|definition of "identity"|
- Sunday, January 6 2008, 0:31:06 (CET)|
from 22.214.171.124 - pool-71-116-101-196.snfcca.dsl-w.verizon.net Network - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
...this is another word we throw around without knowing what it means. How anyone can be called a scholar who doesn't know the meanings of English words, if he writes or reads in the language , is beyond me.
I don't much care for internet dictionary services but here I am, far from a library. Here's Merriam Webster:
1 a: sameness of essential or generic character in different instances b: sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing : oneness 2 a: the distinguishing character or personality of an individual :
..and here's an electronic dictionary definition:
"sameness of essential character"
"the fact of being the same person or thing as claimed."
I look for key words and find "objective reality of a thing" and "the fact of being..." as opposed the "thing as claimed. In other words you're wecome to make whatever "claims" you want...but for you to BE that thing, you need the "fact" of being it.
We make the claim that we are Assyrian....but when asked for the facts, get pissed and start calling people names. Much like Dadeeshoo when his claim of a Ph.D was met with a request to produce the fact...and he couldn't but threatened to sue people instead.
There is no "objective reality" and "the fact of a thing" behind our claims. All we offer is "we know". You cna see why we call people names...because there's nothing else we can do. Just like when someone presents us with real histrical facts and we call them name sinstead, or insult their parents etc. WE prove that we have nothing factual with which to back our claims. Dr Joseph doesn't "prove" we aren't Assyrian, WE do. There are no facts which prove the objective, factual reality of anything to do with our claims. We don't mind that at all, but real historians, scholars, scientists and academicians, all those whom we despise and call names, DO.
Since we have no objective facts it leaves us with the "essential character" of a modern Assyrian meaning being, "to be Christians" and , "to say so". Neithe rof which can be shown to be factual or objective or even meaningful.
None of these defintions settles anything...but I like the one statement: "The FACT of being the same person or thing as CLAIMED". My emphasis, naturally. This seems to be the one definition most people would agree upon. For instance, you "claim" to be French...someone asks you for a FACT behind your CLAIM. We know language, or religion, food or clothing won't make you French. We also distinguish between naturalized or native-born and then, further, between depth of ancestry etc. But as long as we stick to "claims", then anything goes. Who cares. But if you want any of the national rights that come with an official French identity, you have to produce FACTS...claims alone won't do..no matter how fluently you speak French.
...same holds for claiming to be of Assyrian nationality...if you expect the rights and privilieges as well as the obligations which come with being a "nationality"...then you have to produce "the fact of being the same person or thing as claimed". We only offer claims....with no facts.
The full topic:|
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; InfoPath.1)