Replies to page 1 (so far):
The Washington Post
? Isn't that owned by Rupert Murdoch? *Google check* Oh. Bought out in 2013, apparently, so no it's not. In that case it may actually be worth refuting something in it. If it was the Sun
here I'd advise you not to bother because people either believe everything in it with religious loyalty or know it's a load of crap.
"A man and women," eh? Lucky guy.
jewish_scientist wrote:... Jewish law that a man and women should not touch each other casually, ...
jewish_scientist wrote:It is not the term orthodox that I find offensive, its the prefix ultra-. If the articles got rid of that prefix then I would have no problem.
What I am trying to say is that people at the furthest ends of a spectrum are extremists. People at the furthest ends of the religious spectrum are horrible people. Therefor, Orthodox Jews are not extremest. We may be more to the left or right on the spectrum, depending on how you define it, but we are not at the ends.
Unstated assumption: Orthodox Jews are never horrible people.
The reason that I keep writing 'and' in bold is because the prohibitions go both ways. A woman should not shake hands with or sit next to a man. Reread the above paragraph but replace the words 'man' with 'woman' and 'woman' with 'man'. The logic still holds.
This was what reminded me to check who owned the paper. It was a really obvious flaw in her argument.
If the actions taken by men and women are identical and the logic behind the actions identical, the actions are not sexist. Therefor, society does not tolerate Judaism's bias against women. Therefor, Berrett's conclusion is wrong.
Women are not just powerful sexual stimulants, the are THE sexual stimulant.
Your rebuttal rebutted itself there.
Having said something about Murdoch papers, I find it ironic that the first search result for "rotten meat flies mullah" is the Daily Mail
, aka the Daily Hate Mail, the paper that hates everyone who isn't white, British, middle-class, married with children, Church of England, heterosexual, xenophobic, Europhobic, homophobic, ...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -meat.html
His name yields a slightly more respectable result:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 21803.html
You reminded me of him. That's not a good sign.
You want to know what else is a source of sexual arousal? There's a Facebook page for that
. I'm not going to count them for you.
You asserted that all sexual attraction is due to women, and that implies that all unclean thoughts, all unmarried sex, all sexual assaults and everything else are due to women. That's the argument for making women wear black circus tents in some places.
If you want a real-world illustrative example of Orthodox Judaism leading men to act in a particular way with clearly-expressed prejudice against women,http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/12/09/bic ... odox-jews/
... there you go. Women on bicycles are Too Damn Sexy and cause Jewish men to think unclean thoughts. I'm not sure whether that's "cause Jewish men to notice them, which is more attention than a Jewish man should have to give any woman," or "cause Jewish men to think they're attractive, which a Jewish man should never think about a Gentile woman." I hope it's not as bad as the old problem some priests used to have when they were on crowded subway trains after all those years in seclusion and found out that just being that close to that many people gave them raging boners, but I suppose it could be. I've seen a ridiculous number of near-collisions on one road junction caused by three female tourists being near it for a few minutes in Syria.
The article doesn't make explicit that they'd have been fine with male-only cycle lanes, but there's nothing in there about Jewish women being distracted and led astray by lean, sexy, young Gentile men with tidy hair riding bikes. Lanes put in there for cyclists' safety have been blasted off the roads by men
wanting to prevent women
from cycling at all because the men
can't help thinking lustful thoughts when women
I note that nobody was charged with anything. Under UK law, if no arrestable offence has been committed, a Citizen's Arrest turns into illegal detention. If the lane-repainting crew were prevented from leaving, they could have made a legal complaint. If they were compelled to move away, they could have filed a complaint for abduction. Whether they did make complaints is also not clear.
jewish_scientist wrote:The point is not that touching always causes lustful thought, but that it can. Can you honestly say that physical contact, of any kind, between a man and a woman has 0% chance of causing lustful thought in one of them?
Better never have sex in the shower once you do get married. All that moving, while standing up together? That might lead you to think about dancing.
What is very interesting though, is that when a man's wife becomes ritually clean, he is required to 'know' her.
What if she doesn't want to?
jewish_scientist wrote:Do you agree with me that in terms of mental health, men and women are different? E.g. a therapist should take the patient's gender into account when deciding what techniques and therapies are appropriate.
Do you agree that, in terms of mental health, Andrea, Beatrice, Claudia, Deborah, Eleanora, Felicity, Gabrielle, Henrietta, Isobel, Juliet, Katherine, Louise, Melissa, Natalia, Olivia, Penelope, Quiana, Rachel, Sarah, Tabitha, Ursula, Victoria, Whitney, Xanthe, Yasmin and Zendaya are all
different, and a therapist should take the patient into account when deciding what techniques and therapies are appropriate?
If you come up with 30 personality variables, assess 2000 men and 2000 women to give each person one score for each variable and plot a 30-dimensional scatter-graph of them, you'll get one
blob. The pastel-blue "girl" dots and the blood-red "boy" dots won't have the same densities in many parts, there'll be clumping and gradients and so on and there may be some generalisations
you can draw from the results for those 4000 people
, but there'll be male subjects who are off in the "female" direction from the densest part of the female cloud and female subjects who are off in the "male" direction from the densest part of the male cloud, and if you repeated that test for Oslo, rural Norway, Stockholm, rural Sweden, Dopenhagen, rural Denmark, Berlin, rural Germany, the Schwarzwald, Paris, rural France, rural Brittany, rural Languedoc, London, Kent, Penzance, Devon, Manchester, Cumbria, York, the Dales, Glasgow, the Western Highlands, Cardiff and Pembrokeshire you'd get different clouds
. You may well find that the "male to female" vector for one region is beyond perpendicular to that in another, and that's just a very few white European and Scandinavian groups. Add places as diverse, genetically and culturally, as Tibet, Viet Nam, Tasmania, Namibia, Peru, Arizona and Iran and you won't get "men are like this and women are like that" to be consistent from place to place.
jewish_scientist wrote:That phrase suggest that if the benefits are greater than the cost, then society should look down upon the touching of men and women. You said that you would argue on this, so let's argue. Tell me why you think allowing men and women to touch each other causally will benefit society.
Nothing has only one effect. It's not about the world is made a better place by a man and woman being allowed to shake hands or use the same grab-hold on a rattly bus. It's whether the world is made better by them being allowed to do that than it would be made by prohibiting it[/u]. By kicking up a fuss, the man with the poor self-control is creating stress, expense and delay for a lot of people. All he has to do is siddown and shaddup, and 500 other people could simply travel on the flight they've booked and boarded. This religious insistence that the world must rearrange itself to spare him the knowledge that a woman's thigh is separated from his sweaty hand by a mere 12 inches of air and 3 layers of cloth is causing problems on a vastly greater scale than it can possibly be solving them. If it bothers him that much, he should meet up with other men like him in advance and they should block-book seats so they can all sit together in a pork-free sausage-fest.
jewish_scientist wrote:I am sorry that I did not clearly state my question.
You believe that there are inherent physical and physiological differences between men and women. Is it so much of a stretch then to say that there are spiritual differences between men and women. You sill see how this all connects.
Please define "spiritual" in terms of molecular biology.
We can substitute "clockwise about your vertical axis" for the first, "legal entitlements" for the second and "correct" for the third. We can use "left," "prohibitions" and "wrong" for their opposites. "Wrong" can be a verb and a noun as well as an adjective, but "wrong" as a noun means "a thing that is wrong," and "wrong" as a verb means "to do a wrong thing to," so we're not using three different meanings of "wrong." They're all based on the adjective. We also have multiple words for things like "sinful," "immoral," "criminal" and so on, but they're all bad things to call someone just for a natural part of life. I know someone whose breath STINKS because of his unhealthy diet, but I don't say he's sinful, immoral or criminal just because he exhales.
jewish_scientist wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Translation of "Unclean"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Imagine trying to explain what the word 'right' means to a man who only speaks Russian. Depending on the context, 'right' can be a direction (Turn right at the stop sing), a philosophical principle (The rights of a citizen must be valued), or a moral evaluation (Lying is not the right thing to do). In addition, in different philosophies 'right' has different definitions. There is simple no way to explain the word to him without a lengthy discourse.
The same is for 'unclean', 'stoning', and 'Supreme Court of Israel' (it is going to come up below). Without writing several papers that are worthy of being published in a respected journal, I simple cannot explain the word. This is what is meant when people say, "Lost in translation."
As for "stoning," come off it. Just come off it. There is [b]one
way you can kill someone by throwing stones at them, and that's to throw stones at them until they consequently die. Leave McGyver out of it. Leave fist sizes and wrist sizes and distances out of it. Stoning someone to death is stoning someone to death.
... how the idea of a woman separating from her husband because she is 'unclean' effects their marriage.
"Affects," with an "a." We have two words, "affect" and "effect," each with more than one meaning. What you just wrote makes no bloody sense whatsoever. If you're going to argue about different meanings of "stoning" and "unclean" you ought to try to get things like that right. https://xkcd.com/326/
When the 'Supreme Court of Israel' is not in existence, capital punishment may not be executed by any court. 'Supreme Court of Israel' refers to the court as established by the Torah, meaning that no modern court of the State of Israel qualifies.
They probably ought to knock it off the statute books, then, eh?
This is a super, super small detail that in no way affect anything else on this tread; Jews believe that Shabbat is on Saturdays.
A rather larger issue: do you believe people should be prevented from doing anything even remotely like work between pre-sunset Friday and post-sunset Saturday? There was a case recently of a Jewish family suing the neighbours for having security lighting. One of the PIR sensors could see the Jewish family's side door, meaning if they used that door during Friday night the light would come on, and that's symbolically lighting a fire, which is prohibited, so they demanded that their neighbours disable their home security to allow them to use their side door on Friday nights. Do you believe they should have won that case?
The current code of ethics that American society uses in sexual matter was created by the Sexual Revolution. The Sexual Revolution had one axiom at its center: Anything sexual that all immediately effected parties consent to is moral. This was used to argue that the restrictions of the past should not be followed; but this is a two way street. Just as the Sexual Revolution says that society should respect the decision of people who choose to experience certain forms of sexuality, society must also respect the decision of people who choose not to experience certain forms of sexuality. The motivation for the decision is irrelevant; societies that follow the morals set by the Sexual Revolution must respect the decisions of people who take opposite approaches to sexuality. That is why I am allowed to putting an burden on society; society has already said that it will accept such burdens.
There's already a freedom from sexuality. We do have laws against rape, sexual assault, indecent assault, molestation and so on.
If you want to class "being in an adjacent seat" as a sexual act ...
... you have deeper problems than I am qualified to address.
A side-note: searching for references to religious laws concerning rape in the Bible (and thus, presumably, in the Torah), I found one (1) such ruling. It said that rape victims shouldn't be stoned to death for adultery because it wasn't their fault that they committed adultery. Presumably, there was no need to stone the rapist to death for rape if he was already being stoned to death for adultery, but there was nothing about compensation, her child being entitled to inherit his wealth or marital rape. Whoever wrote that book may just possibly have not given a damn about rape victims' wellbeing.
The only man/woman who may 'know' a woman/man is a spouse who has a deep emotional connection with their spouse. There is no way for this to be a commodity because simply cannot be traded.
Oh, wow. Maybe that wasn't a side-note after all. Do spouses have a right to refuse sexual intercourse in your religion? If that religious position clashes with the law of the land, which position do you choose to follow?
If you consider the physical unity of marriage an incentive that is destructive to society, then you must say that all other forms of unity in a marriage is an incentive that is destructive to society because all of these the same purpose.
Wow. Incantation, puff of smoke, 50ft strawman. That was FAST.
It is required that a Jew transgress any commandment if there is even a remote chance that doing so could save someone's life. The only exceptions to this is the prohibition to idolatry, adultery, and murder.
I was aware of the "nothing to eat but bacon-and-cheddar sandwiches" exception, but ... murder? http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/21/yassin/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 148548.stm
Not included in the above: lots of "Well said, elasto," "Well said, Copper Bezel," "Well said, krogoth" and so on.