Challenge- Argue the Opposite Position 2010

ora_43

Tue, May 10 2011, 4:20 pm

We should not rejoice when terrorists are killed.

The idea of rejoicing over the death of an enemy is a galus approach. When we see ourselves as victims, we are pleased when a potential attacker is neutralized. However, when we see ourselves as having power, the power to lead and guide even those who currently seek to attack us, we will naturally feel a degree of sorrow at the fact that their lives needed to end.

Let's take sheep as a (perhaps somewhat strange) example. A sheep might be expected to be happy when the wolf is killed. But a shepherd is not happy when a sheep is put down, no matter how necessary it was, because he sees the loss of any sheep - even a deranged rabid sheep - as the loss of something that had the potential to be good and to provide a benefit.

If we see ourselves as the guiding shepherd and not the helpless sheep, we will not be happy when an enemy, no matter how rabid, is "put down," because we will see the loss of something that could have been good, had events only turned out differently. As Israel's role in the world is to serve as a leader and guide and not merely a victim, we should work to internalize the "shepherd" viewpoint, and not the victim approach, whenever possible.

In addition, by celebrating we focus on just one aspect of our enemy, while ignoring the potential for change. This is counterproductive in the long run, since ultimately it will be much better for us if our enemies change their opinion of us, rather than fighting us to the death. We must do whatever necessary - even avoiding poking fun at dead terrorists, if it comes to that - in order to keep our sights set on the ultimate goal of teshuva for all.

shoshina

Tue, May 10 2011, 4:29 pm

OK Amother, I take your challenge:

2) Not having to ask a Rabbi to go on BC, By Shoshina

Women of an age to be married of also of an age to be mothers, and the Torah tells us to be fruitful and multiply. However, the unique circumstances of each woman are known to her alone, and in the privacy of her own heart she may harbor concerns she does not wish to share with the Rabbi. We are not Catholics, we are not obliged to confess to our fellow man. Our community is a small one, and every neshama is precious, and should be wanted and loved-- should women have to disobey the Rav and feel guilt every morning when they take their pill, or should we assume that the adult women responsible for the Jewish character of their home are also responsible enough to decide the timing and spacing of their family. Should yet another family need to request benefits or tuition assistance, and be pilloried on imamother, because the breadwinner had to go on bed-rest unexpectedly? Other than the mitzvah of a boy and a girl child, is there any halacha saying that we must reproduce unless and until a Rabbi tells us otherwise?

ora_43

Tue, May 10 2011, 4:36 pm

amother wrote:

1) Gay marriage should be allowed/legal,

The Torah allows for marriage only between certain people, and one rule is that they have to be of opposite s-xes.

However, what we call "marriage" in today's society is not Torah marriage. Today's "marriage" is just an arrangement that gives people certain rights, such as the right to adopt each other's children, to make legal and medical decisions for each other if necessary, and to be present at each other's bedside in case of illness or inherit in case of death.

There's no prohibition in Torah law for any two people making arrangements like that between themselves. Nothing wrong with one man helping to raise another man's child, or with a woman helping to make medical decisions for a woman she's not related to.

So we should support marriage without restrictions in the secular world, so that people can enjoy legal rights and relationships that Torah wouldn't object to anyway. And we frum Jews can continue to keep kiddushin opposite-s-x only.

Quote:

2) Not having to ask a Rabbi to go on BC,

This has been done, I'm skipping.

Quote:

3) Or men should always wear color.

Not only should men not wear colored shirts, men should not wear shirts at all.

Sure, some might say at first that it's immodest. But in the long run, being forced to go shirtless will encourage men to remain in shape - a valuable Torah mitzva, "v'nishmartem l'nafshotechem," - and it will ensure men are tan, which along with their improved fitness will serve the double purpose of both making them more attractive to their wives, and eradicating the negative stereotype of frum Jews as pale and weak. It will also naturally boost their sense of compassion, as they will feel increased sympathy with the many people worldwide who cannot afford clothing.

In addition, frum families struggling with the cost of things like kosher food and tuition will save valuable money on shirts and on cleaning. AND it will be an even clearer "Jewish uniform" than the current black and white look - everybody will know that the frum Jews are the ones with black pants, black hats and no shirts.

As a final benefit, constant worry over their own flabby chests will prevent the tendency among some men to focus on women's looks or women's modesty.

All in all, the benefits of this approach clearly outweigh the risk of some immodesty. And since women will have tanner, more fit men to go home to, the sight of a few extra bare chests over the course of the day will not lead them into any inappropriate behavior (they'll be used to it soon enough anyway).

shosh

Tue, May 10 2011, 6:11 pm

Ok here's one from me:

Why pictures of women should be banned in all publications and women should not be seen in public places:

Pictures of women are always very provocative. It really doesn't matter what they are wearing or how old they are. Even if she is buttoned up to the neck and has long braids and buck teeth with braces, her appearance is offensive. It doesn't matter if she is about 100 years old or if she has a blanket over her face. Women must not be seen anywhere. Full stop. This is because she might ensnare an unsuspecting male who is just dying to look at a magazine photo of someone who so closely resembles his great aunt Ethelberta. On the other hand, she might be so hideously ugly that her very presence is incredibly offensive. Either way, women should not be seen anywhere.

Men, on the other hand, are obviously such nondescript and boring creatures that they don't produce such a reaction. So it doesn't matter if they are in magazines because who gives a hoot anyway?

I therefore say that the best pictures representing women to be posted anywhere in any publication are of turnips and wellington boots. If you want to imply that the woman is beautiful - put up a picture of a turnip. Turnips per se will not make anyone feel provocative. But they are a nice vegetable especially in soup. If you want to say she is ugly, however, put up a picture of an old boot. The message here is clear.

And with all these pics of turnips and old boots in our holy publications, we are sure to produce a generation of future husbands and fathers who will not suffer from their yetzer hora and will really know how to relate to women.

There!!!! How did I do? Have I convinced anyone of anything yet? (Apart from that I'm supposed to be writing about a flood in Kazakhstan but my brain has gotten stuck?)

marina

Tue, May 10 2011, 6:22 pm

saw50st8 wrote:

marina wrote:

we haven't played this game in ages:)

OK try it on the doctored photo :-)

Here are the top five reasons why photoshopping Hillary out of the pix is not a big deal.

5. This pales in comparison with what other groups do in the name of religion, even here in America. Ex: FGM & Westboro Baptist Church.

4. Our tolerance of all these behaviors, no matter how odd we find them, is what makes us a great nation, a wonderful place to live.

3.If some person appreciates his wife more because he can't see any other women, not even in the paper he reads, and their sholom bayis is improved because of that, who am I to argue?

2. There are many more serious problems in the frum community- this is nothing to get all up in arms about. If we spent this amount of energy on our other crises, they would have been solved by now.

1. And... maybe Hillary is flattered by becoming known a seks symbol in the chareidi community.

ora_43

Wed, May 11 2011, 4:40 pm

In response to marina's #5 point from yesterday, I've decided to argue in favor of female genital mutilation.

In related news, I apparently have no life.

Anyway. My argument:

Why “female genital mutilation” should be legal

First of all, the term “female genital mutilation” is clearly an attempt to end the debate on this practice before it begins, because who could be for mutilation? It's like calling shechita “innocent animal torture” - whether you believe that or not, it isn't a good way to start an open discussion.

So I'll refer to this ancient practice as “Female Genital Alteration,” or FGA for short.

The practice of FGA dates back for many hundreds of years. It is not merely a cultural relic, but a central cultural tenant in many parts of Africa to this day. FGA is not just a surgical procedure – it is considered a vital part of the transition from girlhood to womanhood, and a necessity for a holy and healthy marriage.

There are three main reasons why FGA should be legal around the world: freedom, safety, and equality.

Freedom
Tolerance means nothing if it is reserved only for those practices we can agree with, and religious freedom as well is meaningless if it is given only to the “right” religions. All people deserve the right to practice their culture.

The idea that we can be certain which cultural practices are right and wrong, psychologically healthy or unhealthy, is an idea that can lead in dangerous directions. Freedom protects us from the tyranny of the well-intentioned majority.

Some might say that not all cultural practices are healthy, or should be continued. This is absolutely true – but we need to leave it up to the individual to decide what to keep and what to discard, and we need to trust time and human intelligence, not legislation, to weed out those practices that are not beneficial.

Safety
As frum Jews, we should realize the true results of banning FGA – dangerous, unsupervised procedures. Think about it: how many of us would decide not to circumcise our sons, if circumcision were to be banned? Instead, we would travel to areas where circumcision is allowed, or turn to our religious figures (mohels, in this case) to do the procedure.

The same is true for loving parents from Somalia, Kenya, Egypt and elsewhere who believe that FGA is in their child's best interests. They will not be deterred by laws; rather, they will, and do, travel to Africa and have the procedure performed in potentially dangerous and unsanitary conditions.

The situation is comparable to the era before abortion was legalized. As much as any of us may disagree with legalized abortion on demand, would we rather see young women dying in back alleys of botched abortions? And as much as any of us may hate the practice of FGA, would we rather see the procedure performed safely in a first world country, or done in a third world country, with no professional supervision, using improper tools?

If done properly, FGA can leave women healthy and able to experience s-xual pleasure. Let's make sure that, since it will be done, it is done right.

Equality
Blood clots. Blood loss. Loss of function of the organ. Numbness. Necrosis (skin death). Stroke. Death.

These are all potential side effects of FGA – or of any of the tens of thousands of unnecessary surgical procedures performed on minors in America every year.

According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, more than 90,000 teenagers have plastic surgery each year. In 2006 nearly 50,000 teens ages 13 to 19 had a nose job. 9,104 teenage girls had their breasts augmented.

If we as a society allow girls, even those as young as 12 or 13, to have their lips, noses, breasts, and stomachs cut apart and sewn together for the sake of a subjective cultural standard of beauty – why not their labia? Why is it that a 13-year-old can have her nose broken and reshaped in the name of feeling confident in her looks and avoiding ostracism, but the same girl can't have surgery on her genitalia for the same reasons?

The fight against FGA isn't a fight to prevent young women from having their bodies altered – it's a fight to prevent them from having their bodies altered in the “wrong” (aka non-Western) way. And as such, it's less a battle for women, than a battle against eastern African culture.

In the name of equality, FGA should be available to those girls willing to undergo the procedure, just as tummy tucks and boob jobs are.

PinkFridge

Wed, May 11 2011, 4:48 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Equality
Blood clots. Blood loss. Loss of function of the organ. Numbness. Necrosis (skin death). Stroke. Death.

These are all potential side effects of FGA – or of any of the tens of thousands of unnecessary surgical procedures performed on minors in America every year.

According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, more than 90,000 teenagers have plastic surgery each year. In 2006 nearly 50,000 teens ages 13 to 19 had a nose job. 9,104 teenage girls had their breasts augmented.

If we as a society allow girls, even those as young as 12 or 13, to have their lips, noses, breasts, and stomachs cut apart and sewn together for the sake of a subjective cultural standard of beauty – why not their labia? Why is it that a 13-year-old can have her nose broken and reshaped in the name of feeling confident in her looks and avoiding ostracism, but the same girl can't have surgery on her genitalia for the same reasons?

The fight against FGA isn't a fight to prevent young women from having their bodies altered – it's a fight to prevent them from having their bodies altered in the “wrong” (aka non-Western) way. And as such, it's less a battle for women, than a battle against eastern African culture.

In the name of equality, FGA should be available to those girls willing to undergo the procedure, just as tummy tucks and boob jobs are.

Re this argument: so it should be available only to girls who are FULLY consenting, not imposed on them by the parents before the age of consent?

ora_43

Wed, May 11 2011, 4:56 pm

It's an interesting question. Continuing to argue my controversial side here - It's also OK if parents have the procedure performed on a young child, if they believe it is in that child's best interest. Similar to how parents are allowed to have unnecessary plastic surgery performed on a young child if they deem it necessary (for instance, to remove a mole that society sees as unsightly, or to alter a facial feature seen as misshapen).

There could be reasonable limits. It could be decided that a milder version of the surgery can be done on any child, while only older children may undergo a more drastic version.

Forcing girls to wait for the "age of consent" would not be treating them equally. There is no age of consent for other procedures, why for this one? As long as the girl is not opposed to having the procedure done, that should be enough.

sleepwalking

Wed, May 11 2011, 5:02 pm

shosh wrote:

Thx Shosh I needed that!!

Barbara

Wed, May 11 2011, 5:38 pm

shosh wrote:

It all boils down to this. Audrey Tomasson was wearing a shirt that left the upper part of her chest exposed, and she's good-looking to boot. How would Hilary Clinton have felt if they had excised Ms. Tomasson, deeming her too attractive to appear in the newspaper, but left Ms. Clinton because she's not likely to excite most men. It was an act of kindness to her.

Other arguments? One word. fixation. Maybe most men wouldn't be attracted to a 104 year old, 600 pound woman with no teeth and a lot of hair growing out of moles, but that could be one man's fantasy.

PinkFridge

Wed, May 11 2011, 9:02 pm

ora_43 wrote:

So at what point do we say a girl is old enough to have a reasoned, non-coerced opinion?