Jump to content

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!!!


NUKE_CLEVELAND
 Share

Recommended Posts

ONCE AGAIN...THE PALESTINIANS DECLARED WAR ON ISRAEL! (NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.)

 

YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW!

American is at war with Iraq, so does that give permission them to kill innocent civilians too?

 

Just b/c Israel and Palestine are at war, doesnt make it okay for innocent children to be killed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do not believe 4Es religious practices or lack there of really matters in his opinion of the course of history that Israel should follow. My agreements and disagreements with him in these areas would not be affected if he was at Temple every week and kept Kosher. I still think a war to the last person is not good for either group.

 

While you obviously cannot dismiss the religious implications in this war, in many ways it is the simple "you have something I want" war. The US wanted Mexico lands and basically we kicked some ass to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe 4Es religious practices or lack there of really matters in his opinion of the course of history that Israel should follow. My agreements and disagreements with him in these areas would not be affected if he was at Temple every week and kept Kosher. I still think a war to the last person is not good for either group.

It doesn't change your arguement with someone if you think they are a hypocrate, or you respect them? To me if someone was talking consistantly I could respect their opinion a lot more, than if they are just using materials that suit their arguements and ignoring the rest of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't change your arguement with someone if you think they are a hypocrate, or you respect them?  To me if someone was talking consistantly I could respect their opinion a lot more, than if they are just using materials that suit their arguements and ignoring the rest of them.

I was addressing specifically his religious beliefs and this debate. I care deeply about Israel's position for very personal reasons, mostly the health and safety of friends of mine and their children. I am not Jewish. That shouldn't make my arguments any less valid. I do not think 4Es religious practices validate or invalidate his arguments.

 

Out another way, if he did keep Kosher and attended Temple each week, would you place any more validity on his views? Would we not debate just as vigerously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was addressing specifically his religious beliefs and this debate. I care deeply about Israel's position for very personal reasons, mostly the health and safety of friends of mine and their children. I am not Jewish. That shouldn't make my arguments any less valid. I do not think 4Es religious practices validate or invalidate his arguments.

He uses the Torah as his defense for everything Israel does, but yet he has admitted several times he himself doesn't strictly follow it. It does ring a bit hypocritical to me, but that is my humble opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was addressing specifically his religious beliefs and this debate. I care deeply about Israel's position for very personal reasons, mostly the health and safety of friends of mine and their children. I am not Jewish. That shouldn't make my arguments any less valid. I do not think 4Es religious practices validate or invalidate his arguments.

 

Out another way, if he did keep Kosher and attended Temple each week, would you place any more validity on his views? Would we not debate just as vigerously?

I tend to give more credence to people who walk the walk. It is a weird thing about me. I also don't tend to listen to people I don't respect, even if they have a valid opinion. I tend to dismiss anyone I view as hypocritical, because usually their opinions are self-serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is hard for me to judge hypocrasy.

 

sometimes human beings are just filled with contradictions - we all have them -

 

Every time I4E says God gave the land to Israel I hear Ferrente and Teicher (spelling) on the piano playing "Exodus" - "this land is mine, God gave this land to me."

 

That he upholds that and is not observant otherwise is not for me to decide about. Human beings are complex and contradictory.

 

How many people do we know who will go on and on about this being a "Christian country" and such and never attend church services, don't keep the Christian faith, etc. or have a clue about actualk US history and the constitution?

 

That line from Moonstruck: "I'm not here to make sense."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to give more credence to people who walk the walk.  It is a weird thing about me.  I also don't tend to listen to people I don't respect, even if they have a valid opinion.  I tend to dismiss anyone I view as hypocritical, because usually their opinions are self-serving.

It's a funny thing about you? Most people are like that, although I try to give someone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

 

And that's why you hate my opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting views. Is it possible to agree with someone's action but not the underlying reasons? For example if someone propossed that Marte should be the closer many would agree. But if the reason given was that Koch has 4 letters in his name and that in 2004, based on Haley's comet, a Presidential election, and road contruction in the Damn Ryan, no closer should have 4 letters in their last name. Wouldn't it be ok to agree with the end result but not the justification?

 

So therefore, does it matter that he supports his argument with a source that he himself only agrees with 10% or 50% or 99% of the time?

 

Now can it go the other way? We all agree that X, Y, and Z are facts supported by this or that reference. Yet one person arrives at A conclusion, someone else at B. We are still dealing with the conclusions, not the underlying facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting views. Is it possible to agree with someone's action but not the underlying reasons? For example if someone propossed that Marte should be the closer many would agree. But if the reason given was that Koch has 4 letters in his name and that in 2004, based on Haley's comet, a Presidential election, and road contruction in the Damn Ryan, no closer should have 4 letters in their last name. Wouldn't it be ok to agree with the end result but not the justification?

 

So therefore, does it matter that he supports his argument with a source that he himself only agrees with 10% or 50% or 99% of the time?

 

Now can it go the other way? We all agree that X, Y, and Z are facts supported by this or that reference. Yet one person arrives at A conclusion, someone else at B. We are still dealing with the conclusions, not the underlying facts.

"Texsox the Philosopher"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...