It's certain for at least 2 out of 3. and for the third one it's just "likely" (50%+). It doesn't matter what YOU think about that, especially if you put up unreasonable levels of scrutiny. But to normal people it is enough evidence to confidently claim that. If anything, it would be an unexpected surprise if it weren't true. It's not a court, and in dubio pro reo does not apply.
And you just ban people out of personal whim. Have you even bothered to look it up before you ban people out of your personal disagreement?
You literally do not know that they are jews
How many Whites have you ever seen who are named Muhammad? Clearly the name is a strong indicator of origin, just as skin color is a strong indicator of race, and education/profession is a strong indicator of IQ.
Normal people don't scream incessently about "early life" and are not paranoid of jews. So, don't evoke what normal people consider to be evidence, because then you would have even less than what you have now.
As for being in court, you can not establish that someone is secretly a jew because you saw a surname and assumed their religion.
How many Whites have you ever seen who are named Muhammad?
Normal people don't scream incessently about "early life" and are not paranoid of jews.
I didn't say he was "normal." I said for normal people there was sufficient evidence to substantiate a claim like that. If it's true or not is irrelevant. And it is not your prerogative to determine what claims are wrong or correct.
So, don't evoke what normal people consider to be evidence
It doesn't matter what people think about it. Those with sufficient intelligence are more likely to properly assess information, or even look it up themselves (which you still haven't btw). Only because the lowest common denominator is too bad at evaluating claims, doesn't mean you should ban people based on what a hypothetical idiot is capable to process.
As for being in court, you can not establish that someone is secretly a jew because you saw a surname and assumed their religion.
In court the rule of in dubeo pro reo exists, which has a whole lot of reasons, like preventing excess of power, ensuring legal protocol for police, requiring and properly assessing evidence, and not abusing the accused in various ways.
This is not a court. This is mere people talking. In a court you couldn't even claim 2+2=4 without an "expert" (hyperbolically speaking). And I don't think it's even secretly - it's quite obvious, but nobody is talking about it. Nobody is explicitly saying they are not jews either, as to not draw attention to it, because people would flock and debunk that claim easily.
Several. Turns out Muslims aren't a race either.
Do I really need to specify what "White" means?... Caucasians. Not Turkeys, not Arabs, not Jews, not Orientals, not Eskimos, I mean actual native Europeans whose ancestors lived in Europe for 1000+ years.
So could it be that with "several" you meant 0 then? Because all Muhammads you claim to know are NOT native Europeans, but foreigners with bright skin colors?
Thinking about it today, I see where the confusion may come from.
"Jewish" is not a matter of religion. It has to be understood like a nationality. It is a combination of race (genetics), culture, religion, language, traditions. You can be an atheist jew (which many consider themselves to be), indicating that religion is just a factor that is optional.
Communists in general and communist Jews are notoriously atheist. Many Jews also don't speak Yiddish. However even many among those have a special loyalty towards Jews and even take part in Jewish traditions.
It appears there is wide-spread consensus about this, even Jews see it that way. So this was never about religion.
I disagree. The religion informs everything else. The reason it's an ethnic group is from the religion. The religion, the culture, the nationality, all of it is defined by the religion.
If the rules of Judaism were to simply vanish overnight, so would jewry and jews. Without Judaism, jews can not exist.
Again, your evidence is: "surname, surname, i don't know but surname?"
You literally do not know that they are jews, but you want them to be jews because it suits your agenda and nothing else.
It's certain for at least 2 out of 3. and for the third one it's just "likely" (50%+). It doesn't matter what YOU think about that, especially if you put up unreasonable levels of scrutiny. But to normal people it is enough evidence to confidently claim that. If anything, it would be an unexpected surprise if it weren't true. It's not a court, and in dubio pro reo does not apply.
And you just ban people out of personal whim. Have you even bothered to look it up before you ban people out of your personal disagreement?
How many Whites have you ever seen who are named Muhammad? Clearly the name is a strong indicator of origin, just as skin color is a strong indicator of race, and education/profession is a strong indicator of IQ.
Normal people don't scream incessently about "early life" and are not paranoid of jews. So, don't evoke what normal people consider to be evidence, because then you would have even less than what you have now.
As for being in court, you can not establish that someone is secretly a jew because you saw a surname and assumed their religion.
Several. Turns out Muslims aren't a race either.
I didn't say he was "normal." I said for normal people there was sufficient evidence to substantiate a claim like that. If it's true or not is irrelevant. And it is not your prerogative to determine what claims are wrong or correct.
It doesn't matter what people think about it. Those with sufficient intelligence are more likely to properly assess information, or even look it up themselves (which you still haven't btw). Only because the lowest common denominator is too bad at evaluating claims, doesn't mean you should ban people based on what a hypothetical idiot is capable to process.
In court the rule of in dubeo pro reo exists, which has a whole lot of reasons, like preventing excess of power, ensuring legal protocol for police, requiring and properly assessing evidence, and not abusing the accused in various ways.
This is not a court. This is mere people talking. In a court you couldn't even claim 2+2=4 without an "expert" (hyperbolically speaking). And I don't think it's even secretly - it's quite obvious, but nobody is talking about it. Nobody is explicitly saying they are not jews either, as to not draw attention to it, because people would flock and debunk that claim easily.
Do I really need to specify what "White" means?... Caucasians. Not Turkeys, not Arabs, not Jews, not Orientals, not Eskimos, I mean actual native Europeans whose ancestors lived in Europe for 1000+ years.
So could it be that with "several" you meant 0 then? Because all Muhammads you claim to know are NOT native Europeans, but foreigners with bright skin colors?
Thinking about it today, I see where the confusion may come from.
"Jewish" is not a matter of religion. It has to be understood like a nationality. It is a combination of race (genetics), culture, religion, language, traditions. You can be an atheist jew (which many consider themselves to be), indicating that religion is just a factor that is optional.
Communists in general and communist Jews are notoriously atheist. Many Jews also don't speak Yiddish. However even many among those have a special loyalty towards Jews and even take part in Jewish traditions.
It appears there is wide-spread consensus about this, even Jews see it that way. So this was never about religion.
I disagree. The religion informs everything else. The reason it's an ethnic group is from the religion. The religion, the culture, the nationality, all of it is defined by the religion.
If the rules of Judaism were to simply vanish overnight, so would jewry and jews. Without Judaism, jews can not exist.