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.)
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.)