A commentator immediately decided to attack the source of the story. His first comment was
So you look at Haaretz as the Gospel. If there is one true sentence in that (or any) Haaretz story, it is surely coincidental and entirely unintentional.
Yes, the use of the word "Gospel" was not lost on me, but I let it pass. I also let pass the fact that his entire argument consisted of "Ha'aretz can't be believed."
What finally got to me was when he posted this line:
Haaretz's say so? Haaretz's accuracy is comparable to Der Strumer.
That's the point where I shut the debate down. It is my opinion that if he is truly comparing Ha'aretz to Der Strumer, then he's just not interested in (or not capable of) rational, reasoned debate on the issues. In short, I am a firm believer in Godwin's Law (unless, of course, we're actually discussing Nazis). When someone resorts to reductio ad Hitlerum, then they're no longer debating honestly or fairly.
My commentator seems to believe that my shutting down the debate (which barely got started) over this indicates a lack of integrity. I don't beleive so... but I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm wrong and put this matter up for debate as well.
What do you think? Does this indicate a lack of integrity?
The Wolf
25 comments:
Anyone comparing an ISRAELI newspaper to a Nazi publication is clearly not rational enough to debate
> What do you think? Does this indicate a lack of integrity?
No, it doesn't indicate a lack of integrity, but this whole effort does indicate a lack of intelligence, or maybe just a very high degree of naivete.
Sorry to be a bit harsh, but I expect someone of your caliber to have the brains to realize that there's no point in getting into it with such a person.
Questioning your own logic on something like this is like an adult wondering whether his writing is ok because his toddler son scribbled on it with a crayon.
You give these morons far too much credit.
No, it doesn't indicate a lack of integrity, but this whole effort does indicate a lack of intelligence, or maybe just a very high degree of naivete.
Or an absurd sense of fair play. I generally try to bend over backwards to be fair -- and yes, sometimes beyond what some might call the point of reason.
The Wolf
Definitely not. Even the Godwin's Law analogy gives this guy way too much credit. Godwin's Law afik refers to statements like "You think vegetarians are humane? Hitler was a vegeterian" or "The first thing the Nazis did was try to impose gun control" where there's a legitimate point being made, but by doing it by implying a somewhat benign activity was at the root of absolute evil you are effectively poisoning the debate. Here this guy is comparing a newspaper, flawed as it may be, to a different newspaper which existed to be a war crime, without bothering to point out who's genocide is being incited. That's not a reduction ad Hitlerum, that's just offensive.
Also, I second the question, as to why you put up with this.
Like I have told Rabbi Slifkin in the past, some people are clearly just arguing because they don't want to hear what you have to say. I think a debate should go on long enough to realize that the other person is just repeating the same statements without actually responding to valid points. Isn;t that what you did?
Because you live forever, you are obligated to debate each and every person who disagrees with you until you come to a resolution. Enjoy your next few centuries of "Am not!" "Are too!" "Am not!" "I'm rubber and you're glue!" etc.
People shouldn't be allowed to compare atheists to Nazis either. Which is why Garnel should be put in cherem.
The Der Strumer comparison was made to stress the point, not to call Haaretz Nazis. He could of as easily used Pravda, instead of der Strumer, to make the same point. I do not believe the usage of Der Strumer detracted from his point.
Apparently he felt you stopped short the debate because you didn't have a substantive response to his points, and used this issue to cover that up.
"Does A Refusal To Debate Indicate A Lack Of Integrity?"
His stated point was your *excuse* to not debate was the result of a lack of integrity; not that refusing to debate is in of itself a lack of integrity.
"Yes, the use of the word "Gospel" was not lost on me, but I let it pass."
What about the term Gospel (a Christian term in origin, but generally used to mean "something true" in common English language) wasn't lost?
"I also let pass the fact that his entire argument consisted of "Ha'aretz can't be believed."
That is a fair argument. If someone believes a source to be entirely non-credible, and an argument depends on information from that source, discrediting the source discredits the argument presented.
1) Shutting down an argument does not mean a lack of integrity. As the old saying goes, never argue with a fool. People won't be able to tell the difference between the two of you.
2) Don't read too much into words like "Gospel". They have entered the current vocabulary and lost any connection to what they originally meant. Even Jews use the Gospel truth as an expression to emphasize their point without it having any religious implicatoins.
3) Arguing that Haaretz might not be presenting the story accurately is a valid point. After all, when major American newspapers report on Israel we know that their reliability is extremely questionable. A paper with an anti-religious track record like Haaretz also has to be taken with a mountain of salt, not just a grain. We weren't in the room with this young lady and the rabbi in question. All we know is the version of the story Haaretz chose to tell about it.
The man's comparison of Haaretz to a Nazi publication was an overheated way of stating that Haaretz is programatically hostile to religious Jews, to the point of being considered anti-Semitic by many religious people in Israel. His point is well-taken. You cannot rely on anything in Haaretz without substantiation.
PS What is more egregious: calling an anti-religious paper Nazi-like or uncritically accepting such a paper's news report and expanding upon it, which inspires hostile comments against chareidim--e.g., the person who thinks it is worthwhile making aliyah so that he may fight the chareidim?
DH: "...The man's comparison of Haaretz to a Nazi publication was an overheated way of stating that Haaretz is programatically hostile to religious Jews...."
Dibat Haaretz, you nailed it. His choice of words was poor, Nazi comparisons *are* used promiscuously---but his point was also clear, and it's a valid one.
oops. context is everything.
Yes, anyone making the general point that Ha'aretz's virtually constant anti-Israel stance borders on anti-semitism is indeed saying something.
But BT's apparent knee-jerk rejection of anything/anyone that seems to expose chareidi craziness---and his infantile assertion that *Wolf* is the one who can't defend his point---are not worth debating. Wolf was right to refuse to go on in that vein (if only after a bit of uncharacteristic silliness)
Thank you, everyone, for responding.
Let's start from the top.
I don't read Ha'aretz very often, nor do I, for that matter, monitor the Israeli press. But, truth to tell, even if Ha'aretz has an anti-
Chareidi bias, deflection of the argument based on those grounds still comes down to an ad hominem attack (unless you think that they made up Hillary Rubin out of whole cloth). For example, an antisemite can say the worst things about Jews, but the truth or falsity of it really doesn't hang on whether the speaker is an antisemites. Antisemites can speak the truth about Jews (one may question their reasons for saying them, but if they're true, then they're true).
Don't read too much into words like "Gospel". They have entered the current vocabulary and lost any connection to what they originally meant. Even Jews use the Gospel truth as an expression to emphasize their point without it having any religious implicatoins.
I find it hard to believe that one who uses the moniker "Ben Torah" would do so. I (who would probably not be counted as a ben Torah by many people) would never use the term to mean "absolute truth" except as a deliberate pun (such as talking about Church doctrine, for example).
The Wolf
Oh, the irony of JRS' two consecutive comments is sweet indeed!
At first he admits calling Haaretz an anti-semitic rag (to paraphrase him) is both "clear" and a valid point.
But them, lo and behold, after noticing Haaretz was sticking their chazer feeselech at Chareidim(!!), wow, retraction. That's okay. Bad paper, yes, but Chareidim are open targets for anyone.
"the truth or falsity of it really doesn't hang on whether the speaker is an antisemites. Antisemites can speak the truth about Jews (one may question their reasons for saying them, but if they're true, then they're true)."
True. But I thought that the issue here was that Haareetz was the only source of this information--therefore, the information is suspect until a more reliable source is found.
"I (who would probably not be counted as a ben Torah by many people) would never use the term to mean "absolute truth" except as a deliberate pun"
It was deliberate pun indeed.
It was deliberate pun indeed.
Well then, thank you for confirming my suspicions.
The Wolf
Wolf said: "...an antisemite can say the worst things about Jews, but the truth or falsity of it really doesn't hang on whether the speaker is an antisemites"
Wolf, that's a little disingenuous. It's technically true---if you're talking about an obvious, basic fact: the weather was hot in Bnei Brak. But almost all 'factual' stories are subject to exaggeration, ignoring context, etc.... everyone puts their own spin on things to some extent, some more, some less; some strive hard for objectivity, and some are only too happy to skew the truth.
At the very least, it's safe to say the Ha'aretz reporter wouldn't check her claims with the same zealous skepticism that they would employ if a some chareidi guy made an accusation against, say, a famous leftist. .
I did not in any way retract anything. I just realized the larger context---and point---of that blog=posting, and wanted to clarify my opinion on that. Which is: yes Ha'aretz is biased---and I certainly think that needs to be factored into any assessment of the story as we know it, if that's the only source. But that does not speak to the larger issue of increasing chareidi bullying---and the penchant of some people to automatically dismiss any stories unflattering to Jews/frum people/chareidim/ as anti-semitic/modern/frei propaganda. That's nonsense. And Wolf was right to refrain from engaging in that type of anti-intellectual 'debate'.
Wolf, that's a little disingenuous. It's technically true---if you're talking about an obvious, basic fact: the weather was hot in Bnei Brak. But almost all 'factual' stories are subject to exaggeration, ignoring context, etc.... everyone puts their own spin on things to some extent, some more, some less; some strive hard for objectivity, and some are only too happy to skew the truth.
That's fair enough -- and we can argue about the degree of truthfulness contained within the statement. But that degree -- whether it's 0% (an outright lie), 50% (a half-truth), 75% (mostly true but with some spin) or 100% (complete truth) is still determined independent of the person who makes the statement.
The Wolf
As long as you're not "shutting down the debate" by deleting his comments, it's fine. There comes a point where you realize that you're not even speaking the same language, so to speak.
I seem to recall reading a novel (I suspect it was by Marion Zimmer Bradley) where one of the characters cites a proverb along the lines of "he who brays at a donkey will not win cases before the law courts."
Even 99% truth is 100% sheker.
Post a Comment