The source is the book by the son of the chief rabbi of rome, professor of medieval and renaissance history, Ariel Toaff.
You know it's your double attacks that make me question your motives. By that I mean that you simultaneously attack the credibility of the source material and try to use the claim of the source material as truthful to prove that the source material doesn't say what it seems to say.
If you were a bypasser, curious and skeptical, I'd guess you'd go for one of the other. You yourself are fine with seperating orthodox j.ews from other j.ews in present day. But somehow you are incapable of even considering the thought that there may have been deviant sects of j.ews in history.
The source is credible and well-documented by the j.ewish scholar. Perhaps you should read it instead of continuing to put your foot in your mouth.
I use the same compass for both. Which parts of the story are openly able to be discussed and which part of the story is under censure? Discussion about blood libel, much like holocaust has a tendency of ending up in the memory holes and every time you find something vaguely credible looking to further investigate later, you have to use archive.md because next week it will probably be gone.
I don't see, say, flat earth facing similar censure.
Censure doesn't make something true, but there's probably something to part of it at the least, much like china's censure of democracy and tianenman square massacre.
No, the topic we were talking about was the drinking of blood by j.ews in history, which you said never happened. I'm glad you reframed yourself away from that position. You could have just admitted it and saved us this song and dance.
Finally, if you want a straight answer to a straight question, ask a non-loaded one. I answered your straight questions, not your loaded ones. I'm just not into beating my wife, you know.
My man, calm down. Let me try to spell out my opinions and claims and see if that can calm things down. My motives are that I came into this thread to make some points about one of your posts. I'm not sure what you are implying, do you think I am trying to censor you? I'm just disagreeing. I am not sure what about that is duplicitous. In my original post, I was pointing out that j.ews are mostly persecuted/expelled based on extremely sketchy and questionable motives. In doing this I mentioned the blood libel in passing, and that I don't think this happened. When you suggested it genuinely did, I was shocked. I have honestly never seen someone claim that j.ews actually do stuff like drink blood, even on /pol/ they usually just claim j.ews infiltrate white countries and make Muslims immigrate or whatever.
When I wrote that blood libel never happened, my intention was saying that j.ewish ritual murder of Christian children never happened (and I still don't think it did). When I refer to j.ews sucking blood in the context of j.ewish persecution I meant the types of ritual murder they were accused of and put on trial for. This is a really semantic argument. If you desperately want me to, I will happily admit that in some gay ass ultra-orthodox rituals, priests suck the blood of j.ewish children during circumcision. But the claim that "j.ews really do suck blood because circumcision, so ha!" doesn't really work in the context of j.ews being wrongfully accused of things and persecuted for them, correct? I mean if the only crime they ever committed was circumcising why were they persecuted? Why did all these mobs drive out all these j.ews? Or if this only happened a handful of times what about all the other times j.ews were accused of it and driven out, tortured, killed, et cetera?
My argument centers around the fact that j.ews are accused of unreasonable things, that's what I was directly referring to. I'm really sorry if that wasn't obvious. I honestly wasn't trying to manipulate you or drag out an argument or whatnot. I was genuinely surprised you were defending something so ridiculous to any degree of seriousness, and I still am. I wasn't trying to 'reframe' my argument and moving the goalposts. I was just trying to make my vague 'never happened' position more clear.
You know it's your double attacks that make me question your motives. By that I mean that you simultaneously attack the credibility of the source material and try to use the claim of the source material as truthful to prove that the source material doesn't say what it seems to say.
Why is there anything wrong with that? I genuinely don't understand what's wrong with saying something is rendered false by two mutually exclusive cases? If it's wrong in both cases, it's still wrong, no? Flat earth critics can point out how ridiculous it is to get arguments from a flat-earth Facebook group and in the same breath, criticize the points that group made. I don't see how that is, in any way, an attempt to trick you. It would only be wrong if I tried to use it to support a positive claim with two mutually exclusive stories, in which case you could just point out my hypocrisy. But in this case I'm pointing out two possible failures, either of which would cripple that particular point.
I use the same compass for both. Which parts of the story are openly able to be discussed and which part of the story is under censure? Discussion about blood libel, much like holocaust has a tendency of ending up in the memory holes and every time you find something vaguely credible looking to further investigate later, you have to use archive.md because next week it will probably be gone.
I don't see, say, flat earth facing similar censure.
Censure doesn't make something true, but there's probably something to part of it at the least, much like china's censure of democracy and tianenman square massacre.
Youtube censors holocaust-denial, as do many major media companies and some governments. I won't defend censorship. I unironically think you should be perfectly capable of making your point to the masses and I think it's a massive shame what youtube does and what genocide denial laws do. But its incredibly unreasonable to think that "there's probably something to part of it at the least" regarding every or most incidents of censorship. Holocaust denial officially supported in Syria and Iran for instance. If Syria or Iran punish someone for suggesting the holocaust happened, will you do a 180 on your opinions? Most other forms of genocide denial are also outlawed. Do you think there's something to a part of every single genocide denial? Armenian genocide denial is illegal in Armenia. Are the Turks right about the Armenian genocide? Are the commies right about the Holodomor? Are the Japanese right about Nanjing? I really think this is just an instance of a pernicious brain worm of cognitive dissonance and that people got fed-up dealing with it, and unfortunately turned to censorship.
If you were a bypasser, curious and skeptical, I'd guess you'd go for one of the other. You yourself are fine with seperating orthodox j.ews from other j.ews in present day. But somehow you are incapable of even considering the thought that there may have been deviant sects of j.ews in history.
The source is credible and well-documented by the j.ewish scholar. Perhaps you should read it instead of continuing to put your foot in your mouth.
All of my other points criticizing the veracity of this alleged practice still stand. I am no more incapable of considering the thought of deviant j.ewish sects than I am of considering anything else, I just doubt any of them engaged in the ritual murder they are accused of, especially without any real evidence. The ultra-orthodox are a trash-tier group but I don't think any of them practice child-sacrifice. You can distinguish most Christians from the westboro baptist church, and at the same time doubt mass christian blood-sucking of j.ewish children, no? The westboro baptist church is also very messed up but again, no child-sacrifice. Same with most of the extreme religious groups I can think of. Of note, Blood-drinking (of animals) is forbidden by the j.ewish religious law, as is murder and a number of other things essential to this allegation. The medieval peasants claimed something along the lines of "j.ews kidnap christian children in the night and ritually suck their blood!" Were they not wrong?
As far as Ariel Toaff, I definitely will read his 'Passovers of Blood' at some point, though I remain skeptical. In the handful of articles I've read about him, it sounds like his book was intended as a very broad and hypothetical work, and was taken out of context to suggest he claimed it as historical fact. In the meantime I have come across some other info that seems relevant in this
defense of his book:
"
To forestall all possible misinterpretations, I shall summarize the subject and the scope of my research. First I shall clarify that I have no doubts that the so-called “ritual homicides or infanticides” pertain to the realm of myth; they were not rites
practiced by the J.ewish communities living and working in the German-speaking lands or in the North of Italy, and of which they were accused in the Middle Ages and the periods thereafter. That of ritual murder is and always has been a slanderous stereotype. Nevertheless, one cannot exclude the possibility that certain criminal acts, disguised as crude rituals, were indeed committed by extremist groups or by individuals demented by religious mania and blinded by the desire for revenge against those considered responsible for their people’s sorrows and tragedies. However, the sole and problematic support for this hypothesis are confessions extracted with the violence of torture and torment, and whose truthfulness is entire to be demonstrated.
"
I tried to include the entire quote in context to forestall any claims of distortion.
It seems like he endorses your vague claim of "certain criminal acts" but most definitely disagrees with all the other insinuations you made. Such as your mention of how many times and places it occurred at. I am still skeptical of the "certain criminal acts". But can we at least agree on my point that most j.ewish expulsions were based on incredibly flimsy or fake evidence?
I wish I could convince you that I just disagree strongly on this point and that I'm not trying to deceive, trick, or censor you. I really don't understand what makes you so agitated and insistent on this point. Why is this personal to you, if you don't consider that a loaded question?
www.ynetnews.com
3. We have photographic evidence of blood sucking rituals taking place in their synagogues
