[danholo]

Maybe, but not in this case. If the Torah law has permits it in principle according to some strict conditions, I don't think it helps anyone to deny and gloss over it because that would be a lie. It's better to let it come out in the open and let it be discussed openly - and has, and been moved to the dustbin of history.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

How can you not know, when it has been mentioned many times already?

When the quote surfaced in 2012 and caused a media firestorm, he published a clarification stating that his comments were in no way meant to be applied in the modern era, but rather pertained to a theoretical discussion of the biblical permission for a Jewish soldier to kidnap an enemy woman and wed her.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-taps-c ... time-rape/

You are indeed quoting the Times of Israel. There is indeed a disparity in minute details of the translation between both sites. The point is that, when directly asked if it's OK for Israeli soldiers to rape people nowadays, he gave a short speech on how it has been justified in the past. With no follow-up at the time, of course he is going to say he didn't mean anything by it later on, and to say he only meant it in the historical sense. At no point did he say it is prohibited for Israeli soldiers nowadays.

According to a pretty simple internet search, it's not the first time he's made strange and gross comments about women in general on religious grounds. With that in mind, it would be like asking some asshole Christian minister in the US to say whether he thinks it's OK to deny women voting rights nowadays, and then have him deliver a short speech on how it's historically been justified. How is it not difficult to see how an answer like that is going to be taken?

He seems like a garden variety asshole. They come in all colors and religions. Again, I don't give a shit about I/P or Jews/Muslims, the guy is either an idiot or pretty disgusting: either he got excited/carried away discussing rape and forgot to answer the important part (and implied rape is kosher nowadays), or not.

[danholo]

I can attest that there is some truth to that but the main point here is what the OP claims to be true today - that he permits the rape of Arab women and even that there is some current ruling to that effect.

Not only is there no ruling but to claim that specifically Arab women are an issue here is a stretch.

[Oxymandias]

@MememyselfandIJK

Who do you mean by we? Do you consider yourself part of the Cult of Science? Well I am sorry to tell you that the Cult of Science isn't a group, it is a term used to describe the phenomenon among Atheist communities to create a dogma or religion out of science. What I mean by this is a lack of questioning of any scientific information and a lack of knowledge regarding science. If you asked an atheist in an atheist community what science was, chances are you'll either get no answer, a dictionary definition, or a bad answer in general. And if you question anything in regards to scientific research presented (which you are supposed to do), you get backlash or you get claims like "Science has proven!" (which is impossible).

The New Atheists are far from that. If you really want a community with that attitude I recommend you check out LessWrong which I think is a ten-times more better dogma than the New Atheists or the Cult of Science and isn't contradictory at all. The New Atheists I think are basically the religious extremists of the Cult of Science. In New Atheist literature there are ideas such as Scientism which basically says that can solve moral problems and can determine human values (you can obviously see the problem with that), there are beliefs that religious people are apparently less rational and less intelligent than atheists that is only backed psuedo-scientific research using technology that allows to get any result you really want, and many in the New Atheist community are intolerant to anyone who is religious in a manner that reminds me of the religious extremists in I find in my neighborhood.

Both the Cult of Science and the New Atheists are not rational or empirical, there isn't a culture surrounding it. The only community where this does exist is LessWrong but that is also fairly dogmatic to the philosophy known as Bayesianism.

[skinster]

It's not really a stretch, danholo, considering the women the IDF kill are 100% Arabs.

I also don't understand how what was said could be taken out of context considering the IDF have only existed for less than a century.

Anyway, this news story came up in my feed today and had a lot of people commenting on it, so I thought I'd share it, big fucking deal. I don't really care whether the rabbi meant it or not, because as has already been said, you'll find these types of assholes amongst all groups. You should hear what he has to say about gay people.

Still, I can go back to discussing current events in Palestine instead, since talking about a particular political issue on a political forum is upsetting if it's not exactly up-to-date

New atheism is not characterized by a dogma. It is simply the refusal to comply with the don't ask, don't tell attitude. The whole point of both is to avoid dogma and rely on rationality, logic, and empiricism.

You might like this.

Oxymandias, I agree, new atheists are awful.

[MememyselfandIJK]

@skinster There are extremists no matter where you go.

@Oxymandias

Who do you mean by we? Do you consider yourself part of the Cult of Science? Well I am sorry to tell you that the Cult of Science isn't a group, it is a term used to describe the phenomenon among Atheist communities to create a dogma or religion out of science.

Science does not lend itself to a creation of a religion. It is based on factors other than faith and attempts to reconcile the two make for incredible weak incautions.

That I mean by this is a lack of questioning of any scientific information and a lack of knowledge regarding science. If you asked an atheist in an atheist community what science was, chances are you'll either get no answer, a dictionary definition, or a bad answer in general.

The general public would probably do the same. Science is quite an abstract concept with poorly defined limits. Try defining the number two, without using the number two (and if you want to use other numbers in your definition, you must define that number first). It is not that easy, and despite the fact that there have been mathematical cults (Such as the Pythagoreans), it simply does not subject itself to that kind of irrationality.

And if you question anything in regards to scientific research presented (which you are supposed to do), you get backlash or you get claims like "Science has proven!" (which is impossible).

In general, if you want to question accepted science, you better have some really good evidence to back it up, or humiliation is a perfectly acceptable response. "Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to [question] it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least." The culture of empiricism and credibility is what prevents it from descending into dogma.

The New Atheists are far from that. If you really want a community with that attitude I recommend you check out LessWrong which I think is a ten-times more better dogma than the New Atheists or the Cult of Science and isn't contradictory at all. The New Atheists I think are basically the religious extremists of the Cult of Science. In New Atheist literature there are ideas such as Scientism which basically says that can solve moral problems and can determine human values (you can obviously see the problem with that), there are beliefs that religious people are apparently less rational and less intelligent than atheists that is only backed psuedo-scientific research using technology that allows to get any result you really want, and many in the New Atheist community are intolerant to anyone who is religious in a manner that reminds me of the religious extremists in I find in my neighborhood.

My first answer is this: In any kind of group, there are always extremists. What about the guy who stabbed thee people in portland several weeks ago: Christian extremist. ISIS? Muslim extremists. Fascism? Right-wing/authoritarian extremism. The only way to get rid of extremists is to have an Orwellian society where everyone thinks the same way!
In retrospect I would also like to add that there is a decent body of evidence that those who support unconventional philosophies (liberalism, atheism) do tend to be smarter. However, as a sociology topic is it poorly defined whether it is a science or not, so argue over it all you want! The general secularization is a good thing though, as secular extremists rarely go past words -- they are more concerned with rationality than action.

Both the Cult of Science and the New Atheists are not rational or empirical, there isn't a culture surrounding it. The only community where this does exist is LessWrong but that is also fairly dogmatic to the philosophy known as Bayesianism.

Checked out LessWrong, and it seems far more philosophical than scientific. There is an important divide between the two, as natural philosophy lacks empiricism, while science has it.

Can't find Bayesianism, just saw a bunch of statistical analysis methods. Could you link me?

[Oxymandias]

@MememyselfandIJK

That is true. I never said that Science itself supports dogma, I just said that people make it into one. I don't see how that disproves my point.

I never said that wouldn't happen and I don't see how that is relevant. It doesn't disprove my point either. Atheist communities continue to worship science. I never said that science itself is the problem, just many atheist communities's perception of it. Science is not an abstract concept, you are simply adding to the mysticism that Cult of Science envelopes around science. Science is the study of the world around us through observing it and developing ideas about why it works that way. This is usually done through empiricism and rationalism. However this is what makes science so fallible and why the Cult of Science can't understand. There are so many things that could go wrong during the process of science. You could, for example, have eye fatigue from examining organisms in a telescope and see something imaginary, your hypothesis could be wrong or have faulty reasoning that you won't realize until much later, you could've observed a phenomenon that only happened due to certain external factors. There's an entire word for such things called experimental variables and you want to avoid them as much as possible and usually, that is very hard.

The Cult of Science doesn't get this though and continues to see science and scientists as infallible. Why? Because it's easier to, you don't have to put that much effort into understanding it and that's why the Cult of Science is by far the greatest threat to science because it de-legitimatizes and commercializes it.

And that's what the problem is. In many atheist communities, no one is qualified to question it so no one does. And this is dangerous, this is the thing that makes people assume science is infallible. Because since people are so unexposed to any form of scientific debate, no one questions science, which leads to more people believing everything science says, which leads to more misinformation. Not only that, but very few people actually read the scientific essays that talk about the discoveries and just read the headlines which often contain clickbait. This is even worse for reasons you should already understand.

I know that. But what I was saying is that New Atheism isn't an ideology that is about questioning and skepticism like you said it was, it just encourages a certain type of skepticism towards a certain ideology and absolute dogma on anything else which is basically every ideology ever. That is true, however this is mostly just due to the lack of political influence such groups have. If they had political influence, they would act more physically than with words. Also if the group grew, this would also happen.

I never said that it was scientific. I just said that LessWrong was more empirical and rational than the Cult of Science and New Atheism.

Also Bayesianism:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1to/what_is_bayesianism/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/iat/what_bayesianism_taught_me/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/s6/probability_ ... objective/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/oj/probability_is_in_the_mind/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/sg/when_not_to_ ... abilities/

[AFAIK]

According to the OP he was asked about IDF soldiers. Is that term used in Hebrew media? If so this is clearly a question about Israel's modern army operating in the present day.

[Frollein]

That's what Stalin said about German women, too, so I don't see the problem here.

[noir]

That's what Stalin said about German women, too, so I don't see the problem here.

Not exactly. The Jewish law which today sounds bizarre, goes a long way to accommodate the abused women. The OP is probably tries to legitimize their own religion.



http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124674

Heb. U. Paper Finds: IDF Has Political Motives for Not Raping

by Hillel Fendel


A research paper that won a Hebrew University teachers' committee prize finds that the lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose.

The abstract of the paper, authored by doctoral candidate Tal Nitzan, notes that the paper shows that "the lack of organized military rape is an alternate way of realizing [particular] political goals."

The next sentence delineates the particular goals that are realized in this manner: "In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be seen that the lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences - just as organized military rape would have done."

The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers' eyes.

The paper was published by the Hebrew University's Shaine Center, based on the recommendation of a Hebrew University professors' committee headed by Dr. Zali Gurevitch.

"I do not have the entire text in front of me," Gurevitch said, when contacted by Arutz-7, "and I don't think we can jump to conclusions based on partial sentences, but I can say the following: This was a very serious paper that asked two important questions: Is the relative lack of IDF rapes a noteworthy phenomenon, and if so, why is it that there are so few IDF rapes when in similar situations around the world, rape is much more common?"

Observers and Academia
Arutz-7: "Can't it just be that Israeli soldiers come from a culture that very much condemns rape? And why not mention the much-touted 'purity of arms,' i.e., the high moral conduct, of the Israeli Army?"

Gurevitch said that observers do not have the right to demand a particular explanation to a given phenomenon. He said that the researcher had done a serious job, based on interviews with 25 soldiers and other accounts, and that the right-wing should not jump to the conclusion that this was simply another "secular, left-wing" generality.

Makor Rishon editor Amnon Lord, who first publicized the story, wrote that not only did researcher Nitzan not consider Jewish tradition as an explanation, but neither did she "raise the possibility that her initial assumption - namely, that the situation in Judea and Samaria is just like any other situation of conquest - may be wrong."

Demographic Fears
Nitzan's paper did, however, give much space to the explanation that the Israeli soldiers refrained from rape out of demographic considerations. She explained at length how fearful the Jewish population is of the growing Arab population, and how in cases of wartime rape, the baby is generally assumed to be of the mother's nationality.

"It is noteworthy," Lord concludes, "that Palestinian propaganda around the world frequently accuses Israelis of murder and rape. Such that this situation is unique: An army is found blameworthy of rape, and is also blameworthy of not raping."

[Frollein]

Just find the outcry hilarious. Whenever the topic of Soviet mass rapes comes up, it's quickly justified by "but the Nazis did evil things, so the civilians back home deserved it." Uh-huh. Forgive me if I don't give a shit if the women of your affiliation get raped, then.

[AFAIK]

Stalin is your benchmark for humanism and compassion?
It's really hard to follow your off-topic non-sequester one-liner.

[noir]

The situation in Palestine is unique in military history because there are none rape cases at all which puzzle researchers. But the Islamist propagandists try to legitimize their own culture. Few years ago, a female egyptian lawyer, Nagla Al-Imam, suggests that Arab men should harass and bully Israeli women and she considered this ''legitimate resistance'' because the Israelies have been ''raping the soil''. She also said, the Israeli victims have no right to react.

"No. Sexual harassment… In my view, the [Israeli women] do not have any right to respond. The resistance fighters would not initiate such a thing, because their moral values are much loftier than that. However, if such a thing did happen to them, the [Israeli women] have no right to make any demand.

https://www.memri.org/tv/egyptian-lawye ... transcript

[Beren]

It's a great idea to rape each other's women, there will be peace in one generation.

[Decky]

I see Frollein is still pushing Himmlers propaganda. Lots of Nazi sources accused the red army of mass rapes to try to get more elderly and children to join to Volksturm to die at the hands of the Soviets in a last ditch defence of Berlin. The far right's Soviet Mass rape meme It is no different to holocaust denial or any other twisting of facts so beloved by Germans trying to rehabilitate the Reich.

[MememyselfandIJK]

That's what Stalin said about German women, too, so I don't see the problem here.

Source (if you have any)?

[Finfinder]

[Oxymoron]

[Zag Edit: Rule 3]

[noir]

[skinster]

The situation in Palestine is unique in military history because there are none rape cases at all which puzzle researchers.

The rape of Arab women by the IDF have been documented by zionists:

The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape

In the afternoon, those of us who couldn't take it any more would steal off to Tel Aviv for a few hours, on one excuse or another. At night, those of us who couldn't restrain ourselves would go into the prison compounds to fuck Arab women.

Few years ago, a female egyptian lawyer, Nagla Al-Imam, suggests that Arab men should harass and bully Israeli women and she considered this ''legitimate resistance'' because the Israelies have been ''raping the soil''.

Complaining about propaganda and using Selective Memri as a source, an org that has repeatedly been called out as Israeli propaganda for doctoring videos, is really quite funny, noir. What next, another Tommy Robinson video?

Here Norman Finkelstein calls out Memri for the time it tried to present him as a holocaust denier.