As a reader of animorphs I'm fairly sure (~80%) that giant squids live deeper down than sperm whales
and it is only done if the majority of the town has two eyewitnesses testifying that over 50% of the individuals of the town worshipped idols after being warned that doing so carries the death penalty
You realize that's not better right? It's literally religious persecution as a law.
1- it's definitely better to kill a town where the majority have been convicted of idol worship as opposed to a case where there is a single idol worshipper
2- all other factors being equal, any legal system that requires jurisprudence is better than a like alternative that calls for vigilantism
More absurdly, this would even apply to worship of gods that by all available evidence are in fact older than Yahweh
I disagree that such beings actually exist within reality given that I believe that he is the author of reality itself.
Just a quick response to some of these claims from the perspective of Judaism
this isn't just any guy off the street not listening to some priest. This is about a sage in his own right who actually issues rulings in line with an opinion of his that was rejected by Jewish equivalent of the supreme court
It's actually more like "kill men who have been convicted of having sex with other males and btw we only accept testimony from multiple eyewitnesses who saw each other and the same thing at the same time"
Only applies if the hit draws blood
This requires a very specific formulation to get a conviction
This is the first one that's straight up wrong. It falls under death for adultery, the punishment is just harsher because she's a priest's daughter and some rabbis say she needs to be fully married for it to apply while others say just betrothed as is the standard status in most cases with punishments for infidelity.
It's more like death to those who actively worship other gods. Followers of nontheistic religions, and Muslims would be fine as well as, in some opinions, christians and modalistic Hindus.
This seems to be more of a one-time royal edict (that didn't result in anyone dying btw) than an actual prescribed penalty
This is an incredible misunderstanding of the text. In Hebrew it is called an "ir hanidachat" and it is only done if the majority of the town has two eyewitnesses testifying that over 50% of the individuals of the town worshipped idols after being warned that doing so carries the death penalty, and only if they were enticed/subverted to do so and only if the subverter/enticer was a group of one or more adult males from that town and a member(s) of the tribe in whose territory the town is and if a caravan sets up camp there and counting them as inhabitants makes it that less than 50% are worshipping idols then that saves the town.
Believe it or not this also falls under adultery. She is only executed if in the course of investigating the monetary claim he makes against her, witnesses come forward and they saw her having sex with another man while betrothed to this man then she is executed.
This sounds kinda like 6 doesn't it? However in fairness it is discussing something slightly different. While 6 deals with people convicted of worshipping false gods this deals with one who tries to entice others to do so. This actually the only case where we endorse anything resembling entrapment and the Mishna that says so makes it very clear that it's an exception in this regard rather than the rule. (To clarify "something like entrapment" I mean that thing many people think is entrapment where a police officer pretends to not be an officer and noncoercively offers one the opportunity engage in a crime and then arrests them for doing so)
I should also mention that 1,3,4,5,7?,8, and 9 only apply to Jews while 2,6, and 10 are left to the non Jewish courts outside of the land of israel
Anyone who was privileged to read animorphs knows that the correct answer is whatever ensures that ants remain uninvolved.
But even unjust violence on the part of the Palestinians does not change the position of victim and aggressor here, any more than the brutality that some Native American tribes exhibited against European colonists did.
I disagree. When the migrants are refugees you definitely become the aggressor when you start campaigns that explicitly call for their extermination.
And what do the actions of surrounding nations have to do with Palestinians?
because the palestinians supported these military campaigns
Besides, I’d say the oppression of Palestinians goes far beyond what anyone could possibly consider reasonable safety measures.
I disagree. What would you do when the enemy is indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian centers and fields of crops from hospitals, schoolyards, and apartment buildings? Let them keep at it and just call the occasional wildfire or dead civilian the cost of doing the right thing or bomb the launch site? If you bomb it do you do so without warning or give a 2-3 minute heads up that you're going to do so? When people are constantly climbing the fence to commit terroristic acts on civilians do you just shrug or build a wall? That wall by the way has cut such events by over 80% and been lauded by analysts as a highly effective security measure.
Frankly, you sound like an American conservative talking about the “invasion” at the southern border.
except that there have not been multiple terrorist campaigns endorsed by the mexican government encouraging terrorism on US soil with the explicit goal of the extermination or eviction of every single american from the land. If that were the case I'd agree with them about what we should do.
Genuine question, because I literally don’t know this: Is the green in Israeli-occupied territory natural green that comes from good tending, or is it artificial green like all the grass in Las Vegas?
the former
Should it be there or is it a massive waste of water turning a desert into an unnatural and unsustainable oasis?
the former
And if it’s the former, could the lack of green on Palestinian soil be because of the bombings and destruction of infrastructure/social frameworks that could support greenery?
it's possible although then I would blame the terrorists who destroy infrastructure and revel in their brethren's suffering as they exploit it to demonize Israel rather than Israel themselves who, as I stated, actually left all of the infrastructure for the gaza strip intact when they pulled out.
Nor do any of those points matter to innocents stabbed to death in a synagogue or blown up trying to buy some pizza. The issue is that Israel tried just existing but literally the day it was established it was attacked in an extermination attempts by literally every country surrounding it. Being oppressed doesn't make it ok to turn around and oppress others but being under a constant state of siege does make it ok to take actions to ensure your safety as well as that of your citizens. Would you say that literal thousands of rocket attacks, hundreds of suicide bombings, bouts of stabbings, bouts of shootings, and more in addition to at least 3 military actions jointly taken by surrounding nations doesn't count as a state of siege? If not what does?
regarding recency, we absolutely can make the argument of environmental importance to the land. See what twain wrote of it in our absence. Even now there is a literal green line separating land under our control vs under palestinian control. And I can tell you the green is definitely not on the palestinian side.
And I never said nobody is calling for native americans to be exterminated (although I do believe that it is true that there is nobody around today so bold as to outright say their continued existence here is intolerable in the literal sense that they should be rounded up and killed if they don't leave and the dissolution of reservations is an absolute condition of their policy that they refuse to revise in any way despite the government of the gaza strip saying just that about israel) I said america's leaders are not calling for their complete removal or extermination which is currently has been so for a while (~20 years) albeit not nearly as long as it should have been(~200 yrs).
Why does the fact that Jews have not been safe in any society on the planet in the past 2000 years matter? Why does it matter that they were forced off the land? Why does it matter that this bothered us and we've been demonstrably hoping and trying to return for the past two millenia? Because if any of those weren't true I might cede that in some capacity we gave lost our claim to it. However the fact remains that we were forcibly dispossessed of our land and have a right to go back. Of course not at the expense of entirely uprooting those who moved in after us but enough that they and we really should share the land nicely.
If I could ask my own question in return I'd ask why recency of claim matters more than any of the factors I mentioned above. And for the record I agree that native Americans should have far more land rights than they do today. But at the very least they can dwell in a portion of their homeland without the leaders of the rest of those who reside who openly calling for their complete removal and/or extermination and that's more than can be said for today's Jews in Israel.
@randomredditor12345
@lemmy.ml