How the Jews try to trick God

Author: WyIted
Judaism
jews
jewish

Posts

Total: 67
Topic's author
#31
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Why would God not be able to distinguish "I am willing to die for you Lord" faith from "I think betting on your existence is statistically beneficial" faith
Why would God care if you have faith at all?

I couldn't imagine somebody getting to the pearly gates and God is like...

"You followed my commands, you worshipped me and you in fact saved the souls of no less than 10 peopl, but your heart wasn't in it. You did it to hedge your bets. Off to hell with you"

Benevolent God or not. It just doesn't seem like something God would care about. So Pascal's wager doesn't seem harmful.on that point. 

The real harm in Pascal's wager is wasting your life, but if you really enjoy worshipping the lord it seems like that is a moot point as well. 
#32
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How about this: If you can't trespass people from it, it's not your house.
There are a couple of problems with that -- first off, you are confusing legal property ownership with the concept of "enclosed". I can carry my things on the sabbath in an enclosed area I don't own so it isn't about the "your" part of it.
What if a township wanted to follow those same religious definitions and nclose community property? I can't trespass people (though I haven't heard the word used as a verb before) but I can carry. The question is about the definition of "boundary" and "enclosed" not about ownership. This very often happens when people try to translate the Hebrew reshut hayachid (literally "the domain of a single person") as "personal property." But that's not what the term means.

So, again, none of this has to do with tricking anyone.
#33
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
Well it's an opinion not a fact that the mental gymnastics is anattempt to trick.

Good – you're improving, recognizing that yourclaims are just your opinions and not facts.

Ultimately it's merely a cynical take on an observed phenomenon.

Great – so you observe and don’t study and thenmake claims that you later say are just opinions. This seems like soundargumentation to you?

whether something is pedantic or not is entirely opinion. Not afact that is true or untrue. It's a cynical take that you disagree with andthat is fine. If you want to give a less cynical take than that is welcome inthis thread.

OK, so more of your admission that you are notstating facts. So your claims, all based on personal cynicism then carry noparticular weight in any rhetorical context.

I am friends with a Jewish family who does this thing where theyput a water bottle under the drivers seat to trick God into thinking they arein a boat. They claim the command is about "traveling over water". Myopinion is that they are lying to themselves about the spirit of the rule.

Not only is it “unique” to that family but it isalso against Jewish law, categorically. They are inventing a stupid forthemselves and you are assuming that they speak for anyone else in thereligion. Shouldn't you just accept their argument 100%? Isn't that what you advocated before?

However my points about a Eruv line and things such asautomatically starting ovens being legalistic interpretations that disobey thespirit of what God intended still stand. 

Because you think that you know what Godintended. You don’t.

The argument essentially being that these legalisticinterpretations are nonsense and disobey the spirit of what God intended.

No, these are applications of law in order tofollow the law precisely. Arguing that you know the “spirit” and intent meansyou are OK avoiding laws because you think they mean something else. Betweenyou and God, I’ll listen to God.

I could be way off base, but my points aren't being addressed byyou other than by the semantic equivalent of saying "nuh uh"

As long as you understand that you are, indeed,way off base.

I am sure there is plenty I have stated that is untrue.

Well, then, why ask me (in post #23) “What statement did I say that was untrue?”

Thats not really how debate works though.

Agreed. One does not debate by advancingpositions that are untrue. Debate isn’t about laying out baseless and wrongclaims and then demanding that someone else prove them wrong even while youknow they might be wrong.

Maybe you teach a critical thinking class or something butargumentation doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

Now you should look up the word “irony”.

I have taken a critical thinking class in college. I passed andit was insufficient for debate and the point of the class was to be better atrecognizing bullshit. So it did attempt to tune your bullshit detector, but theknowledge in the class was insufficient for debate.

So you took one class in college. How adorable.This must make you an expert. Well, you admit that the class is insufficient for debate so that also makes it irrelevant. I wonder what your professor would say when youadmit to phrasing opinion as fact and advancing positions which might beuntrue. I’m so glad you passed the class and recognize that your studies wereinsufficient for debate. Someday you might learn that ALL classes should be “criticalthinking classes.”

P1 God has written plainly the rules he wants followed in theTorah, and extrapolations of what is plainly obvious is a fools errand

This is another set of opinions. Your premiseshouldn’t be an opinion. Your feeling about what is “written plainly” is yourview and your calling something a “fool’s errand” is just your opinion. So, no,no premise here.

p2- many Jews extrapolate things from the commands that are notplainly obvius like Eruvs.

Oof, more mistakes. Jewish law establishes,based on text and accepted Jewish methodology, the concept of what you arecalling an eruv. This also relies on your opinion of “plainly obvious” soanother non-premise.àconclusion - the Jews who do this are on a fools errandAnd a conclusion that comes from 2 non-premisesis a non-conclusion. QED.Any questions?

The rules are not as plainly written as you may think becausesome things do in fact get lost in translation. Let me explain an example ofhow the Torah is not as plainly written as you believe.......

Ugh. Try not working with translation, or maybeuse a translation that is written from within the system into which the textwas introduced. And I’m not the one who claims the text is “written plainly”—thatwas your opinion in your fake-premise. If you are trying to impress anyone byundermining your own opinions then have fun. I try not to introduce argumentthat is so easily shown to be wrong.

You need to calm down and take a step back and re frame youropponents arguments. so you can understand the logical argument, avoid gettingsucked in by red herrings and inflammatory language and focus on defeating theargument or if you can't than conceding.

You need to stop confusing your opinion foranything more than your opinion, accept that you know so little that yourclaims are flawed, and understand that if you can easily refute your ownsupposed premises, then they are really useless and your conclusions shouldn’tbe trusted. Stop pretending that a class in college taught you anythingrelevant here.

I would absolutely crush you in a debate. All I would have to dois start my round off with some inflammatory language and throw a bunch of redherrings into my argument and my syllogism would likely go unattacked and stillstand in the final round.

So your method in a debate would beintentionally not to argue your point but instead throw in mistakes andattacks. That would “crush” me? You clearly have never been in an actualdebate. And if you can’t see that I have shown your premises to be wrong thenyou certainly couldn’t handle an actual forensic debate.

I could likely argue that the president is a reptile in ahumans body and still defeat you because you'll get distracted byinconsequential bullshit.

You just keep thinking that if it provides youany comfort in that cold, ignorant world you call home.
Topic's author
#34
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
Good – you're improving, recognizing that yourclaims are just your opinions and not facts.
Yeah so if I state something like Pizza is yummy. It is an opinion not fact and claims of lying such as the ones you stated are stupid.

Great – so you observe and don’t study and thenmake claims that you later say are just opinions. This seems like soundargumentation to you?
No, the takes were separate from the claims. Anyway the opinions claimed were based on a set of premises and it would be considered cogent arguments not sound arguments. Google the difference between cogent and sound arguments.


Not only is it “unique” to that family but it isalso against Jewish law, categorically. They are inventing a stupid forthemselves and you are assuming that they speak for anyone else in thereligion. Shouldn't you just accept their argument 100%? Isn't that what you advocated before?
No, I never advocated for that. I expanded on what I said. You accept it 100%  and then immediately start challenging your new belief. You can claim they are breaking Jewish law by putting a water bottle under their seat and I can't find any results, but I am sure many people would disagree. The fact that other Jewish people disagree with you about how to follow God doesn't surprise me. There is probably 100 sects of Judaism I guess you can tell the other 99 sects they are wrong if you want to. My theory is that they are all wrong.

Because you think that you know what Godintended. You don’t.
you don't. See how easy that is

professor would say when youadmit to phrasing opinion as fact and advancing positions which might beuntrue
It's on the listener or the reader to parse opinion and fact.  As far as advancing positions that might be untrue. It's a stupid assertion. Any position has the possibility of being untrue, and the point of debate is not to advance true positions.

P1 God has written plainly the rules he wants followed in theTorah, and extrapolations of what is plainly obvious is a fools errand

This is another set of opinions. Your premiseshouldn’t be an opinion. Your feeling about what is “written plainly” is yourview and your calling something a “fool’s errand” is just your opinion. So, no,no premise here.

I already destroyed premise one and did a better job of it than you. Your criticism of it here is worse than the criticism I presented and insufficient. I would destroy you in a competitive debate.

Oof, more mistakes. Jewish law establishes,based on text and accepted Jewish methodology, the concept of what you arecalling an eruv. This also relies on your opinion of “plainly obvious” soanother non-premise.àconclusion - the Jews who do this are on a fools errandAnd a conclusion that comes from 2 non-premisesis a non-conclusion. QED.Any questions?
stupid take. No debate judge will agree with this criticism and you would lose points and it would likely cost you the debate. Also again these are cogent arguments not sound ones so yes you can state opinions as premises and it is up to your opponent to show them to be less reasonable than the opinions they share in the confines of the debate.

Ugh. Try not working with translation, or maybeuse a translation that is written from within the system into which the textwas introduced. And I’m not the one who claims the text is “written plainly”—thatwas your opinion in your fake-premise. If you are trying to impress anyone byundermining your own opinions then have fun. I try not to introduce argumentthat is so easily shown to be wrong.
It's not a bad strategy. Sometimes correct fact can take too long to explain and then the timer goes off before it is able to be explained and your opponent loses points for other dropped arguments. Sometimes you intentionally give a bad argument to bait your opponent into a statement that will undermine his other arguments or that you can easily disprove.

You need to stop confusing your opinion foranything more than your opinion, accept that you know so little that yourclaims are flawed, and understand that if you can easily refute your ownsupposed premises, then they are really useless and your conclusions shouldn’tbe trusted. Stop pretending that a class in college taught you anythingrelevant here.
I never claimed my opinion as fact, you did and called the opinions lies. Me being able to refute my own premises doesn't mean much either. I would for example beat you in a debate where I take a pro life stance. I would also definitely defeat you in a debate where I take a pro choice stance. Either way you will present premises I can easily defeat. I am trying to teach you something here. It would better serve you to be humble and learn. It would likely benefit your students as well for you to understand these concepts, especially if they take up competitive debate as well. Look at Austin's recent post about doing well in debate competitions. Some of his success is no doubt to learning a few things from me. I have helped him refine his skills in PM and I think I may have debated him a few times under a different account.


So your method in a debate would beintentionally not to argue your point but instead throw in mistakes andattacks. That would “crush” me? You clearly have never been in an actualdebate. And if you can’t see that I have shown your premises to be wrong thenyou certainly couldn’t handle an actual forensic debate.
Argue your point as well but throw in some red herrings as well. See how I pulled a syllogism out of my arguments that you didn't notice because you were easily distracted like a dog chasing cars. If you want to we can debate over zoom and let people decide if you are accurate, I can't see you winning over Tabula Rasa judges (the only correct judging style) .

So pick any topic that doesn't fairly advantage you and we can have a judge flip a coin to determine your position and we can test this theory you have. Actually pick 3 topics that don''t advantage you, I will pick between the 3 and a coin flip will determine your position.




#35
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
The question is about the definition of "boundary" and "enclosed" not about ownership. This very often happens when people try to translate the Hebrew reshut hayachid (literally "the domain of a single person") as "personal property." But that's not what the term means.

So, again, none of this has to do with tricking anyone.
I suppose I should also take it as granted that one must trick oneself first if one aims at tricking god.

You know the catholic church once convinced themselves that if people paid them to give absolution god would honor that?


No I don't know hebrew and I don't know what reshut hayachid means, but "the domain of a single person" sounds incompatible with "several city blocks". There is the spirit and the letter, but I know that people leave out letters they don't like and ignore extravagant interpretations they don't like while embracing the ones they do.

You layer that up for thousands of years and it's going to sound pretty silly. I have to agree with Wylted on this one point, you seem to be making excuses for the concept instead of disowning or rejecting the description of the commandment itself. Since you haven't used the simple out I think it's a good bet that you are caught in this web of some guy a thousand years ago deciding that the 4th commandment from exodus meant "stay in your house because you shouldn't even think about working around the property" (or something) but now you want to stop by starbucks and that's resting isn't it?

This is the religion section and I don't typically participate in here because my purely rational epistemology doesn't interface well with the scoped rationality religious people favor when talking about their religion.

Unscoped rationality (global scope) has this to say: God doesn't care what you decide is the "domain of a single person", he didn't care about the exaggerations of some guy 1000 years ago, in fact if he cared about any human behavior at all and was willing to empower prophets with miracles to convince people he would just tell you about it.

I only asked the question to check for self-awareness. Within the domain of the irrationality of religion this tension between the obviously man-made and the mystical fog that isn't precise enough to be obviously man made exists and has defined the difference between many parallel religious traditions.

To contrast with say eastern orthodox christianity: a real protestant's protestant won't claim there are any rules except those directly found in scripture and its up to each person to figure out what they mean (probably through mystical direct connection with god, good luck right?). Well now quite a few of them have decided homosexuality is just fine... and a long time ago they had decided actually pork, lobster, multi-thread coats were all no problem as well.

From my point of view the lengths they'll go to in order to explain away Leviticus is extremely reminiscent of how Wylted described the eruv line, only difference would be they're trying to explain away scripture and these NY jews are trying to explain away oral tradition which was clearly (to me) one of those phases of trying to prove extra-holiness by making up new requirements on extremely tenuous scriptural basis.

I think I had a similar impression about the kippot wearing. Jews did not always do that. They definitely didn't do that the last time Israel was a sovereign nation. Apparently it comes from a section of the talmud which is (again) concerned with shabbot.

When you have something vauge like "keep it holy" (or whatever it actually was) people will create layers upon layers of meaning, injecting concepts which clearly did not exist in the original until it's about hats and setting up ceremonial borders around city blocks.

This is of general interest to understand, it happens in secular interpretation as well as in Roe v Wade. The courts kept injecting their own ideas about what the last court's language meant until they had actually convinced themselves that the concept of abortion was at all addressed in the U.S. constitution.

Even things I agree with (morally) have come from absurd interpretations of the constitution, such as somehow being secure from unwarranted search and seizure meant anything that happens in private can't be illegal. That was literally the basis for Lawrence v. Texas. I am amazed at how shallow the rationality of the average person can be in contrast to the ferocity of their loyalty to the concept of the underlying documents (exodus or the constitution).
#36
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
No, the takes were separate from theclaims.
Actually, if you look, you presentedthem as claims, not “takes.” Only when I told you that they were invalid asclaims are you now admitting that they were just opinions. 

No, I never advocated for that. Iexpanded on what I said. You accept it 100%  and then immediately startchallenging your new belief.

 So you challenged it by studying thelaws and investigating their behavior and learning whether or not their claimconforms to Jewish law, right? Or did you just have a “cynical observation”because of your opinions? 

You can claim they are breakingJewish law by putting a water bottle under their seat and I can't find anyresults, but I am sure many people would disagree. 

Be as sure as you want to be. You’d bewrong. There is a reason you can’t find any results…because it doesn’t exist.

you don't. See how easy that is 

Actually, I do. Laws were given so Ifollow them – that’s why he gave them. You intuit his intention and don’t. Butsince you can’t know that his intent is any different from what he says, youare inevitably wrong.

It's on the listener or the reader toparse opinion and fact. 

 that’s because you see presentingintellectually dishonest positions as a valid method. 

the point of debate is not to advance true positions.

So feel free to think you are doing somethinguseful by advancing lies. Good luck with your lies. 

I already destroyed premise one and dida better job of it than you. Your criticism of it here is worse than thecriticism I presented and insufficient. I would destroy you in a competitivedebate. 

Be proud that you undermined your ownposition if that’s what you need. I showed that your statement didn’t even riseto the level of premise. You seem not to understand what that means.

stupid take. No debate judge willagree with this criticism and you would lose points and it would likely costyou the debate. 

You would already have lost byadvancing opinions as premises. No judge would reward you for pushing lies andopinions when you know they aren’t claims or logical premises.

Sometimes correct fact can take toolong to explain and then the timer goes off before it is able to be explained 

So if a correct fact takes too long,state an incorrect claim. Brilliant! And I’m sorry that the timer on aninternet forum is forcing you to post wrong information. Life can be sopressure filled, knowing that the messages will disappear if you don’t,quickly, post lies. You clearly know very little aboutrhetoric and sound argumentation but think you have something to provide toothers. You are in serious error. Add arrogance to your list of faults.

So pick any topic that doesn't fairlyadvantage you 

You mean like knowledge of Judaism, thetopic that you continue to spew about even though you know nothing? Do youoften opine about things you haven’t a clue about? You would not survive fiveminutes in a real debate. Find your refuge behind a website and continue tospout mistakes and champion your idiocy. Feel free to change your position whenconfronted and think that your “training” has any bearing on your ability toput forward a reasonable set of claims and draw a logical conclusion. You haveyet to make a single point that hasn’t been destroyed, from definitions ofwords, to your presumptions about things you haven’t studied.

Topic's author
#37
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
You mean like knowledge of Judaism, the topic that you continue to spew about even though you know nothing? Do youoften opine about things you haven’t a clue about
correct. If I already am well informed about a topic than I am not going to learn much if anything by discussing it. If already am well informed it just goes into my obsidian writing and is there for somebody to read if I die. It's all completely unencrypted.

What would I gain from discussions where I am already an expert in the subject matter?


#38
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I suppose I should also take it as granted that one musttrick oneself first if one aims at tricking god.

Since I don’t understand the conceptof “tricking” God, this statement is useless to me

No I don't know hebrew and I don'tknow what reshut hayachid means, but "the domain of a single person"sounds incompatible with "several city blocks". There is the spiritand the letter, but I know that people leave out letters they don't like andignore extravagant interpretations they don't like while embracing the onesthey do.

 People invent a “spirit” to excusenon-observance when they haven’t studied the law or want to avoid it. Did youknow that acres and acres of forest can be considered “private property”? Thatdoesn’t seem really “private” to me. I guess the legal definition doesn’t haveto comport with my non-legal understanding. 

you seem to be making excuses for theconcept instead of disowning or rejecting the description of the commandmentitself. Why would I disown or reject God’slaw?

 Since you haven't used the simple outI think it's a good bet that you are caught in this web of some guy a thousandyears ago deciding that the 4th commandment from exodus meant "stay inyour house because you shouldn't even think about working around theproperty" (or something) but now you want to stop by starbucks and that'sresting isn't it? 

Again, you are imposing your beliefsfrom the outside and that means nothing to me. 

Unscoped rationality (global scope)has this to say: God doesn't care what you decide is the "domain of asingle person", he didn't care about the exaggerations of some guy 1000years ago, in fact if he cared about any human behavior at all and was willingto empower prophets with miracles to convince people he would just tell youabout it.

 That’s a fine worldview, but not onethat accords with Judaism. What if I were to say “your system is mired in selfdelusion and a lack of understanding about history”? I would hope you would say“your opinion of my system has no bearing on what my system actually is.” 

I think I had a similar impressionabout the kippot wearing. Jews did not always do that. They definitely didn'tdo that the last time Israel was a sovereign nation. Apparently it comes from asection of the talmud which is (again) concerned with shabbot.

 You insist that Jews did not always dothat. Do you have any evidence of that? Photos maybe? And, again, if you usethe fact that an idea is discussed in the Talmud as an automatic statement thatit therefore is less valid as a divine commandment then you are speaking fromoutside the system and your opinion is worthless. No offense, but the thousandsof years of history and practice of Judaism doesn’t fail because you, anoutsider, have decided that it doesn’t make sense to you.
#39
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
correct. If I already am well informed about a topic than I am not going to learn much if anything by discussing it. If already am well informed it just goes into my obsidian writing and is there for somebody to read if I die. It's all completely unencrypted.

What would I gain from discussions where I am already an expert in the subject matter?
so you are asking to debate about something you don't know. Got it.
Topic's author
#40
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
Who knows. Maybe you get lucky and post a topic where I am an expert in the subject matter. It will be boring for me but I won't back down.
Topic's author
#41
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
I can tell you one thing. If I am a subject matter expert in something.  I will not allow somebody to rip apart their own arguments better than I do
#42
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
You certainly haven't backed down in your claims about Judaism, and that's a subject you know nothing about, so good for you!
#43
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
When you value disproving your own mistakes over actually learning why they were mistakes in the first place, you have already lost.
Topic's author
#44
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
You certainly haven't backed down in your claims about Judaism, and that's a subject you know nothing about, so good for you!
I literally stated th claims in a syllogism and then gave a rebuttal. Not sure who that is not backing down.

When you value disproving your own mistakes over actually learning why they were mistakes in the first place, you have already lost
If you disprove your mistake or argument how is that not learning why they were wrong?


Topic's author
#45
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I suspect that you have strong beliefs and that you don't approach analysis of an argument from a tabula rasa perspective before addressing it. Those are flaws. 

This is why it is shocking to you that somebody would accept an argument at face value prior to attacking it and you see doing so as som sort of weakness. 
#46
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
Did youknow that acres and acres of forest can be considered “private property”?
Multiple city blocks cannot reasonably be considered private property (of a single person) or "the domain of a single person".


Again, you are imposing your beliefsfrom the outside and that means nothing to me. 
Why would you be debating it online if the evaluation of others meant nothing to you?


I think I had a similar impressionabout the kippot wearing. Jews did not always do that. They definitely didn'tdo that the last time Israel was a sovereign nation. Apparently it comes from asection of the talmud which is (again) concerned with shabbot.
 You insist that Jews did not always dothat. Do you have any evidence of that? Photos maybe?
No photos from before the balyonian captivity, no. I inferred it from the silence in greek, roman, and christian sources. Anything the jews did, christian councils discussed whether it would be required for gentiles. Their writings are voluminous on those matters.

It's also hinted in the talmud: Rav Chisda praised Rabbi Hamnuna before Rabbi Huna as a great man. He said to him, 'When he visits you, bring him to me.' When he arrived, he saw that he wore no head-covering. 'Why do you not have head-covering?', he asked. 'Because I am not married', was the reply. Thereupon, he [Rabbi Huna] turned his face away from him, and said, 'See to it that you do not appear before me again before you are married.'[23]

When I was confirming that quote I found this:

Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen, I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all.

It really supports the religion + lawyers = absurdity claim. The sheer exaggeration and unbridled pride of it. It paints a picture of exactly the kind of cycles of self-righteous obsession and recovery that I would have expected to produce a rule that you can't leave your house on shabbot (or eat a lobster).
#47
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
If you disprove your mistake or argument how is that not learning why they were wrong?
because you have not learned anything of substance; you have just reassured yourself by looking online for bits and pieces that you think are relevant but have no way of vetting them because you never actually learned the ideas.
#48
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
I suspect that you have strong beliefs and that you don't approach analysis of an argument from a tabula rasa perspective before addressing it. Those are flaws. 

This is why it is shocking to you that somebody would accept an argument at face value prior to attacking it and you see doing so as som sort of weakness. 
I suspect that you don't understand the goals of argumentation and learning and think that all blank slates are equal and that you are working from a blank slate. That's a serious error on your part.
Topic's author
#49
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
I suspect that you don't understand the goals of argumentation
To learn, preferably through continual deconstruction of your beliefs 

and learning and think that all blank slates are equal
They should be treated equally yes. If not why?


and that you are working from a blank slate.

I am for the most part. We can't completely avoid bias but we should try to eradicate any strong beliefs as hard as we can. Nothing should be taboo and any bias should be eliminated if it is discovered.

That's a serious error on your part.
Explain

Topic's author
#50
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
If your ideals are correct and mine wrong than you should easily be able to defeat me in a debate. 

Give me 10 hot takes you have and I will pick one and send you a challenge. 
#51
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Multiple city blocks cannot reasonably be considered private property (of a single person) or "the domain of a single person".
really? I have a friend who lives on an estate which is substantially larger than a few city blocks. Is that not his private property? Are you making the mistake of taking the English wording "domain of a single person" and considering it just from your perception of what you think makes sense?

Why would you be debating it online if the evaluation of others meant nothing to you?
I'm not debating it, nor is it useful to debate it with someone who simply doesn't know it. I am discussing and trying to correct misunderstandings. I didn't start this topic -- the title of this is not "do the Jews..." but is worded as a claim "how the Jews..." so it is incumbent on me to explain that the titled claim is in error. There is nothing to debate because I have information and the person who posted it has none.

No photos from before the balyonian captivity, no. I inferred it from the silence in greek, roman, and christian sources. Anything the jews did, christian councils discussed whether it would be required for gentiles. Their writings are voluminous on those matters.
So the Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss it as an established practice but because non-Jewish texts don't discuss it, you assume it doesn't exist. The talmud pretty explicitly teaches about it, not as a hint but a explicit practice.  Do the non-Jewish texts discuss whether a woman should cover her hair once she is married? I'm curious.


It really supports the religion + lawyers = absurdity claim. The sheer exaggeration and unbridled pride of it. It paints a picture of exactly the kind of cycles of self-righteous obsession and recovery that I would have expected to produce a rule that you can't leave your house on shabbot (or eat a lobster).
except that people who study the text understand the difference between legal requirements and random comments in the text. This is why snipping little bits of text out of context isn't very useful.
#52
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
To learn, preferably through continual deconstruction of your beliefs 
then we have a serious disagreement. Argumentation is about advancing and defending positions and then considering challenges to those positions and reevaluating the position based on new facts. 

They should be treated equally yes. If not why?
because the "blank slate" of a child who doesn't know language is different from the "blank slate" of someone who has studied all sorts of things but not one particular subject. That you equate them is sad.

I am for the most part. We can't completely avoid bias but we should try to eradicate any strong beliefs as hard as we can. Nothing should be taboo and any bias should be eliminated if it is discovered.
No, you aren't, because you are starting with assumptions and an established position (look at the title of this entire thread; it bespeaks an established belief). Your language and approach make it clear that you have a very muddled slate and are trying to convince others that your confusion is useful.
Explain
you think that calling your state of misunderstanding and preconceived (erroneous) opinions is a "blank slate" and this will make you unable to learn anything.
Topic's author
#53
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I am discussing and trying to correct misunderstandings
This is a debate site. It isn't for proselytizing or arrogance. Th fact you only stick with one topic and don't even debate that specific topic but instead "clarify" without actually making argumentation but instead just giving a perspective is problematic. 
#54
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
This is a debate site. It isn't for proselytizing or arrogance. Th fact you only stick with one topic and don't even debate that specific topic but instead "clarify" without actually making argumentation but instead just giving a perspective is problematic. 
this is a forum on a site that also hosts debates. It isn't a space for debates but for conversation. The fact that you speak about things you don't know and then don't learn about is problematic.
Topic's author
#55
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@rosends
then we have a serious disagreement. Argumentation is about advancing and defending positions and then considering challenges to those positions and reevaluating the position based on new facts. 
Yeah, major disagreement. How you think is more important than what you think and debates are about strengthening the mind through how thoughts are processed. 

The reason that people are given their topics and positions prior to a debate instead of picking their position is because their actual beliefs don't matter.

No, you aren't, because you are starting with assumptions and an established position (look at the title of this entire thread; it bespeaks an established belief
The title of the thread isn't the argument. Titles are just meant to be attention grabbing and pull you in to read th argument. 

I am not starting with assumptions. I started with an argument. 

Your language and approach make it clear that you have a very muddled slate
Not really. In this context how an ideal is presented is not as important as what argument is presented. You need to drop the baggage of trying to decipher things other than what is directly stated. 

because the "blank slate" of a child who doesn't know language is different from the "blank slate" of someone who has studied all sorts of things but not one particular subject. That you equate them is sad.
Well blank slate while knowing the definitions of words. You try to get as close as possible and yes you should try to drop your own understandings to as best you can replicate a blank slate. 

For example if somebody argues the following

P1. Existence is pain
P2. Nuking everyone would wipe out pain
C 1 we should nuke the entire planet

Tha. You should be challenging the premises or how the conclusion is drawn. Technically if you have a counter argument you should start a new thread to discuss it. 

Likely you think nuking the entire planet is bad. However to fairly analyze the argument you should be dropping your belief and considering the premises. 

Perhaps premise 1 is supported by antinatalist arguments.

Premie 2 appears true that if people don't exist they can't suffer. So you would focus on premise one and argue against antinatalist style arguments. 

That might involve challenging how an antinatalist defines pain or by challenging the notion that pain and pleasure are the primal drives we should value the most. 

What would be a stupid way to attack it would be focusing on the conclusion or just blindly saying shit like "um you are wrong because I personally value my life" . Or any personal attacks in general should be off the table. 

Now in an actual debate a counter argument is fine but you still have to challenge their premises. 
Topic's author
#56
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
this is a forum on a site that also hosts debates. It isn't a space for debates but for conversation. The fact that you speak about things you don't know and then don't learn about is problematic
The forum part of the site is intended to test arguments out for debates or to set up arguments for debates later on. 
#57
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
The forum part of the site is intended to test arguments out for debates or to set up arguments for debates later on. 
can you show me that in the documentation for this site? It seems, then, that a whole bunch of the threads here (and therefore, the authors) didn't get that memo.

On the front page, the forum is described as "A classic forum with all familiar features for those who prefer discussions without formats". The Help section on Forums does not support your claim either. In fact, under "Basics" the text reads, "Our forum section provides a space for users to engage in more casual conversations, ask questions, and share their thoughts on a wide range of topics. Users can create their own forum topics and participate in discussions with other members."

Please provide some support for your position on the intentions of this forum. TIA.

#58
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
Multiple city blocks cannot reasonably be considered private property (of a single person) or "the domain of a single person".
really? I have a friend who lives on an estate which is substantially larger than a few city blocks.
It's not the size, it's the ownership and use. A city is not your house. In theory a man could own a planet, but this planet is not your house.


There is nothing to debate because I have information and the person who posted it has none.
Well you haven't contradicted him in substance about the eruv line.


No photos from before the balyonian captivity, no. I inferred it from the silence in greek, roman, and christian sources. Anything the jews did, christian councils discussed whether it would be required for gentiles. Their writings are voluminous on those matters.
So the Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss it as an established practice but because non-Jewish texts don't discuss it
Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)


Do the non-Jewish texts discuss whether a woman should cover her hair once she is married? I'm curious.
I don't know off the top of my head (pun intended), but christians and muslims have both had traditions of covering women's hair.


It really supports the religion + lawyers = absurdity claim. The sheer exaggeration and unbridled pride of it. It paints a picture of exactly the kind of cycles of self-righteous obsession and recovery that I would have expected to produce a rule that you can't leave your house on shabbot (or eat a lobster).
except that people who study the text understand the difference between legal requirements and random comments in the text.
They decide. Today it's just one guys boast. Tomorrow it's recommended. The next day it's required. Then eventually somebody spins some BS that allows the requirement to be bypassed (which was the OP point about eruv lines and water bottles).
#59
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not the size, it's the ownership and use. A city is not your house. In theory a man could own a planet, but this planet is not your house.
but there is nothing in the Jewish concept about ownership so the question of "your" house is immaterial.

Well you haven't contradicted him in substance about the eruv line.
the eruv (shituf mevo'ot) exists - what's to contradict. It is a bit more complex than as presented and the problem isn't in the fact that its existence is documented, but in the presentation of it as a trick. It has nothing to do with tricking anyone.

Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)
Kiddushin 31a
"The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully."

I don't know off the top of my head (pun intended), but christians and muslims have both had traditions of covering women's hair.
what non-Jewish texts do they rely on for that? Where is this attested to by non-Jewish sources from the time in question?

They decide. Today it's just one guys boast. Tomorrow it's recommended. The next day it's required. Then eventually somebody spins some BS that allows the requirement to be bypassed (which was the OP point about eruv lines and water bottles).
that is, indeed, your preconceived opinion based in your worldview. 
#60
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@rosends

It's not the size, it's the ownership and use. A city is not your house. In theory a man could own a planet, but this planet is not your house.
but there is nothing in the Jewish concept about ownership
It's just a line that you can't cross on shabbot. It's got nothing to do with ownership, lots, use, just "because"?


"The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully."

He died 410 CE.

Unless you're claiming this was prophecy (in which case it's in the wrong book), it was not 2000 years ago much less pre-exile.

So Rav Huna thinks his hat is acting respectfully. Did god say "I find hats respectful"? That sounds like something men decided.

You never explained why Tractate Kiddushin 29b said that it was not a common practice for unmarried men to wear a hat.


I don't know off the top of my head (pun intended), but christians and muslims have both had traditions of covering women's hair.
what non-Jewish texts do they rely on for that? Where is this attested to by non-Jewish sources from the time in question?
Did I say that was non-jewish? I said that if there was something all jews did (so including Jesus & pals) they would have at least mentioned "So we're not doing that anymore cause we're so awesome"

If it was something all jews did and Jesus stopped doing it, that would have been a point of contention with the pharisees at the time (sages) and those were mentioned in fair detail.

The christian reason for women's veils (as it was explained to me by a sister once) is:

"logic" = Rebekah covered herself, and she was someone god liked so he must have liked everything she did and we should emulate everything she did.

So exactly the same phenomenon of taking a snippet of scripture and reading bizarre overreaches of inference into it so that you can have something to make yourself feel holy. Maybe she felt self conscious. Maybe she didn't want to be leered at.