Poll - Expected use of the word "stoning"

[Infohawk]

By the way, in case you weren't aware, the bit you quoted from Wiki about traditional forms of execution in Judaism leaves out a particularly vile practice used in the burning and strangulation methods, found in Sanhedrin 52a and 52b respectively. Specifically I"m referring to the "LOWERED INTO DUNG UP TO HIS ARMPITS" bit in both.

Maybe you can go edit wikipedia.

 

[kylebisme]

Of course anyone can, but I dislike the way Wikipedia is run too much to bother.

 

[Infohawk]

Of course anyone can, but I dislike the way Wikipedia is run too much to bother.

What have they prevented you from adding your highly-biased opinions before?

 

[kylebisme]

No, I've never even tried to make an account there, and if I ever do it won't be to post any opinions at all. Why do you ask, have they prevented you from adding your flagrantly ignorant opinions before?

 

[Infohawk]

No, I've never even tried to make an account there, and if I ever do it won't be to post any opinions at all. Why do you ask, have they prevented you from adding your flagrantly ignorant opinions before?

I'm not the one who has a problem with their content or their management.

 

[Whiskey16]

The poll is horrid. Why not a poll upon that of moderator censorship, with a goal to alter news events and minimise the characterisation of assaults perpetuated by groups the majority of the forum may sympathise with?

Why a new thread? EagleKeeper has chose to run away from the substantive content of the existing thread in order to whitewash and start anew for popular, rather than objective, argumentative support.

This thread covers the identical presence of discussion of the existing thread.

Content matter for discussion is now to be a popularity contest???

As a member of P&N when a phrase uses the word stoning.

This is to get a popular vote based upon prejudice and to set the precedent to enforce ideological censorship.

Popularised headlines involve stoning as equated with Muslims. Forum members here were offended that a member had the nerve to present a case of a stoning by Jews. Therefore with the angry and use of 'the report the post button,' moderation charged in.

Primarily, this new thread by EagleKeeper concerns moderation censorship based upon partisan ideology rather than rational objectivity. He is looking for popular support for the new ruling that now considers it be "trolling," inflammatory, and offencive to describe a group a group of Orthodox Jews who lynch, chase, and throw stones/rocks at a woman in an act of stoning.

Stoning, as per writings in the Torah and that throughout history do not absolutely denote the killing of a person. Examples in the Torah entail those who were stoned but were not killed. JSt0rm succinctly cited that reality in the previous thread. EagleKeeper chooses not to post his weak argument in that thread, therefore he has set this up to manipulate the issue.

That said, these Orthodox extremists are well versed in the Torah and are well aware of the symbolic meaning of their lynching action to assault and stone this woman. For dogmatic reasons, it was a clear intent to inflict physical, if not, lethal harm. For those who wish to arguemtively play on incorrect semantics that this may not be a stoning because she was not killed -- it was the intervention by police that secured her safety from further harm.

If people wish to discuss this issue, there is already an existing thread with plenty more content and multiple sourced citations of the event in question. Except for those who choose not to directly confront contradictions to their ideological viewpoint, I see no reason to further repeat what already exists.

 

[Fern]

The most common connotation of the word "stoning" is an execution method. The expression "throw rocks at" is generally used when we're talking about something non lethal in effect and intent. For example, when Palestinian youths throw rocks at IDF troops, I haven't once heard that referred to as "stoning."
-snip-
- wolf

You beat me to it. That's exactly what I was going to say.

Fern

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ironic . I just posted in another thread befor seeing this one . As I said in that tread . I know my fate . Do you know yours

 

[Orignal Earl]

FYI:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...emporary_attitudes_towards_capital_punishment

Well, thank you
But I had already read that quite a while ago.

And yes, Israel is very Western by not using capital punishment.

 

[Infohawk]

Well, thank you
But I had already read that quite a while ago.

And yes, Israel is very Western by not using capital punishment.

If you read it then you should realize your attempt at equivalency doesn't really work. As practiced today, Islam is more extreme than Judaism.

 

[cybrsage]

You flagrantly misrepresented his statement quoting him out of context. Did you mean to do that?

no worries kyle. this shills are trying every tactic in their book. ive seen it all. lolosers

I am not sure if you intended to do so, but this is actually a very horrible statement. Truth is neutral in all affairs and cannot be anti-anything (save for being anti-lie, but that is by the definition of what truth is).

Truth is always neutral. No amount of context can change this. I said the bolded portion because I figured he did not intend to do so, but could not be sure (given his posting history). I was proffering the benefit of the doubt.

 

[cybrsage]

Like I said in the other thread, these ultra orthadox Jews know they cannot subject someone to a religious punishment without first finding the person guilty in a religious court. They also know that Semicha was lost (attempts to show it was not are being made, but nothing has been ruled valid yet), so there are no religious judges. No religous judges means no religious courts means no religious punishments. All punishments must be done via the normal court system.

If they try to perform a religious punishment (and it appeared they were trying to do so), they are in violation of Halacka themselves. The punishment for a wrongful stoning done purposefully is death as well.

 

[kylebisme]

Truth is always neutral. No amount of context can change this.

The context "to a loser such as urself" changes the meaning of "truth is antisemitic." What SandEagle said was, in other words: truth is nutrual, though looser like Woolfe like to brand people as anti-Semites for speaking it.

Like I said in the other thread, these ultra orthadox Jews know they cannot subject someone to a religious punishment without first finding the person guilty in a religious court.

If they know what you claim they do, then why did they stone the woman?

 

[Nemesis 1]

If you read it then you should realize your attempt at equivalency doesn't really work. As practiced today, Islam is more extreme than Judaism.

You could be right. But This new Jewish state is very young and powerful for its youth , It intelligent and knows its young. We need to see a more matured Israel to know its true nature. But I think its an illusion the will fight you hard head on . But they will also cut you off while you sleep . TO early to make this call . They are aggressive

 

[Doppel]

I'd say stoning is a semi-formal punishment by a group of people inclined to cause major harm or kill. It's not just throwing rocks, though.

 

[Linflas]

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism





that is some medieval shit right there

Yes it is so it is probably a good thing that Judaism has not endorsed such practices since medieval times and none of it is a legal form of punishment in Israel, can the same be said of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc?