No. Association fallacy.

>>2603105
That's a terrible reason to hate Jews, which is pretty inexcusable, because there's a tonne of good ones.

>>2603106

boop.

Not because of that, but it might cause you to look into it.

In reality they're just a fairly unique ethnoreligious clique that has developed and evolved alongside the mainstream of Western Christendom, rather than with or into it. Thanks to this, and their drive to survive outside of gentile society, rulers and governments used them for various occupations that only made their professional associations and galvanization stronger.

Segue into the modern day and you have the phenomenon of Zionism. Israel is openly a war state that the US uses as a geopolitical salient in the Near East, and the ADL is openly pro-Zionist (pro-Israel, pro-Jewish), with no interest in free speech or gentile society, but tolerated by ruling elites. If from that point you want to ask yourself WHY they're tolerated, or look into the preponderance of Jewish stakes in American media, that's up to you. Just don't be too vocal about it or you'll get in trouble - something that might give you even more reason to look into it, since intense censorship like that which surrounds modern "antisemitism" doesn't occur naturally.

>>2603105

Is it intellectually sound to believe the Earth is flat, considering the amount of intellectuals prior that shared such a belief?

>>2603111
No, there are several reasons I hate Jews.

How they control our foreign policy and media, which, in effect, controls the minds of the public.

Regardless of what good a few Jews might bring, many of them are a potential threat to a country and it's people. You saw it with the Frankfurt school in Germany and know your seeing it again in many western countries.

Not to mention Jews are the root of such problems like mass immigration in European Countries, third generation feminism, white guilt and race mixing in the media, ect.

>>2603105
I think it is intellectually sound to hate anything.

Or you would have to say that it is intellectually unsound to dislike the taste of peas.

Jews ritualistically practice penis mutilation.

That's easily enough to warrant me hating their barbaric and tribalistic ways.

>>2603119

Pro-Israeli sentiments in the policy making body should make you question the policy makers, not the groups they are pandering to. I agree the media barriers that confuse criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism are suspect to certain interests at play, but again there is no reason to lay the blame on certain groups and not the establishment as a whole.

I find most of the features of both Judaism and Jewish ethnicity to be aesthetically displeasing. That's more than enough reason for me to dislike something.

>>2603105
Fuckin' moron.

>>2603135
If the entirety of Jews were rid of, these problems would not co-exist in any first world nation. Even if not all of them are the problem, we need to prevent similar problems from occurring. If it means killing an entire group of people, so be it. It seems like the only way

>>2603131
>>2603141

>Emotive reasons for liking/disliking something.

Intellectually sound reasons.

>>2603146

Oh boy have I got news for you.

Bobby Fischer had an IQ of like 170 and hated Jews more so than Hitler.

Just saying.

What's with all the right-wingers today? Is it /lit/ neocon-con today?

Let's talk about books

>>2603149
please, do share

>>2603147

Worked for Adorno (Theodr not the tripfag).

>>2603158
everybody hates jews. Not just right-wingers.

Stop acting like a retard and blaming the problem on one giant fucking side. Go into politics or something you fuck and leave lit for good.

>>2603166

>Go into politics or something you fuck and leave lit for good.

No, please, after you.

Jonathan Safran Foer Thread?

Jonathan Safran Foer Thread.

>>2603147
There is no such thing as a reason that it is in itself intellectually sound. Reasons/motives aren't rational, since they come from irrational preferences.

There is no rational reason to prefer blue curtains over red ones. There is no rational reason to like or dislike the taste of peas. There is no rational reason to like or dislike jews.

Sure, you could come up with something rational like "blue is calming" or "jews are exploitive", but that would just leave you in a position to rationally account for your preference for calmness or lack of exploitation.

The only question that remains then is if a preference is incapable with otherwise posession the skill to intellectually sound or rational thought. This is no more the case for anti-Semitism than for disliking the taste of peas.

>>2603166

No, ignorant man-children who don't understand causality believe, as schizophrenics do, in conspiratorial bullshit because it's easy and it give you vindication. Give me some actual fucking evidence that any of the claims being made about jews are true and then I might start to take you seriously.

And no, not even most right-wingers hate Jews. Just the ones on 4chan.

>>2603176

>This is no more the case for anti-Semitism than for disliking the taste of peas.

That is poor philosophy right there.

>>2603135
True, but the contention is whether the top echelons of "Jewry" are conscious of their special status, enough to intentionally cultivate and abuse it. I think Finkelstein has shown that pretty well.

But yeah of course, nothing against Jews. It's retarded to hate a culture or religion. They're an interesting historical phenomenon, and in the modern day they are an instrument of American imperialism. I wouldn't advocate legitimate antisemitic racism now, nor in the Jewish ghettos of Renaissance Italy, nor in the ghettos of Hellenic/Roman Alexandria.

>>2603181

gives* you

>>2603182
Why? Except for the fact that people intuitively feel so because hating jews is more of a taboo than hating peas.

There is no such thing as a reason that it is in itself intellectually sound. Reasons/motives aren't rational, since they come from irrational preferences.

>Reasons can be rational. They are weighed against motives and reasons countering your preference, even disposition at the time of decision. Intellectually sound reasons involve some leg work beyond your face-value requirements.

There is no rational reason to prefer blue curtains over red ones. There is no rational reason to like or dislike the taste of peas. There is no rational reason to like or dislike jews.

>Aesthetic reasons (colour preference) are extremely different from moral reasons (discriminating against another based on race or religion)

Sure, you could come up with something rational like "blue is calming" or "jews are exploitive",
but that would just leave you in a position to rationally account for your preference for calmness or lack of exploitation.

>Again, reasoned conclusions are very much beyond immediate emotive reactions to ideas. Confusing aesthetic justification with moral shows the flaw in your logic.

The only question that remains then is if a preference is incapable with otherwise posession the skill to intellectually sound or
rational thought. This is no more the case for anti-Semitism than for disliking the taste of peas.

>Bad philosophy

Premise 1:
I intuitively dislike Jews
Premise 2:
My intellectual reasons are solely intuitive
Conclusion:
Disliking Jews is intellectually sound.

>>2603105
Did Krautchan's /int/ invade or something? We've got a fuckload of 'that feel' pictures circulating /lit/, a 'no girlfriend' thread on the front fucking page, and this shit.

>>2603213
>Reasons can be rational. They are weighed against motives and reasons countering your preference, even disposition at the time of decision. Intellectually sound reasons involve some leg work beyond your face-value requirements.
The /reasoning/ may be sound, as in logically correct, but you still base everything of irrational preferences. It's nothing more than elaborate justification along certain rules. You can build great arguments around why you like cats more than dogs, but it still remains just as arbitrary as saying "lol i just like 'em". Preference can't be justified, therefore it can't be dismissed either.

>Aesthetic reasons (colour preference) are extremely different from moral reasons (discriminating against another based on race or religion)
Why would that be? They both come down to whimsical preference.

>Again, reasoned conclusions are very much beyond immediate emotive reactions to ideas. Confusing aesthetic justification with moral shows the flaw in your logic.
I'd say the burden of proof is yours, since you seem to discriminate between moral and aesthetic choices without giving any reason to do so. One could even say you just simply prefer that to be so but can't justify it.

>Premise 1:
>I intuitively dislike Jews
>Premise 2:
>My intellectual reasons are solely intuitive
>Conclusion:
>Disliking Jews is intellectually sound.

I said /all/ preferences are neither intellectually sound nor unsound. The question then is, is having preferences compatible with being an otherwise rationally capable being. The answer would be either yes, or that the whole of humanity is incapable of rational thought.

>>2603239

can you claim irrational preferences as your own? would they not be the product of external values influences you?

If you believe that any and all reasons are derived from intuitive reactions, then we are not capable of rational thought. We are agents of dispositions and desire and nothing more.

If that is the case, then antisemitism is not intellectually sound for nothing could be.

Are people trying to reason with this fucktard?
What the fuck for?

>I'd say the burden of proof is yours, since you seem to discriminate between moral and aesthetic choices without giving any reason to do so. One could even say you just simply prefer that to be so but can't justify it.

Concluding I dislike the colour blue is very much preference... you could not rationalize it further.

Concluding that I dislike an entire ethno-religious group involves abstracting unknown persons into a generalization to which you discriminate. Unless you have anecdotal reasons for disliking Jews, then it would merely be preference based off of an experience you then generalized. Either way, you have rationalized it.

Where one is obviously immediate emotive reactions, the other is a more mediate justification based on either rationalizing hearsay, anecdotal experience or using both to abstract generalizations.

>>2603250
I think that humans often show that they are capable of testing if certain things are possible within the rules of logic. This is what I would call rationality. It's a skill that's quite handy in a lot of cases.

The point is, this can, per definition, have nothing to do with values. There will never be a mathematical discovery that 2 is in fact preferable to 1.

So I believe that people are capable of utilising this tool, I just don't believe that it has anything to do with what they want or don't want/like or dislike.

If I then ask myself, would it be possible for one to utilise this tool and still dislike Jews, then I would say yes. The one has nothing to do with the other. One might just as well ask if someone who can build a treehouse would be allowed to find peaches delicious.

The interests of most jews conflict sharply with the interests of most western gentiles. There is a grand amount of reasons to hate jews ranging from the aesthetic to the political, but I do not believe you can believe something simply because some old, long deceased white men did. As someone else said in this thread, certain prior intellectuals believed the Earth was flat. Sage for non-/lit/

>>2603266

Tasting one pea and claiming you dislike all peas is intellectual unsound.

>>2603266
Blue is itself a generalisation of a wide spectrum of certain isolated features of visual experiences. Disliking blue is just as abstract as disliking jews. Both concepts name a certain group of phenomena.

I see what your point is and I understand, I just think it's made on faulty assumptions. Sure, one may arrive at a certain preference through a longer process of rationalisation than another preference, but one can never get to the core of why it is rationally sound to prefer one thing over the other. Therefore the elaborateness of the justification doesn't matter. The final destination of it is irrational anyway.

Why require rationalisations of irrational opinions? Why not throw that out the window and just like and dislike things without creating a smokescreen of excuses?

De gustibus non disputandum est
Omnia gustus est

Hate is never intellectually sound. Learn to grow beyond your base instincts and be the better man.

>>2603105
Yeah OP, blanket-prejudice against a people is cool and not racist or ignorant.
8/10

>>2603292
>thinks some form of nobleness is more intellectually sound than baseness

On what grounds?