Look at the comments to this post (about eggs). I wonder who is right: I, telling that this inobvious way of cooking eggs is a vestige of Jewish dietary laws, or those that believe it has no relation to these laws, providing ad hoc rational explanations. If the great majority of people that do it this way have Jewish ancestry, than such explanations cannot be correct. So far only one person without any Jewish ancestry stepped forward. You have thousands of readers, so you can find out. You can tell the same story changing a few particulars and ask the readers whether they also do it.
I have hard time believing that these "rational explanations" are not post-rationalizations of incomprehensible, forgotten rituals. Actually, I am of opinion that this goes generally. It is one of the small pieces that illuminates the whole.
I'm with you on the egg story (well, at the very least I find your version and your take on your opponents' rationalization plausible and convincing). I don't see the argument about homosexuality and Torah as anything similar to that, however. I'm not really looking for a fight either; it's just curious to me that you choose to sneer, in the title of your entry, at the comments you link to. Arbat's arguments, in the thread with ygam, are in fact hypocritical and ignorant, and deserve the mockery they got.
... And they also make matzo balls out of the overly inquisitive British journalists. With all these stories I've been told about the predatory Orthodox Jews stoning every living thing in the state of Israel it is a miracle that some boulders are still left on the ground. There must be a rabbinical service recycling this mineral richness for future use. Not only are they stupid and the heavy burden on the society, as I was explained above, they also terrible shots...
Слушай, а зачем ты ходишь читать "подзамочные" объяснения, - что он там думает? Если он стесняется их выставить в публичное обозрение, стоит ли время тратить?
I've noticed the lock only when I finished reading the comment. I also do not understand. This is the second time it is happening to me. I mean, inviting someone to a private party where one's friend's names is soiled. Queer, isn't it? I can easily live without it.
1. Assuming that his argument does not require him to reveal some private information about someone, 2. And assuming he would not all of a sudden decide to spare my feelings in this specific instance,
the only reason I can think of why he would make it private, is - he is ashamed to make it public.
If this is the case, - why bother driving the point, that seems to have already arrived? :-))))
Your dream is coming true! "avva" will leave his theses either in this journal or in your own journal, so you can enjoy reading it. He volunteered doing it and I also asked him to do it. He wrote he did not want flaming or histrionics. Actually, I also want quite holidays, so why don't you will battle each other elsewhere?
If you really want to make me a New Year Eve present, you can show yourself a bigger man and leave it alone. Myself, I consider this 13-point verdict to be the rationalization of unacceptable reality; something that is claimed to be the materialistic explanation of faith. He loves his friends, and wants to think best of them, and good for him.
Amigo, prolonged dispute with our opponents must have affected you finally. Where did I say anything that can be interpreted as a desire to hear avva's argument?
The opposite is true: I kept telling you that if he decided that his argument is best kept private, we can rely on that estimate and, - who cares? :-))
And I am a bigger man, at least bigger than you remember me, since I gained some pounds between then and now.
P.S. What do you mean "who'd guess"? I plan to live forever.
Ok, I misread your intentions. I am afraid you are getting it whether you like it or not. But I'm telling you, it is really something... "avva" did study his mathematical logic! He has perfectly rabbinical mind that warms my heart.
I looked at his arguments, - and I am sorry, I found no trace of "mathematical logic" there. He was trying to alter my statements and to bend the logic. Poorly.
Reply
Look at the comments to this post (about eggs). I wonder who is right: I, telling that this inobvious way of cooking eggs is a vestige of Jewish dietary laws, or those that believe it has no relation to these laws, providing ad hoc rational explanations. If the great majority of people that do it this way have Jewish ancestry, than such explanations cannot be correct. So far only one person without any Jewish ancestry stepped forward. You have thousands of readers, so you can find out. You can tell the same story changing a few particulars and ask the readers whether they also do it.
I have hard time believing that these "rational explanations" are not post-rationalizations of incomprehensible, forgotten rituals. Actually, I am of opinion that this goes generally. It is one of the small pieces that illuminates the whole.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
2. We disregard the latter ones, and generalize the first example and declare it to be the feature of the community as a whole.
Basically, the golden standard of antisemitism.
Or any bigotry for that matter.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
1. Assuming that his argument does not require him to reveal some private information about someone,
2. And assuming he would not all of a sudden decide to spare my feelings in this specific instance,
the only reason I can think of why he would make it private, is - he is ashamed to make it public.
If this is the case, - why bother driving the point, that seems to have already arrived? :-))))
Reply
If you really want to make me a New Year Eve present, you can show yourself a bigger man and leave it alone. Myself, I consider this 13-point verdict to be the rationalization of unacceptable reality; something that is claimed to be the materialistic explanation of faith. He loves his friends, and wants to think best of them, and good for him.
A Happy New Year!
2010! Who'd guess we'll make it that far?
Reply
The opposite is true: I kept telling you that if he decided that his argument is best kept private, we can rely on that estimate and, - who cares? :-))
And I am a bigger man, at least bigger than you remember me, since I gained some pounds between then and now.
P.S. What do you mean "who'd guess"? I plan to live forever.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment