Eye for I: Click to be twisted into form.
Emotion may not be important to you anymore but it is still kind of an important thing for many of us, it can be evidence of empathy for the well-being of others. You know Love?
Oh, come, now: You don't love.
And not giving weight to it can be evidence of a person’s inability to empathize, and can even be evidence of a self hardened heart. Even a Sociopath.
The word "sociopath" is probably one you should be a little more cautious with.
Imagine, for a moment, that there is an objective response you could put in front of me to which I have no real answer except to concede the point. It would, in this case, be a small detail, but would seem important given the fact of criticism. There are obviously more possibilities than two, but if we start with the the proposition of unwilling or unable, both seem puzzling until we account for the possibility that you don't really know what you're responding to, either not reading the posts, or not able to understand them. After all, consciously, willfully, and carefully choosing desperate fallacy as a response would be useless at best
Overly emotional strawstuffing generally isn't helpful unless pointless wallowing is the point.
By the way, are you a Christophobe?
Anything is possible. Some Christians have said so, in the past, but they never really quite made sense, as it was in the heat of political debate in which Christophobia would be applied to include the rejection of Christian supremacism, so I tend to not worry so much about those. Meanwhile, I figure some Christian will eventually say it again, and whether it makes any sense on that occasion will be a question of circumstance.
It's also true I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a Christian to show up.
As to something more substantial than your fallacies—
It is not reasonable to assume that Jesus would have to look like a Jew, because His Father was not a Jew.
His Mother was a Jew, but His Father was not.
—which thesis is this? Is this like the time you didn't list the actual text of the reference you included, and it just happened to be that reference didn't apply to your question?
Yes, that really did happen, and, sure, it was
nine years ago↗, so, whatever, but here's the thing: The references I found relating to what you posted then were, like your thread, ostensibly critical of Islam; what it looks like is that a handful of activists, either affiliated or not, happened to run with what looked like a good zinger without recognizing its inaccuracy; while it is entirely possible the original error was innocent,
i.e., composition and proofreading E&O compared to willful malice, it seems at least a small number of people either fell for it or accidentally perpetuated the accident by promulgating the argument without knowing what it said or how it worked. Which, in turn, can be suggested to apply, here: I've no doubt that somewhere are scraps asserting Joseph was not a Jew, but nobody else knows what detail to fill in for you, because you haven't really bothered to explain what you're talking about. Indeed, trying to go fish for you, the most compelling case I've discovered so far is a self-conscious word game referring to a different Joseph. I also found an antisemitic rant in the comments of a Montenegran blog post about the last words of Gautama Buddha. Indeed, the Google result for "joseph was not a jew" currently runs: 1) Word game (other Joseph); 2) other Joseph, open antisemitism; 3) other Joseph; 4) other Joseph, open antisemitism; 5) End Times, other Joseph, antisemitism present; 6) other Joseph, open antisemitism; 7) openly antisemitic comment to Montenegran blog post about Gautama Buddha.
We can be pretty certain Jesus would not have looked like Robert Powell, or the famous Sallman Head. Other than that, though, what are you actually on about? If, for instance, you intend to drop lines, as you have, about "Is an assumption without evidence and is a very poor method of scientific inquiry" (
#267↑), you should probably be prepared to support your statement.
That's going to require a little more reasoning than you have been willing to put in, so far.