If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So a Rabbi is someone who is identified by the jewish community and being jewish is decided by a Rabbi......mmm ok. :yeees:
So, if I was a really good con man and convinced a bunch of Jewish people I was a Rabbi I would become one?
As your only criteria for being a Rabbi is acceptance by people who claim to be Jewish (which there is still no evidence for, notice) this must be the case.
See, now I am confused. The Rabbi decides who is Jewish and who is not, but those who are Jewish decide who is a Rabbi and who is not...can you tell me which comes first please?
Ok ok. But if those people have that disagreement about that element of jewishness and yet are still Jews, then it can't be relevent to the question of being Jewish. The sheer fact that there can be argument about it must mean that it's not a rule to make you Jewish. So, what makes those people Jewish in spite of this disagreement?
hmm if you can't actually list even a short list of what being Jewish is, how do you know that I don't fulfill the needed criteria?
But I AM a Rabbi. As you can't provide me with any material proof that marks themn out from the rest of humanity (no extra genes, no ability to shoot fire from their eyes etc) I meet all the criteria of being both Jewish and a Rabbi.
if you say i don't, then you must know all the criteria for being both jewish and a Rabbi and can list them.
Logic can be fun. Religion is always dangerous lunacy.
So you'll type all that out but won't give one argument?
Nice tactic btw. If in doubt, name-drop a "Harvard Law professor".
If Dershowitz is stupid/deceitful enough to give profuse commendation to Chesler's 'The New Anti-Semitism' -a book of mind-numbing stupidity - he definitely isn't worth reading. Not to mention the fact Normal Finkelstein has clearly shown him for the mockery that he is.
Smash Israel and International Zionsim :yippe:
Smash the USA and UK while you're there, it's only fair...;)
Great, so Hitler had an evidence procedure to select "jewishness".
Theres no proof for any of their beliefs, but the people who hold a certain set of irrational beliefs are easily identifiable because their irrationality leads to certain behaviours and actions.
They also strongly identify with their lunacy, and are usually quite proud of it. Nations don't exist, but there are plenty of patriots.
God doesn't exist, but there are plenty of chruches.
And so on.
According to one poster anyway...
And by a stunning coincidence, a lot of the people sent to the gas chambers just happened to have darker hair and features and different noses than most other people in the countries they lived in? I believe having one Jewish grandparent was enough to make you a Jew in those days - there must have been plenty of atheists with no belief at all in the Jewish religion who were exterminated.
Deciding who's a Jew and who isn't is a complex business - the Israelis certainly don't all agree on it - but it's ridiculous to pretend that Jewish ethnicity doesn't exist.
Jews exist because people follow judaism and worship in that form and choose to be jewish or born jewish.
No, it doesn't. there is a material reality - that is reality. People have concepts. That is concepts. When material reality and concepts coincide we have something like a workable model.
When material reality doesn't bear out a concept, it is false. At this point any halfway intelligent person dismisses the concept. This is how we know there is no god. It's how we know there is no country.
Peoples beliefs do not translate into reality, they DO change those people's behaviours. Pretending that there is a sofa stuck in your hallway and crawling around like you have to get under it does not create a sofa. if you know you are pretending fair enough, if you really think it;'s there you are a nutter.
Simple.
The fact that you can't agree on a definition means it's a matter of opinion. matters of opinions aren't facts. Facts you cannot argue with, or if you do you can design an experiment to ascertain them. If you say that a cannonball will fall faster than a golf ball if we can go check by dropping them off a tower.
What's the objective test in mterial reality for Jewishness?
If there isn't one that's a big clue that it's made up gibberish, or at the very least something that we can only ever say we don't know about properly. This is, of course absolute death for a fanatical religion of any type.
Most Ashkenazi Jews have distinctive mitochondrial DNA. Objective enough for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
And that is merely your opinion and not a fact, despite your ceasley use of language implying it is a fact. You think this is so, but it does not make it so. You are as likely to be wrong as you claim the rest of the world is.
No, because you used the word "most". Learn to think please.
Does this mean anything? Proably not.
My whole point is that we can have differences of opinion and then to settle matters we look to objective facts from material reality. In the case of a country, we would go check to see if their is a border actually in existence in material fact. There isn't one. So, the concept bears NO RELATION to reality.
Therefore, countries DO NOT EXIST!
Simple.
If a 4 year old told you that there was an invisible line in your front room that divided it in half you would ruffle their hair and tell them to stop being stupid. You wouldn't act as if they were right. You'd point out that you couldn't see it or feel it or hear or whatnot. If they persisted you would seek medical help becasue they were delusional.
:rolleyes: Are you a bit thick or something? It’s not a ‘tactic’ – you asked me what arguments have been made in defence of Israel that are not of a religious nature. That book by Dershowitz – the Case for Israel, includes many of them. Nowhere did I endorse the book, I simply answered your question. Really – what’s the point you’re trying to make?
Name-dropping a Harvard Law professor? Hardly. Since Dershowitz is not a historian I would not recommend him to get a decent overview of the history of this conflict. However, for a concise overview of the Israeli perspective – which is what you seemed to be asking for his book is useful.
As for the dispute between Finkelstein and Dershowitz, that’s hardly the case. Dershowitz was accused of plagiarism by Finkelstein basically for his footnoting methods. Dershowitz on several instances footnoted the original source – rather than the secondary source that later re-produced that original source. While it’s better to footnote both, or the secondary source Dershowitz didn’t do anything wrong – Harvard dismissed the accusations and cleared Dershowitz of any plagiarism charges. Interestingly Dershowitz then scrutinised Finkelstein’s work and found that he on several occasions had done exactly the same thing. What riled Finkelstein however was that Dershowitz while accepting some of Finkelstein’s rebuttal of Joan Peters book, From Time Immemorial – Dershowitz like Pipes and others recognises that the actual basic thesis Peters sets out has never been disproved - despite the book having many inaccuracies.
There’s an interview with Dershowitz that you might find interesting.
Most bizarrely however about the whole vendetta against Dershowitz by some fringe anti-Israel activists is that they characterise Dershowitz as some far-right Zionist hawk, the truth is actually quite different. Dershowitz as well as supporting a two state solution, has repeatedly called for Israel to dismantle all settlements – he has said Israel should fix a date for withdrawal and withdraw – not allowing Palestinian terrorists to stall the process and retreating if there was a terrorist attack prior to withdrawal. I mean, that's putting him to the left of the Israeli Labour Party - with the likes of Meretz/Yachad.
Besides, America has boarders, the whole mexican boarder has a fence on it to keep people out and so does the Canadian boarder to stop Americans leaving to often. So that is one country with definate boarders. Zimbabwe has fences too, i am sure many countries will have.
Blagsta's right, you're a fucking loon.
You can agree all you want mate, they aren't out there in material reality. If you want to talk about them as imaginary constructs that's fine but they have no real existence.
Also, I would want some objective proof of governments, nations etc first, otherwise what we have is people who believe in things that aren't real and are using violence to make us join in.
(Which is of course the case, as you have been indoctrinated into a giant cult by members of your own family and friends who were either sadisitic or dim)
What's this fucking gibberish? It's not there but exists? Sort yourself out man.
So every fence is a border? Also, as some peple would claim that the border would remain even if you took the fence down, the fence can not be part of the border. Easy. We could move the whole fence 1 foot north or south even, and the border would still be said to be in the same place. But, of course it's not really there!
Yes, very well reasoned.
Your assumption there is that letters can have an objective meaning, which they obviously don't.
If they did, you wouldn't need to learn to read.
I agree completely, there is no objective meaning to words or letters. Otherwise I could understand french or swahili on first hearing it due to it's inherent meaning.
Words don't have meaning, people have meaning for words. language is entirely subjective.
In fact, who can prove we're not inside this:
Answer: no one can
:rolleyes:
The finest way we have found so far to discern what is really happening is the scientific method. When you apply this method to politics and religion something verrry interesting happens, doesn't it?
Neither stand up to any rational experimentation and so are therefore utter, utter bollocks. Where is the burden of proof here?
I don't know if countries do or do not exist. I do not know if there is such a thing as being "Jewish", so if anyone claims that there are such things it's up to them to provide rational empirical evidence that this is the case.
In the absence of proof I must assume that there is no such thing, just as if some poor drug addled soul was telling me he was seeing a 6 foot rabbit called Harvey that I couldn't sense in any way, I would assume he was under the influence or crazy or something.
So this is what I do when you claim to be within a country, I look for sensory, factual evidence and find none and conclude your barking mad.
He's either autistic or he's affecting this position as some kind of weird intellectual pose to support his twisted ideas on human realtionships (look up his views on women being sexually assualted - it's almost as fucked up as Steelgate's views) and politics. Occasionally I take him off ignore when I'm bored and want to see what nuttiness he'll come out with next...