Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There’s this absolutely great tune for Lecha Dodi I heard just this week, is goes…
Ba da dum, Dum Da da dum,
Da dum bada dum bada dum bada da da,
Dum bada da da dum.
Dum ba da da dum da dum ba dum ba dum da,
Dum ba da da dum bada dum…
Du du, dum dum dum dum da da dum,
Ba da dum ba, da dum ba dum.
OurTORAH:
Perhaps if you had read what I said… It is where modernity becomes considered a reason to alter fundamental aspects of the Torah, such as taaruvos, or to ignore or even denigrate the practice of certain halachos in an attempt to fit the Torah into their ‘modern’ viewpoint, that it gets a lot more than just ‘problematic’. I was very careful to avoid castigating the entire movement, only aspects of it that use its banner. And even that was only because I haven’t seriously examined the subject to the extent where I feel comfortable making general proclamations. Although my suspicion is there is certainly much more egregious aspects to be addressed.
With regards to Joseph’s post re the name of the country, the current name is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which just happens to be the longest country name in the world. Were they to leave I doubt the name, or the flag, would change. I believe there is a separate thread concerning Scottish independence.
There will doubtless be a glut of more informed (and less informed) replies, so I will simply say this.
Labels are often wrongly ascribed, and I would venture to say that anybody referring to your family as MO would be shooting wide of the mark.
And it is not as if there is any concrete meaning to any of these terms, they depend on people’s perceptions, which can be very misguided. There is a significant difference between being from a ‘normal orthodox/heimish’ but with a more modern bent, and being a self-identifying MO. And, as in most things, it is not black and white, but on a spectrum with many shades of grey.
But with regards to what most people would call MO, it is where the ‘modernity’ impacts significantly on their understanding and practice of yiddishkeit, which can get very problematic. This can be found amongst certain ‘official’ MO organizations and movements, where interpretations and hashkafa get skewed. I am not going to make any judgements about the extent or severity of this issue.
So to sum up, there is a world of difference between Modernly Orthodox and and Orthodoxly Modern. Especially since it is something of an oxymoron. And I am being deliberately soft, partly to avoid causing offence and partly because I do not claim to have a deeper knowledge of the subject matter, although if I had the time or inclination to delve further I suspect I would be much harsher.
Joseph:
There are a mixture of state aided and independent schools serving the heimeshe community. All are fee-paying, and it is a significant expense.
And London, as a cosmopolitan City, is more international than local, with a few local accents, the most easily recognizable of which are Cockney and RP, and a varied and curious mixture of foreign accents and languages, of which the most common include Portuguese, French, Polish and Arabic. These vary across London.
Generally worldwide, most countries have a wide range of accents, including in the US. The UK simply has the greatest variety, perhaps due to its reasonably stable and longstanding indigenous population, which leads to specific areas having distinct and established identities, cultures and, naturally, accents. There are also a variety of local languages, including Celt, Welsh, Cornish and Gaelic (In parts of NI).
Food, Family and Philosophy.
The three ‘F’s.
Ask your LOR. Who will tell you not to go. You’re welcome.
Yekke2:
Or to put it another way, your point is that in Yiddishkeit there is no ‘spirit of the law’, only the letter of the law. And that the spirit of the law only is only relevant when it is assisting one in fulfilling the letter of the law.
But is not the spirit of the law included in the letter of the law?
I believe I’ve heard this question before, regarding Quirrell. I have two weak but relatively plausible theories.
My premise is that we are never illuminated as to the precise nature of this jinx, and only really know that it means no teacher has every taught the subject for more than a year, and that Voldemort cast it.
My first theory is that based on Hagrid’s words, as quoted above. We know that Quirell’s ‘bit of trouble’ was his encounter with, and possession by, Voldemort. If we assume this occurred that summer, than an argument could be made that an exception to the jinx was affected by Voldemort’s possessing him. This could either be because the Quirrell/Voldemort combination wasn’t strictly the same person as the year before, or that the caster of the jinx, Voldemort, lifted the spell in order to enable Quirell’s return.
The second theory is that the year he took off was the previous school year, and therefore he was not teaching for two consecutive years, and as such not technically in contravention of the jinx.
I am fully aware that both theories have numerous issues, chiefly among them that this exception would have been noted as some point during the books, as well as several other notable ones. I simply thought I’d proffer some suggestions. #KTCRIM
yekke2:
As regards your Percy question, the question itself is not as commendable as the bekius required to find it. The key difference is the presence of Arthur, as he is the obvious reason she broke off. Also, she doesn’t have to be perfectly consistent, she’s human, after all.
I know, I know, it’s not exactly a rebuttal per se, more kvetching than answering, but some questions can’t be answered with reason.
Haven’t yet found any theories as regards the above questions, so until I have something original to offer, I suppose I’ll just…
#KTCRIM
The Northern Irish accent is distinct from, but very similar to, the Irish accent. And even within NI there are two main variations, as well as numerous other less obvious differences within the country. As I have already said above, the UK has a remarkable range of accents. For example, Salford, in Greater Manchester (Where, incidentally, many yidden live) has a slightly different local accent to Central Manchester, as do many of the nearby districts, despite ostensibly being part of the same city and only several miles apart. This incredible variety was bought into greater focus when there was a manhunt on for a serial killer. They had one tape from somebody claiming to be responsible, and analysts were able to narrow it down to an area a few streets wide in one area of a particular city.
DaasYochid:
Hear, hear!
It’s great to hear some positivity towards the United Kingdom on the CR for once. And now that I’m here, I suppose T’d better attempt to clear some of the apparent the confusion.
What most people would consider a typical ‘British’ accent is officially termed ‘Received Pronunciation’, or RP. This is common amongst the middle and upper classes, and is generally, but not specifically, found in the South of the country. I would love to go into greater depths about the incredible variety of British regional accents, but since the UK has more distinct regional accents, relative to population, than any other country worldwide, I’ll give it a miss for now. And I don’t think it would be fair to expect anybody not from these fair Isles to be able to distinguish between them easily, any more than a Briton could be to distinguish between New York and California, for instance. Although some differences, such as between Scottish, Northern Irish, Geordie, Manc or RP are pretty obvious. But to suggest the same leniencies apply when talking about the British accents relative to South Africa or Australia is laughable.
Interestingly, I’ve noticed that whilst the Yidden in England tend to conform to their respective local accents, the accents tend to be much less obvious, and similarities in accent can be detected across the different kehillos.
Ask your LOR.
Seriously. An online forum cannot be relied on for halachic advice, although I’m sure you will get deserved approbation for your thoughtful intentions.
This is the simplest, and yet most complicated issue I have come across. And it comes down to two viewpoints, which, let’s be honest, are probably more shaped by whether we’re parents or singles than by some deeply held ideological standpoint.
And the solution is basically down to who would suffer more, with abvious allowances being made for their respective situations.
Is the shidduch situation difficult enough to justify in-term shidduchim? Or is it simply a matter of convinience. If the former, then the OP is wrong, if the latter, they’re more likely to be right.
And secondly, are the kids deeply damaged by occasionally losing a teacher mid-term? Or not? And is it an issue the schools continually struggle with, or deal with comfortably enough?
I don’t know the facts on both sides. I daresay most of you can only really, at best, have knowledge of one side, at worst, neither. And even if you have covered both sides, I would guess you’re more strongly biased towards your current position, probably as a parent.
So basically, what I am trying to say is that much of the strength of feeling here is prbably misplaced, and that much of this ‘debate’ is typified by those with knowledge of, and biased towards, one side, facing off against somebody equally well versed in the facts of the other side, and equally ignorant with regards to the opposing postion. And that people would do well to recognize this before making bland, strident proclomations.
SDD: For once, I am going to have to keep this relatively short. for on the whole I entirely agree. I would just like to pick you up on two points.
You open your quite admirably worded reply by explaining, in great detail, as to how the human mind is inherintly biased and can therefore ignore logic in making a judgement about a situation where blame can be apportioned. Is that a good summary?
But, whilst your general point about people enjoying finding fault in others is pertinent, what I attempted to address was why an otherwise relatively unbiased person would be swayed by a hunger strike too.
I addressed its effect on already opinionated people by saying it provided a focal point. And with already opinionated people, it isn’t really difficult to explain at all. If they would already be of the opinion that Israel is unfairly treating Palestinians in general, then they will almost definitely believe that they are imprisoning them unfairly, and that therefore any protest they make about their incarceration is justified. That’s easy to understand.
But what I attempted to explain above is that when somebody without any particularly strong pre-existing opinions about the situation hears of a hunger strike, why aould they ignore logic and support them? Your post may perhaps also pertain to them, but you seem to focus on the biased. And to that I explained that since one party is both the underdog and displaying what appears to be the courage of their convictions, a natural response is for this to sway them.
Perhaps you said this yourself, but the central point of your message didn’t seem to suggest this.
And secondly, the final section of your response appears to do exactly what we have both agreed is unecessary, and provide a logical breakdown of the facts.
It’s not that I have any fault with your reasoning. It’s just I, and from the first part of your answer, yourself too, appear to agree that we are dealing with an emotional, not logical repsonse. Perhaps you are dealing with the logical part of the question. But it is my view that these protests are not based on logical arguments, and in the most part on emotion alone.
The only part of the issue where I believe logic is employed is in prbably one of their most common arguments. That is, as I have alluded to above, that since virtually all of the protesters were already of the belief that these prisoners have been wrongfully incarcerated, a belief that itself probably isn’t logical, but at least stems from a wider, if flawed, ideological viewpoint (Which I would be happy to elaborate on, but would rather keep this ‘succint’), they are easily swayed as to the justice of their protest. Since they are already set in their mindset as to the righteousness of these prisoners, their protests simply serve to focus the mindset and provide a further rallying point. At no point does logic come in, simply that this, like the Flotilla, Gaza, Har HaBayis or whatever issue you care to mention, is simply a platform from which they can shout, protest and perpetrate violence. This is especially, but not exclusively, pertinent to Israel.
And as a quick footnote, I would like to add that, continuing on from what I have said about them simply using it as a platform, a death of a prisoner is a bigger story than force feeding a prisoner, even though both generate strong reactions, and therefore, force feeding is preferable. Imagine how much stronger the current Israeli protests would be if the prisoner had died, and was not just being forcibly fed?
Pro Colour War. Been involved in it at almost every level: As a 9 year old, just doing arts and crafts. As a young teenager, acting, doing sports and creating the newsletter, and finally arranging things, inlcuding helping with the breakout, as a staff member. At every level i absolutely loved it. Even when all I was doing was making trinkets, being recognized and appreciated by those older than me was a great morale booster. Sometimes I was more into it, sometimes less, but I always enjoyed it immensely.
Catch Yourself, you caught me. I type rather fast, and stuff like that can slip through the net. Good chap (Take that word whichever way you wish).
And iBump, our posts appear to have both been posted before being approved, so if you’re waiting for my reply, I believe it is all in the post above.
In America, a lodger would be a roomer.
What a mess they’ve made of this language. Unbelievable. First they rebel, like petulant children, and now they’re getting their own back by inducing the nation’s youth to say ‘Wassup’ and ‘like’ the whole time. And that’s just petty!
SDD, I applaud your honesty, and apologise for my intransigence. I agree that it is obvious force feeding is better than allowing the terrorists to get their way, either by getting freed or by dying and achieving their propoganda aims. And it is a much better question, regarding why people are swayed by this kind of action, and I hope I have adressed this, if in passing, in some of my earlier posts. Now that we are, if not on the same page, then at least in the same book, perhaps you can tell me if you agree with my earlier excessively detailed reasoning as to why these actions are so successful, PR wise.
But, whilst I am on the subject, I think this is emblematic of a more general issue, which is particularly pertinent with regard to Israel’s current situation, and with many left wing ideological standpoints.
Basically, this issue is that in many cases, simply being the underdog, the sufferer, the one being damaged as opposed to damaging, can lead people to believe their cause is just, or at least has more merit.
The reasons for this, I can only surmise. Most likely, it is because a natural human inclination is to feel pity, and by extension solidarity, with those suffering, or suffering more. So Israel, no matter what the merit of its actions, will always cone of worse when faced with picture of death and destruction, something it cannot just choose to avoid. And logical arguments are much more easily swept aside with somebody with a sense of moral outrage. It is far easier to apply logic to less emotive cases. But trying to argue that there is a situation were Israel can justifiably engage in actions they know will kill children, comes up against an emotional barrier it is very hard to break down.
I myself have called up a radio station, only to be beaten down by the presenter repeatedly invoking the fact that children were dying. To anybody approaching the issue rationally, I came of better, but to many, and I would guess most of his listeners, all they heard was one perosn decrying the death of children, and another defending their killers. And logic has little sway over such imagery.
A similar, if not identical, principle can be applied to hunger striked. What people hear is that people are starving themselves to death over their cause/conditions/imprisonment, etc. A logical approach would not lead to placing any blame on the heads of the government in question. But firstly, a natural human instinct is to feel empathy for one starving to death, which in turn leads that person to assume such drastic action must be taken by a prisoner wronged, as opposed to a prisoner making a dramatic statement. And in what might otherwise be a fifty/fifty argument, or even more in favour of the jailer, the emotion sways it for the prisoner.
Also, most people, especially Westerners reading their morning paper, with no strong feeling either way, or with an existing bias, would simply take the fact that they’re protesting as a sign of the justice of their actions, simply since they are putting themselves through suffering. Illogical, but since when do people read their morning papers with a critical mind or a logical one? It’s all about the outrage, who shouts louder and shocks hardest.
Basically, people like to think individuals, that is to say, your average human being, would only act in such an extreme way if they were acting with integrity. They feel they themselves would only feel compelled to act in such a way if dealt with wrongly, so these prisoners are, in a sense, like them, and therefore likely to be right. And this is even more applicable when the individual prisoner is facing off against an institution, which people are much more willing to accpet as capable of evil. It is precisely this mentality that drives the postivie PR such movements achieve. Not the whole reason, but a good part of it.
OK, I just got a whole post accidentally deleted, which is dispiriting at the best of times. I’ll provide a concise review of my far superior lost post.
My assumption above was incorrect. But also, I think, was yours, iBump. When writing my previous post, I did have a vague recollection of the escalator being an American invention. But I incorrectly forgot there were two similar terms and said, erroneously, that elevator was the term for a moving staircase, and ‘lift’ for what you call an elevator. This was entirely incorrect, and I apologise.
But in the post I was responding to, the assumption seemed to be that the Brits use a different, and wrong, term for an elevator, which, as you correctly point out, is an American invention and was originally called an escelator.
But actually, in terms of real terminology, there is absolutely no difference between the terms used in the UK and the US regarding these two items. We both use ‘escalator’ for a magical staircase, and ‘elevator’ for the box that goes up and down. The only difference is that we have a slang word for an elevator, and call it a ‘lift’. This word doesn’t replace ‘elevator’, merely compliments is. We simply use both terms, except one is colloquial. This is similar to the terms ‘Soccer’ and ‘Football’, both of which are valid words, in the UK, to describe our national sport. Football is simply the official name (Well, stricly speaking, one of the official names, as the full name is ‘Association Football’), and ‘Soccer’ is the slang term for that same sport.
So you haven’t actually pointed out any issues with my linguistic viewpoint, iBump. Perhaps that wasn’t your intention, and I misread your earlier post, or you have other points to make, in which case feel free.
With all due respect, SDD, if that was really your question it was very poorly worded, and for me to realise that your intention was entirely different, I would have to be telepathic. The key tenet of your question was ‘Why stop them?’, which in no way even alludes to the general question, which incidentally I have repeatedly answered, of why are people so taken in by them. You have to admit that, reading the OP, that your alternative question in no way comes across. I mean, seriously.
iBump:
A mistake? not necessarily. Needlessly confusing? Probably. You see, we call that little box a ‘lift’, and the magical staircases elevators. Now, feel free to enlighten me as to the corresponding american terminology, but that seems like a pretty good labelling system to me.
SDD: My posts have got progressively longer due to your inane responses. for example, initially I merely stated that PR wise, and therefore security wise, it would be bad for Israel to let them die.
I admit I wasn’t concise, but my central point was obvious. As the question I was answering was not the one yekke2 and yourself were, I provided some context, and a rundown of the issue first. I did ‘show my working’ first, as experience has led me to believe that getting all that out of the way first helps in the CR. But the actual answer was contained in a short, to-the-point paragraph to finish my post. And I signposted it as such.
You then said that doesn’t explain anything. Your own words. So I elaborated further as to why that would be the case, due to the emotional nature. You then said that doesn’t explain it either, citing intelligent people being taken in. So I went into even greater detail about the way this galvanises support.
So all the ‘pretty words’ were in order to answer rather vague, nitpicking questions that were not part of the original query, and from repeatedly requesting further clarity whilst continually failing to actually find fault with my reasoning in any meaningful way. I don’t mean to be harsh, but were this a verbal argument it would basically consist of me saying something and you going ‘Why?’, and then me explaining even deeper and then you going ‘Why?’, untill I finally explain everything, including the unecessary and obvious details, to which you reply, ‘Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place?’. Except I would probably have walked off long before then.
Gonna support the Wolf here. I was completely befuddled by what appeared to be an interesting topic, but with no context. I tried to find it, and failed. Thank you, Wolf, for linking to it and enabling more people to get involved on this topic, and as for the backlash against him, he’s basically said it all. Behind him all the way on this one.
“plans” to give america its original status
What, as a colony? To be honest, I’m not sure we’ll take you back, not fter the mess you made of the place. Maybe if you ask nicely.
Exigo
PBA, not as prolific nor as pertinent as he used to be. Only a few posts above; Randomex/Comink-X? Please? And maybe I missed him, but I haven’t seen a minute amphibian lurking around recently.
I say this as a very new-timer.
SDD:
Ok, lets take this one step at a time…
What is with your fixation on Israel? Where in the opening post does it say Israel?
Admittedly, nowhere. But, I assumed, as you yourself have already said, that this post was inspired by recent events in Israel. I therefore based my answer on that particular case. So, as I have already said, I refer in all my questions to a case where the prisoner is doing it for political/ideological reasons, not simply because they’re suicidal, and that the prisoner in question is a non-Jew, eliminating the above halachic discussion from my consideration. I simply use Israel as an example, as it is a pertinent one. But you could just as easily put any other government in their place.
In all three of your posts, this the first time you wrote this.
True. In that it is the first time I have gone into this mucch detail about why hunger strike have such an effect. But the actual central point hasn’t altered. And anyway, this kind of detail is not necessary to answer the question. Recognizing that hunger strikes cause this kind of reaction is a fact. And recognizing that fact was the basis of the answer to your question, which, if I may remind you, was:
If a prisoner wants to commit suicide by starving him/herself, why stop them?
My answer to that question, succintly put, is: Because people dying of hunger strikes leads to negative press attention and increased security risk for the country involved. Giving in means allowing themselves to be blackmailed. So force feeding is mmaking the best of several unwanted decisions.
That’s it. I bought proof that this is the case, by bringing the example of Bobby Sands, for whom all the dangers I just enumerated, here and above, occured. I, obviously naively, thought that explaining why was unecessary, both because I thought it was self-evident after a bit of thought, and because it was not necessary to ask the given question. Simply acknowledging that that is the case is sufficient in this context.
And it still begs wonder why intelligent people give in to perceptions of crazies instead of clearly and coherently stating their position, and pointing out that someone refusing to eat isn’t their fault.
Well, there are several problems with your reasoning. Firstly, who said ‘intelligent’? Secondly, we are not talking of previously uninterested people, but people already with a strong connection to the cause, be it Irish republicanism or Palestinian nantionalism. A case like this, where people die, leads to an increase in the strength of feeling surrounding the case, and through protests and media increases the public’s level of emotion, and therefore response, both violent and otherwise. So, an ordinary Arab/Palestinian, who already wrongly believes, through biased media reports and propoganda, that Palestinian prisoners are wrongly imprisoned, might get further inflamed by that prisoner killing themselves in protest.
Also, death is emotional, and can cloud rational judgement. In ch’vsh a similar case involving a yid, you too might not approach it fully rationally. And furthermore, a high publicity event like a hunger strike engenders news reports, press releases and public attention. This gives those with an agenda a platform from with to espouse their views. This ensures their message, and therefore their influence and ability to cause problems, is spread yet further. Perhaps only crazies would believe in the justice off this cause, as you, probably errantly, suggest. Then a successful hunger strike allows the message to reach more of those who would be easily influenced, or easily inflamed. I have already said this, and this is one of the reasons I suggested you read my earlier posts, if not for the first time, then properly. Because this point about publicity providing a wider platform to spread their general views was neither picked up on, nor rebutted, in any of your previous posts.
…in reality they’re not dying for the cause but rather trying to scare their wardens into freeing them from jail.
Actually, in most cases not. In Bobby Sands case, as I have also already explicitely said (hence my request for you to read my post), the aim was not to get released, but to be treated as political prisoners, a request the British Government could and should not have given into, and didn’t, because that would have granted a terrorist organization, the IRA, legitimacy.
So, in summation, I could have answeredall your questions with a ‘see above’, not for the first time, and this is precisely why I suggested you read, or at least reread, the point you are denigrating before deigning to write a response. Thank you.
SDD, yes I have answered the question posed. The question was why should Israel force feed them, seeing as they are trying to kill themselves and Israel isn’t exactly desperate for them to be on this planet anyway. And those two points are right.
But the reality is that the answer is down to PR, which is why that is the main tenet I have adressed. The PR of a successful hunger strike, by which I mean one given in to or taken to its conclusion, is harmful for Israel. I think we all agree giving in is not the right path to take, as it sends the message that Israel can be blackmailed and opens up the door to other prisoners taking similar action (Since you seem to need everything spelled out for you). And letting them die would lead to a negative impact on ISrael in the short term. This impact would include an increased security risk due to the public strength of feeling, a PR loss amongst the world and local media, which leads to further damage to Israel’s image abroad, and leads to increased sympathy, and therefore increased active support, for the Palestinian cause, be it from governments or the public. If you’re wondering why people are so taken by hunger strikes, it is simply because if somebody is dying, passively, for a cause, people automatically take more attention in that cause, and/or feel that cause obviously is worth dying for, and is as such nobler, in some twisted way. We are not talking of rationality here, as PR never is, but of human psychology, particularly group psychology. It provides a rallying point to stage demonstrations around, to use the platform to highlight other issues, to make Israel appear uncaring and unfeeling. And it will provoke increased terrorist attacks, at least in the short term, by increasing strength of feeling amongst the groundroots of the Palestinian movement. So, to sum up, short term security threat and PR loss, and possible effect on long term security and PR. Force feeding does not eliminate these issues, but it does diminish their likelihood or impact.
I would have thought all of this was obvious from both my earlier posts, especially as I backed it up with a specific example of exactly this situation, with the exact feared consequences detailed above, occuring, and that was the case of Bobby Sands, who despite fighting for a cause that didn’t have majority support amongst the populace of Northern Ireland, despite fighting for a cause that the UK was not going to give into, as had they given it to their specific demands (to be treated as political prisoners), it would have given the terrorists legitimacy, and despite the fact that there wwas no good logical reason why the UK was doing anything wrong in that specific case, or should suffer as a result of the strikers’ actions PR wise, the case still led to the ezact problems detailed above. Which strengthens the case for force feeding, as I put it above, the lesser of several evils.
And, though I am loath to be anything but concillatory in this debate, you have attempted above to poiont out inconsistencies in my reasoning that did not exist, but were simply due to you obviously not having understood or even fully read my above posts. So in future, before responding, please be slightly clearer as to your specific problem with my reasoning, and not just make some vague rebuttal, that, as I have explained above, does not make much sense. Perhaps pick a specific point and point out why it doesn’t stand up, or a faulty piece of reasoning, as opposed to simply saying I haven’t answered the question without explaining why. Thank you, and looking forward.
SDD: I have fully answered the opening post, which asks why we don’t just let them die. I did refer to hunger strikes worldwide, and provided the real world situation, as well as an explanation that, whilst relatively insignificant in the long term, in the short term, due to its strong message, it results in a focal point that leads to losses both in the media and on the ground. And I explicitely referred to Maggie.
So the only way I can see a fresh point is if you’re asking why this should be the case. I believe I have adressed this, but for the sake of clarity:
A popular movement, be it Irish republicanism or Palestinian nationalism, cannot subsist on the strength of their cause alone. Since they rely on popular support, in terms of PR, money and members, a cause celebre, such a a hunger strike ostensibly in favour of their cause, can galvanise their public base, and provide a platform from which to persuade others to join them. For example, a big news story enables them to hold press conferences and make statements and protests that get their point across to a wider, more engaged audience. And this, in turn, leads to a growth in their support. The size of the government in question is irrelevant, especially when dealing with a hidden, widespread public network. The IRA, for example, like most terrorist cells, operate in secrecy and rely on public approval and support to achieve their goals. It’s not as if the government can simply shut them down. Israel in particular, for all its military strength, is bound by PR constraints.
And in future, SDD, please read fully the post you are responding to. It increases cohesion.
Mosquito bites herald the arrival of Summer, and as such, whilst painful, are generally worth the aggravation.
Except when it’s on the other side, when it’s green-er
Have you never heard of a Horsefly?
Well, have you ever seen them, in the same room, at the same time, with one talking whilst the other one drinks a cup of water?
Have you tried it?
They’re at least 50% kosher, what with the split hooves.
Chicken
Chicken Jokes
Chicken Dances
Chicken Soup
And those little Red Pills.
Colour with a U is the English (UK) Spelling. Color without the U is the American spelling
True
Both are correct
False
To paraphrase a comment I once heard quoted, there is no ‘American’ English and ‘UK’ English. There is just English. And mistakes.
And even so, those two kids can be occupied for a few moments more, and therefore proportionally feel more important, and as such will feel even happier when their team wins. Which their team will. Because they spelt it right.
And one extra letter gives one extra kid a job, as per my above post.
And one more thing. We created the language, so we use it as we wish.
General point for all those wishing to indicate a point of derech eretz or the like, such as this issue or the litter issue:
Feel free to point out the issue, the causes, the severity and possible solutions. But to sign of, as some have done, by blaming ‘The Rabbis’, indicates a seperate problem that is far more serious. Basically that blaming this issue on ‘Rabbis’ is a sign of somebody trying to apportion blame where it is undeserved. It is an issue, perhaps, but to try and pin a relatively small issue like litter on Rabbonim is wrong. Perhaps they can make a stand, but blaming every minor problem on them is absolving personal responsibility, and stems from misplaced animosity. Not always, but sometimes.
Wrote a whole drosha, looked back at the previous posts and saw Yekke2’s comment. Deleted the drosha.
Absolutely loving this! Don’t let me stop you, yekke2 and SDD, this is really brightning up my day. I’m not even going to start attempting to address the halachic discussion as dealt with above, as I have neither the inclination, the patience, nor the necessary knowledge.
I will simply address the actual question, which admittedly isn’t as interesting as the one Y2 and SDD are adressing. In the case of a non-Jew, for whom suicide is not an issue (probably), should the government involved, in this case the Israeli government, force feed those prisoners?
It is a contentious issue. On the one hand, if somebody wishes to kill themselves, why not let them? As one poster has pointed out, it can hardly increase the animosity towards Israel. But, as appealing as that sounds, I like to think of myself as a realist. And whilst animosity in general may be unaffected, a dying Palestinian would give them a cause celebre to rally around, and it would likely lead to an incidental increase, if not in the long term, than in the short term.
I agree that this is ridiculous. Why should a man starving himself mean that his cause has any more merit? Rationally, it should not make a difference, as another of you has alreaddy pointed out. But realistically, it does. For example, the case of Bobby Sands was a significant boost for the Irish Republican cause. Despite it not making much sense, the image of a man starving to death voluntarily is an arresting one, and would lead to problems for Israel.
So the choices are simple, in real terms. We could allow the prisoner to die. whilst all of us agree this should not represent a PR victory for the Palestinians, the fact is it does, and we should accept that. It would get into newspapers, and,, wrongly, would damage Israel both in terms of image and in real terms, in increased attacks. We could let them out early, as the Israeli government did a few weeks back. This is allowing oneself to be blackmailed, and should not take place. The only alternative, although not a pretty one, is to force feed. It is the lesser of three evils.
It doeesn’t seem like the opening post was meant in jest, so I will treat it as serious. Please point out if I am misreading anything. I can actually claim to have a great deal of experience in this matter, having both participated in, and helped arranged, numerous Colour Wars and similar competitions.
Colour War (As it is actually spelt) is at its best, a celebration of all that is good about Summer Camps. It permits an atmosphere of healthy competition to flourish in an enironment that I have never seen lead to to true animosity, or indeed any of the poor middos mentioned above, in significantly increased measures relative to the rest of the summer.
Of course, not everybody will take the competitive nature in the spirit it is intended, but this is not caused by the atmosphere or reality of Colour War, rather that certain people will act in a difficult manner given the oppurtunity, and colour War does not rectify, or exacebrate, this fact of life.
In all my experience, from the youngest Campers terrified (Not in a bad way) by the breakout, to an older camper laughing into my sleeve throughout, I have never seen it engender anything other than good. I mantain that one of the most marvellous things about Summer camps is the ability they have to showcase different campers’ talents. The less athletic types can act, sing, or draw. Those with organizational skills can arrange, and those with writing or compositional skills can come to the fore. And I have seen it time and time again.
Far from fostering animosity, it leads to achdus, both amonngst the teams and between boys of differing ages who otherwise wouldn’t come into contact. It is a fantastic way of channeling energies into a constructive and enjoyable event. And I have never met anybody who dreads Colour War for any of the reasons you have said, and I can confidently say that this is because the issue you have bought up is either minimal or non-existent.
Colour War is a fantastic institution, and I am upset at the presence of two threads over the last two weeks attempting to demean it as a practice, despite its valuable role in creating the best possible experience and atmosphere in our Camps.
On the subject of mechitzos, I’m surprised this issue was given such short shrift. It is a serious problem, and thankfully the solution is already at hand. The Topics column at the bottom of the page, you know, the one splitting all the threads into ‘Decaffineated Coffee’ or ‘Controversial’, should be used. A CR Master committee, staffed by veterans (Not including newbys such as myself, but true veterans) and led by PAA and PBA in a fractious duumvirate (Yep, that’s a word) would decide which topics were to be reserved for males and which for female. These divisions would, in the true spirit of the CR, be as contentious as possible and be carried out in as chauvinistic/liberal/dramatic (delete as necessary) a manner as possible. And I’m claiming ‘Controversial’ for the males.
What d’you mean, ‘if’?
Ok then, it wasn’t necessarily in the same vein as every other answer. Shoot me.
Gotta be a leopard gecko.
Or to go for the controversial option, a komodo dragon. Adorable if you ignore their poisonous breath, ability to eat medium sized mammals and ridiculous size.