- This topic has 48 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Over the years, I’ve noted that invariably a topic involving either Israel, Zionism or both, will pop up. Like clockwork, the same arguments, pro and con, get regurgitated.
So, here is my question to the pro posters: why do you respond?
A. The Hakatans, Josephs and Heaths are entitled to their opinions
B. Their beliefs on this subject are strongly held and, as has been amply demonstrated ove time, will not be changed
C. Responding to their points invariably sinks to an unhealthy level of tit-for-tat.
My suggestion: simply do not respond. If no argument is made, the topic dries up . Responding only generates sinas chinam from both sides. By the way, this would also apply to the anti posters. If you don’t take the bait on a provocative pto post, they’ll go away as well
Over the years, I’ve noted that invariably a topic involving either Israel, Zionism or both, will pop up. Like clockwork, the same arguments, pro and con, get regurgitated.
So, here is my question to the pro posters: why do you respond?
A. The lesschumras, Avi Ks, and rabbiofberlins are entitled to their opinions
B. Their beliefs on this subject are strongly held and, as has been amply demonstrated ove time, will not be changed
C. Responding to their points invariably sinks to an unhealthy level of tit-for-tat.
My suggestion: simply do not respond. If no argument is made, the topic dries up . Responding only generates sinas chinam from both sides. By the way, this would also apply to the anti posters. If you don’t take the bait on a provocative pto post, they’ll go away as well
Why don’t you direct your question at the con posters? The points are just as valid for them too.
LC
I dont as painful as it is to read the ahistorical conterfactual illogical posts made by those in A I dont reply becasue of B and C.
Though why did you limit the question to one side?
gingerkale – if you read it you would notice he did. it also makes more sense to make suggestions to those of the same viewpoint as you.
lesschumras – unfortunately, you may have gotten your answer…
regardless of where i stand on the zionism issue I have asked myself the same question many many times…
Over the years, I’ve noted that invariably a topic involving either Israel, Zionism or pizza, or ice cream, or shabbas abbas or shabbas imas or women rabbis or male maharats or hobbies for men, or questions on yoreh deah and choshen mishpat, or altah bochurs, or most heartfelt xmas song in your neighbor’s opinion, or inshidduchim story, or or all of the above, will pop up. Like clockwork, the same arguments, pro and con, get regurgitated.
So, here is my question to the pro posters: why do you respond?
A. The lesschumras, Avi Ks, rabbiofberlins, midwesterners, syags, VMs, DYs, YW Editors, Ferds, Freds, rebyidds, OneofManys, TwoofOnes, E pluribus Unums, Bar Shattyas, Head in the Sands, Now are you Happys, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, etc are entitled to their opinions
B. Their beliefs on this subject are strongly held and, as has been amply demonstrated ove time, will not be changed
C. Responding to their points invariably sinks to an unhealthy level of tit-for-tat.
My suggestion: simply do not respond. If no argument is made, the topic dries up . Responding only generates sinas chinam from both sides. By the way, this would also apply to the anti posters. If you don’t take the bait on a provocative pto post, they’ll go away as well
popa has a good point – i think we should each just post brief statements of interest to ourselves, and the next poster will do the same. I’m certain it will be a fascinating read.
after all, NOBODY is going to change my mind or opinion about ice cream.
To all posters:actually, on a personal basis, I have reduced my participation in these discussions. However, when blatant and dangerous opinions are given ( give Israel back to the Arabs, aren’t they such peaceloving people…) I feel that this must be shown for the delusion that it is.
Midwesterner: I was thinking the exact same thing.
It’s officially the most overdone topic on YWN. The real question is why moderates like myself get involved. The curse of the moderate is that everyone on both extreme hates you. Avi probably hates me for being opposed to changing the religion around Zionism (prayer for the state, Zionist pronunciation, new/fake holidays), and Joseph probably hates me for not wishing millions of Jews had died at the hands of Arabs, but were instead saved by the state.
Solution: We all stop talking about it and go back to the classic troll-filled Coffee Room that we all know and love.
P.S. I’ll be waiting to be harshly rebuked by half of the Coffee Room for my middle paragraph (which will only further prove my point). Cheers.
neville – i like what you are saying and can relate. I find myself in the middle but it’s more because i detest and object to the mode of expression of extremism chosen by so many, regardless of the stance i take on the subject. i truly believe that the mudslinging (to put it too kindly) has done much less for their cause than the facts. vehemently opposing people without maintaining dignified social rules seems to make the point disappear faster than gefilte fish on a friday night (in Monsey).
Interestingly…. no one though of mentioning my valuable positions on these weighty matters…
I’m just a middle of the roader centrist. It’s unbelievable that the extremists are all painting themselves as the moderates and pretending the real centrists are right-wingers.
I’ll be waiting to be harshly rebuked by half of the Coffee Room for my middle paragraph
Sure, because it was a truly disgusting thing to say.
Syag, somehow I just knew you were going to pull the gefilte fish out from the back of the fridge…
So by a show of hands,
Do CR members prefer discussing Zionism?
Or eating gefilte fish?
(or vehemently opposing people’s opinions about both?)
oh golfer, i would rather talk about gefilte fish than zionism for sure. i would rather talk about almost anything then zionism. i would rather sit thru a lecture on physics concepts that have been found to be no longer relevant to modern day science then listen to people talk about zionism.
would i rather eat gefilte fish then talk about zionism?….yes. I guess i would.
DaasYochid: Firstly, thanks for helping my point. Secondly, what about it was disgusting? The fact that I offended extremists? Sorry, but I don’t care. I would not have used specific CR poster names had they not already been mentioned in this thread, if that’s what you’re citing. I don’t have anything against Avi or Joseph; I think Joseph has done more to keep the CR interesting than almost anyone. However, if you think I’ve misrepresented the extreme nature of people’s opinions, please take a gander at the “Hakaras hatov” thread.
Syag: I fully agree. It’s not that I object to their right to have certain opinions per se; I object to the rhetoric.
To answer the original question, it’s the same as the reasons for the presidential debates (or any debate). The target to convince isn’t your own base and it’s not your opponent. It’s everyone in the middle.
1. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argued for three years (Eruvin 13b).
2. I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! – Barry Goldwater
Some people here want to do away with the Coffee Room. The very essence of it!!!
“1. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argued for three years (Eruvin 13b).”
Yes. Presumably much more cordially than CR posters do.
“2. I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! – Barry Goldwater”
I’m sure arguments like this have always been used to defend history’s greatest monsters. Not so popular in a moderate, democratic world like America. How did it work out for old Barry?
NCB, in case you are really unsure of what I found offensive, it’s the notion that anyone in the CR wants to see millions of Jews killed ch”v. And you say that in the name of cordiality and moderation…
I’m not sure which “point” of yours I helped.
“1. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argued for three years (Eruvin 13b).”
Yes. Presumably much more cordially than CR posters do.
The gemara says beis shammai put armed guards at the door, and killed many people from beis hillel who tried to come in, and then voted on a bunch of stuff without beis hillel.
The gemara says beis shammai put armed guards at the door, and killed many people from beis hillel who tried to come in
I’m sure they were very cordial about it, though.
Daas: Of course nobody in the CR actually wants that. However, in other threads which are inexplicably still open, you can see posters quoting or at least paraphrasing information from sources who DO want that. I mentioned which thread to look at earlier. If the posters in that thread stand by and continue to defend their anti-Semitic sources of information, then I stand by what I said. My point was that if you rebuke the extremists in the CR, you will be rebuked yourself. I admit I was wrong to name names in my original post. The defense that names had already been named was not a legitimate defense. Don’t get too worked up over what I said, please. I have no desire to bring anyone here to anger.
P.S. Thank you for giving me the acronym “NCB.” I feel like a fully integrated CR poster now.
Of course nobody in the CR actually wants that.
So you shouldn’t have said otherwise, with or without names. The fact that the sources are evil may be very disturbing but doesn’t mean someone quoting them shares the same goals, or even that they’re wrong. The fact that antisemites are antizionist does not mean that antizionists are antisemitic, and you should not be making that equation.
BTW, I agree with Syag, the OP did in fact pose his question to both sides, and by starting by directing the question to those he presumably agreed with, did it the classier way.
Seriously, NCB? Of all threads you chose the HaKaras HaTov thread? What that thread’s purpose is to discuss Israel’s need for HaKaras HaTov to the U.S. That’s a pretty humdrum topic in the grand scheme of things. And the offending post was the one citing the dollar figures of how much aid America gave Israel? Really? It happened to be the first site I found with the relevant data. I hadn’t even noticed which site it was but that same data could have been gotten from any number of reliable sites. That’s all that was. Demonstrating the extent of how much aid the U.S. gave Israel. There is no dispute that America gives Israel a ton of aid; much more than America gives any other country. That somehow demonstrates to you about “wishing millions of Jews had died at the hands of Arabs”? You need to do a reality check.
I expect more from a member of squeak’s alumni.
“you shouldn’t have said otherwise” I didn’t ever explicitly say any CR poster wanted it, nor do they. I said I would be criticized for not wanting it. Do you refute that? Do you suggest that if I started a thread that said “the Zionist state is better than having millions of Jews dead at the hands of Arabs,” that I wouldn’t be criticized by anyone?
“you should not be making that equation.” I’m not. There are people on one extreme that would probably consider ME to be an anti-Zionist. I’m not saying anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, I’m saying anti-Semites are anti-Semites. And I fully disagree that there’s any legitimacy to using anti-Semitic sources just because a broken clock is right twice a day. Whether or not I agree with the point is irrelevant if the sources are objectionable.
Popa: Lol, yeah I knew somebody would call me out on that. I’ll crawl back into my hole now.
NCB – while not involving myself in the details, I am sorry that you have to end up apologetic. Those who are asking for civility are expected to be completely civil. Yet those from whom you are requesting civility only need to point out your faults. that makes me sad. what you brought up was a pretty important point and a big deal to many of the posters who are of similar mindsets (regarding the style, not the topics).
Who said you argue for the purpose of convincing anybody?
Those who are asking for civility are expected to be completely civil.
I don’t think saying others want millions dead is civil, which is precisely why he should be apologetic.
Who said you argue for the purpose of convincing anybody?
I don’t know who was convinced, but on another forum I’ve been numerous times privately commended for expressing Torah opinions that were unpopular with the masses that many folks felt but were afraid to publicly express lest they fall out of favor with the crowd.
What other forum do you participate in? What is your username there?
Over the years, I’ve noticed that saying nothing at all can be as in/effective as saying something which is not necessarily in/effective either so I have no idea.
“but on another forum I’ve been numerous times privately commended for expressing Torah opinions that were unpopular with the masses that many folks felt but were afraid to publicly express lest they fall out of favor with the crowd. “
1) i have trouble believing such a thing is true. and anyone who would commend posts with such extreme views delivered so bluntly and sometimes harshly is someone who’s hashkofos probably forbid them from being online in the first place. so how much weight does that carry. Also,
2) perhaps that explains why I have found so much of what you post to be cut from other websites. You seem very knowledgeable, why resort to “used” conversations?
Maybe he participates on inshidduchim, and wrote the ongoing story?
Aren’t those extreme views online?
what’s an “ongoing story”?
DaasYochid: To enlighten your benign view of those who advocate the dismantling of the medinah and think, in their imagination, that it will be peaceful under Arab rule, I suggest you read what happened to the Yazidis when ISIS took over Northern Iraq. You can read about this in another Jewish website-Israeli and frum-an you will understand why I and others find the views of those anti-zionists so dangerous and continue to counter their disastrous views,
ROB, I didn’t express an opinion about the wisdom of dismantling the State, I only spoke about accusing people of ch”v wanting millions of people to die.
Even if you think that would be the result, those who want it dismantled don’t agree with that assessment, and while their opinion may be dangerous, it’s not evil.
DY: The opinion is evil. The person is not.
Sam, if a doctor thinks a certain medicine will help someone, but the truth is it would hurt him (and he is not the patient’s doctor to actually administer it), is the opinion evil?
DaasYochid: It may be true that the ones holding that view may not themselves be evil and no one has accused them of this, however the actual result of such opinion is so dangerous and potentially calamitous that it must be fought at every turn and shown to all to be so.
ROB: “no one has accused them of this.” Daas thinks I did. I tried to clarify what I actually meant but it got me nowhere. My point was the same as that of you and Sam. Joseph and others on that extreme were likely horribly offended by the comment I made. The point was to give them a taste of how horribly offensive half of their posts are to everyone who isn’t in their camp.
DY: “I didn’t express an opinion about the wisdom of dismantling the State” Then why is that the only side you’re defending? My post would have been offensive to those on the Zionist side too.
Joseph: “I expect more from a member of squeak’s alumni.” I’m sorry, I honestly have no idea what that means. Remember, I’ve only been posting in the CR for a month. ” that same data could have been gotten from any number of reliable sites.” Then why didn’t you?
Syag: Thank you for actually understanding. If at least one person gets my argument, then I don’t regret it.
DY: “I didn’t express an opinion about the wisdom of dismantling the State” Then why is that the only side you’re defending?
I’m not, but you pretty much said that the people who think the State should be dismantled don’t care if millions will die as a result, so I’m pointing out how offensive that is. Even though you didn’t mean it (I still don’t get what you did mean – if they don’t want it, of course they wouldn’t criticize you for not wanting it as well).
“I’m sorry, I honestly have no idea what that means.”
Ask squeak.
Then why didn’t you?
I already told you why not. It was the first site I found, I didn’t notice what sort of site it was but the data is uncontroversial.
Also note that at no point have I advocated for the dismantlement of the State.
DY: If a doctor’s advice is actively hurting people, then the advice is evil. If it’s unwitting, the doctor isn’t evil.
I think this is neither. I wasn’t even talking about advice, I was talking about opinion, which is what you mentioned.
Joseph: If you agree that the medinah stays with us and should not be dismantled, then what are we arguing about? Historical facts? Debates of a hundred years ago? This is a sterile situation. let us then alll stay with our on opinions and wish all the jews in israel berocho vehatzlocho.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.