Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Ehav4Ever]

All governments have to run by force, but not all governments are dictatorships. Some governments preserve individual rights. Dictatorships tend to not to do that.

You say that, but what you just wrote sounds like a dictorship and of course the dictator would claim he is preserving the rights of the people.

Some of the best leaders in history did not have to run anything by force and some of the all stars in history did not want to be in the position to begin with.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All governments have to run by force, but not all governments are dictatorships. Some governments preserve individual rights. Dictatorships tend to not to do that.

Yeah, that are observational facts. What is good or bad about that is not observational facts and hasn't nothing to do with proof and evidence.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I do not see how one could have "Torah based laws" without a dictatorship in place since one would have to get rid of all individual rights.

That is because you don't know what the Torah is. The fact that you used the term "Torah based laws" proves that. I.e. the word itself doesn't even mean law and only westerners influenced by English speaking Christian nations term it that way.

Also, given the fact that Torah based Jews don't have a concept of proseliztizing and seizing governments from fellow Jews by power it means...well you know. But of course you will claim the opposite.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If that is your self-imposed defintion of a group of people who make the free-will decision collectively as a nation for something that all of them want on their own, then I will have to say that your opinion sounds like a dictatorship. I.e. you are searching for some way to define all those who disagree with you as something that you yourself are imposing.

Yeah, the free will of the people including a group like yours mean what you say. But to some Western liberal democracies are a natural fact in the end. That is absurd because that can potentially make them as dangerous as what they fight.

So some of these words are social constructs and regardless of religion or not, they become dangerous, when they are believed to be with proof. They are not. They are a matter of belief.

I hope you cope my fellow human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, in other words you are saying that you are the only one in the world who knows what system of government everyone in the world must follow and if it doesn't meet your personal criteria it is invalid. That sounds you are are making yourself into a dictator. That is a dangerous view.

No, I am merely going by your description of what you want for Israel. Israel is already a Jewish run country. It is just not the dictatorship that you seem to want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, your subjectivity is so strong in you that you believe you have evidence, proof and what not.
The key word is see. You can't see this. It is in your brain as an in the end moral evolution of good and bad. You don't see that. You feel it.

Really? How would his dream state not be a dictatorship? It is no different from Sharia law.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I am merely going by your description of what you want for Israel. Israel is already a Jewish run country. It is just not the dictatorship that you seem to want.

What is your proof and evidence that dictatorships are bad?
If you say none, but it is your opinion, I will stop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is because you don't know what the Torah is. The fact that you used the term "Torah based laws" proves that. I.e. the word itself doesn't even mean law and only westerners influenced by English speaking Christian nations term it that way.

Also, given the fact that Torah based Jews don't have a concept of proseliztizing and seizing governments from fellow Jews by power it means...well you know. But of course you will claim the opposite.

From my understanding the Torah is the same as the first five books of the Christian Bible. It has some very very immoral laws in it. I don't see how one could institute those laws without using a dictatorship.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really? How would his dream state not be a dictatorship? It is no different from Sharia law.

Well, you are assuming that his religion is one to one as Sharia Law. What is your proof and evidence of that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From my understanding the Torah is the same as the first five books of the Christian Bible. It has some very very immoral laws in it. I don't see how one could institute those laws without using a dictatorship.

Well, you apparently don't understand Jewish cultural tradition. What is it with you? All religions are the same because they are religions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is your proof and evidence that dictatorships are bad?
If you say none, but it is your opinion, I will stop.

It is hard, if not impossible to find a dictatorship that has ever been beneficial. Especially theistic ones. Now I could be surprised. They might do the seemingly impossible, but I doubt if they could do it. In this case history is my evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you are assuming that his religion is one to one as Sharia Law. What is your proof and evidence of that?

Nope, not doing that. Are you trying to be silly?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is hard, if not impossible to find a dictatorship that has ever been beneficial. Especially theistic ones. Now I could be surprised. They might do the seemingly impossible, but I doubt if they could do it. In this case history is my evidence.

I want proof and evidence. Beneficial is to me a first person subjective evaluation and has nothing to do with proof and evidence. Please give the actual proof and evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope, not doing that. Are you trying to be silly?

So that was not relevant. One down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So that was not relevant. One down.

So you are owning up to your error? Because my statement still stands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want proof and evidence. Beneficial is to me a first person subjective evaluation and has nothing to do with proof and evidence. Please give the actual proof and evidence.

Sorry but you appear to be diving too deep into nihilism. One cannot have a meaningful discussion when one does that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry but you appear to be diving too deep into nihilism. One cannot have a meaningful discussion when one does that.

No, I do believe in right and wrong. You just claim proof and evidence. Then deliver or admit that it is your opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I do believe in right and wrong. You just claim proof and evidence. Then deliver or admit that it is your opinion.

So do I. But it seems that your standards of "proof" in this are rather odd.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So do I. But it seems that your standards of "proof" in this are rather odd.

So it is an opinion and belief and without proof and evidence on your part? It is on mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it is an opinion and belief and without proof and evidence on your part? It is on mine.

Sorry, but in this matter you have tipped your hand that you will not accept evidence. There is no point in continuing. I can say the same about you. All you have are claims that I did not provide evidence, I gave one clear example. I could have gone one but when one does not acknowledge evidence then that person has failed the burden of proof.