Countries banning of kosher meats are forcing "expulsion" of Jews

[charlie sc]

I provided a reference not a citation. Do you know the difference?

Show me where you provided a reference except from the link to the DSM. I use the term citation and reference interchangeably in a colloquial setting, because I'm not writing a report nor am I reading one. However, they both refer to some source material.

Wrong again. You have conflated anthropomorphism based empathy with empathy for the object itself. They have feelings for the human context projected on the object not the object itself.

There is no such term. Cite it somewhere. Your assertions are pathetic, as you are.

https://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/ca...ica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

Just linking a document tells me nothing. Tell me where in the document it's parallel with what you're saying, since you're the one that brought it up, or did you forget?

empathy is universal otherwise it isn't empathy by definition.

Jesus Christ. Show me that definition. Cite it. Assertions are a waste of time.

Wrong. I do not entertain moral relativism as a source of valid moral codes. I accept it as an explanation of farces called moral codes based on whims. Not every code of conduct is automatically a moral code. That is the difference.

Moral relativism isn't on a whim nor does it make anything an automatic moral code. Study the topic. This is the last time I'll say it.

You can not avoid going off-topic asserting points I never made as if I made them then whining when I tell you "no". I am ridiculing you as you refuse to take my "No" seriously instead you entertain your fantasy. You are projecting moral relativism as if the only valid form of developing moral codes rather than an explanation of farces. Just because you accept those ideas does not mean I do nor have to.

If you've read my reply to We Never Know then you'd know I am not claiming moral relativism is "the only valid form of developing moral codes". It seems you're projecting whatever it is onto me. I try not to ridicule you but you make it too easy. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I gave an example of a lack of empathy as empathy is universal.

I don't speak gobbledegook, sorry.

Calling something a moral code does not make it a moral code by mere declaration.

I never said it did. This is why I'm willing to discuss various definitions for morality. There may be criteria for something to be moral even in the relativistic sense. However, if you reject even the thought of relativistic morality then I will not go down this route. I will not pander to the arrogant ignorant.

I've used it for years. I am rejecting your projection of moral relativism as a valid source of morality.

At least here you said something sensible. This is all that needs to be said. I however will not reject any other form of morality absolutely. I am not that arrogant.

As much fun as this is, it's run it's course. From now on I'll only reply to you if you can actually source what you're saying and actually say something about it, rather than give a link with no context. As much fun as opinionated arguments go, they have their limits in excess. This type of toddler-Facebook discussion is not my thing. However, you may continue in this mindless act.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jews were slaughtered indiscriminately in world war 2. They didn’t suffer lightly either. Jews were gased, burned alive, beaten to death, buried alive, starved, and the list goes on. The Nazis showed no compassion for the Jews because they were inferior, among other things. The Jews were not given a swift and merciful death.

So, when Jews are confronted about unnecessary suffering they are exclusively contributing to, you'd think they’d be a bit more empathetic and compassionate, considering the past... Nope! I find this whole attitude disgusting and shocking. Is there nothing learned?

The holocaust was a tragedy for the whole human race, and it seems like it’s dogmatic ideologies that are the most resistant to change. It seems like the people stuck these rigid Ideologies will always cause the suffering of others. For some people, ideologies overwrite compassion and empathy. Sad, really. Yes, I'm looking at you IndigoChild5559. Your OP implied antisemitic attitudes. Well, I'm turning this around.

You should take a lesson from the past.

Yes, you are. This is typical Jew blaming.

 

[charlie sc]

Yes, you are. This is typical Jew blaming.

Describe why it’s Jew blaming rather than just asserting it.

 

[Ancient Soul]

No, it most certainly is not.

And you can prove this how exactly?

Or are you claiming that you have personally experienced having your throat cut, and as you slowly bled to death all the while being terrified that you were dying?

It's funny how some people make false statements when they really have NO IDEA what they are talking about.

 

[qaz]

hi, are there any israelis on here who can tell me how do you say "limitedness" in hebrew? like: "human limitedness before god".
thanks!

 

[rosends]

hi, are there any israelis on here who can tell me how do you say "limitedness" in hebrew? like: "human limitedness before god".
thanks!

Off topic, but I would reword to "the state of being limited of man (hagbalto shel adam)" or say "limited man" (ish sofi) (ish mugbal)

 

[sooda]

And you can prove this how exactly?

Or are you claiming that you have personally experienced having your throat cut, and as you slowly bled to death all the while being terrified that you were dying?

It's funny how some people make false statements when they really have NO IDEA what they are talking about.

You have obviously never seen a Halal or Kosher slaughter. Its quick as lightening.

 

[qaz]

Off topic, but I would reword to "the state of being limited of man (hagbalto shel adam)" or say "limited man" (ish sofi) (ish mugbal)

thank you very much. would you be so kind to write me in hebrew the word hagbalto? thanks!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Describe why it’s Jew blaming rather than just asserting it.

Read up on classic Jew blaming, the read what you wrote again.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And you can prove this how exactly?

Or are you claiming that you have personally experienced having your throat cut, and as you slowly bled to death all the while being terrified that you were dying?

It's funny how some people make false statements when they really have NO IDEA what they are talking about.

I might say the same of you. What make you think, since you have no idea, that it is wanton suffering that goes on and on when done properly?

 

[sooda]

I might say the same of you. What make you think, since you have no idea, that it is wanton suffering that goes on and on when done properly?

The Islamic form of slaughtering animals or poultry, dhabiha, involves killing through a cut to the jugular vein, carotid artery and windpipe. Isn't that similar to kosher slaughtering?

 

[Shad]

Show me where you provided a reference except from the link to the DSM.

That is the reference.

I use the term citation and reference interchangeably in a colloquial setting, because I'm not writing a report nor am I reading one.

I don't

There is no such term. Cite it somewhere. Your assertions are pathetic, as you are.

You are lazy. Hilarious.

anthropomorphism at DuckDuckGo

Just linking a document tells me nothing.

Thats why you read it.

Tell me where in the document it's parallel with what you're saying, since you're the one that brought it up, or did you forget?

You didn't read it otherwise you would see there are a number of conditions which impair empathy.

Jesus Christ. Show me that definition. Cite it. Assertions are a waste of time.

You are lazy.

Empathy | Psychology Today
Empathy - Wikipedia

Moral relativism isn't on a whim nor does it make anything an automatic moral code. Study the topic. This is the last time I'll say it.

You used an example of a thieves code as if it were a moral one. Now you acknowledge my point.

Moral relativism is based on whims nothing more. Those whims are covered in excuse that are long winded but at the core are people's whims

If you've read my reply to We Never Know then you'd know I am not claiming moral relativism is "the only valid form of developing moral codes".

We wouldn't be having half of this discussion if that were true

It seems you're projecting whatever it is onto me. I try not to ridicule you but you make it too easy. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Nope. You used moral relativism as part of your objection to my points. If all morals are valid given the right circumstance then you are arguing it is a valid development tool.

I don't speak gobbledegook, sorry.

No you just can't read. Empathy is universal or a person has an impairment. I gave examples of people that have condition in which empathy is lacks or reduced.

I never said it did.

Yes you did as per your "honor among thieves" counter-point.

This is why I'm willing to discuss various definitions for morality.

Start then

There may be criteria for something to be moral even in the relativistic sense. However, if you reject even the thought of relativistic morality then I will not go down this route. I will not pander to the arrogant ignorant.

Nope I reject moral relativism as a tool for developing moral codes. That has nothing to do with ignorance but that the idea is flawed to it's core. You must acknowledge not merely people thought slavery was moral. You must acknownledge that claim as valid. Ergo you must accept the unacceptable as morally correct.

At least here you said something sensible. This is all that needs to be said. I however will not reject any other form of morality absolutely. I am not that arrogant.

Yes that is your mind-trap. You must acknowledge all other moral codes as valid. Slavery is moral. Infanticide is moral.

As much fun as this is, it's run it's course. From now on I'll only reply to you if you can actually source what you're saying and actually say something about it, rather than give a link with no context.

I gave a link with empathy impairing conditions. Not my problem you can not bother to read a few pages.

As much fun as opinionated arguments go, they have their limits in excess. This type of toddler-Facebook discussion is not my thing. However, you may continue in this mindless act.

Hilarious. Let me know when slavery is moral again in your books. After all you are the one that must entertain any code of morality is valid because someone happens to think it is. You are trapped in your own ideology which has limited your thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have obviously never seen a Halal or Kosher slaughter. Its quick as lightening.

I have seen various YouTube videos. When it comes to large animals it is not that quick. The animals do still suffer. I do not see anything but superstitious reasons for the objection to avoiding stunning first.

 

[sooda]

I have seen various YouTube videos. When it comes to large animals it is not that quick. The animals do still suffer. I do not see anything but superstitious reasons for the objection to avoiding stunning first.

It takes skill, a sharp knife and some strength. Learning to do it properly would be a problem, but unless one is a vegan slaughter in one way or another is necessary.

I have only seen it done on goats and it took less than 3 seconds.

 

[Shad]

The Islamic form of slaughtering animals or poultry, dhabiha, involves killing through a cut to the jugular vein, carotid artery and windpipe. Isn't that similar to kosher slaughtering?

In practice it is as the method which cuts 4 major veins. However to my knowledge there is nothing about these veins in the OT itself.

 

[sooda]

In practice it is as the method which cuts 4 major veins. However to my knowledge there is nothing about these veins in the OT itself.

OK.. but if you are cutting the windpipe that would sever the 4 major veins.

 

[charlie sc]

Read up on classic Jew blaming, the read what you wrote again.

If it's a term, I thought Google would at least pick it up. Nope, I did not even see even a wiki page on it. So, if you are trying to title me as antisemitic, at least say it outright, don't make up terms. Then say why this is the case. Assertions are a waste of time. What I am doing is saying how shocking the situation is. Jews have been one of the most persecuted people in history. In the most catastrophic tragedy for them, WW2, they suffered greatly. So, you'd think they'd know a thing or two about suffering and when confronted, they'd be more understanding if they themselves are the cause. The answer is nope. You tried to turn this into antisemitism, so you don't have to face the prospect that your ideology is causing unnecessary suffering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It takes skill, a sharp knife and some strength. Learning to do it properly would be a problem, but unless one is a vegan slaughter in one way or another is necessary.

I have only seen it done on goats and it took less than 3 seconds.

three seconds is still a long time. With does it appears to take even longer. The point is that stunning first makes the time of suffering far shorter. It is not perfect, but it is more humane.

 

[sooda]

three seconds is still a long time. With does it appears to take even longer. The point is that stunning first makes the time of suffering far shorter. It is not perfect, but it is more humane.

Tradition may have something to do with it. They didn't have stun guns and as shepherds I think you can assume they protected their livestock and had some regard for them.

My grandfather raised cows, chickens and pigs and I think his attitude was probably the norm. He would never have wanted any animal to suffer .. and he didn't have a stun gun either.

 

[Shad]

OK.. but if you are cutting the windpipe that would sever the 4 major veins.

Yes. My point was hitting the 4 veins was not a stated goal at all. The veins were not the target nor even considered. It is like aiming at X but hitting Y and X with one shot. I do not get to claim create for hitting Y as a target as it was never my goal.