Siro goes to to pre-military training

[The Mad Monk]

I thought we're always arguing with posts...

[Natan]

Mark: You know that's just Shinui propaganda; the vast majority of Shas's voters and most of its MKs served. I'll even post the article from Ha'aretz where UTJ's Moshe Gafni talks about what a great guy Yossi Beilin is, if you like.

LOTM:

the ultra orthodox reject modernity in principle (utilizing it only to make a living - theyre not Amish) and so reject the modern notion of nationalism, changing the world through human action,etc.

I don't know about rejecting nationalism; Shas seems pretty clear on wanting to maintain a Jewish state.

They are fatalists, willing to leave big things to God - so to them politics is merely getting what you can out of a necessarily profane state (until the messiah comes)

To the "modern" orthodox, the spinozist idea of human action rather than divine, changing the world, is related to mystical ideas about human behaviour making the world ready for the messiah.

I don't think the lines are that clear. I think that there are Jews on boths sides of that divide who think they will create a perfect Messianic government in the next couple decades, and Jews on both sides of that divide who think they are just making a decent living arrangement. If the Haredim were really only interested in getting what they can, they wouldn't push religious coercion legislation. If Michael Melchior were really serious about bringing the Messiah now, he wouldn't "give away" parts of the Land of Israel.

Settling the land and establishing a Jewish state is part of this pathway. Secular Israelis, though they dont have the truth, are still part of God's plan to the extent they advance these things. Thus toleration, and even whole hearted co-operation with secular israelis and the secular state become possible, but on grounds that make compromise with those who oppose stand in the way of the messianic dream more difficult.

Haredim can cooperate with the secular too, it's just that because their political program is more limited, they don't usually have much cause to.


Siro: I agree. While the Haredim are far from perfect in their politics, it does seem that their politicians are the only ones who really serve their constituents interests; that's why one never hears about Haredim demonstrating outside the Knesset.

[Chris 62]

Navy and Spray,

Your wasting your time with Mitty, he's an amoral little weasal that knows all the answers and only cares about himself.

Really read what he says, the word 'me' is evident quite often.
I doubt he would lift a finger for anyone but himself.
He's the ultimate "me" person.

He wouldn't fight anyone, but here, he can scream it from the roof tops.

So don't bother trying to convince him, unless there is some angle that he gains through zero effort, he's not interested.

He's just so tough, those nasty little DIs better watch out, here comes the invincible Mitty!

[Ramo]

Either nature created us or we are part of nature that was itself created. These "natural" rights are called "natural" because they exist by virtue of our existence - a "gift" from whomever or whatever created us within the context of nature.

If there is no creator, how can there be a gift?

Because self-ownership is inherently moral and natural. The "creator" did not put you here for me to order about.

I don't believe in a "creator" that created life for some purpose.

No, they conceived you.

Why should their wishes be less important than some being (or whatever) who designed the first life on Earth.

Whomever or whatever created life leading to your parents and you "created" you.

AFAIK, there's nothing in quantum mechanical, thermodyanamical, etc. theories that assert the existence of a "gift" of "natural rights."

Because the moral authority to act requires either ownership or permission. If we didn't create you, we can't own you.

Huh? So if I create some rudimentary form of life that eventually leads to intelligent life, I have morally authority over it?

Why?

It's the basis of my moral system. There is no "why."

Me too, but that's the kind of silliness people like Sirotnikov walk into when trying to deny that natural rights exist while condemning mass murderers for violating the "non-existent" rights of their victims.

I haven't read Siro's posts, but asserting the lack of existence of natural rights is not equivalent to asserting the lack of existence of the concept of rights within one's moral system.

Why? Do people have the "right" to be free from coercion?

Yes. According to my moral code.

Because you have no basis for condemning murderers unless you believe the victims have some inherent right to live.

Why?

But just claiming it is immoral ignores why it is immoral. Once you try to answer that question you will discover natural rights.

No, the principle of natural rights simply adds a layer of unnecessary baggage. You might as well ask why are natural rights moral.

So if government did not exist, you wouldn't have the moral authority to defend yourself from attack?

Moral authority is not inherently derived from government dictates. The idea of ownership is.

Which is why natural rights are moral or just claims to act, not rights permitted (or denied) by others.

But it cannot be natural if it is tied to morality.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

If I pointed a gun at you and demanded you kill (or be killed) my enemies, would you be "wormy" for lying to avoid becoming my involuntary servant?

Read James Webb (yes...find out who that is. Even if you disagree with him, he will interest you.) on who he respected in Viet Nam War who avoided service.

He respected those who were conscientious objectors and served as medics. and he respected those who made an act of civil disobedience and went to jail ala Thoreau.

See to make a conscious stand of this nature, shows you are still a member of this society and disagree on this point and are willing to make a sacrafice to show that.

David, on the other hand seems to think that because he does not live in a reductionist libertarian fantasy, that he is justified in any rationalization/avoidance whatsoever. I'm sure he could use the same justification for cheating on his taxes. BTW, nobody stuck a gun to David's head. He had a very small test here.

David's got a lot of false pride*...and he cloaks himself in a philosophy...and dreams Walter Mitty dreams.

BTW, I've got no big thing against the libertarian viewpoint (heck I'm probably a watered down one, myself). The whole debate doesn't even interest me that much. What interests me FAR MORE are issues of strength of character. (I haven't screwed with you are Wraith or Rex, cause my interest is more in the moral courage issue than the abstract philospohical issue.) I mess with Eli and Imran and David because I feel enough "fondness" for them to want to see them grow up a little more.



*Boot camp might have a good effect on this...


Peace! Out!

[Eli]

Mamram nerds dont need boot camp.

Though if something goes wrong with my plan, i'll have to start running marathons.

[Az]

good work , GP!

I actually considered to go to combat service, in the AA. Of course , I could always say that I served in combat , and in the AIRFORCE! but then of course , I'd get silent , where exaclty would I be. . with the Israeli AF around , I don't even know why we keep the AAA. ( But laughs aside, the issue did interest me. )

I almost did it. But I didn't do it because of my parents. My dad had a liver transplant , and said he wanted to see me in the university before he dies ( ) , and mom couldn't bare the thought that I might get myself killed. Of course , now I'll have to serve 6 years in the army as a chemist . :


So much for character.

[Lonestar]

Better than *****-footing out Dal.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
My dad had a liver transplant , and said he wanted to see me in the university before he dies ( )...

he going to?

[Ecthy]

BTW, chemistry is the greatest of all sciences... but 6 years sucks

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
good work , GP!

I actually considered to go to combat service, in the AA. Of course , I could always say that I served in combat , and in the AIRFORCE! but then of course , I'd get silent , where exaclty would I be. . with the Israeli AF around , I don't even know why we keep the AAA. ( But laughs aside, the issue did interest me. )

I almost did it. But I didn't do it because of my parents. My dad had a liver transplant , and said he wanted to see me in the university before he dies ( ) , and mom couldn't bare the thought that I might get myself killed. Of course , now I'll have to serve 6 years in the army as a chemist . :


So much for character.

Nothing worng in volunteering for assignments other than infantry [/waits for MTG and Chris to beat on him...]. That is very different from fudging your medical records to avoid combat service...that is more on a par with malingering or wounding yourself.

During Viet Nam, the average sub dude encountered no combat (some touch and go...but no combat) and the primary danger was operational not combat-related...given no war with the USSR. That doesn't mean it was dishonarable to volunteer for a sub instead of going to Quantico. If anybody fudged their medical records to avoid service that would be scummy. Actually I know lots of people who fudged medical to STAY physically qualified for combat. No-one I know fudged to avoid combat arms service.

[Az]

Lonestar : well yes. but still ...
Ecthelion: No. ... but hell, he can use it as a final pretext to make me do ANYTHING. I would never risk his health.

[Ecthy]

I'm so sorry for what I have just said

GP, answer my question

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
BTW, chemistry is the greatest of all sciences... but 6 years sucks

Chemistry RAWKS!!!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I'm so sorry for what I have just said

GP, answer my question

Oh...sorry.

Umm.

1. Tell them they are p*ssies.

2. Forece them to watch Top Gun.

3. Get dates with gorgeous women to make them jealous.

(They may not still be friends after all this, however... )