It's so obvious a point I wouldn't think it needs mentioning, but too many people don't get it. When you have a banker agreeing to lend an average guy $500,000, the average guy is going to assume the banker knows what he's doing. Sure, he might suspect the banker's taking advantage of him to some extent, but it would probably never occur to him that there's a good chance he'd be unable to make his payments. He wouldn't know that the real estate market might crash and that if it did, he'd be upside-down in his mortgage. (In fact, he's probably never heard the term "upside-down" as it relates to mortgages.)
The average American has an IQ of 100 and a high-school diploma. He doesn't understand compound interest and isn't likely to have a good grasp of the nuances of housing markets or ARMs. The guy in the fancy suit with all the big words tells him he can handle the mortgage. And it's not just some guy who knocked on his door, but a man employed by a major national bank as an expert on mortgages. What's he going to do? Drill the guy on real estate markets and debt-to-income ratios? Or just trust that the guy knows what he's doing?
Republicans have been gleefully passing around this video that shows what some rich asshole thinks of average Americans like that who got screwed on their mortgages. They're "losers."
No compassion, no understanding. Just pure rage. Rage and hate.
Oh, and by the way, here's Santelli on September 2nd, saying that the economy was healthy.
I'm sure Republicans will soon be passing each other Santelli's next rant about how losers like himself are still rich and employed despite having been irresponsible and completely fucking wrong about the subject he is supposed to be an expert in.
Here's Matthew Yglesias, who says it better than I can:
Along with the absurd, Santelli-led revolt of the overclass against efforts to help middle class homeowners, there’s been a larger sense that “reasonable” people can all agree that there’s “plenty of blame to go around” and that on some level “irresponsible borrowers” deserve to take their lumps in all of this. I have my doubts.
When someone applies for a mortgage, there are two parties to the transaction. On one side of it is a teacher or a blogger or an electrician or a lawyer or a nurse or a guy who manages a Home Depot. On the side is a guy who, for a living, as a professional, works in the “deciding on what terms to offer people mortgages” business who works, for a living, at a financial services business. Businesses like that got in the habit of making loans with little regard to actual prospects for long-term payment on the theory that since house prices were rising, the borrower could always sell or refinance. That, to repeat, wasn’t the judgment of electricians and store managers; it was the judgment of people who were professional mortgage-offerers. They, in turn, were being lax in part because they were finding it very easy to sell the mortgages off as securities. And it was easy to sell the mortgages as securities irregardless of their quality, because big sophisticated financial services firms devised tactics for slicing and dicing the securities into packages that could be easily resold. Those packages could, in turn, be easily resold because they had high ratings from the bond agencies. These ratings were based on models which held that a nationwide decline in housing prices was impossible. The ratings agencies and the modeling firms were, in turn, regulated by the U.S. government. And in addition to the formal regulatory agencies, there are a variety of public officials—the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the President, the Secretary of the Treasury—who have a kind of generalized responsibility for oversight of the economy. Beyond the political system, the American media offers extensive coverage of business and real estate.
There really is plenty of blame to go around here. But I just don’t see how more than a tiny fraction of it could possible adhere to our electrician or teacher or secretary who’s decided, basically, that the financial services professionals and government regulators know what they’re doing. Now could she have known better? Sure. She could have been reading Dean Baker and Paul Krugman and others. The idea that this lending was all being undertaken on a false premise that a nationwide housing bust was impossible wasn’t a highly guarded secret. I was, for example, familiar with the chart above and with the analysis suggesting that a bust was, in fact, likely. And I believed that analysis. But at the same time, I write about U.S. public policy debates for a living. If there’s a dissident line of thinking that, despite its general unpopularity, is popular among left-of-center economists—well, that’s the kind of thing I know a lot about. But our nurse? Why would she know?
76 comments:
"The average American has an IQ of 100 and a high-school diploma. He doesn't understand compound interest and isn't likely to have a good grasp of the nuances of housing markets or ARMs."
The average American is a 'She'
Don't understand the logic of this point. The only reason why such a professional field exists is because people saw a business opportunity in lifting the onus of this kind of stuff off the shoulders of regular homeowners, who preferred not to do the work on their own. Does this mean the responsible homeowner should turn his head from his own numbers, and rely completely on his resource, only a convenience, and thus be permitted to place all the blame on his hired assistant. People do need to take responsibility for their issues, either before the problems hit, or certainly after the fact. Homeowners should not expect to be treated like children, not to be held responsible, when they could have taken some more initiative. Just because there are people who offer their services as a convenience, does not give the clear-thinking, responsible individual the prerogative to ignore the issues, only to blame his resources, instead of himself, as the root cause of all of his problems.
AE:
The average American is a 'She'
Ah, so she DEFINITELY can't do the math. ;-) LOL, just a joke. Sorry about the sexist use of "he."
Anon:
For hundreds of years, lenders have been erring on the side of caution when deciding on whether a borrower was worth the risk. If a lender was willing to lend you money, you really probably would be able to pay it back. How else could they stay in business?
Sometime in the last decade or two, lenders silently started erring on the other side. The borrower will be able to pay back, they won't, who cares? They're just going to package up the mortgage and sell it off because the company they sell mortgages to has managed to package these crappy mortgages together and get them rated AAA by independent ratings agencies.
But the lender doesn't know about all that. He's just some guy who works for a living. The banker's telling him he can afford it, everybody on t.v. says the market's going up forever, politicians are saying everybody should buy a place, prices are skyrocketing, etc. How is this guy going to know better? You think he's going to be able to dig into the details of the ARM and figure out that the banker's full of shit?
Seriously, what should he have done?
>but it would probably never occur to him that there's a good chance he'd be unable to make his payments
It's called being a responsible adult. When I got married married, my grandmother said I should take our wedding money and put it down for a house, and instead of rent, pay the mortgage. I knew this is bad idea because there is no way on my salary I could pay the double utilities, property taxes and insurances plus have some extra money, just incase something happened.
The point is, blame is to be put on both sides. I would never deny lenders were greedy. The banking atmosphere in the country was just giving out loans to people that should not have gotten it. But where were the people being responsible for their own life. Yes, we are only human beings. We make mistakes. Many times we don't think two steps ahead. But, we should all have to pay for those consequences. You don't get to be bailed out cause your property is not worth less. It is a gamble you take when you buy property (which is another facet of being a responsible adult). Paying for ones consequences is not in itself a bad thing. That is how we as humans grow. Its how we pass on good advice to our children. True compassion is understand that sometimes its not about love, its also at times to be firm.
>Rage and hate.
Please putt those deck of cards away. I see rage, but I see so far no hate. It is rage that is understandable.
Back when real estate was go-go-go, renters were constantly told by their friends and neighbors that they were foolish and irresponsible NOT to be invested in real estate.
People want to do the best thing for their families.
If a waitress doesn't understand the complicated nature of finance, everyone around her is telling her that renting is foolish, then the expert at the bank tells her she is "approved", why WOULDN'T she go for it.
The bankers did this, NOT the waitresses.
Anon from Before:
The point is that the system of borrowers and lenders is a manmade convenience, that removes the onus of a particular area of work from someone who does not want to do it, and is instead willing to pay someone else to do the work for him. Inherently, in such an agreement, the customer is admitting that he will not involve himself in the inner workings of this deal, because it is easier for him to not have to be involved - for whatever reason. It should not be his right to place blame, or at least the brunt of the blame, on the party with whom he chose to enter into this risky business relationship, as ultimately all business relationships should be entered into with a clear understanding of the inherent danger and risk involved. Anything less than this is simply irresponsible, whether the person is educated in the particular area, or not. This should not be viewed as a Republican versus Democrat issue, before it is understood from the perspective of responsible citizen vs. irresponsible citizen. We are allowed to agree that it is their own fault, and still feel bad that such unfortunate consequences befell them - in fact that is probably the appropriate response.
That's idiotic, and so is the comparison.
The guy getting liposuction should be asking the doctor for any relevant information, and should make sure that there are safeguards - not to mention do his own research.
The person thinking of buying a home should do the same.
Most importantly, to claim that bankers knowingly and irresponsibly targeted borrowers they knew would fail is ridiculous, not only because they lose out more in the end, but because it suggests a sick level of moral turpitude on the part of bankers when it is much more likely to suggest that it was irresponsible borrowers doing what they could to take advantage of easy money or even just because they wanted a house and really thought they could get one.
Later I'll dissect this more. It's so stupid.
HH:
The point is, blame is to be put on both sides. I would never deny lenders were greedy. The banking atmosphere in the country was just giving out loans to people that should not have gotten it. But where were the people being responsible for their own life.
It's just not a symmetrical thing, HH. On one side you have a professional with a deep understanding of ARMs, etc. On the other, you have an amateur with poorly remembered high-school math who just doesn't know any better. People need to be responsible, yes, but there's only so much expertise we can expect the average person to gain. The borrower likely had no idea that if the market went down, he wouldn't be able to pay. You think the lender went out of his way to share that information?
What do you think about my medical example? If you tell your doctor about a condition and he takes risks with your life, is it your fault for not reading up on your condition? Maybe, if you're an educated person and the information is easily accessible. But what if it takes detailed knowledge and a PubMed subscription? What if the doctor's going out of his way to tell you it's fine, there's nothing to worry about?
You can't hold two people equally accountable when one of them holds all the cards.
Paying for ones consequences is not in itself a bad thing.
Sometimes the consequences are so bad that it's not worth teaching the lesson the hard way. If your kid runs out into the street, you don't let him get hit by a car to teach him a less.
Please putt those deck of cards away. I see rage, but I see so far no hate. It is rage that is understandable.
You sure? Why is he ranting about the "losers" then? If it were just rage, all the invective would be directed at the government.
Tigerboy:
If a waitress doesn't understand the complicated nature of finance, everyone around her is telling her that renting is foolish, then the expert at the bank tells her she is "approved", why WOULDN'T she go for it.
YES. Exactly. Her friends are doing it, her coworkers are doing it, everybody's doing great, and she just doesn't know any better. This isn't about knowing something is risky and doing it anyway. She's being told by people she trusts -- including the lender! -- that it's a good idea.
Ezzie:
The guy getting liposuction should be asking the doctor for any relevant information, and should make sure that there are safeguards - not to mention do his own research.
Yeah, he did. The doctor said it was fine and not to worry. He couldn't find any research that said it was dangerous. (Remember, he has neither the doctor's expertise nor access to the literature.)
Most importantly, to claim that bankers knowingly and irresponsibly targeted borrowers they knew would fail is ridiculous
I'm not saying they targeted people they KNEW would fail, just that they started erring on that side rather than on the safe side.
when it is much more likely to suggest that it was irresponsible borrowers doing what they could to take advantage of easy money or even just because they wanted a house and really thought they could get one.
Right. And they went to the banker to see if it was financially feasible for them. And the banker assured them it was.
Why are these TV economists always so eager to let the poor folk "learn their lesson"? Is there no compassion in economics? Yes, enforce the rules in the future, but don't make people suffer just to make a point.
>On the other, you have an amateur with poorly remembered high-school math who just doesn't know any better. People need to be responsible, yes, but there's only so much expertise we can expect the average person to gain. The borrower likely had no idea that if the market went down, he wouldn't be able to pay. You think the lender went out of his way to share that information?
Thats ridiculous. A reason why the market went down is because of these people. I don't care if its not symetrical (though, you are just assuming its the lenders fault more so). It is I that am responsible to see if I can actually make payments and to add EVERYTHING that goes along with buying a home. Again, its called being a resposible adult. To sit down and see if my salary can pay for anything and to prepare incase a spouse looses a job or if I decide to have another kid or anthing else.
>Sometimes the consequences are so bad that it's not worth teaching the lesson the hard way.
Apparently, it does, and for perhaps the betterment of this society in the long run, where people can look back and see what irresponsibility can do.
>If your kid runs out into the street, you don't let him get hit by a car to teach him a less.
DUH. Don't compare stupid things. But you know what, if my kid insists on playing with a match, I will let him get burned once to see what happens
If the guy going in for lyposuction had NO idea of a heart condition that adds risk, and was not told, than yes, the doctor is responsible. But it is not the same as buying a home from a lender. You are SUPPOSED to know what you have in your wallet and can pay. It does not take detailed knowlege to realize between you and your spouse that you can't afford a home.
.
Ezzie,
How many mortgage brokers do you know or have you worked with? I have had multiple experiences with them.
Many of them got into the industry because it was an easy way to make a chunk of change.
I interviewed several. I was pushed by a few of them to take ridiculous loans that only an idiot or an ignorant fool would be interested in.
JA is right that the banks took advantage of a lot of people. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held responsible as well for making poor choices, but...
And as I said on your blog there are a lot of people who made smart choices and fell onto hard times.
We have a social and moral obligation to help people. It is to everyone's advantage not provide a hand up.
Why should the people who would not have been able to afford a house in the first place get to have the government pay for it for them just because they were given a bad loan? Why do they deserve a house that they really cannot afford?
Don't pay off their loans or bail them out. Give them some money to get them on their feet for the short-term and let them rent or get the smaller house that they can afford.
Otherwise it's just not fair to those who were wise with their income and only took out loans they knew they could afford. Bailing out the ignorant punishes the prudent. Is that the lesson we want to teach?
JA, I don’t quite understand you. You are an atheist and a Darwinist. Why are you concerned about these average 100 IQ people being thrown out of their homes to die of exposure? Didn’t the founder of your religion teach:
It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin Chapter 4 - Natural Selection http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter4.html
My religion is the one which teaches:
Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Leviticus Chapter 19: 18
So JA, whose side are you on? You should be thrilled that average people are finally being "rejected" since this alone leads to "improvement".
Now of all times, the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of Origin, don't tell me that you're going soft and getting all Biblical or something.
"The average American has an IQ of 100 and a high-school diploma. He doesn't understand compound interest"
Why on earth not? what are they teaching kids in American schools these days then? God knows Britain is hardly Singapore when it comes to hothousing brats, but I learned how to do compound interest when I was about twelve or so. It ain't rocket science.
"The guy in the fancy suit with all the big words tells him he can handle the mortgage... What's he going to do? Drill the guy on real estate markets and debt-to-income ratios? Or just trust that the guy knows what he's doing?"
Drill the guy, of course. Let's be blunt here - buying a home is the single biggest financial commitment most people will ever make in their lives, and it's one that it will take them most of the rest of their lives to pay off. Anybody who goes into such a commitment on the basis of "just trust that the guy knows what he's doing" is frankly too stupid to be entering into such a commitment.
A personal anecdote here - when I first bought a house, I was frankly terrified at the size of the financial commitment I was entering into, so I made absolutely sure I understood every last detail of the loan I was taking out, how the endowment fund that was going to pay it back worked, and how I was going to meet the costs. When it was all over and I'd signed all the papers the mortgage advisor (who presumably no longer had any reason to flatter me at that point) told me I'd made him work harder than almost any other customer he'd had and how much of a contrast it was to the sort of people who were in and out of his office in five minutes (and who you are defending here).
So tell me, why should I and people like me who put in the time and effort to make sure we understood what we were getting into and could cover our debts in the bad times as well as the good (and probably in most cases ended up with a property inferior to what we could have had if we'd gone wild too) have to suffer through increased taxes and reduced employment prospects (our employers are paying higher taxes too) in order to protect the people who decided to "just trust the other guy"? Why reward the feckless and punish the cautious? What sort of way is that to run a society?
BTW, Megan McArdle has done a rather good takedown of this liberal meme here. I particularly liked this bit on the fallacy that the experts have some sort of monopoly on relevant knowledge -
"Who knows more about your future income prospects: you, or a bank? Who knows more about your budgeting skills: you, or a bank? Who knows more about your health, personal habits, and home maintenance skills? Who knows better whether you're likely to move two years after buying for a boyfriend or an employer? Are bankers somehow more aware than ordinary Americans that recessions happen, companies fold, people lose their jobs?"
JP:
My goals are not the same as natural selection's.
Random:
I don't think people suddenly became more irresponsible over the last decade. What happened was that mortgage companies started pulling people in who could never have gotten traditional mortgages by offering super low rates and telling them with a wink and a nod that they could just refinance after their house went up and before their rates went up. They were betting on the housing market going up, in other words.
Now obviously, everybody *should* do their homework, poring over the contracts and doing all the math. They *should* grill the guy on what happens if their rate really does go up but the value of their house goes down.
My point is that we can't run the country based on the fantasy that everybody works like that. The system worked fine for a long, long time before they started messing with ARMs for everybody and reeling in people they, the experts, should have known wouldn't be able to pay if the market went south. Borrowers didn't suddenly become less responsible and less intelligent over the last ten years -- lenders did. That's my point.
Patients *should* second-guess their doctors. But that doesn't mean we blame the patient if the doctor gives him a risky drug he doesn't really need without adequately warning him of the danger. It's an asymmetrical relationship. "Caveat emptor" is a really shitty way to run a market.
As for what we should do w/r/t a bailout, I don't know. I haven't really looked into that much yet, and that's not what this post is about. This post is a response to that disgusting video.
"JP: My goals are not the same as natural selection's."
So theologically, you love Darwinism since it supports atheism while politically you abhor Darwinism since it supports racism and eugenics.
And then you complain that Judaism doesn't makes sense; I don't see much consistency in your beliefs.
JP:
You seem to be very confused.
JA,
You chide republicans for calling the middle class losers, than say they are too stupid to understand their financial state.
Can't have it both ways, mate.
Orthoprax is quite right in his assessment (aside from the "give them some money" bit). These people are not losing "their" house. They own a mortgage, not a home. People that actually own their homes are not going to loose them. People who are renting their homes from banks may or may not loose them, just like always.
What Obama is trying to do is ensure that people who don't own their homes stay in them even if they owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth. What nonsense is this? What if I got some bank to lend me money to buy a house with no money down and I never made a single payment. When I go into foreclosure should I expect to keep MY house? Is living in the house my right?
"JP: You seem to be very confused."
I guess I don't have the tolerance for cognitive dissonance which an atheist must have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Mr. Jewish Philosopher,
The theory of natural selection is a theory that explains how organisms evolve.
Believing that natural selection actually happened (and happens) is NOT the same as believing that societies should base their policies on the principal of natural selection.
Just because we believe something is true, does not mean we believe is is ideal, or that we should not try to change it.
For example, I believe cancer exists. This does not mean that I believe cancer is a good thing. In fact, I will try to do everything I can to destroy cancer. Cancer is real, but it is not good.
Similarly, natural selection is real, but it is not a good principle on which to make public policy.
I hope that clears things up a little.
"Similarly, natural selection is real, but it is not a good principle on which to make public policy."
Ah, public policy should prevent the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
Any special reason why, other than a belief in the Torah which you eloquently call bullshit?
JP,
I believe that public policy should do it's beat to minimize human suffering, and that our society will be bettered in this pursuit.
No, I definitely do not get this belief from Torah, which is full of behavior I consider immoral. So where does our morality come from? There has been much discussion on this topic (see the books by Shermer and Dawkins), but basically morality comes from a combination of evolution and environment. (for example, sharing was beneficial to the survival of our ancestors in Africa, and that was passed down to us).
I hope you are not saying that you get your morality from Torah. If it turned out that Torah isn't true would you suddenly start killing people?
"I hope you are not saying that you get your morality from Torah."
Where else would I get altruism?
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/01/genius-of-judaism-kindness.html
"If it turned out that Torah isn't true would you suddenly start killing people?"
And I had lost all residual Torah influence and I had something to gain from killing, of course I would and so would you. Why not?
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/12/always-let-your-conscience-be-your.html
"Where else would I get altruism?"
I just told you. Evolution.
"...and I had something to gain from killing, of course I would and so would you. Why not?"
You're saying you'd have no problem with murder-for-profit if not for the Torah!? Wow, I'm glad you're religious then.
"I just told you. Evolution."
Evolution preaches eugenics and "rejecting that which is bad", unless you have a different edition of Origin of Species.
"Wow, I'm glad you're religious then."
I'm sorry you're not.
Dude, I'll say it one more time since I obviously didn't get through before:
Evolution doesn't "preach" anything. It's a theory about nature, not a set of instructions how humans should act.
"Evolution doesn't "preach" anything."
It logically can be and has been used as a basis for public policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Incidentally, Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer, whom you mentioned earlier, don't appear to be necessarily the easiest people to live with.
Dawkins have been divorced twice and has one adult daughter whom I believe is not on speaking terms with him.
Shermer has been divorced once and has a 17 year old daughter.
I can't wait until their children write a book about them. The one about famous American atheist leader Madalyn Murray O'hair by her son was enlightening.
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Without-God-William-Murray/dp/0840752563
Your argument is ridiculous. Your banker is not a doctor; he's selling you a service. When you walk into a Dunkin Donuts, the fellow behind the counter knows-- far better than you-- what goes into donuts, and why they're not that good for you. Nevertheless, he will cheerfully sell you as many as you wish-- and that is as it should be.
Moreover, precisely because your banker does not have your interests at heart, he is required to provide you extensive disclosures showing what your payments will be. I'm not asking for pity for bankers, but I'm damn sure telling you that the fact that someone is a moron who borrows more than he can afford to pay back is no more deserving of sympathy than the banker who made the speculative loan.
You want someone to blame? Try the clods in the government who egged FNMA into pushing exactly those types of loans that were least likely to succeed.
"Shermer has been divorced once and has a 17 year old daughter."
Hey, Lee Epple-- isn't that the same number of times you've been divorced? Or has your mail order Russian bride ditched you?
I've got more than one kid.
It's interesting how atheists cannot reproduce themselves. Did Darwin say anything about organisms which fail to reproduce?
Let's try to stay on topic, folks. JP, if you can't tell the difference between "is" statements (evolution) and "ought" statements (we ought not let the weak die just because they're weak) you have no business calling yourself a "philosopher."
Sorry about going off topic. It just frustrates me when people use the "evolution = eugenics" argument.
So why don't you explain to me, JA, since you believe that "improvement" comes from "rejecting that which is bad" why, in Darwin's name, should we "ought" to help people who are too dumb to shelter themselves?
And, by the way, people who secretly base their morality on the Bible have no right to call themselves atheists.
I'm beginning to realize there is no point in engaging with this jewish "philosopher" guy.
Your argument is ridiculous. Your banker is not a doctor; he's selling you a service.
Uh, doctors are selling a service too, obviously.
So why don't you explain to me, JA, since you believe that "improvement" comes from "rejecting that which is bad" why, in Darwin's name, should we "ought" to help people who are too dumb to shelter themselves?
JP:
Because I care about people.
Apikores:
I'm beginning to realize there is no point in engaging with this jewish "philosopher" guy.
That's usually my policy. He's the one commenter I generally ignore.
"I'm beginning to realize there is no point in engaging with this jewish "philosopher" guy."
There isn't. I'm right, you're wrong so just be honest and admit it.
"Because I care about people."
Meaning, you just want to be a liberal because it makes you feel good even though you know it's irrational. I'll buy that. I wonder how you kids will handle this kind of cognitive dissonance? Will they call it "bullshit", and how would you answer that if they do?
Do lenders declare some oath that says that they have the customer's best interests in mind? I don't think they do, and I am pretty certain doctors do.
There is a bottomless well of people who want shelter and a small corner of prosperity for themselves and their families.
Who made financing more and more "creative?" Who made financing more and more complex? Who understood that they were taking bigger and bigger risks on a rising real estate market? The banks.
As the bankers dipped lower and lower into that well of prospective clients, as the banks approved people who had less and less ability to afford a mortgage, are we really surprised that they found people with less and less ability to understand what they were getting into? The banks chose to take on foolish risk.
Which party understood the financing? In fact, which party made the financing increasingly difficult to understand? Which party fully understood that it was assuming greater and greater risk?
Why do we expect fiduciary responsibility from lawyers, financial planners, other financial experts, in fact, from realtors, but not from lenders?
The average person cannot be expected to understand the increasingly convoluted world of finance.
The result is a mortgage meltdown that we all have to pay for.
The banks caused this. The Republicans allowed it to happen.
>The average person cannot be expected to understand the increasingly convoluted world of finance.
Absolutly. But the average person knows (or SHOULD) know how much he makes, whats in his wallet, his expenses etc etc etc etc.
>The Republicans allowed it to happen.
LOL
Laugh, deregulator, laugh.
All the way to the poorhouse.
LOL
All of the money in the hands of the top 3% does not make for a healthy economy.
People need to be able to buy homes.
When banks create ever-increasingly complicated financial games in order to convince people that they can afford homes which they cannot, it does not help people get homes.
It is speculation. It is speculation with the shelter and financial lives of the American people, and with zero fiduciary responsibility.
Now I, someone who has never had a loan in my life, must pay my hard-earned tax dollars to bail-out speculators. Very nice.
Who created this deregulated environment of free-for-all? Pigs. Republicans.
Now, we ALL pay.
The Baby Boomers have had their retirement stolen.
How much MORE of the nation's total wealth ended up in the hands of the top 3% over the last 8 Republican years?
Still waiting for that trickle-down.
Gain, much like loss and blame, are two way streets that cannot be oversimplified without losing sight of the truth.
>People need to be able to buy homes.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Enter: The Community Reinvestment Act.
Psssttttt, regarding regulations, I will whisper this to you in your ear, but have you ever heard of OFHEO?
Actually, the irony in your statement of:
All of the money in the hands of the top 3% does not make for a healthy economy.
People need to be able to buy homes.
is just too delicious. It really should be kept.
Scott,
"Orthoprax is quite right in his assessment (aside from the "give them some money" bit)."
If the alternative is widespread homelessness then I'm on board with giving these people some short-term cash to carry them forward until they obtain appropriate living conditions.
The government should seek compensation for this layout down the road from the financial organizations which prospered from these dubious loan contracts in the first place.
Socialism certainly contradicts Darwinism. Darwinism promotes an extreme right wing political philosophy advocating racism and eugenics.
So I still don't get it - are liberals closet creationists, or just self contradictory idiots? And if the latter, which I assume is the case, how can you condemn conservatives, who are at least more logically consistent?
YGTBFKM JP!
"Darwinism" (i.e. evolution by natural selection) is a theory of nature, a theory about what IS.
Socialism is a theory of economics, a theory about what SHOULD BE.
Do you not understand that distinction?
Jewish Philosopher if you had even an ounce of intellectual honesty you would have allowed my last 5 comments to be published on your blog. That fact that you didn't let them through, even though they clearly had no offensive material in them shows me you are scared that they would shatter the faith of any would be believer in the divinity of the Torah. Now that that's out in the public, let's deal with nonsensical ramblings of the day:
"Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Leviticus Chapter 19: 18"
Notice the word "thy people". That's right this verse isn't a demand of equality for Jews to all of mankind. Its simply demanding you to be nice to other Jews. Fits in fine with the usual "Jews are special and everybody else (dang them filthy gentiles) isn't" them repeatedly established in the Torah.
"So theologically, you love Darwinism since it supports atheism while politically you abhor Darwinism since it supports racism and eugenics."
There is a significant difference between darwinism and evolution. They are not the same thing and the fact that you don't know that makes me question if you even have elementary knowledge on evolution.
A usual tactic of nutters who believe the world is 6000 years old is that they commit the base rate fallacy of trying to connect evolution with social darwinism. But you see darwinism, much less social darwinism is ancient and forgetten. Evolution is the conglomerate of our knowledge on paleontology, genetics and other biological sciences.
"And then you complain that Judaism doesn't makes sense; I don't see much consistency in your beliefs."
Ofcourse it doesn't make sense. People don't get the point of following a religion that is built on worshiping all things Jewish. You have entire chapters in Exodus, Numbers, Deutoronomy on how great Israel and the Jewish people are.
Anti-GENTILISM is the problem. There was no such thing as “anti-semitism” until the Old Testament of the Bible, especially the Torah created anti-GENTILISM, and sensible NON-Jews said: “Hey! since you HATE ME for NOT being one of you, I am sure not going to be PRO-semitism!”
Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of Chabad-Lubavitch:
'The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us differentiate.’ Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of (members) of all nations of the world… A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. The entire creation (of a non-Jew) exists only for the sake of the Jews.'
So-called “antisemitism” is not “hate”, it is the normal reaction of any SANE person to a Group, Society, Organization, that openly preaches IT’s hatred of You. Judaism has been preaching it’s Hatred of NON-jews for thousands of years, and THAT is why any NON-jew with self-esteem, and self-respect, is PRO-Gentile.
"Where else would I get altruism?"
Altruism eh. I have a question for you
Amalek & Genocide: Midianites: Num 31, Deut 3
One of the mitzvos is to wipe out (kill) all people who are Amalek.
Is true that ----- Amalek attacked the Jews at desert of Sinai, therefore can their extermination be justify as self defense?
2. Why? -----include their animals as part of the extermination?
3. Why? Can killing the Amalekies be classified as making peace and improving the world?
I don't have a problem with the idea of 'collateral damage', innocents killed unintentionally while hostiles, command and control are targeted.
But captured 'young children' off the field of battle killed 'for vengeance' (three times it says that in Numbers 31) are not 'collateral damage'.
Would it be reasonable to you if a country at war with us captured tens of thousands of young Jewish children killed them 'for vengeance'?
Would that be 'collateral damage' or 'martial law'? And yet this is the morality of the Torah.
Altruism my ass!
>Notice the word "thy people". That's right this verse isn't a demand of equality for Jews to all of mankind. Its simply demanding you to be nice to other Jews. Fits in fine with the usual "Jews are special and everybody else (dang them filthy gentiles) isn't" them repeatedly established in the Torah.
But yet it also says to treat the "ger" right.
I thin you are going overboard. You will have to give some sort of actual proof that it is the Jews that started the hate and gentiles simply responding to them. Does this side with the Christians? Do you think they cared for the Canaanites and how the Israelites treated them? Yes, there are tons of anti gentile stuff in our literature. But I ask you to establish that it was NOT the Jew that was the one reacting to HIS society and not the other way around.
BTW- The issue with Amalek,is not about hate
Here, here shalmo. But I don't think anybody can get through to this "philosopher" guy. I've been trying to explain to him the difference between evolution and "social darwinism" for the last two days, but he seems to be one of those religious folk immune to logic.
Well, Darwin himself was a social Darwinist.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/06/evolution-pseudoscience-of-genocide.html
But I guess anonymous bloggers understand Darwin better than Darwin did himself.
I think you have a pretty low estimation for the average American. I would argue that almost every adult who is not mentally disabled understands compound interest and when you sign for a mortgage, they do tell you what the monthly payment will be. I think every adult American of normal intelligence is able to figure out if they can make a monthly payment based upon their income.
We learned compound interest in grade 4 and had to take an economics class to graduate high school, and I went to a crappy public high school where the rate of people who go to college is around 10%. What high school graduates do you know who don't understand compound interest?
Mortgages are pretty simple.... You have a monthly payment you can either afford, or not afford.
If there are 2 families, one makes 50k and buys a 100k house and the other makes 60k and buys a 300k house, later getting into mortgage trouble, why should the government be giving money to the couple who makes more with the nicer house?
I would have to agree on this article,borrowers are tempted because there are companies who offers them a lower rates.
"I thin you are going overboard. You will have to give some sort of actual proof that it is the Jews that started the hate and gentiles simply responding to them."
Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God:
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews:
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status:
Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews:
Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews:
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews:
Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human:
Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.
Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.
Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
"Does this side with the Christians?"
I am not a christian and let me assure you I loathe Christianity with very every fibre of my being, particularly evangelical/baptist Jews of Jesus type missionary cows. I would prefer the entire world be pagan, atheist, jewish, hindu or whatever rather than christian.
"Do you think they cared for the Canaanites and how the Israelites treated them?"
There is something called mercy. Why have a mitzvohs to wipe out all the 7 Canaanite nations? Other mitzvoh say one many never free a canaanite slave. It seems clear to me hatred was established for them.
If Judaism was divine I would expect some compassion for your enemies in the Torah. Like I said I have no problem with the death of women and children in any battle, because such is unavoidable in war.
But to take children off the batte-field and kill them for "vengeance" and to have it ordered by Yahweh is another matter. Why were the animals included in the massacre?
"Yes, there are tons of anti gentile stuff in our literature. But I ask you to establish that it was NOT the Jew that was the one reacting to HIS society and not the other way around."
It doesn't matter who started it. If your religion is divine it would teach you morality.
Its damm hypocritical for you to oppose the Holocaust when similar genocide is sanctioned in the Torah
Can you imagine if a Canaanite or Amalekite was alive here today, what would you have to do based on your religion? You would have to kill them.
"BTW- The issue with Amalek,is not about hate"
Yes it is. Because a holy book that sanctions genocide also essentially tells its followers it ok to committ genocide today.
You do know that the Crusaders and the Inquisition justified their genocide because of what they read in their bibles, particularly the passages on the Canaanites and Amalekites. Who would dare argue with the extermination of heathens when they read this in their bibles?
A prime example is what Israel is doing today to the Palestinians.
Here is an example of Judaism in action:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
"All civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot, former Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has written in a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings.The letter, published in Olam Katan [Small World], a weekly pamphlet to be distributed in synagogues nationwide this Friday, cited the biblical story of the Shechem massacre (Genesis 34) and Maimonides' commentary (Laws of Kings 9, 14) on the story as proof texts for his legal decision."
When the terrorist state of Israel is vanquished (soon and likely in our lifetimes) will you approve or not should the Palestinians round up all Jewish children and kill them for "vengeance"? Yes or No.
Better yet. What if the Palestinians decide that they are going to kill all men, little Jewish boys, and pregnant women; while keeping the virgins for themselves? Would you feel it is justified? Yes or No.
If you say no to both scenarios then that means you yourself cannot don't see eye to eye with Yahweh
"I've been trying to explain to him the difference between evolution and "social darwinism" for the last two days, but he seems to be one of those religious folk immune to logic."
For the record I am one of those religious folk, though my religion doesn't have anything contradictory with evolution
"Well, Darwin himself was a social Darwinist.
But I guess anonymous bloggers understand Darwin better than Darwin did himself."
WHO THE FUCK CARES? JEEEEEEZ
Darwin has absolutely zero to do with evolution
And here's a great way to debunk your social darwinism connection.....evolution was around LONG before darwin came and ripped off ideas
From who you ask? Simple. The first person to discover evolution was Nasir Al Din Al Tusi; who incidentally was also marja-e-taqleed aka the highest religious authority on shia islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nas%C4%ABr_al-D%C4%ABn_al-T%C5%ABs%C4%AB#Biology
And clearly his ideas did not cause social darwinism. This is because social darwinism has more to do with christian/victorian values than evolution.
I didn't mean to get anyone upset, however I am simply pointing out that belief in Darwinian evolution and political liberalism are logically incompatible. Just ask any Nazi.
^^^non-sequitar
Why are you still a Jew when I gave you rabbinical commentaries (which you didnt even refute) proving the true Torah was lost due to the sins of the Jews?
Why are you still posting when you can't even spell "Shlomo"?
Seriously, I can understand someone wanting to be compassionate, however if you believe in evolution, how can you criticize someone who is not compassionate and is merely rationally wishing for improvement? The foreclosure crisis should, according to Darwin, lead to the extinction of one unfit species [Homo deadbeaticus "Dead Beat Man"] and it's replacement with another more fit one [Homo paysbillicus "Bill Paying Man"].
Shalmo: "For the record I am one of those religious folk, though my religion doesn't have anything contradictory with evolution"
I didn't mean that all religious folk are immune to logic, just that JP is one that is.
JP: "Well, Darwin himself was a social Darwinist."
I don't think that's true, but even if it is, who cares? Is my name Darwin? Darwin could have been a baby-raping cannibal, and that wouldn't have any bearing on the truth or falsity of evolution. Unlike Torah, science is based on evidence, not the words of men.
So evolution is false. I agree.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html
"Why are you still posting when you can't even spell "Shlomo"?"
Because Shalmo is the name I chose as an alias. I had no intention of connecting to Shlomo. Seriously like WTF
"Seriously, I can understand someone wanting to be compassionate, however if you believe in evolution, how can you criticize someone who is not compassionate and is merely rationally wishing for improvement? The foreclosure crisis should, according to Darwin, lead to the extinction of one unfit species [Homo deadbeaticus "Dead Beat Man"] and it's replacement with another more fit one [Homo paysbillicus "Bill Paying Man"]."
I believe in evolution and I have a religion so where do I fit in?
Evolution does not sanction killing little boys, pregnant women and taking virgin girls as sex slaves. The Torah on the other hand............
I don't wish to use the word "stupid" but it definitely applies here
There is a reason the 50% intermarriage rate is finishing off the Jewish people. Its because bigots like make them not want to be Jewish anymore, much less give a damm about it
Shlomo is a name. Shalmo on the other hand is not a name.
And I'm sorry, but I don't want you to be my sex slave. We don't have a spare bedroom right now, but try some other time.
>It doesn't matter who started it. If your religion is divine it would teach you morality.
Based on whose morality? In the end morality is subjective. If you are quoting me passages out of Talmud (post temple period) (and NOT biblical) ask yourself why. Why did they have passages like that in there Was it because they just hated gentiles, or because they kept having horrible experiences with them. Of course, it is soooo easy to sit in an armchair and start judging peoples experiences 2000 years ago.
>Its damm hypocritical for you to oppose the Holocaust when similar genocide is sanctioned in the Torah
Um no. The holocaust was purely an issue of hating jews and racial superiority. With Amalek, it has nothing to do with that. You whipe out Amalek because of the fact that he is a danger to you physically. Read Nach, they are at constant war with them and being raided. In the end, maybe brutal force IS what is required to allow your own people to live. You have a right to exist, and if someone is challenging that, well.... Probably the same goes with kids. Again, you are dealing with a society well over 2000 years old that did not have the same sentiments for children as you do.
>If Judaism was divine I would expect some compassion for your enemies in the Torah.
How do you objectively show that compassion towards enemies is better? I mean, that does not make much sense. If he is an enemy, and raiding your people, how do you show compassion?
BTW- Did you purposely ignore what I told you about me corrected you with showing compassion to the ger?
>Here is an example of Judaism in action:
LOL
Ya, I figured it all came down to this. In the end, you if you feel like this regarding Israel, then honestly, your own version of morality is no better than Judaism.
"Shlomo is a name. Shalmo on the other hand is not a name."
Who the fuck gives a shit about you consider a name?
Jacob Stein is not very lutheran. Stein isn't jewish either
"And I'm sorry, but I don't want you to be my sex slave. We don't have a spare bedroom right now, but try some other time."
You wish grandpa. Stick with wife #2. Hopefully this one will last longer than the last
Hopefully she's bear with the fact that as an orthodox jew, following the most misogynist creed on this creed, you wake up each day thanking God for not making you a woman. How does she take that?
"Based on whose morality? In the end morality is subjective. If you are quoting me passages out of Talmud (post temple period) (and NOT biblical) ask yourself why. Why did they have passages like that in there Was it because they just hated gentiles, or because they kept having horrible experiences with them. Of course, it is soooo easy to sit in an armchair and start judging peoples experiences 2000 years ago."
YOU are the one who asked me to cite proof of gentile hatred in Judaism, which I have just done
There have been many people who have been oppressed yet showed civility to their enemies
For the record we don't know if the Amalekites were oppressive. All we have is the Torah word on that matter. For all we know the Jewish scribes forged this history to justify taking their land and massacring them. Its happens all the time and Jews in particular are all up on historical revisionism
"Um no. The holocaust was purely an issue of hating jews and racial superiority. With Amalek, it has nothing to do with that. You whipe out Amalek because of the fact that he is a danger to you physically. Read Nach, they are at constant war with them and being raided. In the end, maybe brutal force IS what is required to allow your own people to live. You have a right to exist, and if someone is challenging that, well.... Probably the same goes with kids. Again, you are dealing with a society well over 2000 years old that did not have the same sentiments for children as you do."
non-sequitar. notice how you simply refuse to rationalize what I said
lemme paste the previous reply:
Amalek & Genocide: Midianites: Num 31, Deut 3
One of the mitzvos is to wipe out (kill) all people who are Amalek.
Is true that ----- Amalek attacked the Jews at desert of Sinai, therefore can their extermination be justify as self defense?
2. Why? -----include their animals as part of the extermination?
3. Why? Can killing the Amalekies be classified as making peace and improving the world?
I don't have a problem with the idea of 'collateral damage', innocents killed unintentionally while hostiles, command and control are targeted.
But captured 'young children' off the field of battle killed 'for vengeance' (three times it says that in Numbers 31) are not 'collateral damage'.
Would it be reasonable to you if a country at war with us captured tens of thousands of young Jewish children killed them 'for vengeance'?
I never said self-defense is not justified. I am asking about the animals, as well as children killed off the battlefield
Notice how you absolutely refuse to answer whether or not you would accept Palestinians subjecting Jews to the same treatment. Killing little boys, pregnant women and taking virgins as sex slaves. Can the Palestinians do that to the Jews who are oppressing them today? Yes or No.
"How do you objectively show that compassion towards enemies is better? I mean, that does not make much sense. If he is an enemy, and raiding your people, how do you show compassion?"
Not killing the children. Not killing little boys, pregnant women and enslaving virgins. What did the little boys do that was so wrong? What did pregnant women do that was so wrong? Why does Moses condemn his men in Deutoronomy for sparing women in battlefiled?
"BTW- Did you purposely ignore what I told you about me corrected you with showing compassion to the ger?"
What the heck are you on about?
YOU are the one who didn't address my points about whether or not Palestinians (who's suffering today surpasses anything the Jewish people have ever experienced) can be justified using the same tactics that the Torah prescribes for its enemies. Well?
"Ya, I figured it all came down to this. In the end, you if you feel like this regarding Israel, then honestly, your own version of morality is no better than Judaism."
Ah no. I whole heartedly reject any form of imperialism, stealing of land and genocide against any indigenous population. All 3 of which are sponsored by the Israeli state.
And this leads to something very important that needs to be said outloud:
Many Jews are descendants from later converts (ever wonder about all those blond haired Jews...). Jews had largely already left prior to any Muslims coming in the holy land, and no, it wasn't because the Romans kicked them all out. That's a distortion of history, Jews had been leaving for other lands for some time, such as to Egypt (Alexandria) and other areas, not out of persecutions, but for the same reason so many people in the "third world" leave their homelands today, economic opportunities. From what I recall, population estimates indicate that prior to the Roman sack, the majority of Jews were already living outside of Palestine. Even after the Roman sack of Jerusalem, there was still a Jewish presence in Palestine after that. How can the descendants (thousands of years later) of people who voluntarily left, or whose ancestors were never there in the first place, lay any claim to the land today?
"Writing in 1971, Salo W. Baron estimated the Jewish population within the borders of the Roman empire at just under 7 million, with slightly more than a million others living outside its borders, mostly to the east; the Jewish population of Palestine he placed at not higher than 2.5 million (Encyclopaedia Judaica [New York: Macmillan, 1972], vol. 13, p. 871). Paul Johnson writes “Though it is impossible to present accurate figures, it is clear that by the time of Christ the diaspora Jews greatly outnumbered the settled Jews of Palestine: perhaps by as many as 4.5 million to 1” (A History of Christianity [New York: Athenaeum, 1976], p. 12). Subsequent estimates generally fall between these extremes. Thus, Wayne Meeks in The First Urban Christians (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983) estimates 1 million Jews in Palestine, 5 million to 6 million in the diaspora."
[Encyclopaedia Judaica and Yale University Press]
Please don't insult each other. Let's keep it civil. You guys are way off topic and at least one of you is crazy.
JP you need to deal with the fact that what you is practice is mostly just a dead religion
A substantial part of the core religious rites cannot be carried out now. Literally half of the 613 mitzvohs have to do with the temple that no longer exists.
Due to the sins of the Jews, foreign armies invaded the Holy Land and destroyed the Jewish temple in the late first-century CE. The Jews are now in a state of exile and according to the classical opinion, will only be permitted to return when the Messiah comes and rebuilds the temple. When you read the Torah, it becomes very clear the central role that the temple, and the geographical environs of the Holy Land, play in Jewish religious law. Without the temple (which they don't have) and the land (which they will soon be losing in our days), much is missing from how Jews practice Judaism and the divine ideal that is supposedly laid-down in the Torah. In fact without the two you don't really have much of a religion, and this has been the case for Jewry for the majority of their history. Some divine plan by Hashem eh
Imagine if for instance Muslims could no longer make Hajj, or even say Salat. The worship in the Pentateuch seems largely sacrificial in its nature, but where's the Jewish sacrifices today (except for the Samaritans who continue to do so, but on Mt. Gerazim instead of in Jerusalem, which their "version" of the Torah says to do so on).
Even if Jews like JP had their dreams come true and they were able to destroy the Aqsa masjid and rebuild another Temple, how would they know where the Holy of Holies is or even the Ark itself)? Only the high priest was allowed to enter it on Yom Kippur, so by them not knowing where it is, that's a pretty big problem for them.
They don't even know for sure how to properly pronounce the Hebrew name of God anymore (relying on a Greek transliteration to guess what it might have been).
Hence the accusation of your following a dead religion.
The morality of Judaism is evidenced in the following verses from the Torah:
Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. _(Numbers 31:13-18)
Moses and his companions, in their quest to take over the Holy Land, kill women and children, but spare the virgins. The Torah is replete with virginal obsession. Someone being "defiled," is VERY Biblical; the notion that a victim of rape is "defiled," and thus looked down upon, or their social status lowered in any way, shape, or form. Some religion
I feel the same way about the investment banks. Let them sink.
>YOU are the one who asked me to cite proof of gentile hatred in Judaism, which I have just done
No. I asked you to show me proof that the stuff that the Talmud says is derived from the actual religion, or a response to gentile oppression of the time. You have no shown this. All you do is quote passages in talmud, just like anti semites with agendas do.
>For the record we don't know if the Amalekites were oppressive. All we have is the Torah word on that matter. For all we know the Jewish scribes forged this history to justify taking their land and massacring them. Its happens all the time and Jews in particular are all up on historical revisionism
LMAO. So you have no outside sources for Amalek. All you have is the Israelite version. So instead of actually dealing with what the text says about them, you bring up some ad hoc explanation that Jewish scribes forged this. HA. PROOF my friend. Its call PROOF.
non-sequitar. notice how you simply refuse to rationalize what I said
lemme paste the previous reply:
Amalek & Genocide: Midianites: Num 31, Deut 3
One of the mitzvos is to wipe out (kill) all people who are Amalek.
Is true that ----- Amalek attacked the Jews at desert of Sinai, therefore can their extermination be justify as self defense?
2. Why? -----include their animals as part of the extermination?
3. Why? Can killing the Amalekies be classified as making peace and improving the world?
Um no. I answered you. All we have of the Amalek is what the Tanach says. Tanach says these people wer mauraders. Your problem is bring in 20th century sensitivies of world peace. Bad idea. Very subjective. Put yourself in their shoes in THAT time. You have an enemy that for generations upon generations have been out to get you. Maybe what is moral is to whipe them out. Don't know. But then again, neither do you. (that is, objectively)
>What the heck are you on about?
Maybe you need to go back and read the thread. You brought up that you have to only love your brother and said this is an example of only respecting Jews. I brought up the law of respecting the ger. This you ignored.
YOU are the one who didn't address my points about whether or not Palestinians (who's suffering today surpasses anything the Jewish people have ever experienced) can be justified using the same tactics that the Torah prescribes for its enemies. Well?
BULLSEYE. I need to keep this comment. The fact that you claim their suffering is more than anything Jews have experienced is already a window to your mind. If you think Israel is the oppressor than fine. Anything Israel will ever do in your eyes will be evil. Typical bullshit. Nothing new. If you want to imply that the Palestinians have a moral right to fight back, than say so. But I can respond in the like. And if the Palestinians WANT to fight, than Israel will fight back...and they should do it harder once and for all.
By the way, I know it might hinder your honorable philosophy, but I suggest at the very least you look up the word genocide.
Post a Comment