Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-25-2007, 01:24 PM   #476
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Incredible. The man practically has the equivalent of an online Intervention .....
Neil, I don't want to be rude, but after reading your totally circular arguments for a while, I've decided you're not worth it. You're anti US. You only see facts that support your arguments and won't even address facts that don't. It's continuous and tiresome. I.e., your arguments are not rational.

I just laid out a logical position on "racism", which everyone but you understood and acknowledged and then went on to make further points in the discussion. There is never any "moving on" with you... you simply see, hear, and state only positions you agree with and ignore any others. Your idea that somehow you're able to think of "correct positions" is a charade you're playing on yourself.

Go argue with yourself.

Mike
 
Old 01-25-2007, 01:52 PM   #477
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Neil, I don't want to be rude,
A first, it's gotta be.

Quote:
but after reading your totally circular arguments for a while, I've decided you're not worth it.
Excellent. You're right, I'm not worth it.

Quote:
I just laid out a logical position on "racism", which everyone but you understood and acknowledged and then went on to make further points in the discussion.
That's too funny...I'm saying exactly the same thing as 4 other ppl, and you think that my posts are somehow different.

The lengths that some ppl will go toward continuing their self-delusion...

Quote:
Go argue with yourself.

Mike
Excellent. Sounds like a plan...how about you go rant on your own misbegotten diatribes (without my comments); and you can leave off commenting on my posts. That way, you can continue on with your self-delusion, to your heart's content.

Deal?
 
Old 01-25-2007, 02:08 PM   #478
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

(P.S. I suppose this means that the actual proof that I slander the Jews won't be forth-coming...to be expected. Nice dodge, Mike...but, never mind)
 
Old 01-25-2007, 02:27 PM   #479
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
That's too funny...I'm saying exactly the same thing as 4 other ppl, and you think that my posts are somehow different.
Yes... exactly. Yet all someone has to do is look and voila', the acknowledgements about "racism" being somewhat of a trope are right there, yet you pretend that you're right. Amazing.
 
Old 01-25-2007, 04:14 PM   #480
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 944
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Luc Saroufim wrote:
there's another interesting fact proving my point: all my life, i've basically known that the Lebanese word for "Jew" is "Yahoood".

what i didn't know until recently, is that in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, "Yahoood" was the name of the betraying disciple (Judas).

exact same pronunciation and spelling. i couldn't believe it; since the writing of all the New Testaments, the Jews have been framed as being the bad guys.
Luc,
The Jews call themselves "Yehudi (sing.)/Yehudim (plural)" and "Jew" is just the anglicized way to say that. The name comes from the kingdom of Judea (anglicized pronuciation), where Judaism as it's known today was cultivated under King Yehudah ("Judah"). Judas (also an anglicized variation of "Yehudah") is a totally different person and came much later, of course. Jews are "the People of Yehudah/Judah."

But anyway, Jews as a nation and people were not the en masse "killers of Jesus" despite what some would like to think; it was a discrete faction, (the ruling Pharisees), fearful of losing what little tenuous grasp of token power the Romans let them retain. They were "abetted" by the people living in and around Jerusalem, mostly "little people" with no power, living in fear under Roman oppression. There were Jews living all over the Middle East, and the "stage" where the drama of the death of Jesus in the New Testament is set, is in one city. THE Jews didn't all converge on Jerusalem to tell the Romans to kill Jesus. Jerusalem was a Jewish city, with lots of Jews living in it. Jesus was one of them. If Jesus had been born Irish, it would have been a group of Irish who killed him. If he'd been born Polish, Poles would have gotten him.

This was a person born during a controversial and desperate time, when a people was being subsumed and subjugated by a dominant (in this case, Roman) culture, and many were desperate for a messiah to rescue them. Before and after Jesus, there were many others who came along, claiming to be -- or being deemed to be -- the messiah, until shown to be otherwise.

The ruling Pharisees sect, grasping desperately to what little power they had under the Romans, didn't want anyone rocking the boat. Just like certain factions in America didn't want to see civil rights get a foothold -- they were happy with Jim Crow laws and the upperhand in all things economic, political and social -- and so Martin Luther King Jr. for daring to speak out otherwise and rocking the boat.

But would that mean that THE Euro(white)-Americans killed Martin Luther King, Jr.? Would we brand an entire group as MLK killers? Or was it specific and discrete faction, hanging on to what it believed was its tenuous grasp of power over a segrated society it wanted to keep segregated?

Just some ponderings.
 
Old 01-25-2007, 04:28 PM   #481
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 944
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
No one else likes chocolate?

I like guns, too.
I like guns and chocolate. Not necessarily in that order of preference. And no Hershey's. They use more sugar to disguise the fact that they have reduced the amount of chocolate content, and keep raising the price and shrinking the size of the bar.

So I have to amend my statement to liking chocolate that is at least 50% cacao.

Oh crap, that makes me sound like a liberal...
 
Old 01-25-2007, 05:50 PM   #482
statisticool
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 534
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
, I've decided you're not worth it.
...
Go argue with yourself.
Translation:

'I'll continue to post to or about you.'

All too accurate.

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."
 
Old 01-25-2007, 05:55 PM   #483
statisticool
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 534
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
, the "Arabs" aka Islamists (some of whom actually threaten to destroy Israel), I get cries of "racism",etc.,
Please tell us that you understand that not all Arabs follow Islam.

So your "aka" doesn't make sense at all.

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."
 
Old 01-25-2007, 05:57 PM   #484
statisticool
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 534
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
If you believe that everyone and every culture is somehow "equal facets of the same basic humanity", you're naive... and you're naive, humorously,
Why? You've simply stated your belief, but have not given a logical reason why someone should believe your stance that it is naive to believe that all humans are equal.

Quote:
They simply want to take us out of the breeding competition and they probably will.
This "they" sure sounds scary.

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."
 
Old 01-25-2007, 06:05 PM   #485
statisticool
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 534
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
First of all, "racism" does not apply to religion, in the proper sense, so let's toss it out. We're talking about Islamists, in reality.
You said something like "Arabs, aka Islamists". You do understand, right, that not all Arabs follow Islam, don't you?

Quote:
Hence, many medicines now mention the effects of pharmocalogical drugs on Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks. Is that "racist"? Depends on how you use the term "racist", but certainly not in a negative sense.
Is

Quote:
It is the Arabs. They need to be annihilated, as was suggested in World War I. They never stop until they are stopped by massive force; diplomacy is just a joke to an Arab, as is "keeping their word".
a negative or positive sense?

Quote:
The big difference between your disagreements with the government and someone like Neil (who is part of a surprisingly large group of fat, dumb, and happy liberal theorists in the US)
So much for the very hypocritical

Quote:
...is meaningless as anything other than an attempt to trivialize or denigrate... so let's drop it, shall we?
I guess you really didn't mean the "let's" in there. What other words of yours can we safely discard?

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."
 
Old 01-25-2007, 10:50 PM   #486
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Mike closes one eye, all the better to see only half the empty glass

What he said:

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Yes... exactly. Yet all someone has to do is look and voila', the acknowledgements about "racism" being somewhat of a trope are right there, yet you pretend that you're right. Amazing.
What he meant:

Even tho at least 3 other people noted the racist comments in his remarks (see below)....

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote:
While I agree that the term "racist" is fundamentally flawed (there is *one* human race, the issues that you cite are valid, etc.) unless we intend to propose an alternate word, and take the implications involved seriously, I don't see how a meaningful conversation can move forward.
Best,
Ron
Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
I must protest against this post. Mike, this is not the first time you have posted RACIST posts against the Arab nation.
Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
hmmmm, so a 'non-racist' call for annihalation of a large number of humans, is somehow more acceptable than a racist one?
...the charge of racism is specious, because Neil made it as well.

What he REALLY means:

I can never, ever, admit that my posts are wrong, or that I make racist remarks, here.

I would rather continue to lie and misdirect, misconstrue arguments and turn the conversations into insipid "Arab vs Jew" harangues, than to admit a mistake...for admitting an error means that I have to admit to several other errors in my remarks, as well.
 
Old 01-25-2007, 10:54 PM   #487
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
(P.S. I suppose this means that the actual proof that I slander the Jews won't be forth-coming...to be expected. Nice dodge, Mike...but, never mind)
What Mike's Response to my P.S. REALLY meant:

Quote:
Justin Smith wrote:
Translation:

'I'll continue to post to or about you.'

All too accurate.
or: "No, I, Mike Sigman, cannot find a single post to prove my frequent charges of anti-Semitism. Instead, I'll continue to post the same smears; and when you ask for proof, I'll declare that you're not worth the argument."

Last edited by Neil Mick : 01-25-2007 at 10:57 PM.
 
Old 01-25-2007, 10:58 PM   #488
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Actually, Neil, I think the fact that Justin Smith is on your side should be a satisfactory and telling pointer for everyone.

Regards,

Mike
 
Old 01-25-2007, 11:04 PM   #489
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Actually, Neil, I think the fact that Justin Smith is on your side should be a satisfactory and telling pointer for everyone.

Regards,

Mike
How's that search for those anti-Semitic posts of mine going, Mike? Have you found one yet?
 
Old 01-26-2007, 04:53 PM   #490
statisticool
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 534
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Actually, Neil, I think the fact that Justin Smith is on your side should be a satisfactory and telling pointer for everyone.
What Walter apparently cannot get over is that it doesn't matter who is on whos side. It is about the evidence.

I follow where the logical, supported, argument is. It could be from Neil, Walter, or anybody. In this particular case, it is Neil IMO.

You see, in a debate, illogical rants like

Quote:
, the "Arabs" aka Islamists
and

Quote:
It is the Arabs. They need to be annihilated, as was suggested in World War I. They never stop until they are stopped by massive force; diplomacy is just a joke to an Arab, as is "keeping their word".
being passed as logical debate just doesn't cut it.

Hey, anyone notice what happened to

Quote:
, I've decided you're not worth it.

Go argue with yourself.
just a few posts above?

Last edited by statisticool : 01-26-2007 at 04:59 PM.

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."
 
Old 01-28-2007, 10:14 AM   #491
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 679
Israel
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote:
Luc,
The Jews call themselves "Yehudi (sing.)/Yehudim (plural)" and "Jew" is just the anglicized way to say that. The name comes from the kingdom of Judea (anglicized pronuciation), where Judaism as it's known today was cultivated under King Yehudah ("Judah"). Judas (also an anglicized variation of "Yehudah") is a totally different person and came much later, of course. Jews are "the People of Yehudah/Judah."
Cady,
Could you refresh my memory about "king Yehudah "?
Somehow, while I have studied the bible, I don't remeber any such king. The kings I would have thought about when discussing Judea would have been (Hebrew pronuciation): David, Shlomo, Yoshiyahu. There was a whole line of kings but those are the ones which stuck in my memory.



Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote:
But anyway, Jews as a nation and people were not the en masse "killers of Jesus" despite what some would like to think; it was a discrete faction, (the ruling Pharisees), fearful of losing what little tenuous grasp of token power the Romans let them retain. They were "abetted" by the people living in and around Jerusalem, mostly "little people" with no power, living in fear under Roman oppression. There were Jews living all over the Middle East, and the "stage" where the drama of the death of Jesus in the New Testament is set, is in one city. THE Jews didn't all converge on Jerusalem to tell the Romans to kill Jesus. Jerusalem was a Jewish city, with lots of Jews living in it. Jesus was one of them. If Jesus had been born Irish, it would have been a group of Irish who killed him. If he'd been born Polish, Poles would have gotten him.

This was a person born during a controversial and desperate time, when a people was being subsumed and subjugated by a dominant (in this case, Roman) culture, and many were desperate for a messiah to rescue them. Before and after Jesus, there were many others who came along, claiming to be -- or being deemed to be -- the messiah, until shown to be otherwise.

The ruling Pharisees sect, grasping desperately to what little power they had under the Romans, didn't want anyone rocking the boat. Just like certain factions in America didn't want to see civil rights get a foothold -- they were happy with Jim Crow laws and the upperhand in all things economic, political and social -- and so Martin Luther King Jr. for daring to speak out otherwise and rocking the boat.

But would that mean that THE Euro(white)-Americans killed Martin Luther King, Jr.? Would we brand an entire group as MLK killers? Or was it specific and discrete faction, hanging on to what it believed was its tenuous grasp of power over a segrated society it wanted to keep segregated?

Just some ponderings.
The real facts about Jesus are much more obscure then that. non today knows exactly how he died, for the Romans, he was just another Jew cult leader. His death might have been supported by the Jewish leadership (lobbying the Romans for it), but why should they have bothered with him of all the cults which were common at the time?
For all we know, the Romans killed him for some other reason (disturbing the peaceful rest of some officer ...).

We do know for sure that Christians have blamed Jews for the death of " Jesus Christ" ( a past Jew) for a millennia and a half, and that Jews were actively persecuted by the catholic church and other churches (for example Orthodocs). Mike, should all Christians be killed today for that?





And back to the "Racisem Topic"
Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Islam is bad. It has a proven track record that is *far* worse over time and deed than any other single "religion". It calls for the destruction and/or subjugation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. I know you'd like to say "they don't really mean that", but it's in writing and history proves you wrong, no matter how much you hope today that by being nice they will change.
Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Oh, I dunno what's really sad, Ron. The fact that you glossed over the stark differences in the Quran calling for the specific denigration of Jews, Christians, etc., or the fact that I pointed out that there was quite a difference. The "in one form or another" could have been a slip or it could have been a deliberate attempt to mislead... I opted for the diplomatic response and got slammed again. While telling me how sad it is, is fine... do you recognize that a vague usage of "enemies" from long-ago tribal warfare, is remarkably different from a specific spelling out of hatred for Jews, Christians, etc.???? That was my point, regardless of how sad it is

Having learned the bible in high school, I still remember that already in the Torah, in book "Dvarim", there were quite a few laws for war, calling for total annihilation (genocide) of several specific nations. Further, multiple Jewish theological laws discriminate against non-Jews (slaves laws, interest laws, etc.). So perhaps, we should kill all the Jews?

If this is not clear, all the monotheistic religions have elements that are prejudiced towards all non-believers of that one "true religion". The question is do people the of that religion actually believe they should act on those elements, or do they consider those points as something God indicated for some other time (far in future or past) and not relevant to current day?
Most Jews, Christians and Islamists actually are on the same side in this regard. The only difference is in the numbers of the minority. There are more extreme Islamists then there are Christians or Jews. Those minorities would like to drag us all after them (As an example: the crazy Jewish group who wishes to blow up El-Aczta on Temple mount and thus bring the day of judgment forward. Or some of the Islamic groups who wish to escalate the war with Israel at any means, hoping this will force Arab Governments to intervene by entering a war with Israel).



In addition:
Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:

Well, I dunno about that. Certainly distinctions can be made about "race" that are true and yet which do not have the negative connotation of "racism", Amir. This is what I mean about shutting off debate, even worthwhile debate, at the whim of people shouting "racism!". It smacks of the same spurious motives that religious fanatics use when they cut off heads because someone is not a true believer. And I mean that very seriously, for once. I deride "liberals" and fanatical "conservatives" and "religious fanatics" as essentially being the same things.... people who want to impose their beliefs on someone else. When you start labelling someone "racist", you open that particular door, if you're not careful.

First of all, "racism" does not apply to religion, in the proper sense, so let's toss it out. We're talking about Islamists, in reality.

Secondly, there are very many "distinctions" about race and gender diferences which are used all the time.... so the application of "racist" or "sexist" becomes a subjective name-calling, with people whimsically applying the term in order to win an argument solely by trying to apply a label that trivializes the speaker.

Several years ago a lot of the medical community simply shifted gears on the "race" issue because it saves more lives to just acknowledge the fact that there are physiological differences between the races. Hence, many medicines now mention the effects of pharmocalogical drugs on Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks. Is that "racist"? Depends on how you use the term "racist", but certainly not in a negative sense.

"Minorities" as the term is used in the US, applies mainly to Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Indians (I live in an area that has many native Indians). Asians are seldom mentioned in "minority" statistics because they tend to do so well economically, in educational scores, etc. Is it "racist" to mention the statistics of "minority test scores" in the newspapers as part of the overall effort to statistically increase "minority" achievements?

You get the point. Your use of the term "racist" is meaningless as anything other than an attempt to trivialize or denigrate... so let's drop it, shall we? Next thing you know, you'll be calling me an "anti-Semite".
Actually, you are right in criticizing my post, I forgot a very important thing in the first paragraph, about the nature of the distinctions, scientific research has nothing to do with them:

It is Racism once you make moral distinctions about large groups of people based on their race, ethnicity or religion, and confuse those criteria with behavior, values and most importantly -- rights.

And if you are asking for my opinion about "minority test scores", then yes, those are based on a basic racist approach, making one think he should patronize and protect others, he perceives as inferiors, rather then abuse them. In my personal view, it is not better, and this was one of my reasons for disagreeing with quite a few Israeli leftist groups which were unaware of basing their own approach on such concepts. T

In this regards, when you (Mike) group all the Islamic believers into a US hate group, you forget lots (I don't know how many thousands) of loyal Muslims US citizens, some of which are in your very army fighting for your very country. I happen to know even the Israeli army has a few Arab Muslims among the warrior troops, even though they have to volunteer and go through very difficult screening and their community often does not favor their enlisting. Generalizations are a source for problems unless you are a mathematician, for people, most Generalizations are simply misleading.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
The big difference between your disagreements with the government and someone like Neil (who is part of a surprisingly large group of fat, dumb, and happy liberal theorists in the US) is that you at least will shut up and support your own troops once they are at risk, holding back your criticism so as not to endanger the Israeli troops. Neil and his fellow-believers actively hope for more US deaths so that "the war will end due to popular pressure", etc
As for opposing your Govt during a fight. If one believes his country is sending the troops to die for nothing, he should protest against it, in a democracy it is his right (in my view actually - duty) to do so. One must still enlist himself if called for, and do his own military role on the best side, even if he objects to the political ideas of the war. Not following the last sentence is simply treason against the democracy, but while not protesting is legal, it is almost as bad for a democracy.
I once read an amazing statements: "The best protection against bad laws is to enforce them diligently", it was posted on the FBI building wall, and if you think of a democracy, you should understand the above rule only works if the public is aware and willing to protest, otherwise, it is democracy no longer.


Amir
 
Old 01-28-2007, 10:18 AM   #492
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 944
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Doh. You're right, Amir. My brain farted. It was the Kingdom of Judah, as in the -Tribe- of Yehudah. Judea was the part of present-day Israel where the Tribe of Yehudah settled and established itself as the dominant population.

Concerning: The real facts about Jesus are much more obscure then that. non today knows exactly how he died, for the Romans, he was just another Jew cult leader. His death might have been supported by the Jewish leadership (lobbying the Romans for it), but why should they have bothered with him of all the cults which were common at the time?
For all we know, the Romans killed him for some other reason (disturbing the peaceful rest of some officer ...).


The only period mention, in writing, that we have about Y'shua (Jesus) is that of the Romanized Jew, Josephus,who made referemce to a rabbi that was becoming popular in Jerusalem and environs. Later writings about the Y'shua, including his death, were attributed to Josephus, but it isn't known whether they were "embellished" by others over the centuries. So, take any stuff you see in books or on the 'net with a grain of salt.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../josephus.html

Last edited by Cady Goldfield : 01-28-2007 at 10:32 AM.
 
Old 01-28-2007, 10:36 AM   #493
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 944
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Edit time ran out. I intended my first sentence about Josephus to read:
The only period mention, in writing, that we have about Y'shua (Jesus) is that of the Romanized Jew, Josephus,who made reference to a rabbi, Y'shua, that had been popular in Jerusalem and environs, and had gained a large following, even after his death at the hands of Pilate. But he wrote his comments almost 100 years after the death of Jesus.

Last edited by Cady Goldfield : 01-28-2007 at 10:38 AM.
 
Old 01-28-2007, 10:45 AM   #494
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
We do know for sure that Christians have blamed Jews for the death of " Jesus Christ" ( a past Jew) for a millennia and a half, and that Jews were actively persecuted by the catholic church and other churches (for example Orthodocs). Mike, should all Christians be killed today for that?
You're asking the wrong person to answer a tangential question, Amir. I have no interest in either of those matters. One is historical and one is rhetorical. If you're trying to make a rhetorical point, you need to try a different approach.
Quote:
Having learned the bible in high school, I still remember that already in the Torah, in book "Dvarim", there were quite a few laws for war, calling for total annihilation (genocide) of several specific nations.
I'm aware of the history, Amir. I studied the Bible in college for a while. However, none of those tribes exists today in a viable form, so the argument is a specious comparison, in effect. The fact that ancient tribes were singled out in the days of the Old Testament is quite different from current attacks by Muslims against Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc., based on precise calls, using their current religions, etc., for extirpation. The post-modernistic relevancy simply doesn't work in this case, Amir. Muslims seek to destroy Jews, Christians, etc., ... existing peoples.... and it is in their Koran to do so. And they do it.
Quote:
Further, multiple Jewish theological laws discriminate against non-Jews (slaves laws, interest laws, etc.). So perhaps, we should kill all the Jews?
I frankly don't care all that much, Amir. I think that beginning back in the seventies the course of Israel was determined by the liberal element of Jews in Israel. I think Israel is already doomed by its own hand. But you miss the point. The "religion", the "theology" of Judaism is not the basis for its civil laws to the extent that it calls for the killing and enslavement of other cultures. That is the difference of Islam. It is not just a religion... it is the basis for laws which call for the destruction of other people. Hence, the statement that Islam is bad has a very strong foundation in logic.
Quote:
If this is not clear, all the monotheistic religions have elements that are prejudiced towards all non-believers of that one "true religion". The question is do people the of that religion actually believe they should act on those elements, or do they consider those points as something God indicated for some other time (far in future or past) and not relevant to current day?Actually, you are right in criticizing my post, I forgot a very important thing in the first paragraph, about the nature of the distinctions, scientific research has nothing to do with them:

It is Racism once you make moral distinctions about large groups of people based on their race, ethnicity or religion, and confuse those criteria with behavior, values and most importantly -- rights.
More relativism, Amir. The technical definition of "racism" is:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
And if you are asking for my opinion about "minority test scores", then yes, those are based on a basic racist approach, making one think he should patronize and protect others, he perceives as inferiors, rather then abuse them. In my personal view, it is not better, and this was one of my reasons for disagreeing with quite a few Israeli leftist groups which were unaware of basing their own approach on such concepts.


If you want to begin to halt free speech by widening your definitions to encompass anything you find unpleasant, that is your prerogative.

The best thing I can say about this sudden assertion that "racism" now applies to "large groups of people" and "religions" is this: "what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence".
Quote:
In this regards, when you (Mike) group all the Islamic believers into a US hate group, you forget lots (I don't know how many thousands) of loyal Muslims US citizens, some of which are in your very army fighting for your very country. I happen to know even the Israeli army has a few Arab Muslims among the warrior troops, even though they have to volunteer and go through very difficult screening and their community often does not favor their enlisting. Generalizations are a source for problems unless you are a mathematician, for people, most Generalizations are simply misleading.
Give me an example of large groups of Muslims that are decrying the crimes of Islam against the Jews and the West, Amir. Following your logic, the West should not have attacked Germany, obliterated Dresden, etc., in World War II because there were a certain number of Germans that were nice people.

The real problem with why the US now gets stalled (as does the EU) in handling the Arab problem is because there is that idea of "let's not really harm them even though they are attacking us constantly, because a few of them actually like us". As a survival strategy, there is only one place it will lead ... and Israel will be the first to go, Amir.


As for opposing your Govt during a fight. If one believes his country is sending the troops to die for nothing, he should protest against it, in a democracy it is his right (in my view actually - duty) to do so. [/quote] How liberal of you, Amir. The strategy that North Vietnam used (and bragged about after the war) was to play to the liberals who will undercut the national will to resolve a problem. That is what the Arabs do constantly. "Opposing the government" is fine... when someone openly does it regardless of the potential risk it adds to exposed troops, that is not just "dissent", that is the self-absorption of the fat, dumb, and happy.

Regards,

Mike
 
Old 01-28-2007, 05:36 PM   #495
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
Having learned the bible in high school, I still remember that already in the Torah, in book "Dvarim", there were quite a few laws for war, calling for total annihilation (genocide) of several specific nations. Further, multiple Jewish theological laws discriminate against non-Jews (slaves laws, interest laws, etc.). So perhaps, we should kill all the Jews?

If this is not clear, all the monotheistic religions have elements that are prejudiced towards all non-believers of that one "true religion". The question is do people the of that religion actually believe they should act on those elements, or do they consider those points as something God indicated for some other time (far in future or past) and not relevant to current day?
Or, even that the "call to kill unbelievers" might be considered in different contexts. Back when it was written, tribes in the Arabic lands were largely pagan. The call to conquer and subjugate was largely directed at Arab tribesmen who did not follow the new religion of Islam.

Quote:
There are more extreme Islamists then there are Christians or Jews.
Yes, there are. It is also important to note that there are more Islamists under military occupation, than there are Christians, or Jews.

Quote:
In this regards, when you (Mike) group all the Islamic believers into a US hate group, you forget lots (I don't know how many thousands) of loyal Muslims US citizens, some of which are in your very army fighting for your very country.
He conveniently forgets to mention these ppl, doesn't he?

Quote:
I happen to know even the Israeli army has a few Arab Muslims among the warrior troops, even though they have to volunteer and go through very difficult screening and their community often does not favor their enlisting.
I believe it was an Arab Muslim in the IDF who shot Paul(?) Herndon, a British citizen, also of the ISM.

Quote:
As for opposing your Govt during a fight. If one believes his country is sending the troops to die for nothing, he should protest against it, in a democracy it is his right (in my view actually - duty) to do so. One must still enlist himself if called for, and do his own military role on the best side, even if he objects to the political ideas of the war.
Well, not here, of course. Here we have an all volunteer army...for now.

Quote:
Not following the last sentence is simply treason against the democracy, but while not protesting is legal, it is almost as bad for a democracy.
I would argue that it IS as bad, for the democracy.

Quote:
I once read an amazing statements: "The best protection against bad laws is to enforce them diligently",
With a little rewording, that could be Mike's sig..."The best protection against a bad war is to diligently enlist, and not criticize the leaders."

Quote:
it was posted on the FBI building wall, and if you think of a democracy, you should understand the above rule only works if the public is aware and willing to protest, otherwise, it is democracy no longer.

Amir
Too true, Amir. Good post.


OK, to be honest: I'm not looking for a response on this, as Mike will surely just cut and paste one of his old diatribes onto his answer. "Anti-American, anti-Jewish, blah blah..."

So, take this as notes, Amir, Cady, and whomever else might be reading.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
I studied the Bible in college for a while. However, none of those tribes exists today in a viable form, so the argument is a specious comparison, in effect. The fact that ancient tribes were singled out in the days of the Old Testament is quite different from current attacks by Muslims against Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc., based on precise calls, using their current religions, etc., for extirpation. The post-modernistic relevancy simply doesn't work in this case, Amir.
OK, so let's just assume that Mike is right...that the post-modernistic relevancy simply doesn't work. Then, we should apply the same rule to Muslims, as we would the Jews, of course. Whatever warlike references in the Quran that Mike often refers should also be held up to the fallacies of post-modernistic relevancy.

Quote:
Muslims seek to destroy Jews, Christians, etc., ... existing peoples.... and it is in their Koran to do so.
Yet, here he contradicts himself, with the very next sentence.

Quote:
The "religion", the "theology" of Judaism is not the basis for its civil laws to the extent that it calls for the killing and enslavement of other cultures. That is the difference of Islam. It is not just a religion... it is the basis for laws which call for the destruction of other people.
Source? Oh, never mind. I'm sure to get a badly translated epithet from some anti-Muslim website.

Quote:
Hence, the statement that Islam is bad has a very strong foundation in logic.
A very strong foundation in Mike Sigman logic, perhaps.

Quote:
If you want to begin to halt free speech by widening your definitions to encompass anything you find unpleasant, that is your prerogative.
Free speech does not = the freedom to make racist remarks.

Frankly Mike, I think your ideas are scary. I am so glad for the country that we are moving away from the idea of a "unitary Executive," that you seem so much in favor. Your odd tendency to use the mainstream media as a source on one hand, while deriding them for their bias and veracity is puzzling, and makes for often humorous episodes where you end up going on a tangent, throwing mud at your own source.

But I respect your right to post your political opinions here.

What I do not respect, is you confusing that right to post anti-Arab, and anti-Islamic remarks, with rights of free speech (which, I might add, is not existant here, as we are on an aikido website. with expected rules of conduct. We are NOT on Main St, USA, holding up a sign).

Some of your statements about Arabs and Islam betray such an ignorance and underlying fear about a people and religion, that I find myself embarassed for you. If I were an Arab, I would be angered.

But you know all of this...you must have seen these remarks many times, here or elsewhere. All the time, telling yourself that they were trying to silence your right to speak freely.

How sad, that you confuse the two.

Quote:
The best thing I can say about this sudden assertion that "racism" now applies to "large groups of people" and "religions" is this: "what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence". Give me an example of large groups of Muslims that are decrying the crimes of Islam against the Jews and the West, Amir.
The Liberal Shia Cleric You Should Meet

The vast majority of mainstream Islamic judicial opinion rejects suicide for any reason (1) (2)

Mainstream Islamic groups such as the European Council for Fatwa and Research use the Quran'ic verse Al-Anam 6:151 (And take not life, which Allah has made sacred, except by way of justice and law) as further reason to prohibit suicide

Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says

Most important, the Afghan Ulama, or council of religious leaders, need to continue playing a major role in countering the extremist ideology of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Afghan Ulama has issued fatwas, or religious decrees, that unambiguously oppose suicide bombing. But they must keep reiterating that suicide bombing does not lead to an eternal life in paradise, does not permit martyrs to see the face of Allah, and does not allow martyrs to have the company of 72 beautiful maidens in paradise.

And, speaking of circular logic...

Quote:
"Opposing the government" is fine... when someone openly does it regardless of the potential risk it adds to exposed troops, that is not just "dissent", that is the self-absorption of the fat, dumb, and happy.
So, it's OK to send the troops directly into harm's way for no other stated reason, than fake evidence, hollow calls to "help the Iraqi's (notice, how they've dropped off, from the W corner?), and vague assertions that we're "fighting the war on terror," even tho most experts agree that the war in Iraq is actually advancing the war on terror.

No, that's all OK...it's NOT OK, when opposing this wrong and illegal war will eventually end this madness. No, in Mike's perception, that's what we call "self-absorbed, fat, dumb, and happy."

Ah, well...about 400,000 ppl in DC last Saturday might have disagreed with you. But I know that that won't change your mind one bit, Mike. After all, when you have a literal virtual intervention telling you that your posts are racist and you STILL go on and on with these prevaricating and weak defences ("Umm...it's not really racism;" "Err...charging racism is just another form of censorship"); now, how can I expect 400,000 people protesting, would change your mind?

No, no...you're right, and we're all wrong.

At least Bush has someone in this country who supports him. You, and about 6 others...

Last edited by Neil Mick : 01-28-2007 at 05:40 PM.
 
Old 01-28-2007, 06:16 PM   #496
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Or, even that the "call to kill unbelievers" might be considered in different contexts. Back when it was written, tribes in the Arabic lands were largely pagan. The call to conquer and subjugate was largely directed at Arab tribesmen who did not follow the new religion of Islam.
And of course the current call by Iran to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" might be considered in different contexts, much as Hitler's threats were encouraged to be considered "just talk" by the liberal majority of England and France.
Quote:
OK, to be honest: I'm not looking for a response on this, as Mike will surely just cut and paste one of his old diatribes onto his answer. "Anti-American, anti-Jewish, blah blah..."
Interesting, since all of your posts are archived for view, Neil. Do you seriously think that anyone with an IQ above the double digits thinks you are pro-US or pro-Israel? Seriously?
Quote:
OK, so let's just assume that Mike is right...that the post-modernistic relevancy simply doesn't work. Then, we should apply the same rule to Muslims, as we would the Jews, of course. Whatever warlike references in the Quran that Mike often refers should also be held up to the fallacies of post-modernistic relevancy.
Neil... why do you bother? Your position is still obviously "give the Arabs a pass for any attack and hound Israel for any response". You want the failure of Israel. You want the failure of the US. Do you really think anyone is fooled?
Quote:
Ah, well...about 400,000 ppl in DC last Saturday might have disagreed with you.
See... that's what I mean by your Confirmation Bias... constantly. You'll lie about any statistic that supports the view you already have. A quick check shows that most of the police there put the number at 100,000. It's like your statistics about "Iraqis killed", Neil. Ah... but then you want to portray that you're on the "MORAL" side... so it's OK to lie, eh?

And gee.... there was Jane Fonda and the rest of the "Hate the US" crowd. And look up the bona fides of the protest sponsors, Neil.... the world communist party. I'm absolutely sure that they are engaged in that protest because they want a better America, despite the fact that they have consistently conspired for the downfall of the US. But then, we knew what side you were on, Neil.

Regards,

Mike
 
Old 01-28-2007, 06:28 PM   #497
statisticool
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 534
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Golly gee! What happened to

Quote:
, I've decided you're not worth it.

Go argue with yourself.
I guess he decided you are worth it. That is encouragement to post more.

Quote:
You want the failure of Israel. You want the failure of the US. Do you really think anyone is fooled?
You apparently are fooled into thinking your deliberate mischaracterization of Neil's views passes for a logical argument. No one is fooled into believing your pseudo-argument, however.

Quote:
And gee.... there was Jane Fonda and the rest of the "Hate the US" crowd.
I never did get why they wore belts with leotards. Anybody know??

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."
 
Old 01-28-2007, 06:54 PM   #498
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 944
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Justin Smith wrote:
I never did get why they wore belts with leotards. Anybody know??
It may have been because they were leftover "space vixen" costumes from Barbarella.
 
Old 01-28-2007, 09:03 PM   #499
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Yep, cut n paste time for Mikey. The usual blah blah.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
A quick check shows that most of the police there put the number at 100,000.
Is it some pathological need to lie, or do you secretly desire to be publicly ridiculed? Only his shrink really knows...

Quote:
CNN wrote:
United for Peace and Justice, a coalition group sponsoring the protest, had hoped 100,000 would come. They claimed even more afterward, but police, who no longer give official estimates, said privately the crowd was smaller than 100,000.
"Police, not giving official estimates" does not = "most of the police"

Yah, Mike, ya caught me. The police, who no longer give official estimates (and so your claim is bogus, as usual), are now "privately" giving the number at 1/4 what the protesters were giving...or less. Ooh, big surprise...when they were giving official estimates, it was almost always 1/2 the claimed number of the organizers...almost across the board.

Now, ask yourself (someone, more objective than Mike)...what's the big deal? Just go up in a helicopter like a good reporter, take a picture, go home, and count the total biomass of protesters present??

I did it several times on tide flats for invertebrate zoology class...it's hardly rocket science.

Know why they don't? Because they don't WANT John Q. Public to know just exactly how many ppl are mad enough to come out and protest! Simple as that. They do it all the time at marches...routinely ignore or downplay the number of protestors.

And so, Mike, once again, your usual complaint is loaded with partisan motives, and biased and erroneous summations. There simply ARE no "official" police estimates, and I suspect you knew that.

(but PS Mike...400,000...100,000...10,000...doesn't really matter. A LOT of ppl...the majority in this country...do not hold to Bush's view of "stay the course."

I KNOW you know that, Mike...even if you only watch biased and slanted news: there was a protest march in Durango last year, called the "World Can't Wait" march). So, SOMEONE in Durango, CO must have given you a wake-up call...)

Quote:
But then, we knew what side you were on, Neil.

Regards,

Mike
Yes we do. I'm on the side of free speech...even here. Which side are YOU on...?


Quote:
Justin Smith wrote:
Golly gee! What happened to
Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
, I've decided you're not worth it.

Go argue with yourself.
Yah, I'm wondering that, too. Perhaps he's pathologically unable to withhold comment...

Quote:
Justin Smith wrote:
I guess he decided you are worth it. That is encouragement to post more.
Hmm...I dunno. That, actually, is an argument against, lol.


Quote:
Justin Smith wrote:
You apparently are fooled into thinking your deliberate mischaracterization of Neil's views passes for a logical argument. No one is fooled into believing your pseudo-argument, however.
Except, of course, for Mike...I suspect he's vigorously engaged in a game of self-deception, 24/7...

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote:
It may have been because they were leftover "space vixen" costumes from Barbarella.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 01-28-2007 at 09:08 PM.
 
Old 01-28-2007, 09:23 PM   #500
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
(On why, as I stated previously, the police put the demonstration that Neil bald-facedly claimed was "more than 400,000 people)Is it some pathological need to lie, or do you secretly desire to be publicly ridiculed? (*I* lied???? Looks like Neil lied).[[snipsky]]Yah, Mike, ya caught me. (True. I did) The police, who no longer give official estimates (and so your claim is bogus, as usual), are now "privately" giving the number at 1/4 what the protesters were giving...or less. Ooh, big surprise...when they were giving official estimates, it was almost always 1/2 the claimed number of the organizers...almost across the board. [[snipsky]]Know why they don't? Because they don't WANT John Q. Public to know just exactly how many ppl are mad enough to come out and protest! Simple as that. They do it all the time at marches...routinely ignore or downplay the number of protestors.
Ah.... it's the "pigs", isn't it, Neil? They lie.
Quote:
(but PS Mike...400,000...100,000...10,000...doesn't really matter. A LOT of ppl...the majority in this country...do not hold to Bush's view of "stay the course."
Odd... the majority of people elected Bush president. Strange, eh, how you never mention that. The "majority" must be idiots. No, wait, if the the majority are "idiots" and they agree with you... ohhhhhh... my head hurts.
Quote:
I KNOW you know that, Mike...even if you only watch biased and slanted news: there was a protest march in Durango last year, called the "World Can't Wait" march). So, SOMEONE in Durango, CO must have given you a wake-up call...)
A few hundred people. Tsk. And this is basically a liberal, college town, too. What a shame. Not everyone here wants to crap on the troops the way they do in Santa Cruz.

In case you missed the point, Neil... it was about you and your "Confirmation Bias", which was just proved. You'd lie about the number of protesters, just as you exaggerate all numbers that confirm your fixed biases and you'll ignore or diminish anything that proves you wrong. "Confirmation Bias" is the modern term... it used to be called "intellectual dishonesty".

Regards,

Mike Sigman
 

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Omoto-kyo Theology senshincenter Spiritual 77 12-04-2005 10:50 PM
The Real World: How to Reconcile? Anonymous Anonymous 24 05-18-2005 03:01 AM
"Real world Situations" ravered General 27 12-09-2004 08:38 AM
Aikido in the World Games jon_jankus General 0 08-24-2004 10:55 AM
Aikido in the International World Games L. Camejo General 4 08-12-2004 10:13 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2016 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2016 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate