The number of Jews in the world will fall by 33% by 2050

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
Nope, I don't agree that any state has a right to exist.

Oy.
I feel we've been over it for so many times.

Oh, wait - we were!

Not if the society and government were libertarian.

i disagree.
it's very tough, for instance, having a holiday that is very different from the rest. so when it's country standard - it's better.

further more, we'd like to see courts and governments act in accordance with jewish tradition and morals.

with a libertarian state of it's citizens, it's not possible.

By antagonizing the rest of the world? I don't think so...

don't get the connection

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
What are these "basic values," and why don't Moslems or atheistic Arabs share them?

they share most
in other ways though

How does a single ethnicity automatically share a set of values? Are these values genetically programmed into these Jewish ubermensch?

culture.

the same way a single german thnicity has it's own values, or a single english ethnicity has it's own, or a single japanese has it's own.

It's that mighty thing you try to ignore - nationality!

What does this have to do with "Jewish" values?

that point in specifical was not exactly directl definitelly related, but as i intend to prove, you are infact standing on your head when saying that so it makes no sense in the general picture therefore you are wrong.

see?

If it excludes non-Kurds, absolutely.

excludes non-kurds from getting automatic citizenship, while kurds, banished to different orners of the world, get automatic citizenship?

[Ramo]

but they do defend jewish values.

if the country was to be over run by a non-jewish majority, it would lose it's jewish "color'. jewish laws would not apply to most and would be revoked. and so on.

So, Jewish "values" are to give preferential legal treatment to Jews? I'm glad to say that just about every Jew I know does not share these reprehensible values.

where did i suggest that?

By defending Israel's immigration policies.

Then chaos would ensue an one point or another.

Not at all. Innumerable societies have not turned chaotic with libertarian laws.

and anyway, israel is far from being that authoritarian. it infact is often lax in enforcing laws, esp. since policemen have to search bombs all the time.

Which is a direct result of its authoritarian policies in West Bank and Gaza.

[Gibsie]

Bah, what's with all these posts that don't point out Goingonit's hilarious mention of "Haider in Australia"?

[Sirotnikov]

If someone sees this, he might think i have a free ADSL or something

So, Jewish "values" are to give preferential legal treatment to Jews? I'm glad to say that just about every Jew I know does not share these reprehensible values.

not at all.

but there is an interest to keep israel jewish to keep serving it's purpose.

it's citizens aren't hurt.

and the preferential legal treatment is to non-citizens and is just as ok, as canda prefering rich / talanted people.

by defending israeli ...

not at all.
no where do israeli policies mention who a person is allowed to marry in, or out of israel.

innumerable...

ok, so i'm too lazy to quote.

anyway, currently, libertarian societies can't protect themselves from terror, since they allw terrorists such free speech that it convinces it's own citizens to be terrorists.

very much like in england there are several hundred muslems ready to die in jihad against britain and the us.

which is a direct...

yes, and nothing of that sourt would happen had the arabs compromised earlier and agreed we have a right to be here just as they.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Asher

That doesn't sound bad, then.

Thanks for clearing that up, Eli.

ok, could you change the avatar?

it's really annoying to argue against such an avatar.

i really like talking to you and wouldn't like to stop following a silly avatar.

[Ramo]

they share most
in other ways though

What values don't they share?

culture.

the same way a single german thnicity has it's own values, or a single english ethnicity has it's own, or a single japanese has it's own.

It's that mighty thing you try to ignore - nationality!

But Germans and English are essentially part of the same culture. So are Western Jews.
This isn't the 15th century when people usually don't go any more than a few miles from where they live.

that point in specifical was not exactly directl definitelly related, but as i intend to prove, you are infact standing on your head when saying that so it makes no sense in the general picture therefore you are wrong.

see?

No, I don't see. I'm creating holes in your arguments one by one.

excludes non-kurds from getting automatic citizenship, while kurds, banished to different orners of the world, get automatic citizenship?

Yep, that's still racist.

Oy.
I feel we've been over it for so many times.

Oh, wait - we were!

The appropriate phrase would be "too many."

i disagree.
it's very tough, for instance, having a holiday that is very different from the rest. so when it's country standard - it's better.

Why can't you let people live as they want? Market pressures will insure Saturday is essentially a holiday, without gov't intervenetion. On the other hand, market pressures will insure there's work and services for people who don't share your religion.

further more, we'd like to see courts and governments act in accordance with jewish tradition and morals.

Be more specific. What are the Jewish "morals" that Jewish atheists supposedly share.

don't get the connection

Your state is pissing the rest of the world off. That's not the best way to insure the survival of your ethnicity or religion.

[Ramo]

With all these cross-posts, how do I figure out what you're quoting?

and the preferential legal treatment is to non-citizens and is just as ok, as canda prefering rich / talanted people.

That's not what I (and you) was discussing. You were referring to the "Jewish laws" that would be overturned if you changed your immigration policy and non-Jews enter the state.

not at all.
no where do israeli policies mention who a person is allowed to marry in, or out of israel.

You're taking it in the wrong context. I was referring to immigration barriers.

anyway, currently, libertarian societies can't protect themselves from terror, since they allw terrorists such free speech that it convinces it's own citizens to be terrorists.

The flip side is that free speech allows people to convince others not to be terrorists. And obviously, since that argument is superior to the argument you mentioned, it would be more dominant among the citizens.

very much like in england there are several hundred muslems ready to die in jihad against britain and the us.

England doesn't have free speech, and it certainly isn't a libertarian state.

yes, and nothing of that sourt would happen had the arabs compromised earlier and agreed we have a right to be here just as they.

You have to deal with reality, just like they do.

[Ramo]

I might add that I also strongly disagree with Canada's (and every other country's) immigration policies.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
ok, could you change the avatar?

it's really annoying to argue against such an avatar.

i really like talking to you and wouldn't like to stop following a silly avatar.

Sure, no problem.
How's this one?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ramo
I might add that I also strongly disagree with Canada's (and every other country's) immigration policies.

You and me both.

I strongly disagree with everything our federal government does, though.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
What values don't they share?

Values which are not defined in the Torah

And ofcourse there are legitimate disagreements about Torah writings, and they are dealt with nicely, mostly in a liberal fashion, though lately they've been not so liberal.

But Germans and English are essentially part of the same culture. So are Western Jews.
This isn't the 15th century when people usually don't go any more than a few miles from where they live.

You ignore the fact that jews do share their culture very much so more than the germans or english. And they lived in much worse conditions of travel than the 15th century, until the 19th and 20th century.

Until the 18th century in western europe, 19th century in the middle east and north africa, and the 20th century in eastern europe, Jews practically lived in their own secluded society - whether by will or by force, often to protect them from others wanting to harm them.

So, infact, mostly the same culture, with several differences among north (ashkenaz) and south (sephard) was shared by all jews, until the 20th century, since even after the emancipation, Jews still lived in traditional communities.

You see them as if they were just as free and culturally different as a white person in europe.

No, I don't see. I'm creating holes in your arguments one by one.

Those only appear as holes to you due to your lack of education about Jewish matters

Yep, that's still racist.

Nope.
It's based on race/ethnicity/heritage.
But in no way is it racist.
It doesn't imply anyone not jewish is lesser or worse. It simply implies that Israel is a jewish state, and therefore jews are automatically welcome there.

The appropriate phrase would be "too many."

So go retire

Why can't you let people live as they want?

It's you who try to prevent people from living as they want.

Israel was founded by Jews, and meant to be founded for Jews. It doesn't mean we will ignore arabs who live in Israel. They are just as Israeli as Israeli Jews are.

However, it being a Jewish state, it wants to take care of Jews around the world, just as, say, America, being the homeland of Americans, will automatically provide refuge to Americans, and not to illegal immigrants.

On what grounds does America decide that Americans are more worthy than non-Americans?

Market pressures will insure Saturday is essentially a holiday, without gov't intervenetion.

Not true.

Without a proper law for keeping a holiday, there could be great abuse of worker rights. And it's best to keep a united day of holiday, to prevent chaos when different shops are closed on different days.

On the other hand, market pressures will insure there's work and services for people who don't share your religion.

It's not a religious law, but rather a social one.
Saturday is chosen, it being a jewish holiday.
However, muslims have friday as a holiday and christians have sunday.

Be more specific. What are the Jewish "morals" that Jewish atheists supposedly share.

For instance, all the social laws originating in the bible and talmud.
Many other laws from the Talmud and such.

Obviusly religious laws are not shared by atheists, but the Torah is mostly not-religious. And that's where orthodox have it the wrong way IMO.

They fail to recognize what laws are religious and private, and what laws are social and society applicable.

Your state is pissing the rest of the world off. That's not the best way to insure the survival of your ethnicity or religion.

The rest of the world should have better things to do then telling us how to run our country thank you very much.

You are not any kind of a higher moral body, or any international body which Israel accepts.

If tommorow Israel, or any other country for that matter, decides that it automatically grants RoR to people who eat salami sandwiches, neither you nor I have any say about it.

You are angry at me for "forcing my views on the world" while You are trying to force your views on me and the Israelis.

We get along fine with our views and our religion as part of our state. I don't see where is it your responsibility or right, to make decisions for the Israeli/Jewish people or government.

I also don't see how you have any moral justification for being angry at Jews/ Israelis for the way they choose to live thier lives in their own country.

[Sirotnikov]

Re: With all these cross-posts, how do I figure out what you're quoting?

Originally posted by Ramo
That's not what I (and you) was discussing. You were referring to the "Jewish laws" that would be overturned if you changed your immigration policy and non-Jews enter the state.

Our immigration laws are there to ensure Israel as a jewish state. Being a sovereign country, Israel has the right to decide so.

You apparently have a problem with Israel being a jewish state and not a state of it's citizens, which again you have no bussiness dealing with.

You're taking it in the wrong context. I was referring to immigration barriers.

Then are you opposed to immigration barriers at all?

Given your political views, I would assume yes.

Then I can't understand why are we having this discussion anyway, since I'm not sure you believe in soveraign national states at all.

The flip side is that free speech allows people to convince others not to be terrorists. And obviously, since that argument is superior to the argument you mentioned, it would be more dominant among the citizens.

However not liberal societies do not give thier citizens the information to choose and let them be converted into terrorists.

You would see that in liberal countries there is ever far wider public support for terrorism. For instance, as one muslim leader said, there are schools teaching martyrdom in England.

I would not consider preaching martyrdom legitimate, both because it's violent and usually used against civilians, and because it underminds the state - Great Brittain.

England doesn't have free speech, and it certainly isn't a libertarian state.

Interesting.

Then your idea of free speech is the freedom to do everything you want.

Freedom comes with responsability not to abuse it. Such responsability must be demanded and upheld by services such as courts and the police as the enforcer.

If I misunderstand you, feel free to elaborate why england isn't free, and what freedom means to you.

[q]You have to deal with reality, just like they do. [/QUOTE]
You're the one not dealing with reality, choosing escapism to anarchistic fairy tales.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: With all these cross-posts, how do I figure out what you're quoting?

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Our immigration laws are there to ensure Israel as a jewish state. Being a sovereign country, Israel has the right to decide so.

And this is an obviously immoral goal. If Israel wants to be the good guy then it should try to live up to the obligations this entails.

Immigration policies based on racial/religious discrimination are wrong, and it makes me sick to see you simply defending them as falling under the aegis of Israel's freedom as a sovereign state. Nazi Germany had a perfect legal right to kill its own citizens; that doesn't mean they had the moral justification to do so. Crying "sovereign state" is simply the lazy, coward's way out.

[Goingonit]

Having Right of Return for Jews is one of the main precepts of Israel. It is good for reasons previously explained.