I'll grant my inference of "all" is logic-based. But what else does "The Jews" and "Jewry" and "Jewish Sacrament" mean? If it's the amorphous group of whichever Jews I include and whichever shabbat goyim and whichever I exclude, then it's meaningless, as I've said for years. It has no referent in reality.
I'll also grant you differ from u/Vlad_The_Impaler, who counts Messianics as true Jews and larpers. I apologize for implying you were fully taking his view though I see the language as still ambiguous, as I explain.
ALL PEOPLE "are only enemies of God and the human race (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16) insomuch as they reject Christ, push anti-Christ ideas and ideologies, persecute/undermine Christians, and defend bad Jewish behavior when people like me call it out." To focus on some of us sinners is the problem.
I have not objected to any evidenced criticism of individuals or corporations. I have not argued coincidence, I've agreed there is often-gross overrepresentation. When you say "collective Jewish Problem", though, you go over the line again, because you don't see how collectivist rhetoric (from satanists of all stripes) has led your mind to slip from a real entity to an imagined one. If the problem is religion, that can be sourced; if it's cultural education, that can be sourced; if it's crime, if it's DNA predilection, there are real matters to point to. But I will defend any race or religion against collectivist treatment. There can never be such a thing as a "collective Inuit Problem" nor is there for any other race or religion. When I see an individual imam speaking hatefully, I note that he and his flock are a piece of evidence; but they cannot speak for "the Arabs", and the power of the ahadith to speak for "the Arabs" also has limitations, and I respect those. For me to imagine a "collective Arab Problem" would be metaphorically murderous to innocent children.
Call me a useful idiot if you must: I serve one Master alone (I also volunteer for Scott Lively to keep accountable). Being steeped in Christian libertarianism I arrived here around J6 without realizing that my simple view, color-blindness as to collectives without ignorance of demographic trends as to individuals, would not be held by many here. If you find my views useful to some individual or group, name them. United States is an entity, Masonic Grand Lodges are each entities, other collectives have entity representation. I don't serve the United States, it is my servant; I have no connection with Masonic Grand Lodges or any secret society.
The competing view that tempts you and fully ensnares others is that some humans by birth or upbringing get an automatic restriction on having full human rights. When you say "Jewish Sacrament" you deny the Jews rights to speak for their own religion and you assert your rights to speak for them as an outsider; and that's just the problem you accuse the Jews of having, when you think they call you personally an idolator, which they don't.
If somebody could tell me an actual thing that "collective behavior" refers to, it could be criticized; but so far the only referent for that phrase is imagined groupings of individual behaviors. Trends are real and indicate predilections but cannot lead to judgment against a race. On ConPro the judgments against blacks are far more evident, and equally to be dismissed. For that, there's almost an entity: crime statistics objectively collected by public servants (police). But for "who is a Jew" when it comes to either crime or infiltration, I'm told to rely on anons' imaginations.
Now Swamp Rangers as an org is very interested in documenting and labeling swamp denizens who have crossed a boundary line of bad behavior. One problem we're currently discussing is how to keep a database balanced so as to not overwhelm it with biased content once opened to public contribution. Not easy. But we can certainly thank Conspiracies and ConPro for giving us plenty of examples of what to do and not to do.
So by your logic, even if it is FACTUAL that 83% of American Jews believe that abortion should be completely legal (more than any other religious group) and that all denominations of Judaism (orthodox, conservative, reformed, etc.) agree that abortion should be legal (even ultra orthodox believe abortion is permissible when a mother's life is in danger), I would be making some sort of fallacy to simply say, "Jews are pro-abortion" simply because there could be a small, rather irrelevant, minority of Jews that oppose abortion???
Behold, folks that are reading this: This is Gaslighting 101.
Even though there is a collective group consensus here, per u/SwampRangers (and all gaslighters) there is no such thing as "collective behavior" unless every member of the group exhibits the same behavior. If there is no unanimity in behavior, then it's just a cohencidence that disparate groups of "individuals" are behaving in similar ways, and you're an illogical moron if you use your mental faculties to start noticing patterns and grouping people together. Learn to be a Nominalist, you stupid goy! Because being a Realist by using inductive reasoning and pattern recognition means you might come to anti-schlometic conclusions!
It may be factual that that's a survey report using a demographic trend to estimate 83%, among adults, with a margin of error. But yes it's fallacious and collectivist to say "Jews are pro-abortion" in most contexts, because it implies a collective view and not a majority view. People generally don't take it as meaning "Some Jews are pro-abortion" any more than when people say "Water bodies are wet". You could say "Jews are generally pro-abortion". Collectivism was foisted on us by such greats as Jew Leon Trotsky and Gentile Edward House.
Most people recognize that a true life-of-mother exception is the doctor's call as to life versus life, and is not a rejection of (my or anyone's) being pro-life. The two most pro-life obgyns in Congress, Ron Paul and Tom Coburn, both had to allow two or three babies to die because out of many thousands of deliveries they judged in each case the mother's life was truly at risk. You lumped these pro-life Orthodox Jews in so as to make your point, which was further collectivist thinking on your part.
I just denied coincidence, and affirmed demographic behavior and pattern recognition and consensus, meaning majority or representative activity. "Collective behavior" treats people not as people but as a herd, and does not mean majority activity to most people, it means activity attributable to a collective. I can say how Republicans think because they are an identifiable group of membership-based individuals and they have elected leadership and approved platforms; Republican individuals have consented to be represented by a group government. Jewish individuals have not consented to be represented by leaders as to individual political views (though they have as to religious dogma).
You refuse to explicate the verse about judging the innocent with the guilty. You refuse to define "Jewry" or "the Jews" (in sentences like "I criticize the Jews for legitimate reasons") because these are wax-nose language.
This is a basic comms fail. You may have lived long among people who speak this way, and I am challenging you with a different form of speech (and maybe it requires waking up from the illusion that collectivist language is not a satanic enemy trick). But how can I affirm "Jews are pro-abortion" when the context is likely to imply to some people "all Jews" instead of "the majority of Jews"? The statement is void for vagueness.
By not respecting me when I say these things, and putting other words in my mouth, you're doing the gaslighting. There is no realism in blaming the innocent for the guilt of others.
But yes it's fallacious and collectivist to say "Jews are pro-abortion" in most contexts
Yet GOD makes collectivist statements in the bible such as:
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”
Strange. God didn't say "Wait!!!!! There might be one good Amalek among them! "
God clearly shows us that sometimes an entire tribe of people are bad.
I don't need walls of texts to show biblical examples of why you're wrong. And here you don't get to waste everyone's time banning me and removing comments.
The burden on you is to find a good Jew and showcase him to us. The fact is that there hasn't been a good jew since Jesus Christ and any fake messianic jew you find online is just a crytpo-jew fraud masquerading to sell zionism in the church.
Your citing Amalek is accurate. We're actively discussing the very application of this point to the OP. If you want to join that convo, please confirm that you're able and willing to follow the its rules.
Quick take is that God knows when the entire tribe is guilty and so we can only use that when he reveals it. He has not revealed that all Jews are to be found guilty. In fact, there is no good Jew but Jesus, and there is no good Gentile either. The only "good" people are those found in Jesus. So we have no moral right to declare war preemptively.
In the link above I referred to the person of such holiness that he could perform all the judgment functions at once; Vlad may have at times been compelled to be such a person, I don't know. But without knowing where you're based now I'm not ready to assert your holiness today. (The community and the admins have asked me for reasonable objective regulations on civil speech, and to the degree you decline those regulations we must work our separate sovereignties.)
I'll grant my inference of "all" is logic-based. But what else does "The Jews" and "Jewry" and "Jewish Sacrament" mean? If it's the amorphous group of whichever Jews I include and whichever shabbat goyim and whichever I exclude, then it's meaningless, as I've said for years. It has no referent in reality.
I'll also grant you differ from u/Vlad_The_Impaler, who counts Messianics as true Jews and larpers. I apologize for implying you were fully taking his view though I see the language as still ambiguous, as I explain.
ALL PEOPLE "are only enemies of God and the human race (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16) insomuch as they reject Christ, push anti-Christ ideas and ideologies, persecute/undermine Christians, and defend bad Jewish behavior when people like me call it out." To focus on some of us sinners is the problem.
I have not objected to any evidenced criticism of individuals or corporations. I have not argued coincidence, I've agreed there is often-gross overrepresentation. When you say "collective Jewish Problem", though, you go over the line again, because you don't see how collectivist rhetoric (from satanists of all stripes) has led your mind to slip from a real entity to an imagined one. If the problem is religion, that can be sourced; if it's cultural education, that can be sourced; if it's crime, if it's DNA predilection, there are real matters to point to. But I will defend any race or religion against collectivist treatment. There can never be such a thing as a "collective Inuit Problem" nor is there for any other race or religion. When I see an individual imam speaking hatefully, I note that he and his flock are a piece of evidence; but they cannot speak for "the Arabs", and the power of the ahadith to speak for "the Arabs" also has limitations, and I respect those. For me to imagine a "collective Arab Problem" would be metaphorically murderous to innocent children.
Call me a useful idiot if you must: I serve one Master alone (I also volunteer for Scott Lively to keep accountable). Being steeped in Christian libertarianism I arrived here around J6 without realizing that my simple view, color-blindness as to collectives without ignorance of demographic trends as to individuals, would not be held by many here. If you find my views useful to some individual or group, name them. United States is an entity, Masonic Grand Lodges are each entities, other collectives have entity representation. I don't serve the United States, it is my servant; I have no connection with Masonic Grand Lodges or any secret society.
The competing view that tempts you and fully ensnares others is that some humans by birth or upbringing get an automatic restriction on having full human rights. When you say "Jewish Sacrament" you deny the Jews rights to speak for their own religion and you assert your rights to speak for them as an outsider; and that's just the problem you accuse the Jews of having, when you think they call you personally an idolator, which they don't.
If somebody could tell me an actual thing that "collective behavior" refers to, it could be criticized; but so far the only referent for that phrase is imagined groupings of individual behaviors. Trends are real and indicate predilections but cannot lead to judgment against a race. On ConPro the judgments against blacks are far more evident, and equally to be dismissed. For that, there's almost an entity: crime statistics objectively collected by public servants (police). But for "who is a Jew" when it comes to either crime or infiltration, I'm told to rely on anons' imaginations.
Now Swamp Rangers as an org is very interested in documenting and labeling swamp denizens who have crossed a boundary line of bad behavior. One problem we're currently discussing is how to keep a database balanced so as to not overwhelm it with biased content once opened to public contribution. Not easy. But we can certainly thank Conspiracies and ConPro for giving us plenty of examples of what to do and not to do.
So by your logic, even if it is FACTUAL that 83% of American Jews believe that abortion should be completely legal (more than any other religious group) and that all denominations of Judaism (orthodox, conservative, reformed, etc.) agree that abortion should be legal (even ultra orthodox believe abortion is permissible when a mother's life is in danger), I would be making some sort of fallacy to simply say, "Jews are pro-abortion" simply because there could be a small, rather irrelevant, minority of Jews that oppose abortion???
Behold, folks that are reading this: This is Gaslighting 101.
Even though there is a collective group consensus here, per u/SwampRangers (and all gaslighters) there is no such thing as "collective behavior" unless every member of the group exhibits the same behavior. If there is no unanimity in behavior, then it's just a cohencidence that disparate groups of "individuals" are behaving in similar ways, and you're an illogical moron if you use your mental faculties to start noticing patterns and grouping people together. Learn to be a Nominalist, you stupid goy! Because being a Realist by using inductive reasoning and pattern recognition means you might come to anti-schlometic conclusions!
It may be factual that that's a survey report using a demographic trend to estimate 83%, among adults, with a margin of error. But yes it's fallacious and collectivist to say "Jews are pro-abortion" in most contexts, because it implies a collective view and not a majority view. People generally don't take it as meaning "Some Jews are pro-abortion" any more than when people say "Water bodies are wet". You could say "Jews are generally pro-abortion". Collectivism was foisted on us by such greats as Jew Leon Trotsky and Gentile Edward House.
Most people recognize that a true life-of-mother exception is the doctor's call as to life versus life, and is not a rejection of (my or anyone's) being pro-life. The two most pro-life obgyns in Congress, Ron Paul and Tom Coburn, both had to allow two or three babies to die because out of many thousands of deliveries they judged in each case the mother's life was truly at risk. You lumped these pro-life Orthodox Jews in so as to make your point, which was further collectivist thinking on your part.
I just denied coincidence, and affirmed demographic behavior and pattern recognition and consensus, meaning majority or representative activity. "Collective behavior" treats people not as people but as a herd, and does not mean majority activity to most people, it means activity attributable to a collective. I can say how Republicans think because they are an identifiable group of membership-based individuals and they have elected leadership and approved platforms; Republican individuals have consented to be represented by a group government. Jewish individuals have not consented to be represented by leaders as to individual political views (though they have as to religious dogma).
You refuse to explicate the verse about judging the innocent with the guilty. You refuse to define "Jewry" or "the Jews" (in sentences like "I criticize the Jews for legitimate reasons") because these are wax-nose language.
This is a basic comms fail. You may have lived long among people who speak this way, and I am challenging you with a different form of speech (and maybe it requires waking up from the illusion that collectivist language is not a satanic enemy trick). But how can I affirm "Jews are pro-abortion" when the context is likely to imply to some people "all Jews" instead of "the majority of Jews"? The statement is void for vagueness.
By not respecting me when I say these things, and putting other words in my mouth, you're doing the gaslighting. There is no realism in blaming the innocent for the guilt of others.
Yet GOD makes collectivist statements in the bible such as:
Strange. God didn't say "Wait!!!!! There might be one good Amalek among them! "
God clearly shows us that sometimes an entire tribe of people are bad.
I don't need walls of texts to show biblical examples of why you're wrong. And here you don't get to waste everyone's time banning me and removing comments.
The burden on you is to find a good Jew and showcase him to us. The fact is that there hasn't been a good jew since Jesus Christ and any fake messianic jew you find online is just a crytpo-jew fraud masquerading to sell zionism in the church.
Your citing Amalek is accurate. We're actively discussing the very application of this point to the OP. If you want to join that convo, please confirm that you're able and willing to follow the its rules.
Quick take is that God knows when the entire tribe is guilty and so we can only use that when he reveals it. He has not revealed that all Jews are to be found guilty. In fact, there is no good Jew but Jesus, and there is no good Gentile either. The only "good" people are those found in Jesus. So we have no moral right to declare war preemptively.
In the link above I referred to the person of such holiness that he could perform all the judgment functions at once; Vlad may have at times been compelled to be such a person, I don't know. But without knowing where you're based now I'm not ready to assert your holiness today. (The community and the admins have asked me for reasonable objective regulations on civil speech, and to the degree you decline those regulations we must work our separate sovereignties.)