 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
What is the name of the group that had Jonothan and Benjamen Netenyahoo?
|
Sayeret Matkal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natan
Goingonit, that's technically true but the term "fundamentalist right" is misleading in this context because the Haredim (extremely pious Orthodox Jews) are not, for the most part, particularly interested in the conflict. The Haredi parties switch from one end of the spectrum to the other on the issue of peace negotiations, depending on whether the Left or the Right can deliver the funding and the welfare checks. Neither Shas nor UTJ has a policy on the matter, AFAIK neither even mentions the matter in their respective party platforms. |
To further clarify - the orthodox who are most extreme on religious issues, and most intolerant of secular israelis have historically been relatively moderate wrt to the arab conflict(though ive heard this has changed somewhat with the terr acts of the last few years), while the "modern orthodox" who are more moderate wrt to religion and secular israelis, are (usually, there are of course exceptions) among the most militant in Israeli society wrt to the Arab conflict.
this is not accidental, but has to do with the way they integrate religion and modernity.
the ultra orthodox reject modernity in principle (utilizing it only to make a living - theyre not Amish) and so reject the modern notion of nationalism, changing the world through human action,etc. They are fatalists, willing to leave big things to God - so to them politics is merely getting what you can out of a necessarily profane state (until the messiah comes)
To the "modern" orthodox, the spinozist idea of human action rather than divine, changing the world, is related to mystical ideas about human behaviour making the world ready for the messiah. Settling the land and establishing a Jewish state is part of this pathway. Secular Israelis, though they dont have the truth, are still part of God's plan to the extent they advance these things. Thus toleration, and even whole hearted co-operation with secular israelis and the secular state become possible, but on grounds that make compromise with those who oppose stand in the way of the messianic dream more difficult.
For more on this matter i recommend David Hartmans "Conflicting Visions"
NOte well - these are generalizations - there are ultraorthodox who are both less fatalistic and more hawkish than i describe above - notably the Lubavich - and there are modern orthodox who are moving away from the philosophy i describe above - noatbly the group called "meimad".
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
Some of you guys walk into logical traps with the "sight" of a blind man. This quote exemplifies some of the nonsense on this thread:
quote:
Natural rights are an idiocy invented by people who are too used to their good livin'. |
Then upon what basis would you condemn the Nazis? According to your "brilliant" argument, the victims of the Nazis had no rights. So why condemn the Nazis? Because they violated the rights of their victims? What rights? NATURAL rights!
Siro - quote:
You know, a russian scientist did a reasearch once about the reason why Neanderthals got extinct.
One of his findings was that Neanderthals had no people who were ready to sacrifice one-self for the good of society. |
How did he come to this "finding"? I'd love to know who he interviewed for this information.
quote:
Each person thought of himself alone, and thus the whole species disintigrated. |
Gee, another Russian "psychic", or did he ask Shirley McClaine?
quote:
So basically you want the government to offer you safety, but you're not willing to give your hand to the fight? |
You need to read more closely what David posted, he opposes the draft - forcing others ("government") to risk their lives for his safety. To draw the conclusion he wants "government" to protect him without paying for it with blood or money is a demagogic strawman.
quote:
Obviously I will usually think of my self first, but I will not, ever, leave my familiy / friends / country men to die and run off. |
Even when they are stealing other people's land?
notyoueither - quote:
Natural rights? Pfff. They are the artificial arguments of pampered people who have never had to face tough choices. |
The Founders of the USA believed in and advocated natural rights. Are you suggesting they never had to face tough choices?
quote:
The only rights any man or woman truely owns are the ones they are prepared to defend in the face of those who would deny them. |
You don't even understand the meaning of the phrase "natural right". It is a moral or just claim made by individuals. One can have a natural right and never lift a finger to defend themself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Some of you guys walk into logical traps with the "sight" of a blind man. This quote exemplifies some of the nonsense on this thread:
notyoueither -
The Founders of the USA believed in and advocated natural rights. Are you suggesting they never had to face tough choices?
You don't even understand the meaning of the phrase "natural right". It is a moral or just claim made by individuals. One can have a natural right and never lift a finger to defend themself. |
And some people make absurd statements with the surety of the deluded. I was addressing someone who said "natural rights, by definition, exist no matter what." Well, that is a nice sentiment, but it is also a fallacy.
As to the founders of the United States of America. They did indeed believe that the rights they were codifying existed in some sense beyond thier own existence. They, like the other fellow, were wrong.
Rights are constructs. They are a product of a society, not one of the primary requirements of one. There is no metaphysical book of rights from which certain learned humans have gleaned wisdom and reported back to the rest of us. Rights which are destructive to a society are no more natural than the weapons a society's enemies would use to destroy it and them. To suggest that the young people of Israel enjoy some "natural" right to avoid contributing their part to the survival of that nation is absurd in the extreme. Or so I believe.
BTW. The founders of the United States enjoyed their rights because they conceived of them and then stood up and took them. They were far from passive.
What I don't understand is individuals who divorce themselves of the notion of any God, yet cling to ideas about the universe that would be better served by divine right. I do not know if you are one of them, I just find them funny. There is no God, but they still feel a need for some "higher" justification for their existence and their societies so they pin their hopes on fallacies. It is as if they cannot bear the consequences of the terrible isolation their entirely material universe has confined them to.
At least if you believe in God your belief in the existence of natural rights divorced from the socities that create them is coherent. If not, well... How's Santa Claus doing?
[Edited for grammar]
Last edited by notyoueither on 13-04-2002 at 07:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
Siro:
Your training camp sounds like pretty easy stuff. Shouldn't be hard. Try to enjoy yourself.
A lot of basic military training is designed to put you under high stress with the goal of teaching you to remain calm under these circumstances. I don't know if this will be the case with your camp, but if you encounter this type of training, try to think of it as game. If you stay calm, you win. If you lose your temper, you've learned a lesson and next time you'll do better. It's nothing personal.
If things seem stupid, try to see the hidden logic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:18
|
|
Wow. My 2nd cousin can't tell me what he does in the army... Something in communications though.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
notyoueither - quote:
And some people make absurd statements with the surety of the deluded. I was addressing someone who said "natural rights, by definition, exist no matter what." Well, that is a nice sentiment, but it is also a fallacy. |
If it's such a fallacy, does that mean you believe the Nazis and communists did nothing wrong when they slaughtered millions?
Since their victims had no natural rights, but only those rights granted by "society", upon what basis would you condemn them?
quote:
As to the founders of the United States of America. They did indeed believe that the rights they were codifying existed in some sense beyond thier own existence. They, like the other fellow, were wrong. |
And what is your proof? Since you've just claimed to have a greater knowledge than that of the Founders, you better come up with something better than "rights are a product of society". That argument is destroyed by my previous questions.
quote:
Rights are constructs. They are a product of a society, not one of the primary requirements of one. There is no metaphysical book of rights from which certain learned humans have gleaned wisdom and reported back to the rest of us. |
And just how does "society" produce these rights without the "wisdom" of certain "learned" individuals reporting to others about the justification for these rights? If you're suggesting the majority has the moral authority to make up rights, then they can invent a right for themselves to enslave or murder members of the minority.
quote:
Rights which are destructive to a society are no more natural than the weapons a society's enemies would use to destroy it and them. |
"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini
Do you actually have any examples of these "rights" that destroy "society"?
quote:
To suggest that the young people of Israel enjoy some "natural" right to avoid contributing their part to the survival of that nation is absurd in the extreme. Or so I believe. |
Meaning one group of people have the moral authority to force another group of people to die for their "security"? Try telling your neighbor his son must die for your security...
quote:
BTW. The founders of the United States enjoyed their rights because they conceived of them and then stood up and took them. They were far from passive. |
But according to you, they were wrong for conceiving of and protecting these rights. I see you have ignored the definition of natural rights. First you claim they are idiotic when you don't even understand what they are, then you ignore the actual definition. And I didn't say the Founders didn't use force to defend their rights, I said one need not lift a finger to have a natural right. You claimed the people who believe in natural rights are "pampered people who have never had to face tough choices." I just refuted that argument by pointing to the Founders who faced tough choices. Are you going to acknowledge that your insult was slanderous or do another dance around the facts?
quote:
What I don't understand is individuals who divorce themselves of the notion of any God, yet cling to ideas about the universe that would be better served by divine right. I do not know if you are one of them, I just find them funny. |
Why would the idea of natural rights require a "god"?
quote:
There is no God, but they still feel a need for some "higher" justification for their existence and their societies so they pin their hopes on fallacies. |
That justification is called self-ownership.
quote:
It is as if they cannot bear the consequences of the terrible isolation their entirely material universe has confined them to. |
Or maybe they don't believe in fairy tales.
quote:
At least if you believe in God your belief in the existence of natural rights divorced from the socities that create them is coherent. If not, well... How's Santa Claus doing? |
"Natural" rights. Notice the word "natural", not supernatural? Let us know how Santa is doing, he's sharing the same figment of your imagination where you found this god of yours.
Last edited by Berzerker on 13-04-2002 at 13:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Even when they are stealing other people's land?
|
This is your opinion. Not ours.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
How did he come to this "finding"? I'd love to know who he interviewed for this information.
|
He was a genetics scientist who worked on the link between genetics and human behaviour.
quote:
Gee, another Russian "psychic", or did he ask Shirley McClaine? |
Look, if russian scientists aren't good enough for you, it's ok.
quote:
You need to read more closely what David posted, he opposes the draft - forcing others ("government") to risk their lives for his safety. To draw the conclusion he wants "government" to protect him without paying for it with blood or money is a demagogic strawman. |
No it's not. It's the exact rephrasal of his statement.
He does expect the government to protect him.
He does not wish to take part in protecting other country men.
He thinks that when war comes, the government will have time to explain to him why he should do it, and plea he agrees to defend anyone but himself.
I say - if he doesn't want to protect others, let not others protect him.
quote:
Even when they are stealing other people's land? |
1) That is irrelevant and to be dealt with later. Take a look at WWII. German claims that they were opressed and stolen from as a result of the Versailles agreements were right.
Satifying those demands while Hitler was in power was a grave mistake that only demonstrated "weakness" to him.
2) No lands were stolen. Some lands were bought. More were allocated in a UN decision, but not accepted by the arabs. And the rest was conquered in wars started by arab agression.
3) We attempted to give them back those lands, but they seem to want more - demands that will clearly bring the destruction of the state of Israel.
quote:
If it's such a fallacy, does that mean you believe the Nazis and communists did nothing wrong when they slaughtered millions?
Since their victims had no natural rights, but only those rights granted by "society", upon what basis would you condemn them? |
On the basis of international society agreements.
There are socially accepted laws. That doesn't make them "natural" or "sacred".
200 years ago, the Nazis wouldn't have been punished. If the laws were natural, they should have been punished.
quote:
And what is your proof? Since you've just claimed to have a greater knowledge than that of the Founders, you better come up with something better than "rights are a product of society". That argument is destroyed by my previous questions. |
That arguement is not destroyed as your claims are a fallacy that only pretain to the current society.
On what basis do you assume that the founders were smarter than anyone here?
quote:
And just how does "society" produce these rights without the "wisdom" of certain "learned" individuals reporting to others about the justification for these rights? If you're suggesting the majority has the moral authority to make up rights, then they can invent a right for themselves to enslave or murder members of the minority. |
Which is exactly what they did until some century ago.
And still, in Saudi Arabia it is only natural to murder a wife that is suspected of adultry, or a girl suspected of pre-marital sex.
Where is the international community there? 
Where is "nature"?
quote:
"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini
Do you actually have any examples of these "rights" that destroy "society"? |
Each right has the potencial to destroy society.
This ofcourse doesn't mean that all rights should be revoked, as then society would lose it's purpose - protecting rights.
But, in order to have a working society, some rights are limited.
For instance, you give the right to keep law and order to a group called "police" and you trust the right of court to the court system.
You also don't have absolute freedoms of speech and similar, as if you lie, people can sue you and make you stop. Similarly you are usually disallowed from discussing secrets of state.
quote:
Meaning one group of people have the moral authority to force another group of people to die for their "security"? Try telling your neighbor his son must die for your security... |
a) it can and did happen alot in history.
b) things are judged now according to international standards.
i think it is acceptable that if a person carries a gun, shoots at civilians and then shoots at law enforcers, the law enforcers should use what ever means to stop him.
every criminal / illegal combatant / soldier is someone's son.
yet wars exist, since conflicts exist.
there's nothing natural about pacifism.
quote:
I said one need not lift a finger to have a natural right. |
And I said that no rights are natural since they only exist in society.
For instance, 400 years ago, you did not have such rights. And today, if you are stranded in a desert, there is no society around you to protect your right of life.
quote:
Why would the idea of natural rights require a "god"? |
They don't.
But they are similar in the way they are presented to "god given rules".
quote:
So, they're sending Siro to camp so he can learn how to be the next Moshe Dayan. |
No.. it's 5 days of mostly lectures and stories....
I'm going to slightly learn what to expect in several years. Not become Swartzcopf.
quote:
I sincerely hope that they don't blind you in one eye as part of your training. OTOH, you might look good wearing a patch... |
Why is it everyone expect I get hurt? 
quote:
Now where is Siro to put the Israeli perspective on the post |
*kiss* right here 
quote:
and lost the whole digit from the first knuckle upwards. |
auch 
Thanks 
quote:
Good luck, and don't get killed. |
killed by.... a stray pencil in the lecture?
quote:
How do I convince a bunch of pacifists that there is something like "the army experience"? |
Simple.
Reasearch done in Israel suggests that the service in IDF is reponsible for the success of Israeli economics. IDF gives structure and morals and discipline and so on and so forth.
It also gives technology - alot.
You know our pilots navigate their missiles by moving their eyeball? Purely Israeli invention. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
You know our pilots navigate their missiles by moving their eyeball? Purely Israeli invention. |
Wut?
Source?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2002 02:44
. 
|