Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 09, 2023, 10:09:24 pm »

"Then, why Judaism, legacy of Moses, compatible with democracy?"

Because the majority can be herded by skillful herders. The herders are merely pragmatists using democracy to achieve their own aims.

Jews will claim to be compatible with anything they want to exert control over. If you take them seriously you are a fool.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/vegan-jews/

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/msg18594/#msg18594
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: April 09, 2023, 08:06:15 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on April 09, 2023, 06:54:51 pm
You have no clue what you are talking about. Moses was not a democrat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Moses

Quote
The "Law of Moses" in ancient Israel was different from other legal codes in the ancient Near East because transgressions were seen as offences against God rather than solely as offences against society (civil law).[6] This contrasts with the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100–2050 BCE), and the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BCE, of which almost half concerns contract law).
...
The law attributed to Moses, specifically the laws set out in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, as a consequence came to be considered supreme over all other sources of authority (any king and/or his officials), and the Levites were the guardians and interpreters of the law.[12]

The Levites were not the majority of Israelites, nor could non-Levites by joining some of the Levites to form a majority of Israelites thus override the other Levites in the minority.

It is more accurate to compare Moses to Lycurgus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Longinus

Quote
calling him 'no chance person' (οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν ἀνήρ) but "the Lawgiver" (θεσμοθέτης, thesmothete) of the Jews, a term that puts him on a par with Lycurgus

(or for that matter Confucius:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/china-and-united-states-relations/msg12712/#msg12712 )

"Aristotle was a western paganist and Moses was a Jew"

Judaism is a form of paganism (ie. ethnic religion). It is more accurate to say that Aristotle was a polytheist whereas Moses was a monotheist.

Then, why Judaism, legacy of Moses, compatible with democracy? Moses ben Maimonides and modern political philosophers admit that Judaism were match with Aristotelian's theory of general will and democracy
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 09, 2023, 06:54:51 pm »

You have no clue what you are talking about. Moses was not a democrat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Moses

Quote
The "Law of Moses" in ancient Israel was different from other legal codes in the ancient Near East because transgressions were seen as offences against God rather than solely as offences against society (civil law).[6] This contrasts with the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100–2050 BCE), and the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BCE, of which almost half concerns contract law).
...
The law attributed to Moses, specifically the laws set out in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, as a consequence came to be considered supreme over all other sources of authority (any king and/or his officials), and the Levites were the guardians and interpreters of the law.[12]

The Levites were not the majority of Israelites, nor could non-Levites by joining some of the Levites to form a majority of Israelites thus override the other Levites in the minority.

It is more accurate to compare Moses to Lycurgus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Longinus

Quote
calling him 'no chance person' (οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν ἀνήρ) but "the Lawgiver" (θεσμοθέτης, thesmothete) of the Jews, a term that puts him on a par with Lycurgus

(or for that matter Confucius:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/china-and-united-states-relations/msg12712/#msg12712 )

"Aristotle was a western paganist and Moses was a Jew"

Judaism is a form of paganism (ie. ethnic religion). It is more accurate to say that Aristotle was a polytheist whereas Moses was a monotheist.
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: April 09, 2023, 09:40:44 am »

Quote
but what was the main idea of the ideologies of Aristotle and Moses. How were they distinct from each other and how were they similar to each other?

They are fellow radical democrats, capitalist, and racialist. The differences were that Aristotle was a western paganist and Moses was a Jew. And they live on different timeline, Moses predates Aristotle
Posted by: HikariDude
« on: April 09, 2023, 09:05:41 am »

As I know about Western culture, by West you mean the ideological lineage of Aristotle and Moses,

but what was the main idea of the ideologies of Aristotle and Moses. How were they distinct from each other and how were they similar to each other?
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: December 23, 2022, 09:25:21 pm »

I think after I analyze and make dialogue to the false-leftist westerners, they not want to follow our correct worldview and methods not because they believe that what they see and follow is right, but because they just not want to make any conflict with everyone regardless of their ideological background. And anyone who begin conflict will be despised by them even though the conflict is necessary to defeat the oppressors
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 23, 2022, 08:51:15 pm »

Yes. "The air conditioner wasn't directly aiming its hot air at you. I didn't even check to see if you were in your room before switching it on. Their intent of switching on the air conditioner was not to heat up your room, but to cool my own room."* Does that make it acceptable?

(* This goes back to what I was saying about tribalism being about not hostility to the outgroup but rather indifference to the outgroup.)

"They have reason to consider me as offensive because I give correction arguments on their writing contents."

If they didn't want feedback, they had the option to write without publishing. By publishing, they are putting their writings out there to be critiqued. How then can they blame you for critiquing them?
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: December 23, 2022, 07:54:38 pm »

Quote
You cannot demand privacy when your actions affect others.

They say that they writings a sentences which not directly to speak to me or another people whose thinking is like me. And their justify their psychological writings which contain moral-relativism and Stoicism because they not mention anything to attack others. They have reason to consider me as offensive because I give correction arguments on their writing contents. Is the answer still same like your analogy or there's another argument to answer their accusation to me?

They rather blame me for my inconvenience on their content.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 21, 2022, 08:32:10 pm »

Imagine two people, one of whom is using an air conditioner to cool their own room by blowing the hot air into other person's room. When the other person objects, the air conditioner user says: "I'm not forcing to you use an air conditioner in your room, therefore you shouldn't force me to not use an air conditioner in my room."

You cannot demand privacy when your actions affect others.

Just remember Western civilization is an air conditioner:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/debate-with-the-progressives/msg14389/#msg14389

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/truth-knowledge/msg15668/#msg15668

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-folkish-imperialism/msg14823/#msg14823

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/debunking-rightist-anti-immigration-arguments/msg9868/#msg9868

See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-folkish-imperialism/msg10902/#msg10902

Quote
A non-industrial country does not prevent an industrial country from successful industry, therefore the industrial country is unjustified in invading the non-industrial country. A non-compulsory-schooling country does not prevent a compulsory-schooling scountry from successful compulsory schooling, therefore the compulsory-schooling country is unjustified in invading the non-compulsory-schooling country. And so on. (In fact it is the other way round: the non-industrial/non-compulsory-schooling/etc. countries should invade the industrial/compulsory-schooling/etc. countries in order to eradicate industry/compulsory schooling/etc.!)

In general, let X be an idea. If X is something that can succeed only if everyone practices it, invasion to impose X is justified. Whereas if X is something that can succeed with merely a fraction of people practicing it, invasion to spread X is unjustified (but invasion of practitioners by non-practitioners to eradicate X is justified!).
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: December 21, 2022, 07:10:51 pm »

I'm ever debate with an opponent whose answer to my debate is ask me to be calm because they not forcing their opinion on me to justify their way of life, what is the best answer of that?