Why force feed?

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Why force feed?

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 56 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #616180

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    If a prisoner wants to commit suicide by starving him/herself, why stop them?

    #1095848

    Chortkov
    Participant

    According to the shittos that somebody who commits suicide transgresses ?? ????, somebody who attempts to commit suicide may have a din of a Roidef, in which case he is ???? ?????? ?????!!

    #1095849

    TheGoq
    Participant

    Because then they will be a martyr and therefore must be avenged, gives them another reason to kill more innocents.

    #1095850

    lesschumras
    Participant

    By extension, you’re OK with a terminally ill patient being allowed to commit suicide ?

    #1095851

    Joseph
    Participant

    According to the shittos that somebody who commits suicide transgresses ?? ????

    What do you mean “according to the shittos”? Which shittos do not consider suicide to be murder?

    #1095852

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    They arent exact;y trying to committ suicde they are trying to be martyr and become a cause, if they died it could be worse for the jailers than if they live

    #1095853

    Chortkov
    Participant

    Joseph – It is definitely assur to commit suicide, but it isn’t necessarily the issur of ?? ????. I don’t remember the specifics, but there definitely is a ?????? about it. I think the Rambam doesn’t bring suicide under ?? ????. Could have been somebody else.

    (Only the ??? of ?? ???? is ???? ?????? ?????)

    #1095854

    nishtdayngesheft
    Participant

    Less,

    How is that by extension? Did he say he approves of the inmate starving himself? His question is why do we force feed him? Why do we allow the inmate to manipulate others this way?

    The real question is how you could even think there is a logical extension.

    #1095855

    homer
    Member

    It would be worse?

    Since when do they need any more excuses??

    Its not like they arent trying with all their might to kill as many of us as possible?

    #1095856

    Sam2
    Participant

    Joseph: it could be several other Issurim. Many assume it can’t be Lo Sirtzach because that, by definition, is on another person.

    #1095857

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    yekke2, have your head checked.

    Goq, why does that make them martyrs? If I jump out the window in protest, am I a martyr?

    #1095858

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    According to the shittos that somebody who commits suicide transgresses ?? ????, somebody who attempts to commit suicide may have a din of a Roidef, in which case he is ???? ?????? ?????!!

    By that logic, if the only way to prevent a suicide is by killing him, you should do it???

    The Wolf

    #1095859

    Chortkov
    Participant

    Wolfish – There are two reasons why we kill a ????: a) ???? ????? – saving the victim, and b) ??????? ???????. Your tone of surprise is because you are working with the first reason, in which case killing him is obviously useless. However, according to the second reason, if he is about to commit suicide and there is no way of stopping him, you should kill him (provided suicide is ?? ????, as I said above).

    Scared Driver Delight – I love insults. They make me sound like I made a good point that the other fellow didn’t think of but doesn’t know how to prove it wrong. Keep ’em coming!

    And, sorry for hijacking your thread. I know this discussion is not directly related to what you had in mind.

    #1095860

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Wolfish – There are two reasons why we kill a ????: a) ???? ????? – saving the victim, and b) ??????? ???????. Your tone of surprise is because you are working with the first reason, in which case killing him is obviously useless. However, according to the second reason, if he is about to commit suicide and there is no way of stopping him, you should kill him (provided suicide is ?? ????, as I said above).

    Can you please cite where this is halacha? I would be very interested in reading such a ruling.

    The Wolf

    #1095861

    Joseph
    Participant

    yekke2: When else do we kill someone due to ??????? ???????, in situations where ???? ????? is inapplicable?

    #1095862

    Happy Go Lucky!!
    Participant

    Why force feed? Ask Mommy!!!

    #1095863

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    sorry if the insult sounded like a compliment–let me make it clearer: Have your head checked, because the cerebral cortex within seems to be malfunctioning.

    Forgetting all factual details aside, what you said has nothing to do with the original question. If you meant that one must prevent someone from committing suicide in order to prevent him from being oveir ?? ????, say so without adding anything about a rodeif. (To which you’ll say ??”?, that part was unnecessary; you already alluded to such when you said you hijacked this thread.)

    And as far as what you said: I’m not aware of anyone who says suicide is an issur of ?? ????. Secondly, even assuming it is, he wouldn’t be a rodeif–if there’s no nirdaf, there can’t be a rodeif. Thirdly, Wolf is correct. The Brisker Rov, and perhaps others, does indeed say there are two dinnim, but ???? ????? is definitely needed, as is evident from the ??? of ???? ???? ??????. Fourthly, there wouldn’t be a din to save him here–??? ????, someone stands on a roof and threatens to jump unless you give him 10,000 pounds, do you have to give it to him?

    #1095864

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    confound it, I seem to be losing it, too. I forgot to say that not eating isn’t a violation of ?? ????.

    #1095865

    Chortkov
    Participant

    Can you please cite where this is halacha? I would be very interested in reading such a ruling.

    yekke2: When else do we kill someone due to ??????? ???????, in situations where ???? ????? is inapplicable?

    I will look for the exact Mareh Mekomos when I have a chance. It is muchach in Sanhedrin 73a. The Ketzois also writes mefurash that you kill a ???? because of ?????? ??????? in Meshovav Siman 3.

    I haven’t answered your questions directly. I haven’t seen any Mareh Mokom about this exact case; what I wrote above was my own application that if it would be ?? ????, you would have to kill him. (The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzvah 237 disagrees with me, but he is clear in ?? that there is no issur of ?? ????)

    sorry if the insult sounded like a compliment–let me make it clearer: Have your head checked, because the cerebral cortex within seems to be malfunctioning.

    I understood the first time that it was an insult. I was merely pointing out that any insult in an intellectual discussion not written together with a logical argument is paramount to admitting defeat.

    I’m not aware of anyone who says suicide is an issur of ?? ????.

    I think the ??? ???? ??”? ??”? brings from the ?????? ???? on the Posuk “?? ?????” = “?? ????” that ???? ???? ???? is ???? ??? ????. There is an ?????? in the Achronim about it; I don’t have many seforim with me on holiday to check it up. See also ???? ????? ???? ?”? who says it ISN’T ?? ????, and in Hagahos R’ Yerucham Fishel Perlow there.

    See also ????? ?”? ??’ ? who apparently entertains a tzad that suicide is muttar [Lo Lemaisah!!].

    Secondly, even assuming it is, he wouldn’t be a rodeif–if there’s no nirdaf, there can’t be a rodeif.

    As I wrote before, it isn’t about Roidef or Nirdaf per se, it is about preventing him being oiver ?? ????.

    The Brisker Rov, and perhaps others, does indeed say there are two dinnim, but ???? ????? is definitely needed, as is evident from the ??? of ???? ???? ??????.

    Which Brisker Rav are you referring to? I remember one about ??? ????? ???? ?????, but that is referring to the ???? himself, and that actually doesn’t need ???? ?????.

    What is evident from the din of ???? ???? ??????? Even if it is to stop him from transgressing the issur, this will not allow you to kill him if you can do it any other way. (There is a third tzad that it isn’t to stop the issur, it is an ????. [see ????? ?? ?”? ??’ ? and R’ Chaim Stensel] – your point of ???? ????? might be a ???? on that third tzad). I’m not sure what you see from ???? ????? regarding ???? ?????.

    I forgot to say that not eating isn’t a violation of ?? ????.

    If suicide is considered ?? ????, why should starvation not be suicide? I would have said like you logically, and I think R’ Chaim in Sefer writes that there can be no such thing as ?? ??? ???? by ?????, although Tosfos clearly argues with that. Tosfos holds that you can be ???? ????? ??? ??? ????, but it just isn’t ???? ??? ?????.

    Disclaimer: I have not seen inside many of the Mareh Mekomos I mentioned before posting. Some of these are from memory, other’s I have seen quoted but not checked up. Use at your own risk.

    #1095866

    Happy Go Lucky!!
    Participant

    scared driver delight:

    Even if I would have been a Talmid of a Chacham, deep in talmudical debate, I wouldn’t have used such strong language.

    We, the people (of the CR) are known to be a cordial, gracious, pleasant bunch.

    #1095867

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Oi! Yekke2, your idiocy continues to astound me. Tosafos say that regarding one who is thrown on a baby, thereby killing it, and are of the opinion that although his role is a passive one, it’s still considered murder. (And R’ Chayyim doesn’t disagree on principle, as he states explicitly; he merely considers the one thrown as not being a murderer at all, but rather a stone in the hands of a murderer.) That has nothing to do with someone not eating, where he’s merely allowing a natural process terminate his life.

    Once you mentioned R’ Chayyim, look at the Chazon Ish (I think it’s the second one), applicable here.

    #1095868

    Joseph
    Participant

    sdd: What if someone prevents someone (who wants to eat) from eating – either by denying food to an immobile person or by actually locking someone in a room with no food; He is not guilty of killing him?

    #1095869

    Sam2
    Participant

    Joseph: That’s a B’feirush Gemara in Sanhedrin. I don’t remember what it says, but the case is there.

    Not force feeding is a D’Oraisa violation of Lo Sa’amod Al Dam Reiecha.

    #1095870

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    (.??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? (??????? ??

    Sam2, That’s assuming we’re talking about a Jew and even then I doubt there’s a violation. The jailers give the prisoner sufficient food; he refuses it. How can that be called being omeid al damav?

    #1095871

    Chortkov
    Participant

    Oi! Yekke2, your idiocy continues to astound me.

    That’s wonderful to hear.

    Tosafos say that regarding one who is thrown on a baby, thereby killing it, and are of the opinion that although his role is a passive one, it’s still considered murder. (And R’ Chayyim doesn’t disagree on principle, as he states explicitly; he merely considers the one thrown as not being a murderer at all, but rather a stone in the hands of a murderer.)

    You didn’t make yourself very clear. (In fact, if I wasn’t worried about Poe’s law, I would say that your idiocy didn’t even astound me.) You pointed out that even if suicide was ?? ????, “not eating” wouldn’t be included in that. I understood that to mean because it was a passive way of killing rather than an active murder. I brought you a Shittas Tosfos who says that a passive murder is also called murder.

    I don’t think R’ Chaim agrees with that principle at all. R’ Chaim points out that in the baby case, you are just a bullet, not the killer. According to R’ Chaim – as is the pashtus, I would say – there would be no such thing as a passive killing.

    Tosfos, however, disagrees. I don’t understand Tosfos, I never have understood it. Why you should be considered a murderer – enough to say ???? ??? ????? – I don’t understand. (I wanted to suggest that Tosfos doesn’t mean ?? ????, but Tosfos is saying that the same logic of ??? ???? applies even in that case. But I don’t think it worked…)

    I would say that Tosfos applies to any passive murder as well.

    (BTW – I have no access to the ???? ??? at the moment; would you care to post a link, or summarize his points?)

    That has nothing to do with someone not eating, where he’s merely allowing a natural process terminate his life

    Everything is a “natural process”. Strangling a person kills by stopping the oxygen intake; stabbing him in the heart simply stops all heart function and therefore via a natural process will die. Dropping somebody into a pit of fire is a very natural process. What murder isn’t natural?

    (There obviously is a line; where do you draw it?)

    Not force feeding is a D’Oraisa violation of Lo Sa’amod Al Dam Reiecha.

    That is a big controversy whether “Lo Sa’amod Al Dam Reiecha” applies to a self inflicted problem. The Minchas Chinuch says that there is no chiyuv. Many Achronim disagree.

    #1095872

    Chortkov
    Participant

    Sam2: Mareh Mekomos on the ???? ???? of a ???? ???? ????: [courtesy of the website wikishiva]

    ???? ????? – ?? ?? ?????, ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????, ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????, ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????, ??? ???? ?? ‘?? ???? ?? ?? ???’ ?? ???? ??????[120]. ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????, “????? ?????? ???? ??? ????, ??”? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????”[121], “???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??????”[122]. ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???????, ??? ?? ??????? ???? ‘?? ???? ?? ?? ???'[123], ??? ??? ???? ‘?????? ??’ ??????[124], ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??????[125]

    120:

    ?’ ?????? ???”?, ?”? ?? ?”? ?????; ??”? ?’ ???, ????? ?????; ???”? ????? ?????? ???”?, ??? ??. ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???”? ????? ?? ???? ?”? ??’ ??.

    121:

    ??? ???? ??’ ??? ??’ ? ??? ?; ????”? ????, ???? ??????, ?, ???”?, ??’ ??.

    122:

    ??”? ????? ??? ???”? ?”? ??’ ??? ??? ?.

    123:

    ??”? ????”? ?????? ?????? ????? ??’ ? ??? ??; ??????? ???, ???? ??????? ?? ?, ??”? ??; ??”? ????? ???, ??.

    124:

    ????? ??? ???? ????, ???”? ???? ????? ??’ ???; ??”? ????? ???, ??; ???? ?????, ??’ ??? ?????. ???? ??? ???”? ???”? ???????? ??’ ??; ???? ????, ?? ????? ????, ??? ?? ??????, ??, ??”?; ???? ?????? ??’ ?-??; ??? ?????, ??? ????, ??? ??, ???’ ?; ????”? ??????, ??? ?????? ???? ????”? ????? ??”?, ??????? ???”?, ??’ ??-??; ??”? ???? ???? ?”? ??’ ? ??? ??; ??”? ??? ????? ?”? ??’ ?? ?????; ??????????? ???????, ??? ?, ?’ ???? ?????, ??’ 90-89.

    125:

    ?????? ????, ??’ ??? ??”?; ???”? ??”? ?? ??? ?; ???? ????? ??? ???; ??? ???? ??’ ???; ?”? ??’ ??? ????”? ???”?, ???? ??? ??”? ??’ ??? ???”?; ??”? ???? ???? ?”? ??’ ??; ??”? ????? ??? ???”? ?”? ??’ ???, ??? ???”? ?”? ??’ ?; ??”? ????? ???? ??’ ??; ????”? ????????, ?????, ???? ???”?, ??’ ??; ??”? ????”? ?????? ?”? ??’ ??, ???????? ????? ??’ ? ??? ??; ??”? ??? ?????? ?”? ??’ ?? ?”?, ??? ?”? ??’ ?? ?”? ??? ?, ??? ?”? ??’ ?? ??”? ??? ?; ????? ??????, ?”? ??’ ???; ????? ??? ?????? ??”? ??’ ??; ??”? ???? ???? ????? ?”? ??’ ?; ??”? ??? ????? ?”? ??’ ??. ???? ???”? ???? ???? ?”? ???”? ??’ ?? ??? ?. ?? ??? ????? ???? ??”? ??? ? – ????? ???.

    #1095873

    Joseph
    Participant

    sdd: Where/how are you making a halachic distinction between 1) a third person who doesn’t give food to an immobile person (who wants to eat) or locking someone involuntarily into a foodless room versus 2) someone refusing to eat?

    #1095874

    Chortkov
    Participant

    That’s assuming we’re talking about a Jew

    My [idiotic] application is also assuming we are talking about a Jew, because according to some Poskim, there is no issur of suicide by a Goy. (See Minchas Chinuch 34. Although, I imagine the Poskim who hold it is Lo Sirtzach will disagree with that and will hold a Goy is muzhar.)

    #1095875

    nishtdayngesheft
    Participant

    “When else do we kill someone due to ??????? ???????

    Isn’t this one of the reasons for killing a ben sorer umorer. Even though no one is in immediate danger at this juncture.

    #1095876

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    ?? ????? ?????, in the theme of things:

    I was aware your lunacy was based on the presumption that the prisoner is a Jew (because there’s no chiyuv to save a goy from a rodeif, and I assume there’s also no chiyuv ??????? ???????). I didn’t point this out, because I was busy trying to explain why you’re an idiot, and giving answers which apply in only some situations isn’t categorized as idiocy.

    You didn’t make yourself very clear.

    I understood that to mean because it was a passive way of killing rather than an active murder.

    Sorry for the ambiguity. I said so because “not eating” isn’t murder, not because it’s a passive murder.

    R’ Chayyim disagrees on Tosafos’s case, saying that that isn’t murder and says that even Tosafos is of that opinion. what Tosafos means is ?? ?????? a case of passive murder, it wouldn’t be yeihareig v’al ya’avor. And R’ Chayyim doesn’t say that in his opinion it wouldn’t be murder at all.

    As for the next point about natural process, here I think you could call me an idiot, if you’re not worried about Poe, whoever he is. My point was that eating is a way to sustain one’s self; not eating is merely refraining from sustaining himself, whereas killing, be it passively or actively, is the immediate cause of death.

    Here’s the Chazon Ish. (It’s the 4th one.)

    ??. ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??.

    ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????, ???? ?????? ?? ?????

    ????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????, ??? ????.

    Readable here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39831&st=&pgnum=231&hilite=

    [It’s not a perfect analogy, but it relates to Wolf’s logic.]

    Joseph: You’re talking about what I said in regard to Sam 2’s lo sa’amod al dam rai’acha? My distinction was that giving someone food is enough to be considered that he isn’t standing idly by, watching his friend die. If the prisoner refuses the help, that’s his prerogative.

    #1095877

    Chortkov
    Participant

    As for the next point about natural process, here I think you could call me an idiot, if you’re not worried about Poe, whoever he is. My point was that eating is a way to sustain one’s self; not eating is merely refraining from sustaining himself, whereas killing, be it passively or actively, is the immediate cause of death.

    Breathing is also “sustaining yourself”; taking away the oxygen supply is still counted as murder.

    Poe’s law is the adage that without the correct emoticons or background information, parodies of extremism cannot successfully be distinguished from the sincere article.

    #1095878

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    Absolutely loving this! Don’t let me stop you, yekke2 and SDD, this is really brightning up my day. I’m not even going to start attempting to address the halachic discussion as dealt with above, as I have neither the inclination, the patience, nor the necessary knowledge.

    I will simply address the actual question, which admittedly isn’t as interesting as the one Y2 and SDD are adressing. In the case of a non-Jew, for whom suicide is not an issue (probably), should the government involved, in this case the Israeli government, force feed those prisoners?

    It is a contentious issue. On the one hand, if somebody wishes to kill themselves, why not let them? As one poster has pointed out, it can hardly increase the animosity towards Israel. But, as appealing as that sounds, I like to think of myself as a realist. And whilst animosity in general may be unaffected, a dying Palestinian would give them a cause celebre to rally around, and it would likely lead to an incidental increase, if not in the long term, than in the short term.

    I agree that this is ridiculous. Why should a man starving himself mean that his cause has any more merit? Rationally, it should not make a difference, as another of you has alreaddy pointed out. But realistically, it does. For example, the case of Bobby Sands was a significant boost for the Irish Republican cause. Despite it not making much sense, the image of a man starving to death voluntarily is an arresting one, and would lead to problems for Israel.

    So the choices are simple, in real terms. We could allow the prisoner to die. whilst all of us agree this should not represent a PR victory for the Palestinians, the fact is it does, and we should accept that. It would get into newspapers, and,, wrongly, would damage Israel both in terms of image and in real terms, in increased attacks. We could let them out early, as the Israeli government did a few weeks back. This is allowing oneself to be blackmailed, and should not take place. The only alternative, although not a pretty one, is to force feed. It is the lesser of three evils.

    #1095879

    Chortkov
    Participant

    SDD – I have just thought of something so twisted that if you don’t insult me badly enough, I will have to insult myself. So I’ll leave it up to you.

    According to what I have written above, somebody who is trying to commit suicide is ???? ?????? ?????. You may kill him in order to stop the murder.

    The Rishonim say (Rivash, Levush) that although a bystander may not kill a Roidef in a case which is ???? ????? ???? ??????, the ???? himself is permitted to (The Levush actually extends this to the family of the Nirdaf as well).

    This being true – and here comes the really krum part – if somebody is trying to commit suicide, he has a status of a Roidef. Ergo, he would be permitted to kill himself.

    Suggested Psak: Suicide is permitted.

    You would get a ???? ????? – if you are allowed to kill yourself, then you have no status as a ???? and therefore are not allowed to kill, in which case you become a ????…..

    #1095880

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    yekke2, I don’t know how you know that about taking away oxygen; whatever the case, it clearly says (.??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? (??????? ??. If you’re correct, you at best have a kushya, and the answer would probably be that anything which has an immediate effect isn’t a g’rama. (I think R’ Chayyim Ozeir says something like that; I don’t remember where.) Besides, our case concerns a person who isn’t eating, not a case where one is removing his food source.

    I don’t have time to read NE’s post and your last post but I’ll definitely try to accommodate you later, you ostensibly obtuse, doubtlessly demented victim of a severe brain malady, void of intelligence, ignorant of your ignorance and ecstaticly erratic.

    #1095882

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Poe’s law is the adage that without the correct emoticons or background information, parodies of extremism cannot successfully be distinguished from the sincere article.

    What does being astounded by idiocy have to do with parodies? Why not use an emoticon?

    NE: You seem to have understood my question specifically in regard to Israel, and with a “who cares what the rest of the world says” vein. Although it was indeed the recent Israeli news which prompted this thread, remember that hunger strikes are done worldwide, introduced, if I’m not mistaken, by Nelson Mandela. All countries give into this madness, even those who aren’t looking in the mirror at every fork. It starts, as you say, with “the image of a man starving to death voluntarily is an arresting one,” but doesn’t really explain anything. Powerful countries with grand armies and top-notch security suddenly surrender to…arresting images?

    Recall the Margaret Thatcher days.

    Yekke2, allow me to say just that you’re too dumb to remember that before you wrote

    As I wrote before, it isn’t about Roidef or Nirdaf per se, it is about preventing him being oiver ?? ????.

    and now somehow you understand that he’s both a rodeif and a nirdaf.

    #1095883

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    SDD: I have fully answered the opening post, which asks why we don’t just let them die. I did refer to hunger strikes worldwide, and provided the real world situation, as well as an explanation that, whilst relatively insignificant in the long term, in the short term, due to its strong message, it results in a focal point that leads to losses both in the media and on the ground. And I explicitely referred to Maggie.

    So the only way I can see a fresh point is if you’re asking why this should be the case. I believe I have adressed this, but for the sake of clarity:

    A popular movement, be it Irish republicanism or Palestinian nationalism, cannot subsist on the strength of their cause alone. Since they rely on popular support, in terms of PR, money and members, a cause celebre, such a a hunger strike ostensibly in favour of their cause, can galvanise their public base, and provide a platform from which to persuade others to join them. For example, a big news story enables them to hold press conferences and make statements and protests that get their point across to a wider, more engaged audience. And this, in turn, leads to a growth in their support. The size of the government in question is irrelevant, especially when dealing with a hidden, widespread public network. The IRA, for example, like most terrorist cells, operate in secrecy and rely on public approval and support to achieve their goals. It’s not as if the government can simply shut them down. Israel in particular, for all its military strength, is bound by PR constraints.

    And in future, SDD, please read fully the post you are responding to. It increases cohesion.

    #1095884

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    I have fully answered the opening post, which asks why we don’t just let them die.

    You did so parenthetically (and not even). The thrust of your response was what the best PR for Israel is.

    And I explicitely referred to Maggie

    Ok, I didn’t realizem Bobby Sanders was the one who was on the hunger strike then

    Since they rely on popular support, in terms of PR, money and members, a cause celebre, such a a hunger strike ostensibly in favour of their cause, can galvanise their public base, and provide a platform from which to persuade others to join them……….

    Yes, but that doesn’t answer anything.

    #1095885

    Chortkov
    Participant

    yekke2, I don’t know how you know that about taking away oxygen

    Strangulation is one of the documented Torah forms of Misah.

    #1095886

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    SDD, yes I have answered the question posed. The question was why should Israel force feed them, seeing as they are trying to kill themselves and Israel isn’t exactly desperate for them to be on this planet anyway. And those two points are right.

    But the reality is that the answer is down to PR, which is why that is the main tenet I have adressed. The PR of a successful hunger strike, by which I mean one given in to or taken to its conclusion, is harmful for Israel. I think we all agree giving in is not the right path to take, as it sends the message that Israel can be blackmailed and opens up the door to other prisoners taking similar action (Since you seem to need everything spelled out for you). And letting them die would lead to a negative impact on ISrael in the short term. This impact would include an increased security risk due to the public strength of feeling, a PR loss amongst the world and local media, which leads to further damage to Israel’s image abroad, and leads to increased sympathy, and therefore increased active support, for the Palestinian cause, be it from governments or the public. If you’re wondering why people are so taken by hunger strikes, it is simply because if somebody is dying, passively, for a cause, people automatically take more attention in that cause, and/or feel that cause obviously is worth dying for, and is as such nobler, in some twisted way. We are not talking of rationality here, as PR never is, but of human psychology, particularly group psychology. It provides a rallying point to stage demonstrations around, to use the platform to highlight other issues, to make Israel appear uncaring and unfeeling. And it will provoke increased terrorist attacks, at least in the short term, by increasing strength of feeling amongst the groundroots of the Palestinian movement. So, to sum up, short term security threat and PR loss, and possible effect on long term security and PR. Force feeding does not eliminate these issues, but it does diminish their likelihood or impact.

    I would have thought all of this was obvious from both my earlier posts, especially as I backed it up with a specific example of exactly this situation, with the exact feared consequences detailed above, occuring, and that was the case of Bobby Sands, who despite fighting for a cause that didn’t have majority support amongst the populace of Northern Ireland, despite fighting for a cause that the UK was not going to give into, as had they given it to their specific demands (to be treated as political prisoners), it would have given the terrorists legitimacy, and despite the fact that there wwas no good logical reason why the UK was doing anything wrong in that specific case, or should suffer as a result of the strikers’ actions PR wise, the case still led to the ezact problems detailed above. Which strengthens the case for force feeding, as I put it above, the lesser of several evils.

    And, though I am loath to be anything but concillatory in this debate, you have attempted above to poiont out inconsistencies in my reasoning that did not exist, but were simply due to you obviously not having understood or even fully read my above posts. So in future, before responding, please be slightly clearer as to your specific problem with my reasoning, and not just make some vague rebuttal, that, as I have explained above, does not make much sense. Perhaps pick a specific point and point out why it doesn’t stand up, or a faulty piece of reasoning, as opposed to simply saying I haven’t answered the question without explaining why. Thank you, and looking forward.

    #1095887

    Joseph
    Participant

    sdd/yekke: My question was, unrelated to other points here, how/why to you halachicly distinguish between the following two types of cases:

    1) Someone who commits suicide by refusing to eat

    or

    2) Someone who locks someone in a room until he starves (or someone who refuses to give requested food to an immobile person)

    #1095888

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Yekke2: Strangulation is doing something to him, which makes him unable to breathe, and hence dead. That’s very different from withholding his oxygen supply.

    NE:

    The question was why should Israel force feed them,

    What is with your fixation on Israel? Where in the opening post does it say Israel?

    If you’re wondering why people are so taken by hunger strikes, it is simply because if somebody is dying, passively, for a cause, people automatically take more attention in that cause, and/or feel that cause obviously is worth dying for, and is as such nobler, in some twisted way. We are not talking of rationality here, as PR never is, but of human psychology, particularly group psychology.

    In all three of your posts, this the first time you wrote this. And it still begs wonder why intelligent people give in to perceptions of crazies instead of clearly and coherently stating their position, and pointing out that someone refusing to eat isn’t their fault. (As far as Israel is concerned, perhaps this isn’t so surprising; Israel rarely wins a common-sense debate. However, with other countries who don’t start off guilty until proven innocent, and also aren’t used to making a decision contrary to all reason, just for good PR, it’s astonishing that they get scared of a hunger strike.) Also, note that you say “that cause obviously is worth dying for” when in reality they’re not dying for the cause but rather trying to scare their wardens into freeing them from jail.

    you have attempted above to poiont out inconsistencies in my reasoning that did not exist, but were simply due to you obviously not …even fully read my above posts.

    Would you stop saying that already. I read all the posts fully.

    Joseph: Who said anyone halachicly distinguishes between the two?

    #1095889

    Joseph
    Participant

    sdd: I’m asking you. Do you see no halachic distinguishing between the two scenarios I described?

    #1095890

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    See also ????? ?”? ??’ ? who apparently entertains a tzad that suicide is muttar

    Rav Ya’akov Emden has a teshuva where he states that one is permitted to commit suicide as an atonement for a sin for which the punishment is the death penalty.

    The Wolf

    #1095891

    Sam2
    Participant

    Can we stop quoting these Shittos please? They are wholly and entirely rejected by every major Posek in the last century, most notably (and strongly) R’ Moshe Feinstein.

    #1095892

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Can we stop quoting these Shittos please? They are wholly and entirely rejected by every major Posek in the last century, most notably (and strongly) R’ Moshe Feinstein.

    Next you’ll be telling me I should never state that Bais Shammai have a particular opinion (except for the rare cases when we do hold like them).

    The Wolf

    #1095893

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Joseph, I don’t understand. You mean is there a practical n”m? Or a theoretical one? Do you mean will the two cases require different things from a third party saving him?

    #1095894

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    SDD:

    Ok, lets take this one step at a time…

    What is with your fixation on Israel? Where in the opening post does it say Israel?

    Admittedly, nowhere. But, I assumed, as you yourself have already said, that this post was inspired by recent events in Israel. I therefore based my answer on that particular case. So, as I have already said, I refer in all my questions to a case where the prisoner is doing it for political/ideological reasons, not simply because they’re suicidal, and that the prisoner in question is a non-Jew, eliminating the above halachic discussion from my consideration. I simply use Israel as an example, as it is a pertinent one. But you could just as easily put any other government in their place.

    In all three of your posts, this the first time you wrote this.

    True. In that it is the first time I have gone into this mucch detail about why hunger strike have such an effect. But the actual central point hasn’t altered. And anyway, this kind of detail is not necessary to answer the question. Recognizing that hunger strikes cause this kind of reaction is a fact. And recognizing that fact was the basis of the answer to your question, which, if I may remind you, was:

    If a prisoner wants to commit suicide by starving him/herself, why stop them?

    My answer to that question, succintly put, is: Because people dying of hunger strikes leads to negative press attention and increased security risk for the country involved. Giving in means allowing themselves to be blackmailed. So force feeding is mmaking the best of several unwanted decisions.

    That’s it. I bought proof that this is the case, by bringing the example of Bobby Sands, for whom all the dangers I just enumerated, here and above, occured. I, obviously naively, thought that explaining why was unecessary, both because I thought it was self-evident after a bit of thought, and because it was not necessary to ask the given question. Simply acknowledging that that is the case is sufficient in this context.

    And it still begs wonder why intelligent people give in to perceptions of crazies instead of clearly and coherently stating their position, and pointing out that someone refusing to eat isn’t their fault.

    Well, there are several problems with your reasoning. Firstly, who said ‘intelligent’? Secondly, we are not talking of previously uninterested people, but people already with a strong connection to the cause, be it Irish republicanism or Palestinian nantionalism. A case like this, where people die, leads to an increase in the strength of feeling surrounding the case, and through protests and media increases the public’s level of emotion, and therefore response, both violent and otherwise. So, an ordinary Arab/Palestinian, who already wrongly believes, through biased media reports and propoganda, that Palestinian prisoners are wrongly imprisoned, might get further inflamed by that prisoner killing themselves in protest.

    Also, death is emotional, and can cloud rational judgement. In ch’vsh a similar case involving a yid, you too might not approach it fully rationally. And furthermore, a high publicity event like a hunger strike engenders news reports, press releases and public attention. This gives those with an agenda a platform from with to espouse their views. This ensures their message, and therefore their influence and ability to cause problems, is spread yet further. Perhaps only crazies would believe in the justice off this cause, as you, probably errantly, suggest. Then a successful hunger strike allows the message to reach more of those who would be easily influenced, or easily inflamed. I have already said this, and this is one of the reasons I suggested you read my earlier posts, if not for the first time, then properly. Because this point about publicity providing a wider platform to spread their general views was neither picked up on, nor rebutted, in any of your previous posts.

    …in reality they’re not dying for the cause but rather trying to scare their wardens into freeing them from jail.

    Actually, in most cases not. In Bobby Sands case, as I have also already explicitely said (hence my request for you to read my post), the aim was not to get released, but to be treated as political prisoners, a request the British Government could and should not have given into, and didn’t, because that would have granted a terrorist organization, the IRA, legitimacy.

    So, in summation, I could have answeredall your questions with a ‘see above’, not for the first time, and this is precisely why I suggested you read, or at least reread, the point you are denigrating before deigning to write a response. Thank you.

    #1095895

    Joseph
    Participant

    The question is if one takes the halachic position that there is no issur to starve oneself, does he have to take the halachic position that there is no issur to starve someone else (who didn’t ask to be starved)?

    If not, what is the halachic n”m?

    #1095896

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Recognizing that hunger strikes cause this kind of reaction is a fact. And recognizing that fact was the basis of the answer to your question, which, if I may remind you, was:

    If a prisoner wants to commit suicide by starving him/herself, why stop them?

    I need no reminder. Where does my question indicate anything of the sort?

    in reality they’re not dying for the cause but rather trying to scare their wardens into freeing them from jail.

    Actually, in most cases not. In Bobby Sands case….

    Actually, in most cases yes. But it’s a good thing you got in Bobby Sands again.

    Your answer is that the arresting image of someone committing suicide in jail chokes up his buddies and the media, so rather than risk that terrible PR, the government force feeds him. Why don’t you cut all your pretty words out and write normally, and have your points driven across effectively?

    Joseph: According to the shittos that suicide is permitted, by logical extension it would have to mean that there’s no chiyuv pikuach nefesh on one’s self, and it should be muttar to not eat, whereas other people are muzhar on lo sa’amod al dam raiecha and it would be prohibited.

    #1095897

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    SDD: My posts have got progressively longer due to your inane responses. for example, initially I merely stated that PR wise, and therefore security wise, it would be bad for Israel to let them die.

    I admit I wasn’t concise, but my central point was obvious. As the question I was answering was not the one yekke2 and yourself were, I provided some context, and a rundown of the issue first. I did ‘show my working’ first, as experience has led me to believe that getting all that out of the way first helps in the CR. But the actual answer was contained in a short, to-the-point paragraph to finish my post. And I signposted it as such.

    You then said that doesn’t explain anything. Your own words. So I elaborated further as to why that would be the case, due to the emotional nature. You then said that doesn’t explain it either, citing intelligent people being taken in. So I went into even greater detail about the way this galvanises support.

    So all the ‘pretty words’ were in order to answer rather vague, nitpicking questions that were not part of the original query, and from repeatedly requesting further clarity whilst continually failing to actually find fault with my reasoning in any meaningful way. I don’t mean to be harsh, but were this a verbal argument it would basically consist of me saying something and you going ‘Why?’, and then me explaining even deeper and then you going ‘Why?’, untill I finally explain everything, including the unecessary and obvious details, to which you reply, ‘Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place?’. Except I would probably have walked off long before then.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 56 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.