I have never heard this idea -- that Jews are superior to gentiles -- uttered by anyone. It doesn't make sense and I don't really care to entertain it. — BitconnectCarlos

Nobody wants to entertain parts of their heritage that aren't attractive.

They do not believe the gentiles get worse afterlife. — BitconnectCarlos

It's in the Talmud. The rabbis would debate exactly how long a Gentile needs to be tortured to make up for being a Gentile. In the World to Come, God brings the Gentiles low and raises the Jews up so the Gentiles finally see how horribly wrong they were. Both of these ideas were adopted by the Jews from external sources, but they shaped them into mechanisms for revealing divine justice.

The reason for this goes back to the Covenant. The Covenant was like a contract: they follow the Mosaic Law, and God protects them. Since a fair portion of the Law was about hygiene, it was obvious that it was protective, but then through a series of catastrophes, it became blatantly obvious that God wasn't protecting them. The only way to continue on with their faith was to devise alternate scenarios for the manifestation of God's justice.

I doubt Jews need this kind of mechanism right now. They're free to evolve. But the danger is they'll evolve right out of Judaism into something else.

Like the belief that jews “refuse to integrate into the society they live in, they set themselves apart.” — Joshs

Do you have any concerns about the future of Judaism? Do you think that integration will cause you to become the end of the lineage? Would it bother you if you did?

I do my best, but certain prejudices (cough, cough) can make that challenging. — Joshs

Like what?

Yes, chosen to carry out the 613 commandments, only 320 of which are applicable without the temple. Chosen to perform such commandments such as placing a mezuzah on one's door. — BitconnectCarlos

No, they believe they have a special relationship with God, the gentiles will suffer when they die, and God will eventually put the Jews in charge of the world.

It probably would still be there, just in a less dominant position. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But when the British gave up trying to govern Palestine, it was pretty much up to the US to settle Israel's status. If the US had been opposed to recognition of the state of Israel, it's political standing would have been pretty weak. I'll put it this way: without a strong ally, Israel wouldn't be there.

The Jews continued to live in the region after the Babylonian Captivity, restablishing a Second Temple (Books of Ezra and Nehemiah) under Persian rule. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The USA is kind of like Cyrus. I don't think Israel would be there without US support.

The NY Times gives the impression that Hamas fighters may be experiencing an intelligence black-out. Israel didn't give any notice that they were going in. Maybe Hamas just doesn't know how to react to that? It said Israel isn't calling it an invasion, which is probably due to American pressure. Is Israel getting American military advice?

When did some groups start disliking or hating Jewish people? — TiredThinker

Isaac Asimov said the Jews invented religious intolerance and then went on to profoundly influence the rest of the world, setting the stage for becoming victims of intolerance themselves.

The basic idea is that in the ancient world, it was normal for people to respect foreign gods. If you went to city X, you stopped by to honor their gods and then proceeded with your business. The concept of a false god is Hebrew in origin.

I agree. The Japanese Empire's behaviour and actions against China, South Korea and the Philippines were disgusting and totally bad. Nonetheless, which nation never had a bloody bellicose past? Whether you like it or not, that's how the past used to be, just before diplomacy and dialogue started to be more effective. In addition, I still maintain my position that Nagasaki and Hiroshima destruction were not really justified at all. It was the first time that a nuclear attack was used on a population. Your arguments are like: 'the ends justify the means'. — javi2541997

Javi, the Sino-Japanese war was 1937-1945. If you file away the deaths of 20 million people with which nation never had a bloody bellicose past?, then you have to give the US the same treatment. Oh well, who hasn't killed millions of civilians?

I agree that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a crime. But there was no imbalance of power. The USA did not destroy Japan's traditions. When Japanese warlords decided to go to war with the USA, the UK, the Soviet Union, and China, all at the same time, they were killing their own culture. I'm finished trying to explain this to you. Carry on. :razz:

This mess goes beyond any human understanding or philosophy. — javi2541997

Yes. 20,000,000 Chinese civilians died during their war with Japan. The Japanese put themselves at the top of the list of the most destructive nations that have ever existed. I'm sure you didn't mean to pass that over without comment.

Frank, it was a tremendous pity to see a lot of people dying because of a nuclear attack. More than 140,000 civilians died in minutes. Nobody deserves to be nuked by another nation, it doesn't matter the context and circumstances at all. I don't know who is 'wrong' here. Me, for defending Bushidō and Hirohito or you for backing up the nuclear attacks. Yet, what is obvious is that it was a human disaster. — javi2541997

I also love Japanese culture, particularly the wabi sabi aesthetic. My love of it is in evidence throughout my house and garden. I have about 7 bonsai's made from Japanese privets, and two from a cypress. What I want you to do is take a broader look at what happened to Japan in the 20th Century. Read the article I posted about the Sino-Japanese war. Understand the America's war with Japan wasn't America versus bushido. Americans were literally fighting countries that were intent on global domination. Americans were fighting for their own security.


:up:

It's ALL choosing which MYTHS are going to be your INDIGNATION. — schopenhauer1

True. There was once a quiet little village in the middle of nowhere. One day the blacksmith said it had come to him that he owned the moon. Startled by this, the weaver said he'd always thought of the moon as his own property. The villagers began taking sides and war broke out amongst them to finally decide who owned the Great Orb. Now they're all dead.

Japan's attack was not honourable because there was no just cause - it was naked aggression. At the same time the fire bombings of Japan and the nuclear bombs were clear war crimes as well because all of indiscriminately targeted civilians. — Benkei

I agree. The bombing of Dresden was also a war crime. It killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think anyone would hold Germany up as a pitiful victim because of Dresden, though. That's what Javi has been trying to do with Japan and the atomic bomb attack.

Just curious did you see my response to that? My response to that quote was because it basically was "yadadyadaya.. but AMERICA couldn't know". It just seemed like knee-jerk leftist rhetoric which goes.. Yadyadayda..America (bad). — schopenhauer1

Yea. We all see the world through myths, I think. There's the Muslim terrorist myth, which shows up sometimes. The America-bad myth is ever-present. What I do is just try to be slow to judgment so I can detect my own myths and try not to write off what someone says as if it's nothing but myth. Sometimes a person is appealing for a particular fact to be recognized, and it may be important. How do you get to that when there's a cloud of myths in the way?

Japan wreaked havoc in China - some of the worst horrors known to humanity went on their, they arguably put the Nazis to shame. — schopenhauer1

Yep

That's true, Japan wreaked havoc in China - some of the worst horrors known to humanity went on their, they arguably put the Nazis to shame. Although I don't think Americans knew that. — flannel jesus

China and the US became allies immediately after Pearl Harbor. China provided the US Navy with intelligence throughout the war. Americans knew.

I disagree. They attacked first. Yes, but with honour and respect, not targeting civil citizens. They bombed military headquarters and zones. But, they were answered by a bloody nuclear attack. For me, it is clear that there was a big disproportion between the attacks. As well as in this current conflict. — javi2541997

There were civilians who died at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked, but worse, when the Japanese invaded China, around 20 million Chinese civilians died as a result. The US was allied with China at the time.

Second Sino-Japanese War

You're being insulting to all of Japan's victims.

Japan has always been more developed than many Western countries, but they were attacked by a nuclear bomb in the most cruel way... so what? — javi2541997

Javi, Japan attacked first. It was all-out war. Stop with the bullshit about how Japan was unfairly targeted.

I prefer masturbating over semantics so I can score a point and ignore what's actually under discussion. — Pneumenon

That's weird.

You prefer the 1950s jargon. :up:

This is an example of the problems caused by weather volatility. It's not just a matter of destructive storms. It's that agriculture as we know it can't tolerate weather variability.

First vs third world = difference in level of technology — Pneumenon

These days we talk about core countries and developing ones. We talk about regional influence versus global influence.

I see what you're saying. The source I read was a Pakistani who was giving a broad history of Islam since 1900. He said that Iran is a beacon for Shiites everywhere because there are elements of Shiite practice that are deeply offensive to Sunnis. Where the two groups are living in the same area, Shiites have to hide or squash their practices. This is a burden that Shiites have to carry. Iran is a symbol of emancipation from it.

The same author did say that conflict between the two comes and goes, and that it's not the same conflict over time. It's usually a symptom of tension that's arisen for other reasons.

That all sounds reasonable to me. Science always starts from assumptions. There's a practical aspect to that. I was just saying there's a contradiction in questioning the existence of space beyond what you can see. You can't imagine that space just stops at a certain point, so you'll end up considering the truth of a proposition that can't be meaningful to you. Obscure point, I know.

But I think you'll run into trouble with your conception of space. If the room you're in is the limit of the universe, are you saying there is no space on the other side of the wall? Brian Greene uses this thought experiment, so don't poo poo it. :razz:

Who is more moral? The leadership of group A who aimed and succeeded at destroying the armanents factory of group B at the cost of 100 civilian lives or the leadership of group B who did the same thing re group A but used different methods? — Baden

It takes a lot of aggression to kill a hundred people with an axe (I assume). One imagines that remotely launching a guided missile takes no aggression at all.

This is mentioned as a factor in gun violence in America. It's just fairly easy to shoot someone vs using a butcher knife, so we end up with gun shot wounds all over the place.

But I think the emotions involved work the other way as well. If you hear a heroic story about a fireman saving someone, yay! But if Bill Gates helps save millions of people by helping to fund vaccine research, nobody cares.

My point was that it is of equal validity to say that the body no longer does what it once did, avoiding the dualism. — Banno

Yea, but non-reductive physicalism is the standard view of consciousness. That's like property dualism.

Robert Rosen wrote about causally open and closed systems in Life Itself. The theme ends up being Kantian.

Schopenhauer is the ultimate dude for cause and effect, but I think he might drive you nuts because he's a hard determinist. You're pinging his view when you say the universe is self-determining, though.

That's true, but that forces proponents of the conceivability of p-zombies to basically use the "god did it" explanation. — RogueAI

When a modest little argument becomes a devastating wedge, it's a thing of beauty. It's unfortunate that there isn't enough interest in philosophy of mind on this site to follow Chalmers' artistry. But there isn't.

I wonder how they argue p-zombies could develop a language that has referents to mental states. — RogueAI

They don't. The hallmark of metaphysical possibility is that you can have God create the situation however you like. God made the p-zombies that way.

There isn't a big difference between metaphysical and logical possibility. Remember, logical possibility just means you haven't conjured a contradiction.

You responded to a post I made three years ago. I'm not too interested in explaining Chalmers' agenda. If you're satisfied with your conclusion, that's fine with me. Bon voyage. :grin:

I encourage you to really investigate what "conceivable" actually is meant in this context. It's actually trickier than just saying "I'm completely ignorant about it". — flannel jesus

Ok.

I'd encourage you to read his own words.

Not really. Shias get on with Sunnis fine in some contexts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

They don't in Pakistan. That's interesting that they do elsewhere.

That's not what other people mean by "conceivable". Not in this context anyway. — flannel jesus

It's what David Chalmers meant by it.

The possibility of p-zombies is a much more rigorous question than just analysing your own ignorance of consciousness. — flannel jesus

It's metaphysical possibility we're considering. That boils down to conceivibility. If I couldn't conceive of Deckard being an p-zombie, then I wouldn't say I don't know if he is. I would say he couldn't be.

Since I say I don't know, that shows it's conceivable, and therefore metaphysically possible.

I don't believe it's ever implied that they're not truly conscious or don't experience qualia. — flannel jesus

I don't know if they're conscious or not. That's the point.

I don't think that's clear at all — flannel jesus

Didn't you watch Bladerunner? :grin: