I guess the only real question remaining is : would you, being a full and proud Jew, apply these punishments to your daughter ? Let's face it, at the very least she's going to breat the sabbat at some point, which is a stoning offence, as you well know
Why is that so? Lots of people keep the Sabbath just fine, thanks very much. (Also, any penalty could only be applied to an offense committed before two witnesses and immediately after being warned about said offense carrying the death penalty. How likely is that?)
You do not, in fact, think Judaism is just (otherwise you wouldn't even have argued obviously, ascribing the "wrong" details to another interpretation of Judaism like every other Jew does).
I do believe Judaism to be just, and I do not understand your argument for your claim.
And I seriously doubt you believe sufficiently in God to say in public that God is with the Jews. Or with the Christians or anyone else for that matter.
God is with the Jews. There, I said it. (This does not necessarily imply agreement with whatever cockamamie interpretation of the phrase you can come up with.)
Still does not say anything about stoning a Jewish person who has had sex with a non-Jew, nor anything about stoning the non-Jewish partner. Unfortunately, wishing something to be true does not make it true.
As we probably both know, stoning to death is the punishment for any kind of sex except as regulated by Judaic law... Any non-legal sex.
The Talmud perscribes strangulation, not stoning, for, e.g., adultery. Pre-marital sex is not punishable by the courts. Sex with a niddah is a flogging offense. In fact, the only sexual offenses that incurred stoning were certain forms of incest, e.g., between parent & child.
Why don't you explain to me whether it is "legal" for a Jew to have sex with a non-Jew (excepting, of course, a Jewish man sleeping with a non-Jewish female "servant" (a word that might just as easily be translated as slave*))...
I never said it was halachicly "acceptable", just that the religious courts had no jurisdiction, especially not for the death penalty, and most definitely not for a rape victim. Your statement above is purely libelous.
Why don't you first clarify your own belief. Does Judaism, YES OR NO, demand that people be stoned for very minor crimes ?
Minor by whose standards? In a theocracy, crimes against religion can be pretty "minor" by external standards. But the standards you claimed are bogus
Actually, the exact same standard (two upstanding male Jewish witnesses) is necessary to inflict any punishment on a woman.
Let's face it, your statement would mean that a beth din court would not accept it proven that someone had sex if she was pregnant. Do you, yes or no, find that realistic ?
Sure it's proven she had sex, but there's no indication that it was consensual so there's no room for judicial punishment.
Incidentally... what is the punishment for theft according to you ? Say, a hungry orphan steals a loaf of bread ?
Uh, he's obligated to pay for the loaf. (When he can afford it.)
And what, pray tell, is all this bullshit I hear about eyes ?
Like you said, it's bovine manure -- based on an overly literalist reading of the text.
How exactly, and I mean exactly, are car accidents dealt with according to toraic law.
Unknown. There are several views on the matter, and the Sanhedrin will have to make a determination on the subject.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this paragraph. Should the Sanhedrin be re-established (b'meheira b'yameinu) I will submit completely to its judgments.
An interesting question : do you accept the judgements of the "grand sanhedrin", called by Napoleon ? Why/why not ?
The "Grand Sanhedrin" had little in common with the actual Sanhedrin beyond the name.
Unfortunately, wishing something to be true does not make it true.
Still does not say anything about stoning a Jewish person who has had sex with a non-Jew, nor anything about stoning the non-Jewish partner. Unfortunately, wishing something to be true does not make it true.
(And by the way the "no consequences for the man" in Judaism comes from the rules of proof.... Technically a Jewish man can be stoned for fucking a woman, however, the testimony of that woman is not enough to prove that man did it. In fact 2 (innocent) adult Jewish males must testify that they saw the accused do it with their own eyes, and you can evaluate for yourself how likely a man is to rape a woman with 2 valid non-accomplices as witnesses. That the woman had sex can be proven, by contrast, either by a doctor (hymen), or by pregnancy. Either is sufficient for stoning her.
Actually, the exact same standard (two upstanding male Jewish witnesses) is necessary to inflict any punishment on a woman.
And please don't start with the "technicalities of your own personal interpretation of faith" idiocy. Yes, obviously you don't accept Sanhedrin judgements, nor do you accept Beth Din judgements (no Jew does in the 21st century, it's just not possible). Nevertheless, if you were to take Sanhedrin and Beth Din judgements out of Judaism, there would be nothing left. In reality you only selectively apply your religion to your life, ironically following Christian judgements the vast majority of the time.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this paragraph. Should the Sanhedrin be re-established (b'meheira b'yameinu) I will submit completely to its judgments.
The african tribal religions, the Mayan religion, the Aztec religion, the native American religions were all crushed by conquest and forcibly raising the population in the Christian tradition. You're just reaching for the moral high ground but you stand on a pile of skeletons.
Can't say for sure about the other religions you mentioned, and not that this gives the Inquisitors any sort of high ground, but the Aztec & Mayan religions were in dire need of being wiped out. How many still-beating hearts does it take to convince the sun god to wake up in the morning?
You do realize that that view is just about as universal as an idea can get ?
Judaism - yep, you cannot marry outside of your creed. Conseqences for acting non-racist : stoning to death for a woman, if necessary after carrying the resulting pregnancy full term. Consequences for a man : nothing (or a monetary sum if there is reason to assume the woman was raped - generally this sum is quite easily granted the family of the woman). That's theoretically. In practice : consequences are banishment from the family.
Where do you get this "Stoning for the woman and no consequences for the man"? It's nowhere in my Bible, nor in the Talmud, nor anywhere I've heard of.
I can't speak for the other religions you mentioned, but you got Judaism completely wrong.
I really don't know how you can draw that conclusion. No Israeli villages were massacred, no Israeli village was simply wiped from the map, and it's name forgotten....
Mossadegh wasn't properly elected, by then. He had been, previously, but then he was properly dismissed when he lost the support of the Parliament (Majlis), only he refused to go, unconstitutionally dismissed the Majlis, started to rule dictatorially, and set about procuring plebiscites to change the constitution after the fact and so on after the fashion of Napoleon III to bolster his position - greatly dividing Iran and quite unconstitutional although he was still popular, particularly in the cities. The coup was the only option he left his opponents once he had thwarted proper processes, and was arguably justified even though what they did afterwards was not. This is a story that has no good guys.
I believe the adage of "it takes one to know one" can be attributed to people claiming Iran intends to use such technologies for aggressive non-peaceful purposes.
Either that, or the adage "pay attention when the other person is speaking".
You say "assuming it's a true coin/flip each time", but I'd take 50 heads as fairly good evidence that the assumption is false and that the coin is biased.
(Assuming these are the only results I see; a 50-heads run in a gazillion flips is to be expected.)
Actually, OpenType does allow for multiple optical sizes, and Cambria Math includes these sizes, even script and scriptscript. They have to be designed individually; there's no built-in METAFONT, but how many font families besides Computer Modern have ever been built in METAFONT?
The Word 2007 equation editor accepts a syntax that's close but not identical to TeX's.
Try \sum_(x=1)^n, for example.
(There's decent reason for the differences, BTW.)
Oh, they used the reverse-causality graph linking temperature & CO2; that one is my favorite. Except that the CO2 rises & falls lag the corresponding temperature changes by about 800 years. Good science, that.
Personally, I think that most if not all carbon storage strategies do not work.
Buy a 5lb bag of charcoal. Bury it in your backyard. Voila! Five pounds of carbon have been sequestered.
And if it turns out that the climate cools (a la ”Fallen Angels“), dig up the charcoal and light up.
I'm posting this from Chrome too. Didn't notice the resizable text box -- cool beans!
Spell check doesn't let me tell it that "resizable" is a real word. (Is it?)
From what I've heard of its code structure, Chrome ought to quickly get some capability like Greasemonkey. I hope.
Math in OpenOffice is even uglier than in MS Word. I consider this quite an achievement considering how ugly Word is to begin with. AFAIK, LaTeX is still the only way to get decent-looking maths.
Office 2007 has much better math support than OOo. Doesn’t quite do equation numbering, but the product is nearly as good looking as TeX’s and usually with less work.
OpenOffice.org's math editor is just barely OK; the STIX fonts may help somewhat if they're integrated. (But why did they need to invent that awful syntax?) The math editor that comes with MS Office 2007 is much better. See Unicode Technical Note #28 (http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn28/) for an explanation of the syntax and an example document created with that system.
... when he had his character (the judge in Life-line) say:
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.
Plan B is an operating system designed to work in distributed environments where the set of available resources is different at different points in time. Its 4th edition is implemented as a set of user programs to run on top of Plan 9 from Bell Labs.
Slashdot Mirror
Version 4 was so terrible they never released it; version 5 has wrapped around again and become good.
I guess the only real question remaining is : would you, being a full and proud Jew, apply these punishments to your daughter ? Let's face it, at the very least she's going to breat the sabbat at some point, which is a stoning offence, as you well know
Why is that so? Lots of people keep the Sabbath just fine, thanks very much. (Also, any penalty could only be applied to an offense committed before two witnesses and immediately after being warned about said offense carrying the death penalty. How likely is that?)
You do not, in fact, think Judaism is just (otherwise you wouldn't even have argued obviously, ascribing the "wrong" details to another interpretation of Judaism like every other Jew does).
I do believe Judaism to be just, and I do not understand your argument for your claim.
And I seriously doubt you believe sufficiently in God to say in public that God is with the Jews. Or with the Christians or anyone else for that matter.
God is with the Jews. There, I said it. (This does not necessarily imply agreement with whatever cockamamie interpretation of the phrase you can come up with.)
Still does not say anything about stoning a Jewish person who has had sex with a non-Jew, nor anything about stoning the non-Jewish partner. Unfortunately, wishing something to be true does not make it true.
As we probably both know, stoning to death is the punishment for any kind of sex except as regulated by Judaic law ... Any non-legal sex.
The Talmud perscribes strangulation, not stoning, for, e.g., adultery. Pre-marital sex is not punishable by the courts. Sex with a niddah is a flogging offense. In fact, the only sexual offenses that incurred stoning were certain forms of incest, e.g., between parent & child.
Why don't you explain to me whether it is "legal" for a Jew to have sex with a non-Jew (excepting, of course, a Jewish man sleeping with a non-Jewish female "servant" (a word that might just as easily be translated as slave*)) ...
I never said it was halachicly "acceptable", just that the religious courts had no jurisdiction, especially not for the death penalty, and most definitely not for a rape victim. Your statement above is purely libelous.
Why don't you first clarify your own belief. Does Judaism, YES OR NO, demand that people be stoned for very minor crimes ?
Minor by whose standards? In a theocracy, crimes against religion can be pretty "minor" by external standards. But the standards you claimed are bogus
Actually, the exact same standard (two upstanding male Jewish witnesses) is necessary to inflict any punishment on a woman.
Let's face it, your statement would mean that a beth din court would not accept it proven that someone had sex if she was pregnant. Do you, yes or no, find that realistic ?
Sure it's proven she had sex, but there's no indication that it was consensual so there's no room for judicial punishment.
Incidentally ... what is the punishment for theft according to you ? Say, a hungry orphan steals a loaf of bread ?
Uh, he's obligated to pay for the loaf. (When he can afford it.)
And what, pray tell, is all this bullshit I hear about eyes ?
Like you said, it's bovine manure -- based on an overly literalist reading of the text.
How exactly, and I mean exactly, are car accidents dealt with according to toraic law.
Unknown. There are several views on the matter, and the Sanhedrin will have to make a determination on the subject.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this paragraph. Should the Sanhedrin be re-established (b'meheira b'yameinu) I will submit completely to its judgments.
An interesting question : do you accept the judgements of the "grand sanhedrin", called by Napoleon ? Why/why not ?
The "Grand Sanhedrin" had little in common with the actual Sanhedrin beyond the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning
Unfortunately, wishing something to be true does not make it true.
Still does not say anything about stoning a Jewish person who has had sex with a non-Jew, nor anything about stoning the non-Jewish partner. Unfortunately, wishing something to be true does not make it true.
(And by the way the "no consequences for the man" in Judaism comes from the rules of proof .... Technically a Jewish man can be stoned for fucking a woman, however, the testimony of that woman is not enough to prove that man did it. In fact 2 (innocent) adult Jewish males must testify that they saw the accused do it with their own eyes, and you can evaluate for yourself how likely a man is to rape a woman with 2 valid non-accomplices as witnesses. That the woman had sex can be proven, by contrast, either by a doctor (hymen), or by pregnancy. Either is sufficient for stoning her.
Actually, the exact same standard (two upstanding male Jewish witnesses) is necessary to inflict any punishment on a woman.
And please don't start with the "technicalities of your own personal interpretation of faith" idiocy. Yes, obviously you don't accept Sanhedrin judgements, nor do you accept Beth Din judgements (no Jew does in the 21st century, it's just not possible). Nevertheless, if you were to take Sanhedrin and Beth Din judgements out of Judaism, there would be nothing left. In reality you only selectively apply your religion to your life, ironically following Christian judgements the vast majority of the time.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this paragraph. Should the Sanhedrin be re-established (b'meheira b'yameinu) I will submit completely to its judgments.
The african tribal religions, the Mayan religion, the Aztec religion, the native American religions were all crushed by conquest and forcibly raising the population in the Christian tradition. You're just reaching for the moral high ground but you stand on a pile of skeletons.
Can't say for sure about the other religions you mentioned, and not that this gives the Inquisitors any sort of high ground, but the Aztec & Mayan religions were in dire need of being wiped out. How many still-beating hearts does it take to convince the sun god to wake up in the morning?
You do realize that that view is just about as universal as an idea can get ? Judaism - yep, you cannot marry outside of your creed. Conseqences for acting non-racist : stoning to death for a woman, if necessary after carrying the resulting pregnancy full term. Consequences for a man : nothing (or a monetary sum if there is reason to assume the woman was raped - generally this sum is quite easily granted the family of the woman). That's theoretically. In practice : consequences are banishment from the family.
Where do you get this "Stoning for the woman and no consequences for the man"? It's nowhere in my Bible, nor in the Talmud, nor anywhere I've heard of.
I can't speak for the other religions you mentioned, but you got Judaism completely wrong.
"The pre-1948 violence was mutual."
I really don't know how you can draw that conclusion. No Israeli villages were massacred, no Israeli village was simply wiped from the map, and it's name forgotten....
Do read up on the 1929 Hebron massacre.
Mossadegh wasn't properly elected, by then. He had been, previously, but then he was properly dismissed when he lost the support of the Parliament (Majlis), only he refused to go, unconstitutionally dismissed the Majlis, started to rule dictatorially, and set about procuring plebiscites to change the constitution after the fact and so on after the fashion of Napoleon III to bolster his position - greatly dividing Iran and quite unconstitutional although he was still popular, particularly in the cities. The coup was the only option he left his opponents once he had thwarted proper processes, and was arguably justified even though what they did afterwards was not. This is a story that has no good guys.
I believe the adage of "it takes one to know one" can be attributed to people claiming Iran intends to use such technologies for aggressive non-peaceful purposes.
Either that, or the adage "pay attention when the other person is speaking".
You say "assuming it's a true coin/flip each time", but I'd take 50 heads as fairly good evidence that the assumption is false and that the coin is biased.
(Assuming these are the only results I see; a 50-heads run in a gazillion flips is to be expected.)
Actually, OpenType does allow for multiple optical sizes, and Cambria Math includes these sizes, even script and scriptscript. They have to be designed individually; there's no built-in METAFONT, but how many font families besides Computer Modern have ever been built in METAFONT?
The Word 2007 equation editor accepts a syntax that's close but not identical to TeX's. Try \sum_(x=1)^n, for example. (There's decent reason for the differences, BTW.)
Lots of junk references do not make his post any more real than hand-waving.
If you want some facts:...
Oh here's 10 myths about climate change debunked: http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html
Oh, they used the reverse-causality graph linking temperature & CO2; that one is my favorite. Except that the CO2 rises & falls lag the corresponding temperature changes by about 800 years. Good science, that.
Personally, I think that most if not all carbon storage strategies do not work.
Buy a 5lb bag of charcoal. Bury it in your backyard. Voila! Five pounds of carbon have been sequestered. And if it turns out that the climate cools (a la ”Fallen Angels“), dig up the charcoal and light up.
I'm posting this from Chrome too. Didn't notice the resizable text box -- cool beans! Spell check doesn't let me tell it that "resizable" is a real word. (Is it?) From what I've heard of its code structure, Chrome ought to quickly get some capability like Greasemonkey. I hope.
Math in OpenOffice is even uglier than in MS Word. I consider this quite an achievement considering how ugly Word is to begin with. AFAIK, LaTeX is still the only way to get decent-looking maths.
Office 2007 has much better math support than OOo. Doesn’t quite do equation numbering, but the product is nearly as good looking as TeX’s and usually with less work.
This word you keep using, "Final": I do not think it means what you think it does.
OpenOffice.org's math editor is just barely OK; the STIX fonts may help somewhat if they're integrated. (But why did they need to invent that awful syntax?) The math editor that comes with MS Office 2007 is much better. See Unicode Technical Note #28 (http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn28/) for an explanation of the syntax and an example document created with that system.
GNU was supposed to be a drop in replacement for Unix. Plan9 was supposed to be the successor. But what would the FSF replacement for Plan9 be?
GONE: GNU (GNU's Not Unix) Or (Plan) Nine Either. See http://9fans.net/archive/2003/04/8/.