It was idiotic a priori (a value judgement so there’s no right or wrong) and this event certainly didn’t help improve that opinion. What am I missing? What fallacy is that?
If someone chokes on an almond then eating is a contributory cause but so what? But if they’re trying to swallow it whole, then yeah, that’s significant.
See, this is exactly the point: the two incidents in this thread are causally related, but that casual relationship is meaningless for evaluating “idiocy” or otherwise of the custom.
The ritual is not, in and of itself, dangerous. Participation in the ritual is not inherently risky. It is, in short, more akin to “If someone chokes on an almond then eating is a contributory cause but so what?” than it is to “if they’re trying to swallow it whole, then yeah, that’s significant”.
What’s the difference? In the second sentence, what someone is doing is inherently risky - that is, “trying to swallow it whole”. Keeping Shabbat, while inconvenient, is not inherently risky.
This incident is more like someone crowing about the “idiocy” of home cooking, by pointing out that a whole family died in a cooking fire; or, as per your example, crowing about the “idiocy” of eating, because someone choked on an almond. Yes, those were “causes” of the accidents, but they were not “causes” in the sense of “the reason for the risk”. They were not in and of themselves negligent acts.
And puzzlegal, you keeping to the mantra that I hate Judaism doesn’t give it any more credence. I don’t know any devout Jews or at least I’m not aware of if, I’m not intimately knowledgeable of the faith or the culture, there are no radical Jewish communities where I live or I haven’t seen them, so I really don’t know what would give you that impression. To me it’s just a different flavor of religion. And I admire some aspects of the culture, like above average intellectual achievements. Well, that’s the only one. Other than that my feelings, if any, are neutral.
You saying that already seems like a great move forward to reach a common understanding (or not) to me. Seems like many people were denying there was any causal relationship at all but maybe I misunderstood.
I will need to come back later to reply to the rest of your post.
It’s simply a matter of semantics. When most people talk about a “causal relationship”, they are alluding to one that has some sort of meaning - and by “meaning”, in this case, something that actually increases some sort of risk.
Take the title of this thread: “Idiotic [tradition] Leads to [deaths]”. The innueno of this title is that it is the idiocy of the tradition that resulted in the deaths - that is, because the tradition was idiotic, the people following it did something idiotic that materially increased their risk of [deaths].
An example would be if a tradition (say) mandated undergoing a risky ordeal known to result in a high risk of death: in such a case, the innuendo would be correct - following a tradition indeed “leads to deaths”.
Take the example of driving toi Church sans seatbelts, resulting in a fatal accident. The title “Idiotic Christian Tradition Leads to Deaths” would be just as “true” in its literal meaning as here, in that there is a causal connection between wanting to go to Church and the deaths - but just as misleading. It was the failure to wear seatbelts, not the desire to go to church, that was the idiocy “… lead[ing] to death”.
Let me just add something that seems important (sorry):
I have been using the world “tolerant” when the word I should have been using is “respectful”, as in “pretend any of it makes sense”. Except for the parts about conforming, or companionship, that makes sense, of course.
Perhaps you hate all religion. I haven’t ever talked with you about other religions, so I wouldn’t know. But your antipathy towards Jewish practices is pretty clear in this thread.
Perhaps. That gets you closer at least.
DSeid, I’m a big believer in the Golden Rule. “Do unto others…” etc. Care to point out the contradiciton?
Malthus, I still don’t think it was my understanding of causality that was at fault but that is not relevant right now. Let’s just agree to disagree on that.
Your whole line of reasoning is misdirection. I know a lot of other things could have happened but the fact is seven kids are dead in part, not whole because of that tradition.
Let me ask you this: If the OP’s title had been “Idiotic tradition [that swallowing almonds whole magically gives increased lifespan] leads to tragedic death of man”, do you think the reaction would have been the same? Would you have been so vehement defending that practice?
I know you will argue that that is not what the tradition says. But that’s very debatable. I would say disingenous.
I know you can claim he wasn’t doing it for magic benefits but because everyone else does too. That just makes him a moron without critical thinking skills.
I know you will argue that you weren’t “defending” it, just standing up against atheist prejudice, but the thing is, you are.
The where you fail in reciprocity is that you would not want someone who disagreed with your beliefs attacking you … and atheists have been so attacked usually with the same willful ignorance that attacks against the Orthodox Jewish beliefs in this thread have evinced.
An example of the latter is your persistent conflation of the wish to follow Shabbat rules with doing something that is risky. There is NOTHING in the commandments regarding Shabbat that are at all comparable to encouraging the swalllowing of almonds whole; in fact the commmandment explicitly states to NOT take significant risks to life in order to comply.
The comparable analogy would be a belief that eating almonds increases your lifespan (which btw, it may :)) and then blaming a death on that belief because someone decided to swallow almonds whole while doing it. Yes the belief that almonds are good for you and may increase your lifespan is by your use of the term a contributory cause, because that is why the person was eating almonds at all, but not really.
Why is that something thatyou refuse to understand, other than an a priori hate of religion?
Everytime I have been mocked, it has served to make my mind sharper or my balance steadier.
So yes, you could say I “like it”.
And no, you’re wrong.
You’re just going in circles now. Despite the lame ass get-out-of-jail-free card of the commandment to save human lives. And let’s not lose sight here that we are discussing a ban by a fundamentalist religion that forbids electrical arcs in electro-mechanical switches.
So I guess your logic is that if you like being punched it is fine for you to punch those who you think have silly beliefs. Because they seem silly to you and that is all the reason you need.
Agreed this has gone in circles. I have my conclusion about you and who you hate and how that hate has resulted in distorted thinking and you have your thoughts. End.
I used quotes. “Like it”. Must I spell everything out? Moron.
And really, how cosy is it for you to just go into a fetal position and cry “it’s not happening, it’s just hate, it’s just hate!”?
That is arrogance. Just so you know.
At least I hope you have learned the proper use of analogies.
Have I convinced you yet that I don’t buy into some kind of group-think?
Oh and please excuse our friend Locrian. He’s a bit simple minded but he means well.
DSeid, enjoy some sweet, totally sane, christian art to lighten your mood. Maybe while you ponder about my distorted thinking.
To all, whatever your belief or non-belief, may you score some good eating and good company this week end … unless you cannot stand being with people celebrating such idiocies (more chicken soup* with matzah balls or honey baked ham for me!)
camille, do you celebrate? If so do you host or go?
*Don’t worry. I’m off today so I’ll be home while the stock cooks … except for maybe running out briefly for a few things I forgot to buy.
Quite the contrary, actually. You have convinced me your ability to reason logically is clouded by your group-think. It’s just a different group-think than the ones who died in this fire subscribed to.
:shrug:
Group-think does not mean a thought shared by a group. Or belief, or lack of belief, or whatever you want to call atheism. That’s what the label is for.
And I already asked you what it is you think I’m missing and what fallacy you think I’m committing but you can’t or won’t say. You just came back at me with something about hatred and now my inability to reason logically.
So I’m left to think you are just looking for a cheap shot.
:shrug: too.
Sorry I can’t help myself …
I guess you haven’t been mocked much then …
Really Pedro I am pondering your distorted thinking not at all. What’s there to ponder about?
Today my idiocies coincide! I worship good eatin’ and celebrate myths all in one fell swoop! Life is good! What risks will I take in the process? Probably the biggest is that I am … at the same time and maybe even while I go out to the store … doing laundry and will have the dryer going all day too. Idiotic beliefs make me live dangerously!
Hehe. Good one. But timing is of the essence here. Maybe practice more.
