been nice enough to make the effort with predictably futile results.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would be empty if were debating the topic with you.</p>
<p>You just barged into a discussion that you&#8217;re incapable of understanding and you&#8217;ve been told that you&#8217;re incapable of understanding it.</p>
<p>A debate between two theoretical physicists can&#8217;t be settled with &#8220;You&#8217;re not smart enough.&#8221;</p>
<p>However if Bozo the Clown wanders in off the street and demands that the discussion be explained to him in terms he can understand, they are well within their rights to tell him that.</p>
<p>This is not a debate between us.</p>
<p>This is a discussion between people who understand a topic. You are incapable of understanding it.</p>
<p>We are not obligated to try and break down a discussion that all the parties understand to a level at which you would be able to grasp. Truebearing has been nice enough to make the effort with predictably futile results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414141</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 04:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;you have been insistent that I answer the way you wanted me to, yet you don&#039;t feel bound by your own rules. It seems a bit hypocritical.&quot;

Alinsky Rule 4.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;you have been insistent that I answer the way you wanted me to, yet you don&#8217;t feel bound by your own rules. It seems a bit hypocritical.&#8221;</p>
<p>Alinsky Rule 4.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414142</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 04:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Blind man still can&#039;t see color. Leaves in a huff.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blind man still can&#8217;t see color. Leaves in a huff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414140</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 04:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[K. Kardashian]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>K. Kardashian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chavi Beck</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414057</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chavi Beck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2014 23:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The NK are entirely forgettable.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NK are entirely forgettable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5414004</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2014 22:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5414004</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And it appears that neither gentleman is able or willing to be specific in why, in the end, a liberal cannot be Jewish.  C&#039;est la vie.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And it appears that neither gentleman is able or willing to be specific in why, in the end, a liberal cannot be Jewish.  C&#8217;est la vie.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5412889</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 05:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5412889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Is it beyond your capacity to differentiate between Cultural Marxism and Judaism...&quot;

You&#039;re shifting the goalposts.  The original claim was that one could not be liberal and Jewish; now you&#039;re talking about Cultural Marxism.  I asked if you were arguing that &quot;Cultural Marxism&quot; was inherent to liberalism, but you&#039;ve yet to respond.

&quot;Research, man. Dig in and learn the differences yourself. That way you won&#039;t forget them.&quot;
 
Not sure why you insist on this sort of posturing.  It&#039;s silly.

&quot;Here is another hint: one believes in monotheism; one believes in humanism.&quot;

Ah, so now you&#039;re arguing that liberals are humanists, and that humanism is incompatible with being Jewish.  Perhaps we&#039;re getting somewhere.

So let&#039;s see if we can articulate your revised argument:

1.  Humanism is incompatible with monotheism.
2.  Being Jewish requires a belief in a monotheistic God.
3.  Being liberal necessarily entails embracing humanism.
4.  Therefore, being liberal is incompatible with being Jewish.

If you disagree with that formulation of your argument, feel free to correct it.

Now, exactly none of those statements is self-evident.

First, humanism comes in many forms, and there have been religious and secular humanists.  Modern humanism&#039;s roots lie in the Enlightenment, and many of the Founders were humanists (Thomas Paine springs immediately to mind).  This suggests that you see a fundamental conflict between the ideals of the Declaration and of the Constitution and Christianity.  A moment&#039;s reflection will reveal that the entire concept of democracy, rooted in the idea that governments exercise their authority with the consent of the governed, and that the legitimacy of laws derives from the people, is - by your formulation - utterly incompatible with Christianity.  If Spielberg cannot be Jewish on account of his alleged humanism, Mssrs Washington, Jefferson, et al, must be similarly excluded from what seems to be becoming a vanishingly small circle of True Believers.

It&#039;s not at all clear that one need hold any particular belief at all to be Jewish, which is as much about ethnicity and identity as it is about belief.  Even among the religious Jews, there is an impressive variety of belief.  At various points in the history of ancient Israel, the Jews turned away from God.  He punished them, but they never stopped being Jews.  You and Daniel appear to be taking it upon yourselves to decide for God who his chosen people are; what is your basis for doing so?
You seem to run into your greatest problem when you ascribe to &quot;liberals&quot; a particular set of beliefs.  You&#039;ve variously imputed &quot;cultural Marxism&quot; and &quot;humanism&quot; to the liberal ideology.  It&#039;s not sufficient for the purpose of your argument to claim (or even establish) that &lt;i&gt;many&lt;/i&gt; liberals subscribe to these viewpoints; you must establish that they are integral to liberalism, that one is not and cannot be liberal absent these characteristics.  Otherwise, you haven&#039;t established that liberalism, per se, is incompatible with anything.  So the key question is - just what do you understand a liberal to be and to believe, and on what do you base your understanding?

&quot;I gave you the Ten Commandments as a key to understanding the 
irreconcilable differences, but you failed to take advantage of that 
clue.&quot;

I&#039;m not sure how you came to conceive of argument as a guessing game, but if you&#039;re going to establish that a liberal cannot be Jewish, you&#039;re not going to do it by offering &quot;clues.&quot;  The method of discourse you&#039;re employing is generally a smokescreen attempting to conceal that there is no coherent framework to the argument, and you&#039;re hoping that by being cryptic, the other individual will either make the argument you could not, or conclude that you understand that which you do not.  

I suppose I&#039;ve given up to your game, to the extent that in my post above, I&#039;ve now laid out the argument that you plainly could not.  If your goal was to play Tom Sawyer with the picket fence of your incoherent argument, congratulations.  Now let&#039;s see if, having been unable to make your case to begin with, you can take the framework you&#039;ve been handed and defend it, improve upon it, or otherwise construct something resembling a rational argument from it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Is it beyond your capacity to differentiate between Cultural Marxism and Judaism&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re shifting the goalposts.  The original claim was that one could not be liberal and Jewish; now you&#8217;re talking about Cultural Marxism.  I asked if you were arguing that &#8220;Cultural Marxism&#8221; was inherent to liberalism, but you&#8217;ve yet to respond.</p>
<p>&#8220;Research, man. Dig in and learn the differences yourself. That way you won&#8217;t forget them.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not sure why you insist on this sort of posturing.  It&#8217;s silly.</p>
<p>&#8220;Here is another hint: one believes in monotheism; one believes in humanism.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ah, so now you&#8217;re arguing that liberals are humanists, and that humanism is incompatible with being Jewish.  Perhaps we&#8217;re getting somewhere.</p>
<p>So let&#8217;s see if we can articulate your revised argument:</p>
<p>1.  Humanism is incompatible with monotheism.<br />
2.  Being Jewish requires a belief in a monotheistic God.<br />
3.  Being liberal necessarily entails embracing humanism.<br />
4.  Therefore, being liberal is incompatible with being Jewish.</p>
<p>If you disagree with that formulation of your argument, feel free to correct it.</p>
<p>Now, exactly none of those statements is self-evident.</p>
<p>First, humanism comes in many forms, and there have been religious and secular humanists.  Modern humanism&#8217;s roots lie in the Enlightenment, and many of the Founders were humanists (Thomas Paine springs immediately to mind).  This suggests that you see a fundamental conflict between the ideals of the Declaration and of the Constitution and Christianity.  A moment&#8217;s reflection will reveal that the entire concept of democracy, rooted in the idea that governments exercise their authority with the consent of the governed, and that the legitimacy of laws derives from the people, is &#8211; by your formulation &#8211; utterly incompatible with Christianity.  If Spielberg cannot be Jewish on account of his alleged humanism, Mssrs Washington, Jefferson, et al, must be similarly excluded from what seems to be becoming a vanishingly small circle of True Believers.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not at all clear that one need hold any particular belief at all to be Jewish, which is as much about ethnicity and identity as it is about belief.  Even among the religious Jews, there is an impressive variety of belief.  At various points in the history of ancient Israel, the Jews turned away from God.  He punished them, but they never stopped being Jews.  You and Daniel appear to be taking it upon yourselves to decide for God who his chosen people are; what is your basis for doing so?<br />
You seem to run into your greatest problem when you ascribe to &#8220;liberals&#8221; a particular set of beliefs.  You&#8217;ve variously imputed &#8220;cultural Marxism&#8221; and &#8220;humanism&#8221; to the liberal ideology.  It&#8217;s not sufficient for the purpose of your argument to claim (or even establish) that <i>many</i> liberals subscribe to these viewpoints; you must establish that they are integral to liberalism, that one is not and cannot be liberal absent these characteristics.  Otherwise, you haven&#8217;t established that liberalism, per se, is incompatible with anything.  So the key question is &#8211; just what do you understand a liberal to be and to believe, and on what do you base your understanding?</p>
<p>&#8220;I gave you the Ten Commandments as a key to understanding the<br />
irreconcilable differences, but you failed to take advantage of that<br />
clue.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure how you came to conceive of argument as a guessing game, but if you&#8217;re going to establish that a liberal cannot be Jewish, you&#8217;re not going to do it by offering &#8220;clues.&#8221;  The method of discourse you&#8217;re employing is generally a smokescreen attempting to conceal that there is no coherent framework to the argument, and you&#8217;re hoping that by being cryptic, the other individual will either make the argument you could not, or conclude that you understand that which you do not.  </p>
<p>I suppose I&#8217;ve given up to your game, to the extent that in my post above, I&#8217;ve now laid out the argument that you plainly could not.  If your goal was to play Tom Sawyer with the picket fence of your incoherent argument, congratulations.  Now let&#8217;s see if, having been unable to make your case to begin with, you can take the framework you&#8217;ve been handed and defend it, improve upon it, or otherwise construct something resembling a rational argument from it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5412881</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 04:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5412881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I&#039;m still trying to figure out why you don&#039;t understand it.&quot;

I can&#039;t understand an argument you haven&#039;t yet made.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I&#8217;m still trying to figure out why you don&#8217;t understand it.&#8221;</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t understand an argument you haven&#8217;t yet made.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: truebearing</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/steven-spielberg-is-anti-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-5412880</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truebearing]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 04:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225208#comment-5412880</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Sorry, no. It&#039;s your argument (and Daniel&#039;s); you don&#039;t get to &quot;leave it to&quot; anyone else to make it.&quot;


I&#039;m still trying to figure out why you don&#039;t understand it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Sorry, no. It&#8217;s your argument (and Daniel&#8217;s); you don&#8217;t get to &#8220;leave it to&#8221; anyone else to make it.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m still trying to figure out why you don&#8217;t understand it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 962/1057 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 04:40:57 by W3 Total Cache -->