Comprehensive coverage

Survival: The Philippines. The strong survive, the violent lose

If they threw you on a desert island, divided you into two tribes that are supposed to hate each other to death, and threw a box between you that contains food, and that could guarantee your way to a million dollars... what would you do?

Dingoes keep the rules of fighting. Link to the source of the image at the bottom of the article
Dingoes keep the rules of fighting. Link to the source of the image at the bottom of the article

I have a question. If they threw you on a desert island, divided you into two tribes that are supposed to hate each other to death, and threw a box between you that contains food, and that could guarantee your way to a million dollars... what would you do? You would fight for her, of course. But how much power would you be willing to use to get the box? and why? These questions were answered by the wise and educated program, Survival: The Philippines, for educated viewers only.

So what did we have today in survival? The two tribes fought over one box. A large number of sturdy men, with testosterone dripping from every corner of their bodies, jumped into the challenge with considerable glee. They struggled, moaned and made other sounds of stags fighting for the right to mate with the box, and at least one of them did lie down on the box, contorted his face and made strange movements with his pelvis. And as amusing as it was to watch the mass orgy with an innocent wooden box, one question remained: why did everyone stay alive?

This is not a question that can be answered with a shrug. Humans are large and developed creatures, and this includes the models of survival (a single exception: Moshe, a waiter from Holon). The muscles of the wrestlers there would not put anyone in the gym to shame. If they had wanted, they could have broken arms and legs there, especially of the more delicate women who were struggling over the box. And in fact, the women could also riot - kicks in intimate areas, thumbs in the eyes and the fear of every real man: plucking hairs from the eyebrows. If one of the groups had chosen the tactics of a brutal and merciless war, it would have gained a decisive advantage. So why did almost no one do it? Why didn't the whole incident end in the Philippine Department of Orthopedics and Surgery trying to restore eyes and testicles that were displaced from their rightful place?

Some will say that none of the participants wanted to face a tort claim for bodily injury, what's more, the whole event was well documented. Still, all it took was one person to start using his fists in the right places for his team to gain an advantage. Why didn't it happen?

The answer reveals one of the most profound principles of evolution at work within a population of animals of the same species: the near-total avoidance of lethal violence. This principle is reflected in most courtship rituals involving more than one male. Calling stags, for example, interlock their antlers and try to push the other stag to the ground. Male giraffes headbutt each other, which is an even more ridiculous method of fighting. Although there are known cases where males have died during these fights, usually both sides end the fight with scratches and muscle pain, and nothing more. The males actually fight in a stylized manner designed to cause minimal damage. To illustrate, a full-grown giraffe can shatter a lion's skull with a well-placed kick. So why do the male giraffes only fight with each other, and not try to break each other's legs?

The answer, as always, lies in the consequences of the way of violent behavior and what would happen in a population of animals that all resort to maximum violence to resolve conflicts. In this case, it is likely that every conflict will end in the death of the weaker party, but the stronger one will also be injured during the battle. When there are no inhibitions, and it is known in advance that every fight will end in death, even Kippi the hedgehog will fight like a porcupine. Legs will be broken, deep cuts will be made in the skin and flesh and eyes, ears and other sense organs will be displaced. What will be the consequences? In the wild, any of these injuries can easily lead to the death of the winner, who may not even have time to mate with his superior. Bad deal by all accounts.

Throughout evolution, better fighting strategies, advocating minimal violence and stylized fighting, have taken root in animal instincts. The stronger male still wins, but both he and the weaker male finish the fight without serious injuries. The strong male gets to mate with the females and pass on his successful traits to the next generation. The weak... well... the weak enjoys the favor of the females behind the back of the strong, and waits for next year in the hope that he will be stronger by then. Everyone benefits.

The second episode of Survival: The Philippines demonstrated the concept well. Although the sixteen contenders for the ark could have mortally wounded each other, none of them broke the unwritten code of minimal violence. They pushed, pulled and wrestled with each other on the sand, but they did not reach physical violence that could have led to real damage. That is, except for one contestant - Hades.
Yes, yes, the bespectacled, nerdy-looking Hades. She didn't limit herself to minimal violence - she pounced like a murderous kitten on one of the herd's giraffes, a brunette who was at least a head taller than her, put her arms around her neck in a strangle hold and caused her a real crippling physical pain, until she was able to control her. She would like it with the words "it's just a competition," but the brunette refused. The stain left on the myrtle as a result of this reckless move will be very difficult to clean. As soon as the competition was over, the brunette hissed murderously "Wait wait, I will take revenge on you."

Once Hadas switched to disproportionate violence, it turned the competition and the game into something more personal and violent. Even in her group, Hadas is already starting to be the outsider, who does not understand the accepted rules of society and behavior. The brunette might not be able to overwhelm Hades in a face-to-face battle, but on the social court she can rub the floor with her effortlessly, especially since the two tribes practically live next door to each other and influence each other's team choices.

In the current situation, Hades could end up being removed within a few chapters, unless you start to understand that this is a social situation and act accordingly: make connections and alliances and stop immersing yourself in books. The books teach about good and bad, about black and white, and what to do when you are in a competition. But life, Hades, is based on many shades, and all of them should be examined with a view to the future.

Disclaimer: and despite everything, it is about survival: Israel. It is already known that the production does as it pleases in the program, and Hadas is the best-selling and best-selling geek they have ever had. If they have any sense in Paddah, and they probably do, they will do somersaults in the air to keep her on the show.

Link to image source

More on the subject on the science website

308 תגובות

  1. Just be clear:
    The response the debate refers to is my 287th response in which I said "This whole debate started with your misanthropic claim that people are worse than animals and avoid extreme violence just because there is a law."

    Note that this claim includes an almost exact quote from response 15.

  2. Nadav:
    Your explanations came later and resulted from others proving you wrong.
    After all, I said that this discussion started with a certain claim of yours. I didn't say he was done with her.
    After all, I already told you a million comments ago that as much as the topic interests me, you are already convinced.

    Does the claim "Regarding the principle of avoiding lethal activity among a population of the same species, it seems to me that it does not apply to humans at all" speak of any reason for avoiding lethal activity?
    no and no!
    This claim claims that the principle of avoiding lethal activity does not work among humans!
    The examples you gave to "prove" the matter also show that this was your intention.
    But I also made an assumption and took something from your later responses just so you wouldn't look so stupid and I described your claim (originally - when you have to repeat the same thing a thousand times, you take shortcuts - what's more, the motivation to paint you in a better light decreases) as saying that the person is unable to avoid violence without the law.

  3. Michael, of course I said that, and I also explained several times that even if this ancient instinct exists in a weak form, it cannot change a person's decision to use or avoid such violence. otherwise, he will act violently very easily, unfortunately, so this principle does not apply to him,

    In general, how did you arrive logically from the sentence that reason X for preventing violence does not apply to Y to ... X is unable to prevent violence? What about cause Z or any other possible cause?

  4. And one more thing for Ofer:
    If you wish me a happy new year but participate in Nadav's personal attack against me (which is by definition a personal attack all the way) I prefer to return the greeting to the sender without opening the envelope.

  5. And I repeat to both of you:
    I'm trying to fight religious coercion.
    You act as if you are willing to give up this war and even lose it just to gain the pleasure that the war with me gives you.

  6. Ofer:
    You made me laugh!
    Are you trying to convince me of what I keep saying and that it is impossible to know what the truth is?
    Why do you feel the need to do this?

    But there is a difference between "not knowing if something that has received many confirmations in an experiment is true" and "not knowing if something that has been disproved is true".
    Regarding the first one we really don't know but we have good reasons to believe it is true while regarding the second we know it is not true.
    But I don't even **believe** the first one but claim that for practical needs it is better to act as if it is true.
    On the other hand, the religious actually believes in the second, even though it is known with certainty that it is not true.

    Indeed, an interesting "balance" you described in your words!

    In your last comment you only proved that the presentation of the refutations of the religion was most necessary to make you understand.
    Presenting these refutations was a necessary condition for your understanding but it turns out that it was not a sufficient condition.

  7. And Nadav:
    Just so you don't forget every time:
    Yes: you said "pathetic".
    It seems to me that in general you didn't miss many opportunities to blaspheme.

  8. 1. You argue with religion right or wrong. It's not interesting.

    2. I am trying to make you understand that you are not necessarily the one who knows what the truth is, nor is the ultra-Orthodox who does not necessarily know what the truth is. And I really ask you to read what I wrote. Because I don't touch religion at all and you keep coming back to it.

    "The logical inference mechanism you are talking about is shared, with that I agree. If there is a contradiction, it will also exist with me, with you, with everyone. But! There is a stage where you are the one missing. Definition of basic assumptions. When the starting point is different (that is, the basic premise) logic will bring Two people to different conclusions. When the result of a person's logical thinking is different from yours, you believe that person has necessarily made a logical error. And that is a mistake." - Clarifying addition - it's a mistake if the basic assumptions are different.

    And when I say basic premise, I don't just mean black: "There are only natural forces" and white: "There is only God" but also gray: "There is God and there are natural forces".

    Let's leave the insults aside. Neither I nor you are really offended or offended.

  9. Nadav:
    I don't like participating in endless loops.
    Do I need to remind you again that you claimed "Regarding the principle of preventing lethal activity among a population of the same species, it seems to me that it does not apply to humans at all"?

  10. And you are also twisting Ofer's words, in a shockingly similar way, but he can already respond on his own

  11. After all, every child can take any opinion of someone and present it as negative or positive, in the same way it is possible to write about what I said that "Nadav said that humans are able to control their violence in more varied and numerous ways than animals" and thus present humans as "better", the idea Michael He can handle the argument without "scarecrows"
    And when a person is not able to do this, he turns to your methods that constantly distort every sentence, confuse and obtain from it the conclusion you want to achieve from the beginning.
    Patty did I say?

  12. Michael, I completely understood that the description of humans as bad is your interpretation, but you again lie and distort and present the facts in a different way, you write "my interpretation of your claim that they are not able to control their violence as animals do"

    After all, I never claimed that humans are unable to control their violence, you are simply repeating and presenting my position in an intentionally misleading manner, you could have presented my position as it really is and dealt with it with respect without manipulation, you could have written "Nadav said that humans have many different considerations for exercising or Prevention of violence" I think that anyone with common sense can understand that this is completely different from what you misrepresented -

    As soon as you distort and say "Nadav said that humans cannot control their violence like animals", from here it is a short step to mislead to the conclusion that I am supposedly leading to the fact that humans are worse than animals, it seems to me that any human being with a little intelligence can see your distortion here

  13. Ofer:
    You cannot defend religion with an argument that contradicts itself.
    If a person wrote these claims, then the religion's claim that God wrote the Torah and dictated the Torah orally is not true and the religion is disproven here and there.
    Have you really not figured it out yourself?

    Regarding my response about "insulting religion".
    You come back and accuse me of delegitimizing it.
    I have never done this and all your attacks on me in this matter are a delusional lie.
    That's why I interpreted your words out loud and said to myself that maybe these companies don't distinguish between delegitimization and insult.
    Thus, it is possible to attribute to them a business intention and not a malicious intention.

    Are you saying I was wrong about that? so be it. I have already understood that you should not attribute intentions that are not malicious.

    Maybe you haven't noticed but many people and you among them actually see presenting an opposing opinion to theirs as an action that is not part of a normal relationship.
    What if I disagree with you?
    I suggest you read the discussion from the beginning and really check who put the insulting style into it. I simply allow myself to assume (perhaps mistakenly) that you are wrong about this and not lying.

    There is nothing to answer you because you don't understand the responses so and so (or you are lying to deceive the readers).
    I was talking about "your misanthropic claim that people are worse than animals and avoid extreme violence only because there is a law".
    This is a claim that spanned several responses and I quoted some of them.
    I had to do this because you lied that you never made such a claim.

    In response 289 you wrote "Better or worse, where did you get that from? It's something I never said"
    I explained that regarding the description of humans as worse than animals - this is my interpretation of your claim that they are unable to control their violence as animals do and that indeed you did not say this explicitly but that your opposition to this interpretation shows that in your eyes there is nothing wrong with not having control over violence.

    In short - there is no reason for me to repeat everything with interpretations because everything is clearly written and it takes stupidity or malice not to "understand" it.

  14. Michael, your thinking is indeed the one that twists, again and again and again

    Here you said "in your misanthropic claim that people are worse than animals and avoid extreme violence only because there is a law"

    What does this have to do with violence being a bad thing? Is the reason of preventing violence as an animal instinct that stops you a more "good" reason than the reason of listening to a certain law and acting on it simply because that instinct no longer controls you?

    Now you transfer what you said to the actual violence itself and not to the fact that there are better or lesser reasons to avoid it, you are simply terrible

    The scarecrow you created (which you probably didn't understand at all what that means) is senseless, it is clear that there is no difference between the qualities of these reasons for avoidance and therefore there is no way in the world to conclude from what I said that people are worse than animals, but what will you do, you already said it so just continue And turn to the next thing that can sound appropriate, yes violence is bad, so we will attach the conclusion of the worst to it in the hope that somehow it will sound right

    But if you remove the mask of convolutions from what you said, it will sound like this

    Nadav said
    A: People avoid same-sex violence for different reasons than animals
    I think that:
    B: Violence is a bad thing

    From A and B I conclude that Nadav said that people are worse than animals

    Michael, you are fati

  15. All your proofs regarding religion are irrelevant because Adam wrote these claims. And so in my opinion, even though you like to go back to these examples, they don't show anything more than the fact that everyone can make mistakes. And when I say every person I mean every person. Another fact is that most people who believe in God understand that there is a mistake in the claim that a cow's trachea splits into three parts, one of which goes to the liver. And so you only strengthen my argument. Thank you Michael.

    Apparently I didn't understand the quote because I thought that the main part of your answer would be related to the main part of my message. But you who like to promote the agenda of hatred for the ultra-Orthodox (and don't say I'm defaming you, because you say it in public) bring the subject up even if it's only indirectly related to the indirect.

    (Michael) "I wrote it because you came to me with claims that by the way I talk about religion, I offend the religious."
    I searched and searched and I don't see where I wrote to you that the way you speak bothers me because it offends religious people. I really don't care how they feel and I don't care what you feel either. We are not concerned with who insulted whom. The only quote I can think of that links to this accusation is this:
    "After accusing almost everyone who does not think like you of stupidity or an immature discussion culture. Take a look from your eyes, and you'll see where you might have gone wrong" - and a clarification comes right after:

    "You were wrong - in the way of discussion you chose and not in your opinions of course"

    This is of course about the relationship between you and those who do not think like you in the discussions here on the site.
    And not in other places like the State of Israel in general.

  16. Ofer:
    Do you want to tell me that you really did not understand the context of the passage you quoted from my words or that you are intentionally taking it out of context?
    I wrote it because you came to me with claims that by speaking about religion I am hurting religious people.
    I explained in the same response that the religious are professional victims and that for some reason the same victimization is not part of the discourse on any other issue.
    I brought a list of subjects, among which mathematics is the subject in which it is easiest to convince by mistake (by the way - this does not always work either and I have had attempts in this regard even here on the site).
    Therefore, your attempt to explain why mathematics is different from religion does not answer the general question I presented, which I intentionally included politics in.
    Knows what?
    I can't believe you didn't understand.
    In my opinion, you took things out of context just to throw sand in your eyes and I retract my thought that you are different from Nadav.

    I have explained thousands of times that it is impossible to prove any scientific theory, so your claim that I cannot prove anything - when presented as a defiance, is simply laughable.
    But the truth is that many things can be proven about religion.
    It is possible to prove that the rabbit does not ruminate.
    It is possible to prove that the Euphrates and the Tigris do not come from a common source.
    It is possible to prove that lice are not created from human sweat and mice are not created from mud.
    It can be proven that it is not true that the trachea of ​​the cow splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver, and more and more...

    When I present opinions based on scientific research I do not claim that they are true.
    I only claim that they are most likely in light of the confirmations they received in the experiment.
    They are certainly more probable than their negation presented by you because you cannot point to even one finding that confirms it.

    Now tell me, Ofer - what theory are you accusing me of claiming to be true? I'm just interested to hear what I think because I think you're sure you know it better than I do.

    Am I wrong?
    Let's quote from your first comment:
    "Regarding the principle of preventing lethal activity among a population of the same species, it seems to me that it does not apply to humans at all"
    Want more?
    Let's quote from your second comment:
    In fact, there is no part that needs to be quoted - the whole answer is in the spirit of what I said that you claimed.

    Now - you really didn't use the phrase better or worse.
    It was my interpretation that stemmed from my thinking that violence is a bad thing.
    I accept that in your world it is different.

    But it's a shame to mess with you at all.
    After all, you also claimed in my condemnation that I dared to claim that "you shall not do to your friend what you hate" is a good description of universal morality. You made sure to ignore the reservations I added in that comment and it's clear why. After all, you are exactly the example of someone for whom one of the reservations should have been, and you are actually willing to do to others what you hate about yourself.
    Throughout the conversation I hear from you what I think and then you claim that I am building a scarecrow.
    Forgive me, but I didn't build you, and if someone like you came out from under my hand, I would just be ashamed.

  17. By the way, this method of "persuasion" is very common, you created a scarecrow here...

    In rhetorical use and as a logical fallacy a straw man is a point of view deliberately created to be easily defeated in an argument. A bogus argument maker does not accurately reflect his opponent's best argument but rather distracts or distorts it so that the opponent's position appears weak or ridiculous.
    Arguments that make use of the scarecrow are very common, because they allow the arguer to relatively easily overcome an essential difficulty in his argument

    The statement that I supposedly claimed that humans are "worse" than animals is a "scarecrow" and this is your politics

  18. And Michael, you are again deviating from your well-known path, you said

    "In your misanthropic claim that people are worse than animals and avoid extreme violence only because there is a law"

    You also deteriorate at the level of distortions, people are not worse than animals, they simply take into account various factors, moral, strategic, normative, personal in their decision to avoid or resort to violence, they have a larger bank of considerations in which the primal instinct even if it exists in some form is marginal and dwarfed.

    Better or worse, where did you get it? This is something I never said, this is exactly one of the distortions because of which I accused you of being involved in politics, you formulate sentences whose entire purpose is to show that the other side said something ridiculous and by doing so you expect to create an effect that your contrary words will seem much more correct, it may be that some people affects them, but those who simply think about the things you say see that it is exactly the opposite

  19. The logical inference mechanism you speak of is shared, with that I agree. If there is a contradiction, it will also exist with me, with you, with everyone. but! There is a stage where you are missing. Definition of basic assumptions. When the starting point is different (ie the premise) logic will bring two people to different conclusions. When the result of a person's logical thinking is different from yours, you believe that person has necessarily made a logical error. And that's a mistake.
    In one of the previous messages I mentioned this topic and you gave some examples, one of which is in the mathematical context. I responded to this, and you attacked me by saying that I took the subject of mathematics because it was convenient for me to do so.
    The reason I used this example is that it is a basic example that can apply to everything else. You accused me of all kinds of accusations, so I stopped the discussion from my side.

    (Michael) "When someone proves a proof that is wrong in mathematics, no one has a problem with the claim that he is wrong and talking nonsense
    When someone who wants to get from Tel Aviv to Haifa goes south - no one will be ashamed to tell him that he is wrong.
    When someone calls you Michael - you will have no problem telling him that he is wrong.
    When someone wants to give a patient hydrogen peroxide instead of aspirin - no one will be afraid to tell him that he is wrong.
    Lefties have never had a problem telling righties that they are talking nonsense.
    Righties have never had a problem telling lefties they are talking nonsense.
    When someone who thinks global warming is man-made hears someone who thinks otherwise they will not hesitate to say that they are talking nonsense.
    Likewise in the opposite case.
    In none of these cases will the uglies come and claim that there is something wrong here.
    Only religion is outside the scope of the discussion. Taboo! Whoever dares is uncivilized/impolite/inconsiderate of other people's feelings and what not"

    Somehow from a discussion on the topic I mentioned above you came to the point that I don't allow you to say that religion lies. So just so you know, my name is not Pedro and I do not work for the Inquisition. Think and say what you want. I don't know how you connected it to the matter. Maybe you just wanted to say it even if it's not so related?

    You can't prove to a believer that his premise is wrong. You can't say he's lying because he's not saying something that isn't necessarily true.

    The phrase "there is no one truth" that you mentioned in one of the other posts here as the motto of the postmodernists, is not accurate. There is one truth. But there are many opinions as to what this truth is. And you, Michael, are no different from the ultra-Orthodox in this regard. You have an opinion that is not necessarily the truth. as well as for ultra-Orthodox. What's funny is that you, like him, are so sure of your righteousness that you call what you believe in the name "truth".

  20. Nadav:
    You have demonstrated again why I do not argue with you.
    You are trying to sell me (and others) my opinion while I claim and repeat and claim that it is not my opinion.
    The point is that you cannot (fortunately) change history and things that contradict your claim about my opinion are written explicitly in both response 123 and response 229.
    I have to go already, but my fingers are really tickling to write here some kind of summary of this whole debate that started with your misanthropic claim that people are worse than animals and avoid extreme violence only because there is a law.
    (The truth is that you have convinced me that this is true for you but I still think that it is not true for most people).
    We'll see if I have the patience for that.

  21. Michael, you're just being right, the whole debate was about you claiming that the "right" thing for free will is to choose the things that are in line with the "morality" that was imprinted in evolution and any other choice of his is a wrong choice

  22. Ofer:
    If you haven't noticed - I have already stopped arguing with Nadav.
    You say you said exactly what he said so you can see the responses given to him as if they were given to you.
    To be honest - you didn't say exactly what he said, but the difference is not in the topics on which the responses were given and I will touch on that later.
    Out of a desire to stop this nonsense and rush to the gym, I was dragged after two fundamental mistakes that were in your previous comment.
    One is that I agreed to the establishment of the "Union of Anti-Michael" when in general I answered you about the claim that many people tried to convince me and gave up.
    In the mistake you and Nadav are trying to convince me, not so many people tried to convince me.
    It is true that people argue with me many times, but the topics of the debate are different and it is simply stupid for you to team up with others just because they entered into an argument with me. You, unlike Nadav, have proven that you are trying to defend a particular thesis and not fight a particular person, and I suggest that you at least maintain this level of self-respect (this refers to the really pathetic debate about "who said what to whom" which, although I have no doubt that I did not sin in any way, really I felt very stupid to participate in it).
    The second is that even if there were many people trying to convince me that one plus one equals three, I would not be convinced.
    The number of people who make mistakes is not a reason - as far as I'm concerned - for accepting their mistake.

    The fact that I point to the basic mechanisms that create our morality - as well as those that work in the opposite direction and as well as the mechanism of logical inference that is shared - has nothing to do with seeing things in black and white.
    It is simply related to the fact that I - unlike you - see the things that can be seen.
    I have no doubt that all these words are true and all neuroscientists and evolutionary scientists agree with me on this.
    In the end - the one who decides between all of these - according to the strength of the various impulses and logic - is free will.
    I have explained this many times, but as people who only see things in black and white and out of the desire to see me in black and white, you did not internalize my words.

  23. Michael please, I am not fooled by demagogues. Nadav says exactly the same things I've been saying all along, only in a more scholarly way. And so I support his opinion.
    I understand the gist of your stuff. I tried to explain to you why I think you are wrong. I was not able to convey the message to you well enough, and I saw this from your responses, which showed a misunderstanding of my words. I take responsibility for myself.
    Apparently the internet is not the place for arguments between two people who think differently.

    "Notice how many people talked to you and Nadav and still didn't manage to free you from your mistakes"
    So far only you have responded to my words. I asked Roy a question on the subject and he did not answer, perhaps because of discomfort with one of the possible answers. And maybe because he just missed her.

    And by the way, the part about the accusations "you're a liar" "No! You're a liar" is a bit petty, to say the least, how did you two get into this..

    In any case, I recommend stopping the debate because it really is not progressing. But, if you're having fun, please... I'm not the one to stop you.

    Nadav, you're welcome and good luck!

  24. And Michael, it's enough to see every comment of yours that precedes mine in which you speak with cynicism, contempt and condescension, in general contempt is your style for everyone and anyone who has ever argued with you here must have felt it, I'm just replying to you in the same currency

  25. Michael Perhaps what convinced Ofer was sentences like

    For me, there is a basic morality that is ingrained in us as part of a process from the process of evolution and a more extended morality that is the result of the exercise of logic (which is also shared by us from the necessity of evolution, only that its exercise is a complex process in which people can make mistakes but can also understand their mistakes if someone points them out to them and they are open to listening).

    Or maybe it is

    There is no escaping it and that final decision must stem from a "definition of morality" that was inherent in us before we started thinking about the matter.

    Or how about this

    There are, of course, two ways to overcome incompatibility between a person or a group and society.
    One is to get treated and the other is to force everyone else to conform to you.

    Or this

    But, as I said, every person believes in logic and therefore my belief is also a part of all other beliefs.

    And it's really strong

    I think that it is not at all surprising that everyone will accept this definition of morality and this because everyone has the same severity, more or less.

  26. I am again trying to get into Vipassana.
    The fact that I'm going to the gym now will keep me from being dragged along by your bullshit for a while at least but hopefully I'll resist the temptation later on as well.

  27. Nadav:
    I don't hold back.
    You probably really don't understand.
    What, in your opinion, did the sentence "Michael, you are simply contradicting yourself" indicate (response 27) if not an intention to fight?
    Or, if we go earlier - what about the ironic phrase "Michael, I'm interested in what you say" as an introduction to some nonsense that follows?

  28. By the way, Ofer:
    After all, I was the one who tried again and again and tried without success to explain to Nadav that our behavior is determined by many and sometimes contradictory impulses acting on us at the same time.
    This was part of my feeble efforts to explain to him the thing that he probably had not experienced, and that is the fact that (normal) humans have an internal sense of "what is moral and what is not."
    I even needed children's stories like "The Creation of the Good and the Creation of the Evil" for this.
    And yet - something in Nadav's demagoguery convinced you of this nonsense.

  29. Michael, more lies? After all, the debate was not about whether your words were substantiated or not, here is what you said

    "Just to do justice to history:
    Nadav accused me (already in a previous discussion) of pretending to be alive. Then he complains that I dare to "accuse him of malice" as if he had not done so before"

    The question was who accused whom of malice first, regardless of the previous discussion that my father had already mentioned to me, and because of my father's adherence to one side, you called me a liar and brought response 57 as evidence of the primacy of my guilt, I showed you that according to your method you accused me of malice already in response 56 , you just chose response 57 as the starting point because it's convenient for your twists, you wanted to do justice to history but you did it but

    Ofer, thank you, I agree with every word 🙂

  30. Ofer:
    Nadav has brainwashed you with the false claim that I think human behavior/thoughts/desires are black and white.
    That's not what I think.
    How is this so hard to understand?
    Notice how many people talked to you and Nadav and still did not manage to free you from your mistakes.
    I have no doubt that a large part of those who stopped arguing with me were simply convinced.
    You do not understand this because of your opacity.

  31. I do not come to replace Nadav or speak on his behalf.
    But bottom line. Human behavior/thoughts/desires are not black and white. How is this so hard to understand?
    Note Michael how many people have already talked to you about this and given up. Nadav is the only one who still has the strength to continue talking to you and also tries to do it in your language, and you say he has a fight with you.
    I may be young, and I will still encounter people like you, but I have never encountered such a sharp contrast of intellect and opacity as with you.

  32. To remind you, Nadav, your attempt to fight with me has already lasted over several threads.
    Your words about your intentions are well founded and your "logic" is one big piece of bullshit.
    I already said I don't have time for you so it's time I act on it.
    I ask the readers not to conclude that I will not respond to lies that come as if I agree with you.

  33. Nadav:
    What nonsense!
    I really came to this conclusion and I have quite a few evidences that this is indeed your intention and that you are really lying about your intention!

  34. Michael, I'm not trying to teach you what you think but show you what you say

    By the way, you are also a liar according to your method, because according to what I see in response 56, you accused me of "lying" before I accused you
    תגובה 56

    I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what interests you is fighting with me, so I'm just reminding you that you'll have to do it without me

    Okay, so according to Michael, Michael himself accused Nadav of lying about his intentions and in response Nadav also accused him of "lying"

    Hahaha, your Torah is collapsing before your eyes

  35. Michael, according to you, mistaking illusions and lying are the same thing, you should have said
    Nadav continued to lie, lie and condescend to others

  36. Good Michael, continue to lead your binary life and try to convince the whole world that in any situation, what is not true is necessarily a lie, not a mistake, not a partial truth, not a relative truth, simply a lie
    And you will also continue to convince yourself that a person cannot have conflicting intentions and that despite his conscious intentions he has many more desires and intentions unconsciously, but leave it, I guess modern psychology is also postmodernism for you.

  37. Enough, Nadav!
    You argue with me about my intentions (thereby accusing me of lying and lying yourself) and then also claim that you did not make a claim about my intentions and lie again.
    After all, it's clear that what you say has no meaning and I also have other things to do.

  38. What's more, not all of a person's intentions are his controlling intentions, there are intentions that people tell themselves they have but their actions show that this is a self-lie and what they are really striving for is the opposite, there are many examples of this in psychology. This is exactly the thing with humans, they are complex and full of conflicts and that is why your binary logic does not apply to them and leads you to extreme and problematic views

  39. Michael, over and over again distortions, I did not make a claim about your intentions but only about their results, inside you maybe you really think that the truth is with you and that you are looking for it, but on the surface you are simply engaged in the politics of building the idea that you already believe in beforehand, this is my opinion from the way in which You argue, the things you say, the generalizations and thinking in black and white, I have the right to hold this opinion and it does not accuse you of lying

    It's like if a religious person tells you that God exists, you can tell him he's wrong, but you can't accuse him of lying

    The definition of a lie is very simple and you avoid it, those who lie know the truth but say the opposite for different reasons, a lie is not a mistake
    And your second part is just linguistic cleverness and has nothing to do with not opening the casket, because you also accuse religious people of preferring not to open the casket of logic and only listen to the rabbis

  40. Nadav:
    You lied again!
    When I say something about what I'm looking for (if it's the truth or if it's the pants) the authority on the matter is me and not you.
    This is not a question that is at all open to the interpretation of others and therefore has nothing to do with your idiotic metaphors or anything.
    Therefore - when you accuse me of the fact that, contrary to my claim - I am not looking for the truth - you accuse me of lying (as I have already learned that you tend to do all the times in the past when you tried to explain to me what my opinion is - contrary to my opinion).
    Not this one either: you expect people to believe (mistakenly) that your words are based on some observation and not just on your desire to discredit.
    This means that you claim (which is again a lie) that you caught me in some act that betrays my true intentions and contradicts my stated intentions.
    I have already explained all this.
    The issue of not opening the cabinet reminds me of a funny incident that happened when I was in the canteen in the army.
    I asked one of the attendants to bring soup to our table and he replied "my job is not to bring soup".
    It made me laugh so much that I followed him throughout the meal and saw that he fulfilled his role very strictly because during the entire meal - all he did was not bring soup.

  41. I can also understand how your horribly binary logic can lead to technological developments, as soon as you surface all the subtleties the picture becomes very clear, something that helps mechanistically with objects and devices but really, really doesn't help when dealing with humans, the opposite is only harmful and complicated.

  42. Michael it's just unbelievable "hiding the pants" is the lie you falsely claim that I accuse you of, that's why I brought it up in the example

    Michael's logic - anyone who says he does something and someone else claims he doesn't do it, accuses him of lying, let's go into detail

    I draw a picture and think it's a beautiful painting, someone comes and tells me it's not a beautiful painting - according to Michael, this someone accuses me of lying
    I solve a math exercise and say that I am on the way to the right result - someone comes, identifies flaws in my solution and says that I am not on the way to the right result - according to Michael, this someone accuses me of lying
    I repent and think to myself, oh, this is how it seems to me that I will have a good time, "someone" comes and tells me that I will not have a good time - according to Michael, this someone accuses me of lying
    I give a shekel to a poor person and say that it helps him, someone comes and tells me that it doesn't really help him because he will only buy drugs with it, again the same person accuses me of lying

    Yes, children, before you is the summit of Michael's human logic, or in other words seeing in black and white - according to response 258

  43. By the way, Nadav:
    Regarding my reasoning ability - perhaps you are talking about the reasoning of ovens because my logical reasoning ability has yielded quite a number of achievements, a small part of which are patents in the field of technology that made me a millionaire and another small part is awards from various parties for creative thinking or for exceptional professional achievements.

  44. Nadav:
    I say I'm looking for the truth.
    You say I don't.
    Even this is an accusation of lying.
    Beyond that - relying on "not doing anything" is not technically possible because it is based on the assumption that you follow the person non-stop and see everything he does.
    That's why conclusions of this kind that you supposedly draw conclusions from what the person does and not from what he didn't do before your eyes (and maybe he did long before you were born).
    This knocks down the "not opening the closet" parable.
    The parable "deliberately hiding the pants by another garment" is exactly a lie in the parable so it is not clear why you suggested it.
    Therefore, what you did again - is to lie.

  45. Michael, are you even listening to her winking? The very fact that I say to someone, "You are not at all interested in finding the pants in the closet" does this necessarily mean that I have evidence that he searched, saw the pants and hid them with another item of clothing? This is exactly the opposite, it means that he does not open the closet at all or that he skims and doesn't look very well, if you are not interested in pursuing the truth you will not know the truth at all and you probably won't be able to distort it on purpose either, this is a far cry from accusing someone of lying,
    You have the reasoning ability of a 14-year-old boy

  46. Nadav:
    Just because you're flat doesn't mean I flattened you.
    When you say that I am not interested in the pursuit of truth, you say that you have evidence of this.
    Such testimonies are necessarily attempts that you supposedly find in my words to "bend" the truth or - in other words - to lie.
    But you know that and the only thing that allows you to continue arguing with the facts is the fact that you are a liar.

  47. Michael the surface, here is another beautiful example of your ability to distort anything, response 57 is not an accusation of lying, the fact that I say that someone is not interested in the pursuit of truth does not mean that I am saying that he is a liar, it just means that instead of trying to investigate and really understand things, he is simply locked in a position that he has In advance and just trying to convince everyone of it, your ability to turn this sentence into a sentence that says you are a liar is just like your ability to turn pluralism into postmodernism, or the understanding that if I think it is appropriate and correct for the country to act according to the principle of liberalism and equality, this means that I think all opinions are equally valid and correct There is a basic logical fallacy in almost all of your logical deductions that is responsible for many of your extreme opinions. This is a well-known fallacy and is usually the same for people with emotional problems. It is called the fallacy of black and white thinking.

    "Black and white thinking is a logical fallacy of irrelevance fallacies that belongs to the middle range fallacy family, in which it is claimed that a certain position is the truth because the opposing position is not true, while ignoring classifications, intermediate range, compromises or alternative positions.
    Thinking in the way of elimination is of course a good way to deal with problems, but here there is an evasion of the fact that most problems are more complex and cannot be defined in terms of black and white, absolutely true or absolutely false"

  48. Nadav:
    This is of course another lie.
    Your response 57 was after my father's comment (my father's comment was even in a previous discussion).
    Of course, this was not your only descent into unworthy lines (in fact, I would say that a very large part of your reactions towards me fell into these lines and some were only about them). I mentioned this comment because it was also an accusation of lying (although I'm sure you'll try to lie and claim otherwise).
    Unlike you - when I say someone is lying - it's because I know they are lying.
    Therefore you have a safe way to avoid such accusations from me and that way is telling the truth.
    I have no interest in insulting you - forever or at all.
    The first time I said you were a liar because in the response that preceded my statement you made many false claims - including ones that you knew were false and one of which was a false claim intended - as usual - to discredit me in an attempt at coercion.
    Then came many more lies from your side and of course - in the last response - in addition to the lie I already referred to - the lie appears as if what was said in response 132 ("is very logical and simple") does not represent your position.
    After all, you brought this description of liberalism because that is what you advocate and you said that what you claim defines it is a delusional collection of sentences in which all of them star (in simple and pure logic) the understanding that there are many truths.

  49. Father, the rules of the game are the rules of the game, I never justified a violation of the law or a crime, but I did oppose forcing a certain lifestyle on people who do not want it

  50. Regarding the past statements, you took the context out. I answered my father, after all I blamed you in the past and indeed my father warned me then too, since that debate there has been no exchange of blame, what does it mean that from then until eternity you can insult me ​​and curse me without my father warning you too? It's not right that as soon as you called me a liar my father didn't enlighten you and as soon as I called you Chaim he suddenly brightened up

    And again you are superficial - the fact that I explained to you the relativist idea from which liberal democracy stems, this does not mean that in my personal opinion all opinions in the world are equal, the fact that a person understands that a state cannot define absolute truths in matters of morality and values ​​does not mean that he himself lacks absolute values ​​of morality and value. It just means that he understands that in order to live with others he has to compromise. I tried to explain to you logically how the idea of ​​democracy arose, but this explanation flew over you and instead you accused me, as now, of postmodernism

  51. Just to do justice to history:
    Nadav accused me (already in a previous discussion) of pretending to be alive. Then he complains that I dare to "accuse him maliciously" as if he hadn't done it before.
    In response 57 he wrote that "the last thing that interests me is the pursuit of the truth" (yes, he added the word that is understandable from Alaa "in my opinion" as if there is a statement by someone that is not in the opinion of that someone).

    His sobs are somewhat reminiscent of those of the robbed Cossack or the criminal caught by a policeman who explains to him "it all started with him giving me back".

    In response 132 he writes, among other things:
    Again the idea of ​​liberal democracy is logical and very simple
    Axiom - every truth or opinion of a person is equal in value to the truths of other people
    The goal: to create a situation where a maximum amount of truths can exist together
    Then he says he is not a postmodernist.

  52. I don't have a problem with pluralism, as long as the others who think differently also show pluralism. As soon as I'm a pluralist and all the others hug my children, it's already a violation of the rules.
    If everyone educates their children in their own way and be pluralistic and let me do the same, then that is pluralism and not postmodernism. Any other situation plays into the hands of the violent who take advantage of pluralism to abolish it when they come to power.

  53. Pluralism is an important value and principle in democracy, because its meaning is not only the plurality and diversity of the different groups in the country, but also the recognition of the existence of different opinions, views, different needs and desires in society. Pluralism is also the recognition of the right of the groups in the country to express their differences and to organize themselves in different frameworks to exercise their rights and act to achieve their interests and needs. The recognition of the value of pluralism in a democratic country, in which society is made up of groups that differ from each other economically, socially, religiously, culturally and in their political positions, allows the different groups to maintain their unique identity, while maintaining a unifying and common basis for society as a whole.
    This approach recognizes that in given companies there are different ways of thinking, which do not always rise to one scale.

  54. My father again, I do not claim that all opinions are equal, I told you I am not a postmodernist, but it is not a binary matter as it is convenient for you to put it, especially not in situations of morals and values, pluralism is not postmodernism and those who generalize them together are simply trying to create an illusion that serves their personal opinions.

  55. Abi, it's a shame that you take one side in the matter, the matter with Haim started when Michael called me a liar, he didn't say that he thought I was wrong or that he thought differently, he simply called me a liar and thus accused me of malice, this is the point where you should have intervened, I am not a "postmodernist" And it's a shame that you also sin by including Michael, which flattens any idea that has a hint of relativism, moral or value to postmodernism and I won't get into that matter now, it's just disappointing that a major scientific website in Israel ignores the best of human philosophical thought from Nietzsche to Foucault and dismisses it as postmodernism.

    Middle Ages indeed

  56. Nadav,
    I'm tired of this argument. It leads nowhere, and it just burdens the readers and discredits other surfers.
    If you don't stop it and move to factual debates (although as a postmodernist it might be difficult for you, when every idea has the same right to exist in your opinion), you will be forced to continue this debate on another site, even though I don't like to use these mechanisms.

    I already told you that Haim and Michael are not the same person, why don't you believe me? Isn't it a shame that instead of translating another interesting piece of news about mourning, I'll have to waste time monitoring personal reactions?

  57. Didn't you realize that doesn't prove anything? The discussion about life is forgotten and over, you are suspected but not caught, so you decided that it is not worth taking any more risks with the use of life, only in hindsight you know that I am bringing up the matter of life again, if you don't use it you thought, then the matter will not come up at all, why would you invent a message of life when you are already suspected That you live but don't talk about it anymore?

  58. Oh, finally an admission, Michael is willing to stoop to a low level in order to shake off harassing people, so there is no reason not to - he will curse, blaspheme and add sympathetic comments from fictitious characters in the name of Haim, I am satisfied 🙂

  59. Why would someone suspected of something but not caught take a renewed risk when the discussion about his suspicions is already over and forgotten?

    Michael, look to what level you have deteriorated - a fool, a liar, it seems to me that we are beginning to see the real face, the one who until now was embodied in the aggression of life but now cannot be channeled to someone else,
    It's like Shakespeare said, "Be careful who you pretend to be, because you are who you pretend to be."

  60. Read 240 again.
    In general - I suggest that you go back and read this comment until you understand - that is - forever.

  61. And in general let's look at it logically, if when I accused you of being Chaim, Chaim had read that correspondence, I have no doubt that he would have said something, defending himself, that he is being accused of non-existence, but he did not speak in that correspondence, which leaves two possibilities One is that he exists and he simply did not see that correspondence, and two that he does not exist, if the first option is correct, that is, he did not see that correspondence, then he also did not see your request to stop intervening in your favor, and therefore it is appropriate that he would have continued to do so, but since he completely stopped any intervention For your benefit and including any expression of existence from that day when I accused you of being alive, that leaves us with one option with a good chance, you Michael is alive.

  62. By the way, dumbass:
    If I were alive, what would be the problem for me to come up with another response from him?
    It's a shame I didn't say it sooner, but it's only thanks to you that I'm starting to exercise my criminal creativity.

  63. Nadav:
    you are wasting my time
    I will take this opportunity to refer readers to the following link which is only indirectly relevant:,7340,L-3777306,00.html

    You did not present what was written in your comments as opinions but as facts.
    Almost all of these facts have nothing to do with reality and most of them are diametrically opposed to it.
    Any sane person can see that.
    You, although you can't and the reason for that is clear, but I stopped trying for you.

  64. Michael, please explain in the previous response, there are no facts at all, only opinions, so how do you claim that they are lies, what did I lie about when I claimed that it was possible to reach a status quo with the ultra-Orthodox through dialogue? Or did I claim that in my opinion the major problems stem from the semi-rationality of Western society? Or maybe because I claimed that according to what I see, ultra-Orthodox children do not look unhappy or captive or starving or suffering?

    And the thing with Haim is not that he chose not to support you anymore according to your request or to protect his existence, but he simply completely evaporated from the world.

  65. Nadav:
    I am not responsible for Haim's actions, but I am glad that he responded to my request and stopped interfering.
    If it interests you - find a way to check.
    I have no way to do that.
    But of course this does not belong to the fact that your lies here are visible to all and it is enough to look at your previous comment to see how many of them there are.

  66. Yes Michael, I'm the liar, I wonder how "Haim" disappeared from existence since I suspected you were the same person

  67. I wonder what kind of evolutionary adaptation caused a person like you to invest so much of his time in dealing with a closed society that has existed for thousands of years and it is possible to reach the status quo with it and impose a different lifestyle on it, while the real problems of secular society - the material flatness, the culture of consumption, gender construction, the empty education for accumulation Capital, the misappropriation of every new technology, the endless trampling of all the earth's resources and many other ills (many of which do not exist in ultra-Orthodox society by the way) some of which are also the reasons for repentance. Look at what is happening around you, the secular, western society is erasing itself and you the planet, within a few hundred years and instead of looking inward and trying to fix yourself and your environment you put all the world's troubles on the one who is different from you, the reason is obviously not evolutionary but emotional, the development of this feeling stems from vile propaganda, you are washed up and unable to see that you are wrong, I suggest everyone to walk down the street and look at ultra-Orthodox children and ask themselves, is this child unhappy? Does he appear to be suffering from any kind of abuse? Are they really the problem with the world today?

  68. The lack of desire is indeed an evolutionary adaptation designed to prevent me from wasting my time talking to the wall (or the Great Wall)

  69. Michael, but leave you desire, desire is an inner feeling like morality, it may be a mistake, check if the lack of desire is a result of the evolutionary mechanisms, if it is not, then continue the debate forever.

  70. Nadav:
    In my opinion (and I will allow myself to give the matter a final tone to use your way of expression) you are the one who is ridiculous.
    I no longer have any desire to expand on this because you have already expanded enough for everyone to see.

  71. Michael, you are ridiculous, to say that there is only one morality that is suitable and correct for all humans from an evolutionary point of view is like saying that there is only one best and correct way for creatures to develop in evolution, and there is no such way because evolution guesses its way all the time, and one can guess countless possible ways, such as The way of the ultra-Orthodox is more conservative and closed to changes compared to the way of the people of the West.

    Regardless, to say that there is only one correct way of moral behavior is to completely ignore the mental differences between people, their experiences, history, genetics, their environment. To say that there is only one morality that suits everyone and anyone who does not follow it is simply wrong, is like saying that every feeling or inner feeling of human beings should be equal in all of them, in fact you are saying that there is only one human being, a logical calculating machine that understands the "real" sources of emotion ", then chooses which of them is derived from evolution and which is just a mistake, what a mistake cancels out with a wave of the hand... Oh, I came to the conclusion that I don't like cats, it's not an internal trait derived from evolution, well then I have to love cats, regardless of whether the fact that I don't like cats stems from some unpleasant experience with a cat in childhood and that the very fact that I don't like cats makes me who I am with my uniqueness and shapes and makes up my special mental structure

    According to Michael's teachings, inner feelings that are not a derivative of evolutionary mechanisms are an error - ERROR ERROR

    The laws in democracy are a framework, a framework in which people can exist with other people without destroying them, within this framework there are compromises, a common denominator, but this is certainly not the book of morality, for example there is a law that forbids walking naked in the street, but it is only in order not to hurt others, the fact is that at home you are Can go completely naked

    By the way, this is just an example, I really like cats.

  72. Nadav:
    For me, there is a basic morality that is ingrained in us as part of a process from the process of evolution and a more extended morality that is the result of the exercise of logic (which is also shared by us from the necessity of evolution, only that its exercise is a complex process in which people can make mistakes but can also understand their mistakes if someone points them out to them and they are open to listening).
    This is not about "my" moral laws and I have never yet told you to do something as a result of my moral laws.
    To remind you - the only one here who preached morals to others was you, therefore if there is anyone among us who wants to apply his morals to others, it is you.
    The only thing I even get involved in is what some people do to others.
    Sometimes - in your case - the others are me.
    Sometimes - in the case of the ultra-Orthodox abusing their children by denying them an education - the others are the ultra-Orthodox children.
    Sometimes - in the case of religious coercion - the others are those who are not Jewish.
    Sometimes - in the case of the parasites - the others are the ones who do not evade military service and the burden of the economy.

    I have already mentioned that the fact that we have a basic sense of morality does not necessarily make us act on it.
    I know you are returning to this point just to exhaust me because of you I have already given the answer but since the discussion is long and there may be those who, although their memory is correct - they simply entered the discussion only recently - I will repeat the main points:
    A person's action is derived from the balance of the basic impulses operating in him.
    The moral impulses are only a part of these impulses and at the same time immoral impulses operate in him.
    In the end, the person makes a decision - these are urges to realize and to what extent and these are urges to conquer.
    He knows exactly what the moral act is but sometimes he chooses to do another act.
    For example - for example - the urge may arise in him to tell someone just like that - without any justification - that he is a "walking contradiction".
    If he realizes this urge - it's not because he didn't know it was wrong, but because another urge - was acting on him at the same time and his free choice chose to exercise this particular urge.

    Your proposal to gather the best minds and write a "Morality" book is completely acceptable to me.
    You probably haven't noticed but this is what every democracy does non-stop in the legislature.
    This is also what the religious want to prevent by imposing the Torah law on everyone (which is reasonable, by the way, written precisely by those who were considered the best minds many years ago and precisely for the same purpose).

    A law book - no matter how full - cannot refer to every situation and therefore additional precedents are created in the courts as a matter of course.
    That is why the legislature sits and continues to enact laws.
    This is also one of the things that makes the idea of ​​a frozen rulebook from thousands of years ago so stupid (that is, in addition to the lack of knowledge that was behind its writing).

    Therefore - the idea of ​​putting moral decisions in writing is a correct idea and it's a shame that you had to think about it now independently instead of looking around you and seeing that it was already brought up many years ago.
    The idea of ​​the need to update this law book - both because of acquired knowledge - and because the car was invented and laws concerning it must be enacted (traffic laws, of course, and not laws prohibiting its operation on Shabbat - as if someone in the Torah was talking about cars) is a newer idea that when you get to it ( And now - after you brought up the idea of ​​the legislature - the road to it has become very short) there is a chance that you will understand democracy.

  73. Michael, according to you there is one morality and it is the correct morality for every person, regardless of his unique mental structure, his family, his community, this morality arises from and is imposed on us by the laws of logic and according to which we should live, so why do we need democracy at all? , let's get the best minds in, we'll draw a moral that's a kind of necessity, we'll write it in a book, we'll call it "The way to the redemption of every human being". Sit them down and force a life of "suffering" on them. We will put those children in institutions and force them to learn the same morality until they align themselves according to it and see the light - the way to the redemption of every human being by Michael Rothschild

  74. Friends:
    Don't let the demagoguery confuse you.
    If you want verified data on recruitment among the ultra-Orthodox, please go to the website of the Forum for Equal Burden

    The number of ultra-Orthodox recruits is increasing too slowly, but this increase is entirely the result of the pressure exerted on them following criticism such as mine. Certainly not from the defense that the postmodernists give to all anti-democratic and anti-social behavior.

    It seems to me that you did not understand my response at all, but just as I do not see the ultra-orthodox as a main target for my words (and the people sitting on the fence are more interesting to me), so I do not see the members of the postmodernism sect as a main target and what is important to me is to prevent more people from deteriorating into it.
    That's why I won't expand on my previous response at the moment because it's clear to me that any intelligent person who hasn't yet drowned in postmodernism understood it.

    Contrary to your claim - the differences of opinion between you and Roy (and me) do not illustrate the claim that there are many truths. They only emphasize the difference between truth and lies.

  75. Roy, the following is a paragraph from the ACA report,

    Along with the increase in the number of exempt holders, in the last two years there has been an increase in the number of recruits from among the members of the sector. The rate of ultra-Orthodox who enlisted in the ranks of the IDF increased in 2008 by over ten percent. This increase is in addition to the significant increase that has already occurred in recent years in the number of ultra-Orthodox who have put on uniform. Only 400 ultra-Orthodox were recruited during 22.

    You know that by many I did not mean the majority of the ultra-Orthodox, but the numbers are growing all the time

    As for the rest, our points of view are definitely too different, and your point of view horrifies me, it just shows how much truths are a relative thing, that you state that you care about the rights of the adult that the child grows up to be. Or his rights will be exactly the same as his parents, in my opinion the use of children is a poor and cheap excuse for the desire to crush a homogeneous group and impose on it a way of life that you believe is more correct

    Best regards


  76. Nadav,

    I read your words to Michael regarding the ultra-Orthodox, and I have to admit that it dawned on me. You are ignorant, and I do not say this to insult, as I am also ignorant of many subjects, but I try to learn them before I speak about them in public. Before you make claims like "many of them go to the army, do national service and pay taxes," I suggest that you read the data about ultra-Orthodox society for yourself. It is indeed divided into factions, currents and different approaches, but it also has common opinions and common approaches. There are not many people who go to the army. far from it. This is a society based on studying in a yeshiva and in many cases pretending to study. You can find the data in the Central Bureau of Statistics on the percentages of employment, recruitment and national service of the ultra-Orthodox. You can browse the series of articles by Shahar Ilan, a respected reporter in the Haaretz newspaper, or read his book 'Haredim Ltd'.

    I have no problem at the same time pointing out that Muslim women in Israel also suffer from a shockingly low employment rate, and this is also a problem that must be solved, together with the Haredim's employment problem. But it is impossible to solve the problems by ignoring them, by accusing people of anti-Semitism and by declaring that "there are many who go to the army" in that public, when unequivocally - there are not many such.

    I will now address the rest of your words, as briefly as possible.

    You wrote, "Doesn't it sound ridiculous to you to "impose any right on someone"? "

    A few years ago I had the opportunity to be in the company of a gracious speaker, who spoke in praise of vigorous liberalism. I asked him exactly this question - what would you say if someone told you that forcing rights on a person is also coercion?

    His answer was perfectly suited to the current discussion. "I don't argue with that person at all," he said. "Either our points of view are too different, or he's just stubborn."

    And on this optimistic note, I will write just one last paragraph and close the discussion for me.

    Coercion, Nadav, is not a bad thing if it saves people from more serious harm. A police officer who forces a criminal not to harm other people, is doing them a valuable service. A country that forces payment of taxes is able to help many people thanks to the money that enters the treasury. Similarly, I see an absolute good in forcing the right to choose on the child. This coercion may not serve the parents' goals, but it serves the child and the adult he will grow to be. To you, for some unknown reason, the rights of the parents are more important than the rights of the child, even when they determine his fate to poverty, ignorance, illness and voluntary violence. I hope that this is purely stubbornness and sticking to the logic you tried to provide, and not a point of view that you formulated in a balanced way. Because frankly, this approach is appalling to me.

    And with that, I ended the discussion. See you in other threads.

    Best regards,



    my new blog - Another science

  77. Michael, I am sorry to inform you that this manipulative use of unusual and shocking examples cannot change the facts, the level of crime among the ultra-Orthodox is one of the lowest, I have personally been in several ultra-Orthodox families and the children there seem happy and full of love, they are not beaten or suffering and the comparison to the starving mother is horrific. If someone has a good argument, he does not need to justify it with exceptions that evoke one emotion or another

    Are you suggesting that all right-wing people take away the education of their children because some of them shout death to the Arabs?

    Where does this fear of the ultra-Orthodox come from? As if they are the most difficult problem in the world, aren't they some kind of violent militia that stores weapons and plans to destroy the country like Hamas or Hezbollah? Or maybe Iran? Many of them also go to the army, many others do national service and pay taxes,

    To take an entire, complex group, with different currents and approaches, complicated, with internal conflicts, full of people, children, women, grandparents, and flatten it to the level of a "parasite" is folly

    I ask myself, what is this hatred? Where did it come from? Then I remembered that the style reminds me a lot of something, especially what you said at the end about the parasites

    "The Jew was presented in German propaganda as the enemy of humanity, and was contrasted with the German, Harry, who is the promoter and key of humanity. The German is the nationalist, the worker, the creator, while the Jew is the parasite, the internationalist, who feeds on the labor of others."

    Anti-Semitism did not develop because someone was born a Jewish scion, it developed because the Jews led a different and closed way of life, contained in itself, that longevity aroused their fear and from it the hatred of the other peoples and from there this hatred was born, the amazing thing is that the same longevity arouses this fear and hatred Even to the Jews themselves and it is dripping everywhere, on this website and in the media as a whole, but I saw something else, I saw how we have more in common than you and your friend Roy are desperately trying to prove

  78. pleasantness:
    Herzl predicted the Jewish state - not a Jewish state.
    I don't know what led to the historical mistake that they wrote in the declaration of independence "Jewish state" as if the state should be Jewish, but this is really a historical mistake with terrible consequences.

    The only reason for the establishment of the State of Israel is the fact that the countries of the world finally recognized (following the Holocaust) the fact that Zionism (which was secular) had been trying to explain to them for many years and that is that anti-Semitism in the world does not allow the Jews to feel safe almost anywhere and it is necessary to establish a state for them.

    I always thought - and still think - that this is true.
    That is why a state is necessary for the Jews.

    But don't get confused!
    The state was established as a refuge for the Jewish people and not for the Jewish religion.
    The Jewish people are not defined by religion but by anti-Semitism.
    That is why the Law of Return was originally drafted as a symmetrical law to the Nuremberg Laws.
    The Law of Return then applied to exactly those people that the Nazis wanted to destroy - that is - exactly who the Nuremberg Laws came to destroy, the Law of Return was meant to save.
    Then began the religious subversion that harmed not only life in the country but actually its ability to fulfill its purpose and caused that various extensions to the law would not allow the people whom the Nazis would have destroyed to become citizens with equal rights here as long as they do not agree to go crazy.
    Note, for example, what happened with the Ethiopian schools in Petah Tikva:
    The chief rabbi did not agree to convert the Ethiopians if they did not go to orthodox schools.
    The ultra-orthodox schools refused to accept them.
    If the chief rabbi had not placed such an obstacle in front of them (which is currently only an obstacle to entering the schools but will later make them a backward population in every sense) many of them would go to secular schools that are less racist and the problem would not have arisen.

    In short - I argue that the state needs to go back and direct itself to the goal for which it was intended, and that is the goal of sheltering the Jewish people from anti-Semitism.
    Therefore, the only place where there is room for discrimination by law between Jews and non-Jews is the immigration law, which should continue to favor Jews over others.

    In general - there is a contradiction between a "Jewish state" and a "democratic state".
    This is simply not possible for a number of reasons.
    One is that if a "Jewish state" is interpreted as a state that some or all of its laws are based on Halacha - the ability of the citizens to set the laws is sterilized.
    The second is that the very definition of the state as a Jewish state creates discrimination between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens.
    The third is that if we talk about the laws of the Torah individually, they are clearly undemocratic laws.

    Therefore, the expression "Jewish and democratic state" includes an internal contradiction.

    This contradiction, beyond the trouble it causes us at home - also fails us in foreign relations and the fact is that Mubarak justified his disapproval of the definition of Israel as a Jewish state precisely because he feared the fate of the Arab minority under this type of definition.

    Note that the idea I'm talking about solves all the problems.
    The country returns to being a refuge for the Jewish people and at the same time it also returns to being democratic (because the law of returns does not contradict democracy: democracy requires equality of rights and duties between citizens but immigration laws apply to non-citizens and therefore do not discriminate between citizens).

  79. Michael, I assume that if you were given the decision to define the state of Israel when the state was established, you would define it as a democratic state and not a democratic and Jewish one.
    But what will you do today? After all, they had already written the Declaration of Independence. How do you deal with this conflict? Apparently the State of Israel is a contradiction to the way you perceive democracy? After all, if you weaken the Jewish side of the country, you will have to abolish democracy as well - or do you think it is permissible to retroactively change the vocation set by the country's first captains? And if you think that it is indeed permissible to do so, why should I not be allowed to think so?

  80. Roy:
    So how do you end such an argument?
    You are dealing with someone who agrees to the correctness of any opinion provided it is his opinion.

    Let's summarize some of the consequences of the ideas that came up as part of the twisting (and really! Enough of the manipulations!):

    It is not illegal to be poor and therefore it is permissible for a father to force a life of poverty on his son.
    By the same token, it is also not illegal to be sick and therefore it is permissible for a father to condemn his son to a sick life.
    Indeed, here and there we see the application of these rights.
    The madwoman from Beit Shemesh, Wallach, the starving mother.
    A large part of this group of fathers and mothers is really condemned by the religious society.
    Between us, what does it matter if the brain injury is the result of shaking, starvation, brainwashing or denial of education?
    What, it's illegal to be brain damaged?!
    Being dead isn't illegal either, of course.
    There will be someone who jumps in with the claim that this is physical injury and that is illegal in itself.
    This is not true - but since when do the postmodernists recognize the existence of the concept right?
    Circumcision is of course physical injury.
    Holes for earrings are bodily harm as well.
    This is even before talking about opening a wound to drain the pus and other beneficial physical injuries.

    By the way, what about female circumcision?
    It is not illegal to be circumcised and therefore parents are probably allowed to confront their daughter.
    Fortunately for us, this is not customary in Israel, but in another country - the same reasons would have been used by this creep as well.

    You have to admit, Roy, that it is not practical to expose the child to all religions:
    After all, I can invent ten new religions every hour (and that's just me! What if a few more decide to help me?). How can you even keep up?
    If we really believe (as the postmodernists do) that any nonsense a person can think of deserves the same treatment as the theory of relativity, then your idea really doesn't stand a chance.
    Of course, there is the possibility of teaching the children only the facts, but when you don't recognize the priority of facts over nonsense - what can you do?

    By the way - it is indeed illegal to murder, and yet the tax money is used to tame the babies who were born and the punishment for Shabbat violators and homosexuals is stoning (a punishment that to a large extent tries to apply even nowadays - for example on the Bar Ilan road - on every occasion when the police do not prevent it).
    Don't worry - Roy! Anyone who knows logic knows that on the basis of one contradiction it is possible to prove just about anything and since Nadav and Ofer's approach is full of contradictions - its strength is in its weakness (the strength of the mind in the weakness of the mind) and it is able to provide an illusion in this matter as well.

    Therefore, Roy, everything you say will not help. Live and let live is the winning slogan and know this: it really is an imperative. You have to live because otherwise who will provide for the ultra-Orthodox? Who will protect them?
    It's like in nature; A successful parasite is one that does not eliminate its victim immediately.

  81. By the way, from the same value the opinion of a very smart woman who also dealt a little with education named Yuli Tamir

    Tamir claims that it must be recognized that the multicultural state consists of cultures of equal status - liberal but also illiberal. It turns out, according to Tamir, that liberals should lower their expectations towards agreements between themselves and members of illiberal groups. In Belit Barra the agreement that will be reached is a live and let live agreement due to the constraints of reality. The most that can be achieved is a compromise that all parties are not satisfied with as a result of ongoing political negotiations.

  82. Roy, proposed the existence of an education system that "will simply offer the child the available information on all religions and let him choose, if he wishes, one of them when he reaches the age of majority". A utopian idea, no doubt. But to me it seems a bit too busy for a child. There are many religions and countless beliefs, how do you choose which one to introduce into this education system? In the end, the way that wins the "competition" is the way that the majority of the country decides is the right one. I think the best example in Israel of an "ideal" education system in your definition is the state-religious education system. which combines religious studies with sand studies. It also gives the child a high chance of earning a living and instills in him the values ​​of scientific and critical thinking, and also exposes him to the world of religious belief. Thus, in your opinion, it is more ideal than the normal state education system. Did I get your point?

  83. Wikipedia in Hebrew that everyone here loves so much

    Pluralism is an important value and principle in democracy, because its meaning is not only the plurality and diversity of the different groups in the country, but also the recognition of the existence of different opinions, views, different needs and desires in society. Pluralism is also the recognition of the right of the groups in the country to express their differences and to organize themselves in different frameworks to exercise their rights and act to achieve their interests and needs. The recognition of the value of pluralism in a democratic country, in which society is made up of groups that differ from each other economically, socially, religiously, culturally and in their political positions, allows the different groups to maintain their unique identity, while maintaining a unifying and common basis for society as a whole.

  84. And by the way, democracy is simply a group of many small autonomies (some are theocratic, what to do) it's called pluralism

  85. Roy, enough of the manipulations, you ask a question in which you already express your opinion about the answer, you ask whether it is permissible for a father to impose on his son through education actions that stem from his being religious? And you already assume that any education for religion or belief is coercion, while any other education is education, if a father teaches his son from a young age that there is a God in heaven and that he is the reason for our existence, and there are definite laws and rules that must be obeyed, this is exactly the same education that a father teaches his son the rules of etiquette What is the difference? That will lead to a polite person and that will lead to a religious person, if you believe that it is legitimate to be a religious person as it is legitimate to be a polite person then what is the problem with that? Please explain to me

    And your second part is the direct continuation of the manipulation, if you accept that all religious education is essentially religious coercion, then you are slipping into the injustice of correcting coercion with coercion,
    What's more, you can't force the right to choose on someone, the right is given and whoever wants to take it based on his education, values, faith and unique mental structure, some of these he received in his parents' house and some of these are only his.

  86. Heaven forbid, Nadav, are you unable to answer the simple question I ask again and again? The question was not whether a father is allowed to educate his son to be religious and a believer. The question was whether it is permissible for a father to impose on his son through education actions that stem from his being religious - such as avoiding work that would cause the son to be poor for the rest of his life, or even commit suicide. Again and again you try to divert the question to education for a theoretical religion that does not impose actions on the believer. Again and again I bring you back to the original question and ask for a real answer.

    The only time you didn't dodge the question, you tried to argue that fathers should be allowed to impose their faith on sons, so as not to harm their own faith. Cheers to the circular argument that leads to mental coercion for generations even if it hurts the victim of the coercion every time.

    You claim that you have a problem with coercion of education. So what is more problematic, Nadav: extreme coercion of religion in education by a small religious group, or coercion of -=the right=- to choose your religion? Do you realize how ridiculous this question is, and how much more ridiculous that you support the coercion of the small religious group through education, over freedom of choice? If this is your democracy, then it is no longer suicidal. It is simply a theocracy of many small groups.


    my new blog - Another science

  87. Roy, answers
    1. A father is allowed to educate his son as he sees fit and only that this education does not contain ideas or values ​​that are not legitimate for life in a democratic country and I have already explained this to you 3 times, it is forbidden to educate to murder, it is permissible to educate to be religious and a believer, you really do not understand the difference between the two ? If you take away from the parents the moral responsibility for the education of their children, then who will you give it to? to the country? If the state determines the fate of the individuals in it, then it will always strive to produce citizens who will suit the interests and needs of the state itself, in a democracy the state exists for the people, not the people exist for the state, is it really that unclear?

    2. It is no wonder that you demanded an answer to both questions because the first is the philosophical principle issue we are discussing and the second introduces many factors that do not belong in the equation and bring us to another and no less lengthy discussion, we are entering here into the matter of a social state, how social Israel should be and to whom to give the help and in what way Conditions should be given to groups in the country, and how and how much to take into account the problematic but very real fact of our being a democratic Jewish country, do you really want to get into that?

    Although the second question is not related, try to answer it from the basic values ​​that democracy exists for all people living in a certain country and it should allow as many truths, opinions, and beliefs as possible to coexist with each other and add to this the fact that our country was established as a special case of a people that was persecuted for all the years of its existence as well Only because of the separatist longevity he leads. Social assistance should be given to all groups in the population that need it, but I have no problem with the state encouraging people to go to work and making it cheaper, the only problem I have is with coercion, coercion of education, coercion of a way of thinking by a state on a homogenous group within it - as long as a group It maintains the basic laws of the country.

    Father, it is not the state's business to decide where a person receives the instructions from, the state should only intervene when these instructions violate the choices of the other individuals to receive instructions from some place no matter what

  88. Actually, I won't make it easy on you. I am interested in getting an answer to both questions, because the first is important in principle, and the second is important in practice.

  89. Watch your back, Nadav. Too many dodges can be harmful to health. The question was not whether it is permissible to be poor. The question was much simpler, and you are avoiding its various versions already for the third or fourth time in a row: Is a father allowed to determine the rest of his life for his child, including the fact that the child will be poor.

    Knows what? I'll even make it easy for you. Is it allowed for the democratic country to finance state schools with tax money, which prepare the child for poverty because they do not teach him the core subjects?

    Because up until now, everything you've said indicates that you believe the answer is yes. And if that's what you believe, then the 'democracy' you're hallucinating about is not a realistic entity but a suicidal democracy that won't survive more than a generation or two.

    Good night,



    my new blog - Another science

  90. Nadav, I would really like to hear your opinion regarding your argument with Michael and the reasons for it, I am not afraid of violence

  91. And once again, homogeneous groups cannot be forced to convert themselves, a dialogue must be developed with them whose goal is not to convert them, but to find a way to live with them together, I believe that from this dialogue there is a good chance that many of the problems will be resolved, any other way will inevitably lead to the worsening of the situation

  92. There are those who will say (and I am not one of them at all) that poverty is freedom from material possessions which enables spiritual wealth

  93. Roy, the sentence "This is not an exception, but an extreme example" contains a contradiction, but you're greedy, so we won't dwell on it

    Regarding the second part, I don't know of a law in a democracy that forbids you to be poor, on the contrary there is freedom of occupation

  94. Nadav,

    This is not an exception, but an extreme example that is accepted according to your logic, and refutes it. This example is repeated in certain ways both in the earliest Greek mythology (the princess willingly going to be a sacrifice to the god) and in the Aztecs. And again, your logic claims that this is perfectly fine, thereby violating the basic rights of the adults, who were brainwashed as children.

    But no problem, we'll get along. What about the parent who enrolls his child in an education system that teaches nothing but Gemara, and in this way chooses, with an informed opinion, to severely damage the child's ability to support himself and his family upon reaching adulthood? (Did you know - sixty-three percent of ultra-Orthodox families are below the poverty line)


    my new blog - Another science

  95. Roy, you are manipulating here, which is done a lot in such cases, you have a very well-known logical fallacy called Dicto Secundum

    You are using an exception to justify the rule, suicide is a very problematic, extremely extreme area, the belief in freedom of choice and in man's being an autonomous creature states that a person's choice to end his life in the end is his own choice, just like the Nazis' choice to pull the trigger and murder Children had their own choice, do not depend on excuses of brainwashing or education in connection with extreme cases, to do so would be to remove the moral responsibility that stems from the freedom of choice

  96. Nadav,

    As before, I understood your arguments, but not the logic behind them.
    When I try to think whether the claims you make are right, I use a very simple method: I try to check whether extreme cases can obey your claims, and at the same time go against them.

    Let's take a simple example.

    1. Every person may commit suicide. There is no law against it.
    2. A certain parent believes in a religion that tells him to commit suicide at the age of thirty.

    So far, your claims fully justify the way of life of a community made up of parents of this type, because they do not infringe on the rights of others, and they have a right to their own bodies.

    Let's continue.

    3. The parent educates his son according to the same religion.
    4. The son, with a probability of 90%, observes the mitzvot of the religion according to law.
    5. At the age of thirty the son commits suicide.

    It follows that as a direct result of the father's actions, he caused the son to die at a young age. And all this according to the rules you set yourself. Since you did not deny the legitimacy of the father's actions, you also sealed the fate of the adult son, and contradicted your basic opinion that allowed every person the right to life.

    If you have the strength, you are welcome to reformulate your idea in a way that fits logically even in extreme cases like the above.

    And in reference to your last paragraph - read my words again and you will see that I referred to the fact that every child will learn about religions in school, and will be able to choose for himself the opinion that suits him. This does not indicate the legitimacy or illegitimacy of opinions. I repeat this for the third time already...


    my new blog - Another science

  97. I will simplify further just to be sure the idea is understood

    What is legitimate to live by, is legitimate to educate by

    Is it legitimate to kill? No
    Therefore it is illegitimate to teach murder

    Is it legitimate to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago? Yes
    Therefore it is legitimate to educate that the world was created 6000 years ago

    Simpler than that, I can't do it anymore

  98. Roy, unfortunately you didn't understand the logic behind Effert's words

    1. The beliefs and opinions of an adult should not be denied and his right to live according to them should not be denied, as long as they do not infringe on the right of others to do the same
    2. A child is not a person and an adult, and although he is entitled to all the basic rights of an adult, the matter of his education and the responsibility for his actions require a guardian

    And hence, if we do not deny the parent's right to live according to his beliefs and opinions as long as they do not constitute an injury to the ability of others to do so, it is not appropriate to deny him the right to be the guardian of his son, because in fact this is how we deny the legitimacy of his opinions and beliefs, without that they would be a detriment to the ability of others to do so and we define them as unfit to educate them

    In simpler words
    Any opinion or belief that is considered legitimate for an adult in a democracy will be an opinion or belief that is considered legitimate to educate his children in, legitimacy cannot go half way

    You propose to impose different views on a person's children because you claim that there are chances that his views will bring his son to the same views and in doing so you are actually removing the legitimacy of the original views to exist in a democratic society.

    Is it clear now?

  99. Nadav,

    Sorry, but it seems to me that when your logic fails to justify the conclusions, you try to use other avenues that do not make sense. For example -

    "It is a given in the law that a child is placed in the custody of his parents" - laws passed in a democratic country are not necessarily just. This is a fallacious argument based on current political reality. He does not say how things should be.

    "If democracy cannot prevent the beliefs and opinions of an adult, then it is not its role to prevent him from educating his children to them" - a logical leap that has no justification. Democracies do not forbid nuns to believe that they must abstain from sex and human contact. Are those nuns also allowed to educate little girls which is their whole role in life? Alternatively, is it permissible for the Inca clergy to educate a girl who, at the age of 19, will receive the enormous honor of being sacrificed to the sun god? After all, the girl will choose this of her own free will, upon reaching the age of majority, only based on the education she received!

    "A position that appears in communist views" - this is just a slander. Communism used an education mechanism that placed obedience to the state above all else, and denigrated all other religions / polities. He did not give the children the tools to choose their faith in life.

    The democracy I propose, and you still haven't put forward a suitable argument against it, is one in which there will be no defamation of countries or religions. She will simply offer the child the available information on all religions and let him choose, if he wishes, one of them when he reaches the age of majority. And if we want a more realistic implementation of that idyllic democracy, then as a step I have begun to impose on the schools of Shas and Torah Judaism the study of the core subjects used in the rest of the school in Israel and important for the personal development of the child, and to guarantee his livelihood as an adult.

    I'm still waiting for a proper argument from you against this approach.



    my new blog - Another science

  100. Nadav:
    You're completely wrong.
    Security is not against the values ​​of democracy since it is a private feeling of a human being and democracy does not interfere with the feelings of the individual.
    Therefore your interference in my feelings contradicts democracy.
    This, beyond the fact that your very argument with me (in which, as mentioned, you also demonstrate confidence in your words) shows that you do not demand from yourself what you demand from others.

  101. Michael, this is exactly what the debate is about, you are "sure" that you are right, you are "sure" that all people have the same ideas and concepts, this confidence is against the values ​​of democracy and science, which present a more minimal approach, and this is the secret of their power, this minimal approach allows for a diverse and pluralistic life And it also allows for growth and changes, imagine that according to your teaching all the teachings of the New Age would have been invalidated with the contribution of their distribution, I am quite sure that some of the ideas proposed in quantum mechanics would have been presented to a scientist from the 17th century, he would have seen them as "New Age" ideas, so that if you had existed in the century On the 17th, maybe we would still correspond through postal mail

    As soon as you dismiss and belittle anything that does not fit with a certain paradigm absolutely, as in your saying "religious belief is nonsense", you establish a culture that does not allow any paradigm changes, after all, the philosophy of science also changes itself all the time. So you came to the conclusion that there is one truth which is the validity of the laws of logic and that is it, we will be stuck in this paradigm forever and it will be good for us, and maybe there is something else? And how can the same thing else materialize if you dismiss it straight away as "New Ageist nonsense"? To me you are not much different from the church of the Middle Ages, people who were so sure of the rightness of their way that they were ready to dismiss any other opinion that contradicted it, it helps if you say this to yourself "I may be caught up in some wrong concept" even if it doesn't feel like it to me Or I understand now and also maybe the very idea of ​​"wrong" as I define it is not complete or final

  102. And by chance, Nadav, take a course in logic because your use of the word is simply embarrassing.

  103. Nadav:
    I present the failures of religion in dozens of discussions.
    The discussion with you was from the beginning a personal attack by you against me and it is unlikely that in such a discussion I would present the failings of the religion - what is more, you are not religious (in the religion you meant - part of the failings of the postmodernism religion to which you belong was actually presented by me).
    In my opinion, you are the one who does not understand the principles of democracy and you do not digest the idea that it needs to defend itself against elements that take advantage of it to overthrow it.
    I know that you argue even when you are not sure of the rightness of your words and maybe even when you are sure that you are not right. I don't act like that, so I only argue when I think I'm right.
    Therefore your impression is equivalent to the impression that when I speak my lips move.

  104. Michael, you do not present the failings of religion, you attack the very idea of ​​religious belief, belittle and cancel it, it can be said that the debate I have with you is about your style, which I think stems from several reasons

    1. A deep enough misunderstanding of the principles of democracy and the rationale behind them or alternately disagreeing with them
    2. Absolute confidence in the rightness of your way and its suitability for all people (the logically wrong thing)

    I think there are other reasons that I don't want to discuss because you will react violently

  105. By the way, Roy:
    I'm glad you brought up the point of educating the children.
    She's been burning in my bones throughout this discussion but I didn't want to hurt her by bringing her up while being subjected to a personal attack.

  106. Nadav:
    I have never changed the target audience and the fact is that I have previously pointed to the target audience of those sitting on the fence.
    You are welcome to read here, for example:
    Or here:
    In general - the topic of defining the target audience did not come up until my response on this topic (now someone will claim that I diverted the discussion again?)
    I agree with you that the problem is in education and I do not avoid this problem.
    I don't know how active you are on the subject, but I'm definitely trying to make an impact on this front as well.
    You are welcome to read something about my activities in this field in the following thread:

    And here:

    Since I haven't won the war on education yet, I have no choice but to try to influence where I can influence.
    It is true that until now you did not know about my attempts to influence the education system, but this only emphasizes your tendency to jump to unfounded conclusions about.
    By the way - your definition of the word attack is not exactly correct.
    I present failures of religion mainly when it belongs to the discussion or when someone attacks me from the direction of religion.

    In relation to the way people act, if everyone gets a proper education - I'm not a prophet, but I'm sure the situation will improve a lot.
    It is true that there will still be people who become addicted to drugs, but certainly much less.

  107. Roy, the answer to your question is in the body of the question, if democracy cannot prevent the beliefs and opinions of an adult, then it is not its role to prevent him from the possibility of educating his children to them. It does not mean that they are allowed to violate his basic rights as a person, but they can certainly educate him as they understand the world, there is no fundamental right in the individual rights of democracy that states that every human being must be given the same initial tools of education and social construction that were determined by this or that rationale , this is the truth, a position that appears in communist views, and how lucky we are not there

    Is this an appropriate answer?

  108. Nadav,

    First, I must admit that I am amused by the sentence "should democracy choose rationality and logic over faith and religion".

    It seems to me that he sums up the discussion nicely. Should democracy choose rationality and logic over customs that are devoid of logic? Should democracy choose not harming the child, over an education that deprives him of subjects that will be important later in his life, such as citizenship, history, English and mathematics?

    To me, the answer is clear. Absolute yes. However, for an unknown reason, from that sentence you came to the conclusion that every society has the right to exist separately from the world around it. Indeed, you are right -=but only about mature people=-. You completely ignore my point that a child is not an adult capable of making up his own mind. It is not for nothing that the saying of the Jesuits was established: "Give me a child up to the age of seven, and I will give you the man."

    In other words, Nadav, you ignore the best interests of the child in favor of the small and isolated group that decided to impose its beliefs on him. These beliefs can range from a ban on eating pork, to self-flagellation on Muslim holidays, or sending him to burn trash cans and fight with horses and police on the streets of Jerusalem. great. And all so that in two thousand years, there will still be Jews who can say that thanks to the crimes of the past, they now speak the Hebrew language.

    So let's recap, and tell me why you disagree with me. I say that a democracy cannot exclude religion, but it is obliged to give children the information they need to make an informed choice between religions or atheism. You oppose giving children the ability to choose, and prefer to force the religion of their ancestors on them.



    my new blog - Another science

  109. Michael, you are suddenly changing the target audience for me, after all we were talking about the ultra-orthodox and their separatist education system, but I also know the story of Yaron Dan and his story proves exactly the error of your way even for those who sit on the fence, secular society produces detached people who do not have enough emotional and rational tools To face the existential problems, into this space enters the religion that offers three things - belonging, agenda and most importantly existential meaning. The attack on the religious or on religion in these cases is unnecessary and expresses an avoidance of the real problems, the real problems are in the secular education whose role is supposed to provide the same tools to deal with it, the level of the teachers and the material taught in the school is far from that, and it must be said that even if all of these are presented perfectly, not all The people will live well as seculars and choose some way that gives them the same absolute meaning.

  110. But no matter what - Nadav - you continue to convince the religious and the undecided in your way and I am in mine.
    Unlike you - I don't tell others what to do because I know it's not my right and I'm also sure that you too will have success here and there.

  111. Nadav:
    Although you come back and suggest that I not confuse you with facts, but since these words of yours do not change the facts known to me, I must regard your words as "just insistence".
    The fact that there are those whose "spiritual" reasoning leads them to error only emphasizes the importance of dealing with those "spiritual" lies.
    And my violent reaction is a reaction to the violent insinuation to which she refers. Of course you are welcome to base on it the claim that man did not land on the moon.

  112. And regarding your violent reaction at the end of the response only strengthens my opinion about the reasons for your persistence and adherence to the subject

  113. Michael, I also know a lot of people for whom "spiritual" reasoning restored their spirituality,
    The same law applies to those sitting on the fence as well, underestimate their perception or belief and you will lose them faster than you can say Jack Robinson, the only people that a person with an attitude like yours can "convince" are those who are already convinced from the beginning, just like the crowd that came to Amnon Yitzchak's performance Or all the lectures you flood here with links, the real way to change is respect for the second opinion and an attempt to penetrate it through the common and not through the different

  114. Ofer:
    To explain to you what the term "baseless" means, I invite you to bring examples of something from your words that I misrepresented.
    That I use your words to prove my point is because they are so suitable for me as examples.
    You paint me as the debater who can convince in anything and you don't understand that I am acting unfairly because I gain a very serious advantage from the fact that the positions I defend are true (much harder to defend a lie).

  115. It's hard not to respond to you, Michael. But you twist almost everything I say to fit the message you want to convey.
    I will not continue the discussion with you. Because it's really impossible.

  116. Nadav:
    I don't know why you talk about coercion.
    I do not force anything on anyone.
    My opinion regarding the reference to religion is completely different:
    Since I know people whose rational reasoning restored their ratio and even those who returned to their sanity after reading the texts of "Deat Emet", I can tell you that your claim that it will not affect them in the desired direction simply does not hold water.
    But there is nothing. I didn't think you were a prophet and you just lack knowledge of facts that I know.
    Beyond that - I clarified several times that the target audience is not only the religious.
    A much more important audience, in my opinion, is the audience of those who "sit on the fence" - the products of our failed education system that produces graduates who do not know the meaning of the word "to know" and fall prey to all kinds of scammers.
    I know of quite a few undecided people who, following exposure to the facts, made rational decisions.
    so that's it. In addition to all the other things, you also received an answer to the question "Where do I continue" and from my side you can take the answer you left to yourself and push it.

  117. Ofer:
    To preach morality to someone is to tell them that what they are doing is "wrong"
    just so you'll know.
    Saying someone is a demagogue without giving any example is simply demagoguery.
    Talking about someone having an agenda is pointless because a person without an agenda is silent.

  118. Roy, there is a lot of logic in what you say, the question is, is it the function of democracy to determine the way of education and values ​​of homogeneous groups within it?, should democracy choose rationality and logic over faith and religion and cover these ideas on the children of people who believe differently? Homogeneous groups preserve themselves and this is their moral and evolutionary right, as long as this preservation does not violate the law and harm other groups. That self-preservation of the ultra-orthodox community is ultimately what led to the non-assimilation of the Jewish people and the fact that we are conducting this discussion in Hebrew. I repeat, the function of democracy is not to determine the priority of one faith or another, because it is simply impossible, everyone can educate their children according to their own best understanding and perception.

    Michael, it is completely clear to me that attacking, disparaging and canceling the beliefs of another person or group will never make him change and even strengthen his position, and it is also clear that democratically it is impossible to force a religious or believing person to change his lifestyle if he does not harm anyone , it is also clear to me that you know these things, so I ask myself why you continue? But I'll leave the answer to myself because you don't want psychological analyses

    I can only say that I personally worked with some religious and ultra-Orthodox people, I had long conversations with them, many of them are kind, rational and law-abiding people, there is a duality in their lives and they live with it, just like people live with any psychophysical duality when the material world does not express an idea or An achievement that will sleep in the spirit world. Even in anxiety there are so many currents, some less rational and some more rational.

    The surest way to keep the ultra-Orthodox as they are is to belittle and cancel their faith or try to force a different way of life on them, 2000 years of strong regimes without any restraint have proven this

  119. Michael, you really like to repeat yourself and get caught taking care of my comments. I didn't tell you what to think or what to do. If you say I preached morals to you over and over it doesn't make it true. You are the demagogue here. You have a certain agenda and you keep repeating it even if it is not related to the topic. Therefore, it is impossible to have a real and deep discussion with you on the subject of faith. Thank you very much for listening, I'll stop here.

  120. Ofer:
    I have no fear.
    On the contrary! Standing up to the religious and postmodernist attacks requires courage.
    It requires courage, in part, because the other side does not condone violence - including physical violence.
    I'm just putting a mirror in front of you.
    You tell me what I can and cannot say.
    This is moral preaching.
    To comply with your demands I have to: either change my thoughts or lie about them.
    You do not point out a mistake in my words and you do not bring any reason for your words except the moral one.

    Your attempt to perform a psychological analysis on me is also impudent, arrogant, wrong and irrelevant.

    I am not deviating from the discussion.
    I respond to the things said and answer completely relevant answers.
    When talking about morality - what to do - religion - as someone who appointed himself the patron of morality - is relevant and therefore I may mention it as an example to illustrate an idea.
    The problem is that for the religious and the postmodernists the mention of religion is a red sheet precisely because, as I said - religion appropriated the insult.
    Therefore - when I mention religion for practical reasons - there will immediately be those who attack me for non-material reasons.
    This is how it happens that the discussion sometimes takes a different direction and turns from a matter-of-fact discussion into a counter-attack for the purpose of protecting the dignity of the religion.

    It is not a coincidence that of all the examples I have given you found it appropriate to refer only to mathematics.
    Was this supposed to provide an answer to the other cases? What about the right and left parties?
    What you did on this issue is called demagoguery or cover-up. Choose for yourself which of these two actions you took.
    Hint: You can choose both answers together.

    Let me expand on the appropriation of the insult by religion.
    As I explained before - religion is a collection of memes that preserves itself.
    One of the ways religious meme collections preserve themselves is by denying people the right to think differently.
    This is the origin of phenomena such as the Jihad, the Inquisition and the Chastity Guards.
    This is also the origin of religious mitzvahs such as the mitzvah which says that those who desecrate Shabbat must be stoned.
    Behind these commandments stands, as mentioned, the idea that anyone who thinks or acts not according to religious laws is a capital criminal.
    When the (monotheistic) religion is in power - this is exactly how it behaves.
    This is happening today in Islamic countries, it happened in Europe during the Inquisition and it also happened in Israel during periods of religious rule.
    When religion is not in the power of the state - it can still control - up to a certain limit - these and other sectors.
    In this case it gives rise to phenomena such as the modesty shifts.

    In places where she does not control - she resorts to insult as a strategy.
    It is not a real insult but an insult that is a prelude to violence.
    After all, when someone is really offended, he sits in a corner and cries. He doesn't go to demonstrations, set tires and cars on fire or kill movie directors.
    But he uses the word "insult" because it's a good strategy.
    It buys the postmodernists.
    This meme of an insult strategy is common to all monotheistic religions and this, along with the drag of the postmodernists, means that the sane are always under attack.

    The insulting meme of religion is, of course, fueled by the phenomenon that I already mentioned at the beginning of the discussion - the phenomenon that a large part of people lose a large part of their humanity when they associate themselves with a group that distinguishes itself from other people.

    By the way, all readers are asked to pay attention to what nicknames I have already received from Nadav - just during this discussion and what absurd psychological analyzes Ofer tried to analyze me.

    No one thought to defend me because I was "insulted".
    On the contrary - those who try to defend the collection of religion's memes are exactly the ones who took the strategy of insulting me.
    This is because no one hesitates to insult a person, but they hesitate to insult an organized group.
    This also happens in cases where the individual is part of a larger unorganized group.
    It seems to me that those who search deep in their souls will know how to answer the question of who is acting out of fear - is it the one who defends his positions or the one who folds in the face of the insult strategy.

  121. I didn't preach to you about what you can or can't say. You have some unknown fear of people telling you what to think. you imagine Take it away. You just choose to understand it that way. Read what I wrote again and see what I'm saying is - think what you want, just let other people think what they want. And stop linking the issue to religious coercion because belief in God does not have to be related to religion (referring to devout believers). And if you had read, you would have understood that if my incorrect assumption in mathematics is based on basic assumptions that are similar to mine and yours, and you would have told me that the proof was wrong, I would have been able to understand why. But here the case is that the basic assumptions are different therefore any proof is irrelevant because it relies on dissimilar assumptions! And I'm trying to write briefly because we've already talked about this topic, but I can't.
    No one comes against you and tells you what to do. My criticism was that you are deviating from the discussion. And when someone else does it, you tell them about it. So I come and tell you the same thing now, because you don't notice that you are doing it.

  122. And Nadav:
    I have to repeat it again because you don't clear things up:
    Preaching morality is a denial of legitimacy.
    You and Ofer are the only ones who preach morality to others.
    The others are just expressing their opinion.

  123. Nadav,

    You argued that a democratic society is allowed to limit actions that limit the freedom and choice of its members.

    So far there is no argument between us.

    But here's a complication: children overwhelmingly tend to stay in the religion they grew up in and be subject to its laws, which necessarily limit their freedom (not eating pork, not traveling on Shabbat, and so on).

    It is important to emphasize that this is not about the free choice of the children. A Muslim child remains Muslim, an Orthodox child remains Orthodox and a Christian child remains Christian. The number of converts from one religion to another tends to zero. The number of repeaters in the question usually does not exceed ten percent. It turns out that in ninety percent of the cases, the child was raised in a way that imposed certain ideas on his mind that do not correspond to material reality.

    Another argument: there are many religions, and each claims its own rules. It is not possible to prove that one of them is right and that the other is not. Because of this, the democratic society should and can only consider the material benefit derived from religious actions and beliefs, or from avoiding them.

    I won't suggest telling grown people how to think, because that's ridiculous. I have no intention of converting anyone. But according to all of the above, it turns out that democracy must protect children and prevent them from being joined to religion by adults who were already captivated by the religious idea in their childhood. This protection is implemented in Europe and the USA through education for rationality and logical thinking, which gives children the necessary mental tools to choose their own path in life. If, after such a course of study, they choose some religion - what is good. This is their full right. But every child in Israel is entitled to such an education. I claim that when 25% of the children in the first grade study in Shas schools, which are entrusted with introducing an extreme point of view on religion already from the first grade, then the democratic state is neglecting the future of its citizens and is criminal in its goal of giving every person the right to choose.



    my new blog - Another science

  124. Nadav and Ofer:
    When someone proves a proof in mathematics that is wrong, no one has a problem with the claim that he is wrong and talking nonsense
    When someone who wants to get from Tel Aviv to Haifa goes south - no one will be ashamed to tell him that he is wrong.
    When someone calls you Michael - you will have no problem telling him that he is wrong.
    When someone wants to give a patient hydrogen peroxide instead of aspirin - no one will be afraid to tell him that he is wrong.
    Lefties have never had a problem telling righties that they are talking nonsense.
    Righties have never had a problem telling lefties they are talking nonsense.
    When someone who thinks global warming is man-made hears someone who thinks otherwise they will not hesitate to say that they are talking nonsense.
    Likewise in the opposite case.
    In none of these cases will the uglies come and claim that there is something wrong here.
    Only religion is outside the scope of the discussion. Taboo! Whoever dares is uncivilized/impolite/inconsiderate of other people's feelings and what not.
    I would ask why this stupid distortion exists if I didn't know the answer.
    These are simply remnants of the time when the believers still allowed themselves to punish the unbelievers with the death penalty.
    As the status of the religious establishment weakened, the death penalty was replaced by threats, physical harassment, and the like, and gradually we reached a situation where only the whining remained, which the non-believers were also infected with.
    Amahahaha!!! He said something bad about my religion!!! Look, look, what a villain!!!

    I'm pretty sure none of you have watched Sam Harris' talk yet because none of you have responded to it.
    If you want to grow up - you should watch it.

  125. Although we have already gone through it here on the site, it is impossible not to respond.
    For the religious, belief in God is an axiom from which all claims arise. And not a conclusion from those claims. And so Michael, your return to this topic every time just amazes me. Your assumptions are different from other people's. If I follow your logic, you are also mentally ill, every person who follows certain axioms is mentally ill.
    And your repeated attempt to link the religious people who, according to you, are trying, rightly or wrongly, to impose their religion on the whole world and the belief in God itself, is, in my opinion, an escape from the real discussion, and perhaps even an unwillingness to admit that not everything is black and white in this world. And even if there is only black and white, you are sure, with all my great appreciation for you, not the one who knows what is black and what is white.
    After accusing almost everyone who doesn't think like you of stupidity or an immature debate culture. Take a look at your eyes, and you'll see where you might have gone wrong.

  126. Ran, faith is a legitimate thing, both in its mouth and in God and in the validity of the laws of logic to deny its legitimacy is to deny the legitimacy of freedom of thought, which is the most important principle in democracy and from which also derives your right to say or think what you said, also that Copernicus "believed" that the earth revolves around the sun, they thought he was crazy, woe betide us as a society if we deny the legitimacy of human beings, to believe, to think, to choose or to refrain from choosing, the only thing that a democratic society dares to afford is to limit a person's actions and that too only those actions that limit freedoms of other people

  127. If I tell you that I believe that a fairy lives on the roof of my house and that she created the entire universe and the countless galaxies in it, and that she decides who will live and who will die and what will happen in the world, you will consider me crazy and mock me.
    But when people believe that an invisible entity is responsible for creation and the universe, then this is a concept that is accepted as completely legitimate and sane.

    But the mere fact that a huge public holds some belief does not make the belief true, because otherwise you would all have to be Hindus or Muslims or Christians - since there are many more of these than Jews.

    So decide - if belief in fairy tales is considered madness and lack of sanity, why is belief in God legitimate?

  128. There are, of course, two ways to overcome incompatibility between a person or a group and society.
    One is to get treated and the other is to force everyone else to conform to you.
    I simply suggested to OCD patients to take the second way - as opium addicts do to the masses.

  129. Michael, you simply do not understand the essence of the definition of mental illness, for you anyone who thinks a thought that is not in line with logic as you understand it is mentally ill, regardless of his ability to function in a normative way in human society, the problem is that logic as you understand it is only One way to understand the world is through your narrow existential experience

  130. Nadav:
    You are just rude!
    By what right do you call OCD a mental illness?!
    This is a belief that is as valid as any other belief and it is just presumptuous of you to claim that they are sick and you are healthy!

  131. Anxious secularist, please prove to me absolutely that you really exist, otherwise it would be insane for me to answer you

    Reuven: The difference is huge, mental illness causes suffering and the inability to perform basic everyday functions, the people with it do not choose it and do not think it is the truth about the world and they usually suffer from it. To agree with this choice, but to call it a mental illness is simply wrong on so many levels that it is hard to even explain it.

    Neither you nor I know with absolute certainty why we were created and if there is or isn't a God and we will certainly never know, therefore there will always be people who will choose to believe that there is one or another organized purpose for the existence of things, and this belief will always give rise to organized mechanisms that preserve it and allow it to exist, who are we Shall we even define it as a mental illness? Mental illnesses are not defined out of a desire to determine what is the right thing, a person who talks to a broom is really talking to a broom as far as he is concerned. This is also the DSM constantly changing, a hundred years ago homosexuality was also included in the list,

  132. Nadav, in a lack of elegance, and so that you don't have to deal with it, you ignore the similarities between the two phenomena. Michael illustrates well such similarities: behavior that is not based on any need for minimal vision + a desire for the whole environment, the whole world, to stand still because of these tricks. What to do, it's almost the same, except that religion is also aided by endless brainwashing, with the clear and stated goal of spreading the phenomenon.
    Cope 🙂

  133. Religious belief: people believe in something that doesn't exist, talk to it, ask it for things and behave in a way they think will please it.
    Mental illness: see above.

  134. Michael, are you comparing religious belief to mental illness? I think that every sane person will identify for himself who is the patient here

  135. OCD sufferers unite!
    Contrary to what everyone claims - you do not have a mental disorder. You are just stupid!
    If you, or you, believe that the whole world is flooded with bacteria that cause terrible diseases and you have to wash your hands every second and walk around with masks on your face, then you believe it.
    Why would you let all these unbelievers declare you to have OCD?
    Simple - declare your beliefs and customs as a religion and see how everything will change!
    First of all - all the believers of the postmodernism religion will come and start preaching to the whole world that this is your faith and therefore it should be respected.
    They will preach to all normal people a moral and ask them firmly what treatment they offer you. They will say that by the same token it can be argued that they are in need of treatment and there is no proof that your belief is incorrect.
    They will say that your faith is an existential necessity for you.
    In short - they will pave your way to the next step.
    And what will be the next step?
    Think about it!
    What a wonderful world it could be?
    Enter the Knesset and enact laws especially for yourselves!
    The state will be obliged to distribute faucets everywhere in such a way that wherever you find them, you will not have to walk for more than five seconds to wash your hands with soap and water (yes! Of course there will be soap too! All the faucets and dispensers will also be activated by proximity sensors so that you don't have to touch them - just like devices hot air drying to be installed there).
    The other citizens will be required to wear masks - both for their own protection and so that they don't poison you. They don't know it, but you know you'll be doing them a big favor.
    And so on…
    I guess you have already grasped the principle, so what are you waiting for?!

  136. And to say it's nonsense is to cancel this existential need for another human being, something that goes against the spirit of democracy

  137. Michael, ever since man became self-aware and tried to think about the essence of his existence and the meaning of his life, he encounters great anxiety and endless fear, the more he thinks about it, the more and more he encounters the absurdity that there is no one around to explain or reassure, and why is he even here? , what is the meaning of all this,? Think if you will about a child wandering around without parents, this is the source of all religions, people who invented a father for themselves, that's all, because they can't believe that there isn't, or alternately because they believe that there is, errors and logical contradictions are present by weight in the Bible, and in all the writings of Every religion, they will always be solved by such a sage who will interpret this or that portion, we all studied the Bible and we all saw how many portions there are for things, just read the book itself there are four different layers and each of them is aimed at something different, and of course if you ask Rabbi then he will have an answer that satisfies the mind of every religious person regarding the rabbit's migration, it is not science, it is not logical, get over it, it stems from an existential, emotional need

  138. Nadav:
    In the previous response I only answered the first part of your response.
    I do not know how to relate to the prophecy in the second part and I am by definition an apostate in defining the expression of my opinion about the truth as an expression of non-democracy.

  139. Nadav:
    Let's be specific for a moment and show me the logical process by which the conclusion that the rabbit ruminates derives from the claim that our existence has a purpose and how this claim can be logically reconciled with reality.

  140. Michael, there is an initial basic claim in religion and it is that there is an absolute purpose for our existence and there is the belief in it, all the other claims are based on it or if you will, they arise from it and again the same basic belief cannot be logically ruled out so that even if you rule out all the other claims, endless others will be born to take their place. Just as the new egist teachings replace the old religion, this is an absurd struggle based on an undemocratic desire to "reveal" to another person the "truth" regarding the meaning of his own existence in the world

  141. pleasantness:
    I'm sorry, but there are too many misunderstandings in your words, so I won't address them.

  142. Michael, I will not pass over this in silence. You wrote: "The fact that the believers end a murderous set of laws on this faith." Why do you slander all believers? Not everyone has a set of laws as above. There is a difference between Muslims and Christians and a fundamental difference between both of them and Judaism. So how dare you call half of the world: "murderers"?
    Then you still wonder how and why the pans rise to defend the humiliated religion? I expect an apology.

    Sages and scientists be careful with your words!!!

  143. You mistakenly read your words as if you said that I claimed that faith is based on religion.
    I did this because I mistakenly believed you were making a claim with content.
    What are "faith-based claims" anyway?
    Belief is something that applies to a claim and not to something else.
    You can believe in the claim that there is a God and you can not believe in it.
    You can believe the claim that the rabbit rummages and you can not believe it.
    The claim itself is not based on anything - it is simply a collection of words that can be believed in its truth without believing in its truth.
    I say again: listen to Sam Harris.

  144. Learned gentlemen, find out the facts carefully before you respond and then try to be precise in your words:
    Abi- 1. I estimate that the majority of the religious and ultra-Orthodox chose religion not because of the emotion but in spite of the emotion and maybe I may say: against the emotion.
    2. When you talk about religious people, are you talking about the Jews or other religions? And if you are talking about the Jews - then I will ask you a question: do you mean that the majority of religious people continue exactly as their parents did. Is there no change? Aren't there some who "get stronger"? And that their parents were perfect in their religion? I know many children who changed their ways: either they got stronger in religion or they went a long way in the secular direction.

    3. The education system? His honor must have known that there are several education systems here. Not every institution directs its students to the same point. And there are also disputes within the Yeshiva. And I am really against separatist education and against training.

    Michael- 1. I repeat Nadav's words: science is not a religion. He is neither for her nor against her. The trouble is that there are scientists who decide to use science as a tool to dig into religion.

    2. There is a great deal of truth and justice in your words. But sometimes you insist on being wrong.

    3. I have already said that the Jewish religion is fundamentally different from the other religions. Among other things, this difference is expressed in presumptuousness to take over the world. In Judaism there is no mitzvah to take over the world and not to force others to observe the laws of Jewish behavior. And not in the time of Messiah. But the Muslims do want to take over the world and so do the Christians.

    4. It's nice that you don't set up a thought police, but understand: that faith obliges the believer to obey orders. This is what Nadav tried to explain to you. And I understand your anger at the damage to democracy. You sanctify democracy and already forget that there was someone who used democracy as a tool to destroy half the world. From this point of view there is no difference on the ground between communism and democracy.

    5. What is the misunderstanding of the Nazis? After all, they relied on world-renowned scientists.

    Nadav- 1. If I understood Michael correctly, then he does not make anything an absolute truth.

    Nadav and Michael - you are both wrong about democracy. Democracy is indeed a source of clarification of nonsense, and on this point Michael is right and Nadav is wrong - it is possible to determine which opinion of a person is better than another. But democracy requires safeguarding the interests of each opinion and no one has the right to fight it. And here Michael is wrong and Nadav is right - the equation that allows the existence of many opinions together must be maintained. This is how I learned in citizenship classes and I actually listened to them in an unusually good way.

    Sages and scientists - be careful with your words!!!

  145. Nadav:
    I never said that faith is based on religion.
    You're just reading things backwards.
    There is something to argue against faith and that is to argue that it is wrong and I have already said that.
    The fact that the believers base a murderous system of laws on this belief should greatly increase the motivation of every person who strives for life to tattoo both the insane system of laws and the idiotic belief at its core.
    I repeat and recommend that you listen to Sam Harris.

  146. Michael, in religion the belief is not based on the claims but the claims are based on the belief and as we have already said there is nothing to argue against the belief

  147. And besides, it wouldn't hurt you to listen to Sam Harris in the last link I gave (and also read the uprising of the masses on occasion) 

  148. And more, Nadav:
    The religious moral code must be fought against because it strives to abolish democracy and the claim that the one who defends the attackers of democracy is the defender of democracy is also nonsense.

  149. Nadav:
    First of all - if something cannot be done - then I don't do it either because it is not possible.
    Besides - if the belief on which the religion is based is belief in nonsensical factual claims such as in the matter of the rabbit or the age of the world or people who married women who were not born and were not created, then it can be argued about these factual claims that they are nonsense even according to all your words that raising the rabbit's immigration is not a moral decision of man.
    About the religious moral code - I never said it was nonsense. I only said that he is terrible and terrible and dangerous to humanity.

    And I told you that I don't like the Hebrew Wikipedia because much of what is written there expresses incredible ignorance (and if you enter the discussions there you will also see the reason for this, but I won't go into that).

  150. Meaning, if the religion is a set of laws of a certain morality, then it cannot be regarded as truth or falsehood and certainly cannot be said to be nonsense

  151. Yo, it's really hard not to respond to you, in short, you invented that I gave you two choices when in fact I gave you one choice, to think what you think but not to say that this is a liberal democratic opinion that stems from a logical conclusion

    The reasonable state of mind of a person is something that changes all the time, for example the opinions in the past about homosexuals, you can quote George Orwell in 1984 "Crazy is only a minority of an individual"

    Defining subjectivity is not based on the degree of accessibility to others

    Here is from the Hebrew Wikipedia that you really like

    One of the types of subjectivism is moral subjectivism. A view according to which the moral sentences express the position of each person individually. Moral claims cannot be proven, values ​​do not reflect any reality, values ​​are not facts and it is impossible to distinguish between truth and falsehood in morality. David Hume, who represents this view, claims that it is the moral emotion that determines the praise or blame of the action. According to him, the values ​​do not exist in reality and do not represent facts, it is the emotion that is at the foundation of a person's moral judgments and is the motive for moral action. The role of reason in morality is to adapt the best means to achieve the goal determined by emotion, and to maintain a system of decisions when it comes to questions of justice.

  152. Nadav:
    I have no logical fallacy.
    You come to me non-stop preaching morals on my thoughts.
    This is a way of forcing a certain behavior on me and it is not an expression of opinion.
    When you say that I have no right to do something - it means that if you were the legislator, you would prevent it from me.
    This is by definition a religious compulsion (when the religion is postmodernism).

    Your puns are ridiculous.
    It is allowed to say that the things that religious people believe in do not make sense, but it is forbidden to say that they are nonsense, even though these two statements are really valid.
    One of the funny things about the whole story is that you actually give me two choices that are the only ones that seem "moral" to you: either not to think what I think (as if I have a choice) or to lie and say that I don't think that (very moral!).

    I never claimed that the Nazis should be absolved of their responsibility because they were brainwashed.
    I don't know where you got that from.

    Claims about reality are not subjective.
    Your love for your nephew is truly subjective because it is not accessible to others.
    Objective reality is in the domain of the many, and when someone makes nonsense claims about it, others can judge these claims.
    It is true that the mental state of the believer is not accessible to anyone, but there are consequences that can be made from others to check if it is a reasonable state of mind.
    The fact is that the knowledge of reality is seen as dangerous to the faith even by the religious leaders and this is consistent with my claim and Dent's claim on the matter.

    You can already see that you have nothing to say because you have returned to personal attacks. You wanted to stop the discussion because you knew it would come to that, but you caught yourself and managed to dirty your last comment.

  153. Michael, you have pure logical failures

    1. The freedom of thought gives me the freedom to think that these are nonsense.
    2. Freedom of speech gives me the right to express my thoughts.
    3. No freedom gives you the right to tell me how I should behave in these areas.

    2 and 3 do not make sense at all, if there is freedom that allows one to express one's thoughts then it is possible to express thoughts that tell other people how you think they should behave
    But regardless, I'm not telling you how to think or what to say and how to behave

    There is no point in giving clear examples that there are illogical things in religious belief, I am also secular and I think that for me it is a wrong belief but

    A. A person (every person) is an autonomous creature with freedom of choice and free will. Every person chooses, even giving up a choice (the cat's thigh) is a choice, brainwashing or not brainwashing, will you solve the Nazis who murdered children on the grounds of brainwashing? Obviously not, then the ultra-orthodox person should not be resolved (distinguishing a thousand thousands of differences) with the same claim, and in general, what kind of brainwashing did the New Ageists go through?

    B. Faith is a subjective position and it is possible to believe in things that do not make sense or that cannot be denied, (the example of my friend, the dog who prefers to be a cat and many New Ageist examples) subjective positions should not be attributed an objective status, and their quality should be defined
    It's like I'll tell you I love my nephew and you'll tell me it's just bullshit,

    The essence of democratic tolerance stems from the recognition that every existential experience is different and different and there is no sustainable objective measure for all human beings alike. Any other statement is essentially undemocratic in spirit.

    I submit that your views on religion and religious people are inconsistent with the spirit and insight from which democracy arose.
    My argument is completely logical and the very fact that you refuse to accept it shows how much logic itself eludes someone who does not want to accept it for some reason, which is probably emotional

    But I kind of don't have the strength for this argument anymore, I'll let you have the last word (which I'm sure you will) I'll just end with a sentence from a TV series that I really like called Stargate - something about the subjective essence of certain things

    "The truth eludes those who refuse to see with both eyes"

  154. Nadav:
    You are the one who misses the point.
    The freedom of thought gives me the freedom to think that these are nonsense.
    Freedom of speech gives me the right to express my thoughts.
    No freedom gives you the right to tell me how I should behave in these areas.
    When someone believes that a hare is alive - something that even the hare does not believe in - he believes nonsense.
    When someone believes that the world was created less than 6000 years ago, he believes nonsense.
    When someone keeps the believers awake so that they continue to believe nonsense, he proves that he thinks exactly like me.
    When someone - on the basis of all this determines that I am a mortal - I have the absolute right to fight him.

    I suggest you read the book Revolt of the Masses because in this book the philosopher Jose Ortega y Gast predicted back in 1932 (actually in the articles preceding the book - as early as 1929) both the elite of Nazism and all the idiotic revelations of the "New Age" (which is nothing but the Middle Ages in disguise ) as predictable expressions of your wrong approach to democracy.

  155. Michael, you miss the point, the legitimacy of things does not arise from itself but from a certain understanding and perception. It's completely clear to me that you don't care if people believe in one thing or another, but you only claim that this belief is "nonsense" The treatment of another person's true and basic belief as "nonsense" stems from the absolute belief in the correctness of your way for all human beings, you respect the laws of democracy But you yourself do not accept the essence from which they derive, this essence cannot refer to any belief or concept as "nonsense" as I have already explained to you, the source of democracy is in the liberal concept that it is not possible to determine which opinion of a person is superior to another and therefore the equation that allows The existence of many opinions together, you claim that you believe in democracy but you only "say that you believe" because if you are completely convinced that religion is "nonsense" for everyone, then you do not accept the axiom from which the democratic approach stems, of course, according to democracy, you have full right To hold this belief, but I have the right to tell you that it goes against the principles to which the free society is extended and is not at all in the spirit of science and logic

  156. Nadav:
    I just saw the wrong sentence about Nazism.
    Religions also use all kinds of conclusions from science and twist them into rules of behavior.
    Nazism was based on a (wrong and stupid, but that's not important to our case) understanding of evolution to establish moral laws.
    This is the usual nonsense of all religions and has nothing to do with science.
    Believers in the sun god also derive rules of behavior from the existence of the sun (and the existence of the sun is a scientific fact).

  157. Nadav:
    "If you don't understand - there's no point in explaining"! It seems to me that this is the definition of Polishness (the Poles will forgive me - it's just a joke using an unjustified image that sticks to them).
    I repeat and explain to you what religion is.
    Religion is a set of rules of conduct.
    It is not necessarily related to any faith.
    You literally keep telling me what to do and how I should behave when I'm not doing it.
    I'm just saying that in my opinion you (and everyone else) do follow certain laws - even if you don't admit it - because the laws of nature force it on you.
    The difference is huge!

    I have not made anything an absolute truth.
    In general - my abilities in telekinesis or determining reality are extremely limited.
    There is one truth and I don't determine it and many times I don't know it either (and even when I know it - I don't know that I know).
    I said that this is the nature of science and there is no point in repeating it in every sentence.
    It seems to me that even though I wrote this many times - including in my previous answer - you still haven't read it.

    I repeat what I repeat without it affecting you many times already:
    I'm not doing anything illegitimate.
    Legitimate is a term related to the word Legislation, that is - enactment of rules of conduct.
    I am merely stating my opinion regarding the nonsense (and saying that it is nonsense) - this does not make the thinking of nonsense illegitimate - it does not even make it stupid - it only describes it as stupid (and what makes it stupid is precisely its essence).

    The "truth" of all monotheistic religions is that it is the duty of each person to force others to observe the religion's rules of conduct.
    Therefore religions are religions and not just beliefs.
    For the umpteenth time - there is a huge difference.
    I really don't care if anyone believes in the existence of God, Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster together or alternately. As soon as he "concludes" that he is allowed to determine how to live and act against democracy - I care a lot.

  158. By the way, Nazism also relied on different scientific teachings to justify one truth over the others, this is exactly a demonstration of the danger I'm talking about

  159. Michael, science and logic is not a religion, your turning them into an absolute truth suitable for all human beings is a religious act, if you don't understand the difference then there is no point in explaining it
    I may occasionally express myself in too general a way, but I am certainly not telling you what to do. We are having a discussion in which I am trying to explain a position that is much less decisive than yours.
    The statement "the religion of postmodernism" is a paradox, since postmodernism does not believe in the existence of truth at all, not least in any set of rules that must be lived by

    I have no doubt that every democracy needs to protect itself from anti-democratic forces, this is one of the lessons of the Holocaust, but you take it a step further, you try to claim that the basic beliefs that led to the anti-democratic revelations are illegitimate, it's a bit like preventing accidents by removing the engine from the car

    Again the idea of ​​liberal democracy is logical and very simple
    Axiom - every truth or opinion of a person is equal in value to the truths of other people

    The goal: to create a situation where a maximum amount of truths can exist together

    This is achieved by minimally harming truths that clearly threaten the existence of other truths
    The very religious belief in itself does not constitute a clear violation of your truth and the right of people to believe and worship whatever religion or god they want

  160. Nadav:
    Wow, you overdid it!
    The religion of science and logic?
    Do you remember the definition of religion?
    Religion is a set of rules.
    Can you point to one law in the religion of science and logic?
    I really am a believer:
    I believe in logic.
    But, as I said, every person believes in logic and therefore my belief is also a part of all other beliefs.
    This "upsetting" fact is what obliges the religious establishments to keep their victims in ignorance as they actually do (see their training system) and even declare (see Rabbi Kirschenbaum's words).

    There are things I am sure of - these are the laws of logic.
    I am not sure of any other conclusion - this is the fate of those who understand the capabilities and limitations of science.
    There is no point in adding disclaimer phrases before every sentence because they are, naturally, before the parentheses and are self-explanatory.
    If there is a "religious" person between the two of us, it is precisely you (in the religion of postmodernism) because of the two of us - only you repeat and preach to others about how they should behave (that is, try to subject them to the laws that you have decided are correct). I talk about what I think is happening but I don't tell anyone what to do (except for one thing - I do tell people not to tell me what to do).

    According to your definition, it is precisely your own approach that does not deserve to survive because it is the type of "democracy" that is (certainly) doomed to degenerate into a dictatorial regime because it does not oppose dictatorial currents that use it to overthrow it.
    This is what happened in the past with Nazism in Germany and this is what is happening again and again before our eyes with Islam in many European countries (some of which may now be starting to understand that if you don't memorize their approach - they will be lost)

  161. If a certain attitude or belief has to act in a way that goes against its essence in order to save itself, maybe it doesn't deserve to be saved, I believe that in the end science and progress will win not by turning it into a religion, because such a thing will only radicalize the opinion of the other side and fortify it in its position, it is completely clear to me that anti-democratic manifestations of any kind and diversion to violence are completely wrong, but the very idea of ​​religious belief, ultra-orthodox, is not something that should be fought against

  162. A final response to the topic, I owe this time to update the site for the next few days with interesting things: liberal thinking does not mean suicide. Because it does not have the ability to resort to violence like the other side, secularism must defend itself and to a certain extent behave like a religion, otherwise it will disappear and not because it is not just.

  163. Father, the tendency of most people in general is to follow what is closest and familiar to them, this does not contradict the fact that it is an emotional and not a logical choice, on the contrary it strengthens it

    I am not against the dissemination of science or its marketing to anyone interested in it just as I am not against the dissemination of religion, it is called freedom of expression, the problem I have with Michael's views is the absolute certainty that his way is correct and suitable for all human beings, the content and style of his words arouse in me the desire to defend Other truths, for me the magic in science is the lack of pretension and the constant doubt, the same doubt applied even to oneself

    The magic of liberal thinking is that there is no one correct way for a person to live his life because every existential experience is completely different, are we sure with absolute certainty that the way of the ultra-orthodox is wrong and ours is the right one? Even if we examine it in evolutionary terms, through which it surpasses ours in the accelerated multiplication and distribution of genes, just as we cannot say that man is a better life than a monkey, we certainly cannot say that a secular man is better than a religious or ultra-Orthodox one

    I know that it is better and right for me to be secular, I can explain it, show the good sides of it, I will not pretend like Michael to say that this is the right path for every human being, if I did that then I would be just like a religious person and therefore
    As far as I'm concerned, Michael is a religious person for everything, except that his religion is the doctrine of science and logic

  164. Nadav:
    I have not come across such a person.
    Usually I see a much more embarrassing phenomenon - both with Haredim from birth and with those who became ill later.
    When you show them that something contradicts their opinion, they say - "I don't know enough and you should talk about it with my Rebbe".
    Of course, such a conversation with the Rebbe never takes place.
    Note that Rabbi Kirschenbaum who speaks in the link from the previous comment is also aware of this and therefore he says that people should not be exposed to the facts.
    The terminology he uses is something along the lines of "It is better to be a cat (a creature that does not think) and observe a mitzvah than to be a person who, due to his thoughts, does not observe a mitzvah".
    He knows that thoughts and facts will lead his audience to heresy.

    Every person has a right to lie to himself and I have a full right to say that this is what he is doing.
    Since religion is not satisfied with faith - it is necessary to act against it on other levels as well.

  165. Nadav, the representative of the religious on earth, have you thought about the interesting point - if the choice of religion was an emotional preference, why is the tendency of most religious people to remain in the religion of their parents? Maybe there is some kind of separatist education system here and, as Michael pointed out, it prefers to train instead of teach?

  166. Beyond that, every religion or every mystical Torah at its core deals with things that cannot be completely excluded or required and this in itself is enough to allow people to choose them out of emotional preference

  167. Michael, I am glad to hear that there is no disagreement between us regarding the existence of free will
    It is true that logic works in a similar way in the human mind, but not all people have the same attitude regarding its conclusions
    What you don't address is that faith is more of an emotional matter than a logical one, for the past two years I have been having endlessly long discussions with my friend who is studying Kabbalah and unfortunately a process of repentance begins in the hope of "saving" him, hours of logical proofs, scientific explanations, competing philosophies And similar, nothing, my friend is not stupid at all and is capable of very complex logical thinking, but he always finds a way to find out the appropriate conclusions to continue and allow him to "get stronger"
    Many times he says "I see it doesn't make sense, but I know it's true" and "you have to make a leap beyond the logical to know the truth" In the end I realized that there was nothing I could do to "save" him because my friend made an emotional choice , it is not an easy matter to deal with a reality where there is no god, no destiny and no meaning to our existence except the one we invent, some people do not want to choose such a life, today I no longer think we have the right or the wisdom to decide for them

    One of the basic rights of a person is the right to lie to himself

  168. Nadav:
    Can you tell me how you deduced that I'm denying someone the right to think something? He can think whatever he thinks, and I can think that what he *says he* thinks is one of two things - either a lie (that is, he only says that he thinks that way but does not really think that way) or a mistake (which stems from the fact that he is a captive baby and the facts were hidden from him his entire life, and therefore He believes in superstitions.
    Regarding hiding the facts - it is interesting to see the following link:

    Regarding the claim of faith without faith, I also suggest that you watch the video on Dennett (for all six parts - I only gave the link to the first one in previous responses).
    All in all, in these two films you will get a complete picture of the reasons why people say they believe in God or religion.

    I have no doubt that logic works in exactly the same way in all humans.
    The logic consists only of the axioms of logic and not of any other axiom.
    Everyone believes in these axioms and without them it is not even possible to decipher a sentence.
    A person's set of beliefs consists of basic assumptions that he believes in beforehand because his life experience convinced him of their correctness or that they were planted in his mind through brainwashing, and conclusions that he draws from these assumptions using exactly the same logic that others use.
    As soon as a person - any person - encounters a conclusion that contradicts one of his basic assumptions, he realizes that something in his basic assumptions is flawed.
    Again: this is true for every person.
    That is why exposure to the facts seems so dangerous to the religious leaders and that is the reason for the things you will hear in the first link as well as for the existence of the training institutions where all you learn is about a bull hitting a cow and which refrains from mentioning physics or biology.

    There is no logical proof for anything in nature. Not only for the asymmetry of time. That is why science is not mathematics or pure logic and that is why it is based on experiments.
    When dealing with science, one is based on a number of other basic assumptions, beyond logic, without which it is probably not possible to engage in it.
    One of these assumptions - perhaps the most important of them - is that the laws of nature do not change.
    It is impossible to prove it, but it is the basis of the whole idea that allows us to derive confirmation for a theory from an experiment whose results matched its observations.
    In the end - all the basic assumptions in our lives are a matter of intuition. That's why they are basic assumptions. Theories are actually a collection of such basic assumptions and if you look at the theory as a mathematical structure then those basic assumptions are the axioms of that structure.
    Still - when the logical-mathematical development of the conclusions arising from the basic assumptions leads to a contradiction - each of us will reject the theory and try to find which of the basic assumptions were wrong.

    I do not accept Sompolinski's determinism claim and I have expanded on this on other occasions.
    I think he draws some really wrong conclusions from the findings and is actually being dragged along by Yaron London.
    I think that we have free will but that it is a much more complex and elusive thing than is usually thought.
    This is also the background to the long debate I had with a point (which I pointed out to you when I mentioned consciousness).
    I am convinced that this free will involves a lot of impulses (common to all humans) over which we have no control and also logic (common to all - which we cannot escape from).
    Our ability to consciously resolve an internal conflict involving conflicting impulses is based on the recognition of these conflicting impulses by the mind.
    A toy example for this process are all the stories about the good instinct and the bad instinct.
    Pay attention - even without delving into and thinking many philosophical thoughts, these terms were coined in the language which in interpretation express an intuitive understanding of the fact that we are talking about animals (exactly what is always used to describe the animal aspect of man).

    In short - you can see that on this point - of the existence of free will - there was never any disagreement between us and therefore there is no truth in your conclusion that logically I do not exist.

    In conclusion:
    My opinion is influenced by the facts known to me and by logic.
    His opinion is influenced by the facts known to him and by logic.

    If someone among us is basing himself on incorrect or partial facts (and avoiding science, as well as hiding facts by the religious establishment is a path that leads to this situation with great confidence) - then that person is formulating an opinion that does not correspond to reality.

    Even if someone forms an opinion that corresponds to reality, he can have many reasons to claim that his opinion is different from the one he formed.

  169. Michael, you have the right to think as you wish, but please do not prevent similar freedoms from religious and believing people,

    This time I saw the video and I know the studies that supposedly indicate determinism in brain research, and I personally do not believe that this is the case, it is true that every thought or desire can be linked to a physical factor, but that does not mean that the relationship between them is a pure connection of cause and effect as we perceive

    A. Causality in our world is a matter of intuition and not logic (as Yom showed) and there is no logical proof of asymmetry between the past and the future

    B. The difficult idea to digest in the existence of the soul is that its essence is greater than the sum of its parts, something that is true in a person's thought is true for him because his thought is the only thing that constitutes this or that thing, so if a person thinks that he is choosing then he really but really is choosing, the very existence of another point of view In that this choice is actually something that is influenced by deterministic factors, it does not deceive and does not contain the truth of his choice, it is simply complimentary to it, there is no logical way to prefer one point of view over the other

    third. The very idea of ​​free choice can in itself be a motive for action or prevention of action, that is, I do it because I want to prove to myself that I have a choice

    This is an idea similar to Descartes' sentence - "I think therefore I exist" = "I think I choose therefore I choose"
    Negating this logic for choice obliges you to also negate it for existence and therefore according to Michael's logic, Michael does not exist at all.

    But all this does not negate the fact that you have a certain opinion and it is your right to hold it and a religious person has a simpler opinion, your opinion is influenced by your logic, his opinion is influenced by his feelings, fears or whatever, we have no right to say what is better just to try to explain our positions and live as one with his friend

  170. I must reiterate.
    There is a difference between "believes" and "says he believes" and Dent, who is not a cane killer, explains this very well in his words (which it seems you didn't listen to them, Nadav, because listening to them takes much longer than it takes you to answer).
    Religious people who exercise logic and also decide to act honestly find themselves expressing themselves - in the end - like Prof. Leibovich and like Prof. Haim Sompolinsky in the following link that I already provided earlier):

  171. Nadav:
    Lucky for you, you have no right to determine what my rights are.
    I have the right to think what I think (I almost wrote "what I want" but, as mentioned, this is not the result of a will because as mentioned - my conclusions impose themselves on me).
    There is a close connection between logic and faith and I can only accept your words if you show me a person who believes in something that he himself claims that logical considerations based on other things he believes in show that it is not true.
    If there is a right that should not be violated, it is the freedom of thought and when you say that I have no right to think something or express my thoughts - you are really taking scary steps.

  172. Michael, there is no connection between logic and faith, logic relies on axioms and basic assumptions, in mathematics these assumptions are determined by and therefore certain conclusions can be reached, in our world the basic assumptions are not determined, they are obtained by subjective interpretation and measurement of reality, this process is not makes it possible to reach no certain conclusion and in this gap faith enters, it is an emotional matter. To say that the religious don't really believe is a patronizing statement that makes me shudder when I think about it, no one has the right to determine what the standards are for belief, if someone believes then he believes a point. You reveal a very extreme and scary opinion here

  173. Nadav:
    We will not get out of this.
    I do not accept your words and I am convinced that in the end there are clear and common evolutionary factors that make us accept something as moral and reject something else as immoral.
    Any additional knowledge we have gained affects the considerations we make (the part I described as "calculation") but does not dictate our morals - just as no experience in the world will make the vast majority of people not like "sweet" (it is true that these and other considerations can make them avoid from eating sweet foods, just as he can, inspired by different religions, act against the dictates of his conscience).
    I don't think the religious really believe and I'm not the only one who thinks so. See, for example, what the famous philosopher Dent said at the ceremony where he received the Dawkins Award:

    I am equally convinced that no one can fail to accept the laws of logic and when he makes claims that contradict them he does so - either because of a calculation error - or because of extraneous considerations.

    Once, when someone asked me "what is so good about not believing in God" I answered him that there is no question of good and bad because I simply cannot choose what to believe. It's out of my control. As soon as the data and logic lead me to a certain conclusion - I have to believe it and as soon as they contradict a certain conclusion I cannot decide to believe it.

  174. You yourself live according to laws dictated from "outside" for example "what is hateful to you do not do to your friend" is a law that was dictated to you from the outside, from the culture, it is true that you took it only because you "think" it is right but a religious person also "thinks" that it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath, this is a right thing As soon as a person is educated, or convinced to obey certain laws, his conscience automatically adjusts to them, the reasons that made him convinced are diverse and countless

  175. Michael, your statement that conscience is the only moral source of morality is wrong, because as I explained, conscience does not exist by itself, it needs a series of laws and norms for a "compass", these laws arise from many different sources, and vary from person to person due to their unique existential experience, One should not prefer this source to another and say that it is the "correct" source, everyone interprets and accepts the "outside" in a different way. When I was talking about removing responsibility, I was talking about not giving a certain person the credit for making a rational and informed choice with an understanding of the accepted norms and rules when he definitely made one - as in the current article

  176. Nadav:
    no and no.
    I certainly mean conscience but I argue that conscience is the only moral source of morality.
    Note that even you, who at the beginning pointed out that man needs a set of rules (obviously dictated from the outside), accepted my opinion that such a set of rules (the culture) is nothing more than a way to escape responsibility.
    After all, we haven't been talking about such an external system of laws for a long time and in fact - as far as I'm concerned - I'm already convinced by what I said from the beginning.

  177. Michael Ladavoni, your last comments definitely show your fatigue

    Now I am absolutely sure that you are not using the accepted definition of morality, morality is not a one or another rule, it is simply the idea of ​​living according to a certain code, this code differs from person to person and is rooted in each person in a different way and for various reasons, for example the morality of an ultra-Orthodox person Very different from your morality, i.e. the set of rules and norms that he adheres to and considers moral or not are different from yours, there is no universal "right" morality, there is right for each person according to his upbringing, the values ​​and the reason he exercises just like there is no one right way to play a game of chess.

    It seems to me that your big confusion is that you use the concept of morality but you mean conscience, conscience is an emotional mechanism that brings up certain feelings in you when you do something that goes against your moral perception, the existence of conscience can certainly originate from evolution, but it does its job regardless of what content Cast in a person's soul to define the rules of morality, an ultra-Orthodox person will feel remorse when he desecrates a holy place and another person can feel remorse when he hurts his friend.

  178. But let's stop already.
    Now it is tiring for the "right" reasons - not because we are tired of hearing the things but because we are no longer making progress.

  179. By the way, in the final account, as I have said many times over the pages of this website, the most concise expression of morality is the sentence "Do not do to your friend what is hated against you".
    Of course it doesn't cover all situations because sometimes my friend hates different things than I hate (eg if he's a masochist) but usually it works.
    I think that it is not at all surprising that everyone will accept this definition of morality and this because everyone has the same severity, more or less.

  180. Nadav:
    I think we are talking about exactly the same thing.
    Let's not use the confusing terminology "correct laws" because I think you mean "moral laws".
    We arrive at these laws, as I said, by calculating the consequences of different actions in different situations and in the end - deciding whether the result is moral.
    There is no escaping it and that final decision must stem from a "definition of morality" that was inherent in us before we started thinking about the matter.
    By the way - in any case that the decision does not stem from a motive that is moral in advance, then it cannot be said that it is a moral decision.
    For example - if I decided to help an old woman cross the road because I knew there was someone standing on the other side of the road who would give me a reward for the act, then I did not make the decision for moral reasons.
    Of course there are also mixed situations.
    I am torn between my desire to help an old woman cross the road and my desire to be on time for a movie showing.
    It may be that the man with the prize will tip the scales in favor of helping the old woman and that I would not have helped the old woman if he had not been there just as I would not have helped her if he had been there but I did not have the moral impulse to help her.

  181. Even on Wikipedia, they define it nicely - from Wikipedia (don't think again that I wrote it)

    ….Morality is a study. He places human behavior in the light of moral rules. These rules assume standards for behavior, which the person sets for himself or which he sees as obligations, within the framework of which he performs his actions

    ...its purpose is to give guiding rules for human behavior in all areas of social life, which do not necessarily come up with his instinctive desires

    ... ETHIC morality is a set of conventions or ideals that apply to the person or to a group of people in society.

  182. Michael, it seems to me that we do not have the same definition regarding what is "morality", so let me clarify that for me morality is a set of rules or laws or norms that a person acts according to, how did he come to the conclusion that these are the correct laws? A million and one ways, including inner feelings, logic, etc., there is no such thing as a moral impulse, empathy is a certain emotion that arises in us towards others, this does not mean that we are obligated to act morally towards them, many despicable murderers feel empathy towards their victims and yet resort to immorality and murder them
    Morality is, let's say, your decision not to eat meat or the decision not to harm innocent people, etc.

    These are laws of a contingent nature that are derived from many feelings, thoughts and impulses together,
    If you share this definition with me then you have to agree with me about everything else

  183. And in relation to what was said in the comment before the last one - if the answer is "the thing that pays" then this is clearly not a situation where there are no viewers (the decision to act morally when there are no viewers necessarily stems from a moral impulse).

  184. And by the way - pay attention to the list of impulses you mentioned - fear, empathy, etc.
    After all, the word empathy is part of our moral impulses.
    Moral impulses, as I said, are embedded in us so strongly that even when we compile a list of impulses that should not include them, they manage to seep in.

  185. By the way, if you think about the phrase "he came to the conclusion that being moral is the right thing" you are going back to the things I talked about on two different levels.
    The one layer is how does he decide what it is to "be moral"? And the second is what is the "right thing"?
    The first layer is answered through the consequences of that basic sense of morality.
    The second layer really depends on your answer to the question of what is called "the right thing"
    If your answer to this question is "the moral thing" then we are back to the same issue.
    If your answer is "the thing that pays", then another impulse was at work here.

  186. Nadav,
    I did not claim that people always act morally.
    I argued that when they decide to act morally they do so because of the urge to act that way.
    The same with food: people don't always do it, even when they're hungry, because there are other urges that increase in certain situations.
    Of course, the moral dilemma increases when there are no observers of the act (Dostoyevsky wrote an entire book about it) and this is because one of the other things that were instilled in us in evolution is to anticipate the reactions of others and take them into account as well (and it is clear that the reactions of others are the result of what they see and feel and not of what disappeared from them).

  187. By the way, even the wise person who has already reached this conclusion can lose it in times of trouble as in Leonard Cohen's poem

    and when it all comes down to dust',
    I will kill you if I must, I will help you if I can

  188. I do not agree, I claim that a person who comes to the understanding that being moral is the right thing, acts and is motivated by that understanding, people who have not come to this conclusion, will not be subject to morality and will do everything based on considerations of expediency, fear, empathy, normalizing society, etc.
    Ask people around you the well-known question - if you had the opportunity to steal something as much as you really wanted and no one in the world would notice and therefore no one would be hurt, would you steal?
    Some normative people would tell you, of course, what do I care

  189. My intention was different.
    It is true that if you take the "evolutionary memory" into account then the victory is to "survive and thrive" but this is where the early "calculation" made by evolution when it imprinted our basic impulses and feelings in us comes into play.
    The sense of morality is one of those results that evolution has instilled in us.
    After all, a person - like any animal - eats because he is hungry - he does not eat to survive. The link between eating and survival is a link made by the human race only, but this link did not fundamentally change the fact that he eats because he is hungry.
    Equally - our drive for moral behavior - although "designed" to help us survive - is the direct driver of our decisions to act morally

  190. This, in my opinion, is also the beauty of the matter, there is no one absolute way to survive and prosper and that is why life is so diverse and also people are so different in their perceptions and inner feelings

  191. The example of chess is nice, but you will agree with me that the definition of victory in chess will be similar to the basic need to survive and prosper, and it is clear to all of us that it is the basis for the development of morality, the thing is that everyone calculates completely different ways to achieve it exactly, every chess player plays a completely different game from his friend

  192. Your inner feelings have changed because you have already managed to make more calculations such as the ones I described and your current calculations go more steps forward than before (among other things, relying on the results of previous calculations).
    This is not a fundamental difference.
    It is very similar to the excess intuition that an experienced chess player has.
    In the end - as time passes - he sees more steps forward, knows how to reject unproductive branches of calculation, and identifies situations that in the past led to failure or success, but in essence, his evaluation of the nature of the move continues to be based on the definition of winning the game and the conclusion that situation A is closer to him than situation B .
    The morality inherent in us governs, in this example, the definition of victory.

  193. Also, overall, I listed factors that give rise to internal feelings, not types of internal feelings, so your sentence
    "Although I don't call logical thinking "feelings"" is out of place

  194. Logical thinking itself is not a feeling, but a logical conclusion evokes a strong sense of correctness, by experiment I meant the multitude of laws of causality that arise from observing the world, but not for difficult feelings that arise from childhood traumas, logical thinking is not only expressed in the calculation of whether thing A is moral or not, these are also in calculations Many different of feasibility and strategy
    Not all inner feelings are created in evolution - proof, my inner feelings have changed beyond recognition since I became self-aware and my time of existence is nothing but zero in evolutionary terms

  195. Well, we can stop here.
    Although I do not call logical thinking "feelings" and experience (which also includes childhood traumas) will be reflected in logical thinking and I have already included all of these in the considerations that a person exercises when he consciously calculates what is moral.
    None of this is what I called "inner feelings".
    But the results of all this calculation that I have already mentioned are decided - in the end - by the judgment of whether a certain situation - the one obtained at the end of the calculation - is moral or immoral and this judgment is based on those inner feelings that were created in evolution.

  196. Oh, this is really a topic for another discussion, as I said, inner feelings are made up of many influencing factors, impulses, past experience, logical thinking, common sense, childhood traumas, and on and on and on.
    To simplistically say that they are a product of evolution is a mistake, but that is really a topic for another discussion

  197. There is still a small point here that has not really been agreed upon, and that is the definition of the "there is morality" situation.
    After all, we are not talking about a written codex of morality here, nor has anyone defined a special codex for the game.
    In the end, each person relied on their inner feelings on this issue.
    Where did those inner feelings come from?
    My argument is that they are a product of evolution.

  198. Michael, I don't have a problem with the expression "a more developed brain" per se, it is clear that if there is a brain that is developed in another thing but inferior in ten others, then this expression is not appropriate, but a human brain is definitely more developed than a spider's brain, there is no chauvinism here, chauvinism will come into play Let's say that the developed mind of man is an essential and fundamental (or qualitative) difference between him and the spider, and that is why I proposed the compromise "noticeable", meaning that the developed mind of man is a notable difference between the spider and man

    Regarding what you said, I have no argument, I also told Yael that this is not the discussion of what morality developed from or the perception of what is good or right or normal, this is a long and problematic discussion in itself, but once there is already morality and once there is already a perception of what is the right thing to do (as in the case of survival participants (this is the person's choice to take actions that are consistent with it or not

  199. And regarding the expressions - what you said bothers you is the scale that gives a certain attribute more value than others, from a point of view that perceives man as a being that is superior to others.
    I thought that a mind with logical abilities like ours was called "developed" when there are minds of creatures whose logic is not so strong but whose other brain abilities are immeasurably superior to those of humans (such as the ability to navigate the body in three-dimensional movement, turn an echo into an "image", to respond at record speed and more) suffers from the same kind of chauvinism in your eyes.

  200. Nadav:
    Regarding relying on ancient impulses - I absolutely agree that they should not be used as an excuse for an act that we ultimately judge as immoral (I have no problem with relying on the impulse to escape harm as an excuse to bend down when we see a stone flying towards our head)
    On the other hand - what brings us to the judgment of an act as "moral" or "immoral" is a mental calculation that leads us to the conclusion that this act - in the end - will lead to a reality that is not in line with our ancient urges for morality.

  201. And I said I have no problem with the expressions - a more complex or more developed brain, please read the text.

  202. Michael agrees with you, but the reliance on ancient impulses as an excuse for taking or not taking action should also be added

  203. By the way, if you don't have a problem with the expressions "unique difference" or "fundamental difference" then there is no need for a compromise.
    Also a noticeable difference goes.

  204. Nadav:
    It seems to me that we have exhausted the discussion.
    I also emphasized in my fiction with a point the connection between his approach that denies the role of consciousness and the personal responsibility that loses its meaning.
    I just think that personal responsibility is really a matter of consciousness and not of culture.
    A person's consciousness and ability to think allow him to calculate his moves many steps ahead and to examine whether a step that appears to be completely innocent at the moment will not lead him later to perform or be a victim of an action that is not in line with his natural moral impulses.
    Relying on culture or religion as a reason for taking actions actually releases him from responsibility.

  205. Michael, a few things
    1. The definition is not mine but Wikipedia's but it seemed very satisfactory to me

    2. It is true that you did not choose to use the word instinct, but you justified the article in which Roy uses this term - both in the article and in his comments here

    ….Throughout evolution, better fighting strategies, advocating minimal violence and stylized fighting, have taken root in animal instincts.
    ...Because of all these, I find it appropriate to claim that the fight in survival was also guided by the basic human instincts, which persuade us to avoid maximum violence if possible.

    3. One more time (perhaps the last?) At the end of the matter of all culture, a person's impulses, normalcy and personal experience stand before him when he makes a conscious decision whether to punch or not to punch in a game, articles that give the center of gravity to the instinct or the primal drive that relaxes the muscles of When the little puppy plays with his brother, they remove this responsibility from a person and in my opinion they are wrong and even disturbing

    4. I have no problem with the expression "developed or more complex brain" I had a problem with the expressions "unique difference" or "principle difference", which by the way I am willing to offer you a compromise on the subject, what do you think about "a striking difference"? , this expression nicely describes the degree of differentiation but qualifies that the degree is in the eyes of the speaker

  206. By the way, in my opinion, that part of culture that contradicts our natural urges is actually the least successful part of it and it usually leads to more violent behavior than what evolution has instilled in us.

  207. Nadav:
    Since you have returned and adopted a proper discussion culture, I am ready to continue arguing.
    The gladiator fights, to remind you, were fights that were imposed on the participants.
    This puts things into a completely different context of a true survival battle.
    Therefore it is not at all relevant to us.
    The street fights are nothing more than another example of my argument regarding the ability of group membership to fundamentally change an individual's behavior.
    I don't know why you chose to refer specifically to the word "instinct" - a word I have never used.
    In any case - your definition of this word is also not acceptable to me (and according to the reaction of the skeptic who actually used the word instinct in the phrase "maternal instinct" it is not acceptable to him either. After all, the tigress's behavior was far from automatic). Instinct or no instinct - there are different impulses in humans (as in every animal). The behavior of man and animal is the result of the weighing of these impulses which are sometimes contradictory and therefore this behavior cannot reflect something automatic that arises from impulse A or impulse B.

    I completely agree with the fact that "the more a creature is of a taxonomic species with a more developed brain, the less its behavior is driven by instincts" with two caveats:
    1. I would replace the word "driven" with the word "determined" because the instinctive impulses still exist only the owner of the brain has the possibility to choose between them more consciously.
    2. I would remind you that in a previous discussion you wanted to ban the whole world and his wife from using the phrase "a more developed mind"

    The continuation of your words about the accuracy of the definition of behavior that *stems* from instinct, refers to exactly the minutes I pointed to earlier. Things ignore the existence of conflicting impulses.
    In general, from the beginning I also said that learning and culture determine a lot for us - humans -.
    More than that - in many debates I had with Ra'anan and with "Point" I actually stood on the same side of the debate that supported the claim that our consciousness has a profound effect on our behavior.
    You are welcome to read, for example, here:

    I'm just asserting that a large part of what we call "culture" is nothing more than a formal expression of our natural urges and that this is also the reason why it was not necessary to explicitly mention the laws that Hadas broke, just as this is the reason why her behavior arouses objection in us.

  208. Now I ask, is the fact that the survival participants did not blow each other up a result of "instinct" or of an intelligent and moral choice (which could be due to countless reasons but that is not what the debate is about)?

  209. A. Game rules are never given that deviate from that natural behavior - rebuttal - eg gladiators, street fights, etc.
    B. Regarding supporting evidence, you don't have to go far, just look at Wikipedia's definition of instinct (I would highlight the relevant places, but I have no idea how to do it here)

    Instinct (a basic instinct, according to the Hebrew Language Academy[1]) is defined in biology and in most branches of psychology as an innate tendency to perform a certain action precisely and automatically as a response to a specific stimulus
    Instincts are usually an internal pattern of reactions to certain situations. The role of instincts is usually to determine the impulse mechanisms that will motivate a creature to action. The particular action performed may be influenced by learning, environment and natural principles. Basically, the more developed a brain a creature is of a taxonomic species, the less its behavior is driven by instincts.


    The need for scientific validity dictates to animal behaviorists a very strict definition for behavior that can be argued to be driven by instincts. The definition for behavior arising from an explorable instinct has five characteristics:

    A behavior unique to almost every individual of a certain taxonomic species and rare in other species.
    Complex and multi-step behavior.
    A rigid and uniform pattern of behavior - an interruption to one of the stages of the pattern of behavior will lead to the complete cessation of that behavior.
    Behavior that cannot be learned either from experience or from observing others other details.
    Automatic behavior - the same behavior will lead to exactly the same behavior in any environmental condition.

  210. Friends:
    I am retiring again because the deterioration is back.
    Everyone is invited to ask themselves why the previous cycles used here as an "explanation" for the behavior in the current cycle were the way they were and in particular why the first one was like that.
    Everyone is also invited to ask themselves why the game "Roller Ball" only exists in the movie with that name ("Proof - given different rules of the game..." refuting the "proof" - rules of the game that deviate from the same natural behavior are never given and also the whole "proof" " is in the imagination of the "prover" who does not know what will really happen under the conditions he described and he simply expects the reader to believe in his prophetic ability).
    Everyone is also welcome to judge if there is any "distortion" in my words, and if I have done an "endless flood of articles and films" here.
    My version of describing the same reality is that there are two sides arguing here. One justifies his words and also brings supporting evidence and the other just repeats his words without any reasoning and hopes that the mere repetition accompanied by the slanders will do the job.
    You understand, therefore, why I decided to withdraw from the "Dion"

  211. Oh really, you are serious, enough of this twisting, and with the endless flood of articles and movies, the participants had a clear opinion about what is allowed and what is not allowed in the game by logical and clear consideration and they probably also saw previous seasons of survival or similar games, every idiot He could have understood that it was forbidden to blow each other to a bloody pulp and he would not have needed the algorithm of an ancient instinct to relax his muscles

  212. What are the rules of the game?
    Where are they written?
    Didn't Hades read them?
    Maybe she is even right and only she played by the rules?
    The rules that the participants understood (by themselves - without the need for any study) are the natural rules (which naturally also entered the culture).
    Any other approach requires a separate explanation that animals also behave in a similar way.
    Any other approach also ignores the way humans make decisions - a way that was previously identified by psychological means, but recently also received confirmation in more in-depth tests of the brain.
    Below are several links on the topic of decision-making by humans:
    And something whose connection is looser but still exists:

  213. Yael - I completely agree with you, that's how it should be
    For the rest - it was not the instinct that caused the decision, but the understanding of the rules of the game - proof - given different game rules or different understandings, the instinct would not have changed the actions of the games

  214. Nadav, it could be.

    In any case, as a reporter I try not to adopt one solid opinion or position, in order to preserve objectivity when I present things.

  215. As has been proven many times, many of the decisions that are made "in advance" are the result of impulses and not considerations.
    It is not that instinct strengthened the decision but that it caused it.

  216. Roy, I agree with you. If you claim that the survival participants decided in advance out of some understanding that there was no need to resort to violence and the initial instinct in some way strengthened it, I am with you, but this is not what was understood (at least to me) from the scriptures, partly also because of your denial of rational considerations such as the fear of a claim for damages

  217. white blood,

    You raised a series of excellent questions, each of which can and should be answered in a separate article. Nevertheless, I will try to briefly answer the reason why there are deadly wars and mass destructions in the world:

    1. From the moment humans acquired the ability to think consciously and wonder about the meaning of their actions, the inevitable result was that there would also be people who would decide to violate their instincts against maximum violence. This is actually Nadav's argument as well - that reason prevails over instincts. Indeed, our lives consist of walking the thin line between the animal impulse and the rule of reason and the law. How good that sometimes they also agree with each other (as in the topic of the article in the survivors)

    2. Today's sophisticated weapons do not allow direct contact with the other side. Guns started this process of distancing from the act of killing, and it continues with today's airplanes and ballistic missiles. To kill today, you don't have to get into the ring against an opponent, scratch and bite and break his limbs. You just need to press a button. This makes it very easy to use maximum violence.

    3. Some of the evolutionary emphasis on avoiding killing applies especially to warfare against the members of the group to which you belong, since they usually share much of your genes. This emotion is called altruism, and it was 'accidentally' extended to the people of that city and the people of that country (and hopefully in the future also to the people of the earth). But when we start destructive wars, we do it against another country, and the media and propaganda make us forget, as much as possible, that there are also human beings on the other side. See, for example, how easily it is reported in the newspaper that a hundred Chinese or ten Palestinians were killed in such and such a disaster, compared to the emphasis they put on our own girl who fell into a pit. All these cases are tragic, but the first two happened to members of other nations, who are estranged from us and we feel less altruism towards them - and therefore are less reluctant to hurt them.

    Best regards,


  218. Nadav,

    It's no more ridiculous than the fact that every time strippers ovulate, they tend to move their pelvis more without realizing it.

    And I repeat - the fact that there are laws, and that we consciously obey them, does not mean that our instincts are against the laws. exactly the opposite. From the combination of the two, and the fact that usually the laws and instincts match each other, the strength of the laws is obtained.



    my new blog - Another science

  219. If I continue with the logic of this article then all the participants in a judo battle limit violence not because of the rules and norms of the game or alternatively suppose there was an ancient instinct that causes certain animals to jump on one leg so according to this logic every time someone jumps on one leg for some reason Conscious and clear it is a result of that ancient instinct
    Isn't that ridiculous?

  220. white blood:
    There is no evidence in science, did we say?
    So I never notice it for sure but similar behavior in animals is an excellent clue.
    There is also a lot of introspection here. When someone examines himself honestly, he can know what - for him personally - is an emotion and what (again - for him personally) is the result of study.
    By the way - I allowed myself to refer to a slightly more extended question than the one you formulated and to include in the term "life experience" also the experience of others - that is - also the products of culture in general (because if it is about private life experience the diagnosis is even easier).

  221. Michael:

    When you notice the typical human behavior found among most people:
    How do you know that this is evolution and not life experience?

  222. Yael:
    The last link I posted demonstrates a point that I think is very important in understanding altruism, and that is the fact that it is not all game theory and survival, but - as I said in a previous discussion we had on the subject - also of "by-products".
    In the case demonstrated in the film, it is clear that the behavior of "Lakdima" has no direct contribution to her survival.
    What happened here is that evolution did not have sufficient "motivation" to fine-tune the mothering emotion so that it does not apply to members of other species and therefore her adoption of the baboon is a by-product of the mothering instinct.

  223. Michael, really beautiful videos...
    Although the second movie is not such a good example... what you are showing here is maternal instinct...

  224. Michael, my feeling is that the last thing you are interested in is the pursuit of the truth, you are only engaged in politics, but this is your full right

  225. Nadav:
    I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what interests you is fighting with me, so I'm just reminding you that you'll have to do it without me

  226. The truth is that it is really absurd. There is another person who shares the same opinion as mine, his name is Roy, and he also believes that the limitation of violence is the result of an intelligent choice and we can take it or cancel it as we wish is...

    Yes, yes, the bespectacled, nerdy-looking Hades. She didn't limit herself to minimal violence - she jumped like a murderous kitten on one of the herd's giraffes....

    Des is already starting to be the outsider, who does not understand the accepted rules of society and behavior...

  227. Interesting, even firefighters who enter the inferno to save a girl do it out of animal instinct?
    Then you will agree that we can decide when to turn on or off this or that instinct and the choice is entirely ours

  228. What pushes us to go into the inferno is often exactly that same animalistic feeling of belonging to a group (a feeling that has also been called "herd") - a feeling without which we would not have had such bloody wars.
    That animalistic feeling of belonging to a group - not only does it sometimes minimize the effect of our natural tendency to non-violence, but sometimes it even cancels it and sends us to stone homosexuals and Shabbat violators or to murder for reasons of family honor.

  229. Yael, I completely agree, this is an opinion and a belief, and my opinion is that the conclusion that the article brings is a conclusion that removes the rational human layer from these people and turns them into simple animals, the deep problem with it is that it removes personal responsibility, we have consciousness, we have a sense of self, it measures and economizes all our instincts and our impulses, it is able to make us walk into a burning inferno and jump from a plane, it is also able to make certain people overcome the basic and strongest instinct of survival and commit suicide for one reason or another, it is such a powerful force that is able to overcome that ancient instinct (if it still exists) in us at all) who urges us to minimize violence
    My answer is also to Roy and the entire defense

  230. Roy:
    Of course you are right.
    The very fact that values ​​that prevent extreme violence within the group are part of every culture - both of humans and animals - indicates this.
    These are cultures that grew up in almost complete isolation from each other and some of them don't even have a set of laws that violate them are punished.
    I also think that any sane person is capable of introspecting these feelings.
    Even the anger that many of the readers felt towards Hades upon reading your words is anger that has an animal origin and not a cultural one (after all, there is no anger that has a cultural origin at all).
    I became a vegetarian out of a moral consideration that was not dictated to me by any society but that grew out of me naturally without any need for external indoctrination.
    Many people become vegetarians as a result of visiting a slaughterhouse.
    It is clear that this is a decision that stems from strong emotions of our animal part.

  231. So everyone presented their opinion (or belief) - there is no "wrong" or "right" here, but a personal preference on how to look at the world.

  232. Yael, I didn't mean to be disrespectful and I'm sorry if that's the impression you got, I was just pointing out that your response misses the point and that I'm repeating the same explanation for the third time, there's no need to take it personally
    Regarding the matter, I am not making such a sweeping claim as you mentioned, how much of it is automatic and how much is influenced by "free" choice. This is a complicated problem that this talkback is really too short to contain. I am simply referring to the specific case brought up here regarding a competition in a reality show as to the reasons why the participants did not resort to excessive violence The opinion of the article is wrong, in my opinion, this is not the same ancient evolutionary instinct, but this is a conscious and educated choice, they went into the fight in advance knowing and understanding that they could not blow each other up with blows, therefore they did not do it either, this is a completely voluntary action, but they would have gone into the fight with any other decision An ancient instinct would not stop them
    I hope that is clear now

  233. Nadav,

    The fact that the laws of morality, logic and utility correspond to animal instincts does not negate the existence of these residual instincts in humans, especially in view of the fact that I have already shown you that there are also other instincts that have survived in our minds.



    my new blog - Another science

  234. First of all, speak respectfully if you expect to be answered respectfully.
    Secondly, your claim is that there is a difference between man and other animals, and the difference is that man is not an automaton like the other animals, but a creature that is able to choose "freely"?

  235. Yael, I have no argument with you, you simply do not speak to the substance of the matter, for the third time, Roy in his article did not claim that the reason these people did not use excessive violence was because of a sense of justice and social normalization that ultimately stems from the instinct of all of us to survive, he claimed that what stopped them was Some kind of automatic instinct that softens the manifestations of violence in games, you can see it in animals that play with each other and when the game becomes violent, you simply see this mechanism stopping them from locking their jaws and the like, this mechanism does not work in adult humans if they come to the conclusion that they have to give A fist, even in a game they will give it, their muscle will not relax like the jaw of the little puppy by itself, this is an action they think about, voluntary and not instinctive, to say that this is what prevented them from hitting each other is to deny them the credit for the moral and normative decision they made and it is simple Unfair and extremely problematic in my opinion

  236. Nadav, we are roughly saying the same thing, but how do you define a basic instinct?

    For an inferior animal the basic instinct will be: to get food and drink, to sleep, to escape from madmen and to mate - we call all these things by a collective name - "pleasure".
    And for an intelligent animal, its basic instinct will also be the same things we called "pleasure", but it will perfect it and add to the list of its basic instincts: preventing violence, developing social relationships and living in a community, because this is what will bring it a greater amount of "pleasure" .
    In the end, out of the necessity of evolution, the intelligent animals that have added to their list of basic instincts things like avoiding violence will survive better and thus pass on the genes that prevent them from using violence to future generations as well.
    Animals that only use violence and do not want to cooperate at all will not survive the test of evolution, most of them will die and not pass these genes on to future generations.

    And so we eventually accepted that morality and the avoidance of violence entered the list of our basic instincts, that's why people have a sense of justice, that's why when you see an article on TV about a child with cancer you feel sorry for him, that's why when you have to fight with other people over a box of food in a reality series you won't kill them Even if you are capable of it.

  237. Yael, a distinction must be made between the instincts, the basic instinct of survival exists in every living being and is the basis of many things, including the instinct that prevents excessive violence, but this is not at all the issue discussed here, the issue is whether the participants in the survivals avoided excessive violence did they do so because it was the instinct that stopped them A certain animal from excessive violence while playing (which of course derives in some way from the basic instinct to survive) and according to what you wrote in the first paragraph of your response you agree that this is a mistake, that is other considerations (which also derive in some way from the basic instinct to survive) prevented them from beating each other for bloodshed

  238. OK Nadav, what you describe is called in game theory - a game with infinite repetitions. When the players in the game know that in the future they will have to run into each other again, or when they know that outsiders are watching them, then they, as you said, rationalize their actions.
    The same survivalist man who considers to himself whether to use violence or not to use violence eventually comes to the conclusion that it is not worth it for him to use violence and then leave with the stigma that will haunt him for the rest of his life as "the one who blew everyone's face", because the consequences of such an act will be evil and will bring him more harm than good.

    And by the way, things are scientifically proven. When the game is a one-stage game - that is, you play the Prisoner's Dilemma game with someone anonymously, and you know that there is only one stage to the game, you will both reach an equilibrium in "betrayal". But when the game is multi-staged (which is a game closer to describing reality) - and you play the prisoner's dilemma over and over again, then at infinity you will reach an equilibrium of "cooperation".

    Your claim, as far as I understand it, is that society and norms are what breed the animal instinct and my claim is the opposite, that it is precisely this animal instinct of survival or selfishness that brings us to the most effective thing we can do for our survival - to be moral.

  239. Yael, unfortunately I did not get to the end of your opinion, if you claim that morality developed as a result of the ancient instinct of preventing violence in games, then in my opinion it is a mistake, but in any case this is not the case in question since there is already morality and people manage their steps according to certain norms and thinking that are related to it, so I repeat And he says, the survivalists did not blow each other up with blows, not for the reason that Roy mentioned, not even partially, but simply out of the understanding that they are not supposed to do that in such a game, they had and had a different understanding, and no basic instinct would have stopped them from using excessive violence (Deut. others such as morality or considerations of expediency would certainly have stopped)

  240. Nadav,
    On the contrary - this theory answers the question of how morality can exist in a person, why morality and peace are preferable in many cases to war and chaos - after all, this was the innovation introduced by all game theory and the Nash equation.

    The claim is that although you would logically expect people to be selfish, cruel and live "man to man wolf", the reality actually brings you to equilibrium in societies where there is cooperation, helping others and morality - even in wartime.

  241. Roy, I completely agree with you, we are a combination of instincts and cultural construction and it is no longer possible to tell what is what, the point is that we need to give these people some credit, even before the battle started they knew and understood that we should not blow each other up here, as soon as no one meant it In the first place there was no need for the animal instinct to act and stop them, to look at it differently for me would be to degrade them to the level of simple animals who do not consider their norms of behavior according to morality and logic. alive) I would be deeply offended at the thought that the reason I didn't blast my friends in a televised game was because of some primal animal instinct.

  242. It seems to me that the truth lies somewhere in the middle; Both from evolutionary factors and from cultural/constitutional factors.


    Are you saying that all kinds of minorities or racist sects don't cause riots just because they are so moral, or feel that killing for no reason is wrong? (Although there is a reason which is the division, but still an extreme step like murder is an animal thing).

    Also what does "humans are not animals" mean - sublime from my understanding. So what are they, robots?
    What makes us so different from other animals? A significant part of the behavior I find in animals also exists in humans, and vice versa.
    Basically, it doesn't seem to me (and I emphasize that this is just my opinion), that we are that different, after all we are just a development; The gaps grow the more educated and learned a person is, and the higher his intellectual level. And often I see animals more civilized than humans.

  243. First, thanks to everyone who liked the article and wrote in the comments.


    I will address your words briefly (over time I discovered that it is better to avoid talking as much as possible and concentrate on more productive writing). You point out that humans are more than animals thanks to the laws they made for themselves, and of course you are right. This is a philosophical issue that started back in Socrates (man is a political animal) and has not been settled since. Man is clearly not an animal. And at the same time, our evolutionary origin is in the natural world, and certain animal instincts are still preserved in us. We are still living with the smell of burnt meat, even though the existing diet allows us to do without it. We still want to eat a lot at every opportunity, even though society is against obesity. During the Soviet Union, when religion was banned by law, people still chose to pray to their heavenly father, the revered leader of the flock.
    Other examples include the human avoidance of incest, real or artificial, as demonstrated in studies of children raised together in kibbutzim (although recently there are reservations about the validity of these experiments). Another study showed that strippers earn more tips depending on when they ovulate, and that women are attracted to different (more masculine, beefier) ​​men based on when they ovulate.

    In short, although we are not animals, we are also influenced to a large extent by the residual instincts that remain in us and guide us. The laws and morals guide us as well, but I believe that the current laws correspond to the laws of our internal morals and conscience - those that were also imprinted in the Ten Commandments, or at least some of them. We don't kill - not because of the laws, or because of the commandments, but because we feel that killing without a reason is wrong.

    Because of all these, I find it appropriate to claim that the fight in survival was also guided by the basic human instincts, which persuade us to avoid maximum violence if possible.

    And this is my answer in a nutshell.

    Best regards,



    my new blog - Another science

  244. I'll admit it, I didn't read the list carefully, I saw some of the comments trying to find the reasons
    And the causes of human violence are, therefore, respected.
    The natural barriers that exist in wild animals are barriers that in most cases have evolved to
    To prevent a fatal injury during an intra-sexual conflict, restraints are instincts built into animals
    which developed in parallel with the development of each and every species.
    It is not correct to compare human violence to intrasexual violence in wild animals,
    For the human race has made a technological (and cultural) leap, a leap that predates the development of (its) instincts by tens of thousands of years,
    When a person suffocates (with his hands) another person is most likely to stop by the same instinct that prevents a tiger from killing
    A tiger, but when he has a gun in his hands... cancel that instinct in sixty,
    When he has to press a button without seeing his enemy... the instinct is completely gone.
    Add to that the large population density that is tens of thousands of people's ability to bear/tolerate
    And you will get a recipe for self-destruction of the species.

  245. David, I may have missed the point, because I can't find the positive side of this article (explanation in my previous comment). I would appreciate it if you could explain your point of view.

  246. The truth is that the more I think about it, this article really bothers me, there is a reference to a more or less normative group of people as a herd of animals that the only thing that prevents them from harming each other is an ancient evolutionary instinct while ignoring any social and moral limitations they may have
    I think this is quite a humanization of these people and it quite leaves me with a bitter taste of baseless intellectual arrogance, a very problematic article in my opinion

  247. Michael, you are so strange, where does it say that man is particularly violent?
    If you agree with me that there is no instinctive limit for a person to avoid or resort to violence and that everything depends on his desires, some of which were also influenced by his culture, then you are missing the point of the article that claims that the reason there was no excessive violence among the survivors is that instinctive limit

    Please choose a side, and stay on it

  248. Falco:
    Since you are not a volunteer, I will allow myself to answer.
    I said that most acts of violence are carried out as a result of belonging to a group.
    I said that it was not discussed in the article because the point of the article was different and correct, but I thought it would be right, in response, to emphasize this fact.
    I thought it was obvious, but then I had to explain and I explained that most acts of violence are carried out in wars that are a private case of belonging to a group, and I gave more examples (which include, in extreme cases, suicide terrorists, and many more).
    I will not devote too many words to dealing with follow-up comments that were said either out of a lack of understanding or out of just a desire to fight.
    In addition, I pointed out that there are very ancient societies in which there is very little violence.

    In general, man is truly a cultural creature and many of his actions are determined by the culture to which he belongs.
    I tried to point out that it works both ways and that it is not justified to talk about man when he is "stripped" of his culture and claim that he is particularly violent.
    There are cultures (as mentioned - also ancient ones) that really suppress violence and there are cultures that really encourage violence.
    To claim that killing "for the honor of the family" is a natural human trait would be simply nonsense. A person would not do this if it were not encouraged by the culture of which he is a part.
    In my opinion, man is essentially no more violent than other animals, and any change in his behavior - both in the direction of complete non-violence, which also includes the prevention of violence towards other animals, and extreme violence, as is customary in Muslim society - is the result of culture, and therefore it is wrong to present culture only as a moderating factor and Man without culture as a particularly violent creature.

  249. Michael, I actually agree with Nadav.
    A person really seems to act by strategic mental considerations of expediency more than by instincts.
    I suppose that at some point (perhaps already in chimpanzees) the intellect prevails over the instinct.
    In the article, Roy actually talked about fights over a spouse, which greatly affects the genes.
    Following your words, I didn't really get to the bottom of your point.

  250. When I asked you to provide research support for your claim that most murders are the result of belonging to a group that differentiates between individuals, I did not imagine that you were describing the same existential situations as struggles between countries and huge groups because it is so unrelated to the article, I asked you to show me a study that most murders are within groups like the state arise from belonging to smaller groups with differences say cultural or ideological, according to my perception there is no such study and most of the violence within a state arises from personal and selfish reasons

  251. Michael, you are simply contradicting yourself, you claim that humans tend to limit their violence and in the same response you declare that humans have a personality structure that causes them to act violently against other individuals for one reason or another, all of this of course in response unrelated to my claim that the instinctive limitation of violence does not exist In humans as in animals, but in humans it arises from the process of cultural socialization
    Really wow!!!

  252. And oh !!!
    One last time:
    Part of my response to which you revolted is the following text:
    "The article also does not discuss murders that are the result of the individual being carried away as part of a group (this explains the difference with the monkeys, although this difference also has something from the previous difference because an individual in a group risks less as long as the group is fighting individuals and not other groups of equal size)."

    So now you come and complain about the fact that I explained to you what I meant by claiming that the above text came to clarify that it was not discussed in the article, and makes it clear to me that it was not discussed in the article.
    Besides - I was talking about drifting after the group and here by definition there is competition between the members of the group - competition that prevents a real sense of belonging in advance.

    I'm sure you'll continue to argue, so I'm announcing in advance, hoping I'll stick to it: I'm stopping. I don't like endless loops.

  253. What's more, your explanation of the struggles between groups only harms the interview of the article because the individuals in the survivor definitely belong to different groups and yet avoided excessive violence

  254. Michael, the discussion is not about violence between large groups in struggles for territory, it exists in nature as it exists in humans, both there and with us it is a horrifically violent struggle, we are talking here about violence of individuals against individuals from the same group, such murders that are read every day unfortunately also In our society, I claim that the same rule that prevents excessive violence in these situations does not apply to humans, and therefore the assumption that survival participants did not kill each other because of the same evolutionary limitation is a wrong assumption in my opinion, the more reasonable assumption (again in my opinion) is that education and social normalization and the understanding that it is only Game prevented them from doing so

  255. Of course I forgot the mafia and the other criminal organizations which are also - see it's a miracle - groups.

  256. Nadav:
    You probably like to argue with me.
    I don't like to argue with you, so I will answer one and only response that will clarify what is obvious, but you asked about it anyway.
    A vast majority of the murders and other types of violence were committed in wars.
    Wars occur between groups.
    Another large part was carried out as part of terrorist acts by extremist groups such as fundamentalist believers in one religion or another or racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.
    When I wrote that I recommend reading Arthur Koestler's book, I meant you too.

  257. Michael, I'm interested in what you say

    The acts of murder and extreme violence of people are usually the result of belonging to a group that distinguishes the members of the group from the rest of the people

    Can you back this up with any research?

  258. straw man:
    I'm not sure you're right.
    The Americans avoided using the atomic bombs after dropping them on the Japanese even though they had no reason to fear.
    This, even though the confrontation with communism was already clear.
    The reason for this was internal opposition that grew in the US.
    I also assume that nothing would have happened to the US if it had dropped nuclear bombs on Afghanistan. 
    In the overall account - of course the fear of counter-reactions (even if they are delayed) from the environment is at work here, but these reactions are also part of the balances and brakes that are also created between individuals and it is not for nothing that Roi said that Hadas has betrayed herself over everyone and it is certainly possible that she did much more harm than good to herself.

  259. There are very ancient human societies that have never been violent.
    In my opinion, they remained non-violent because man - just like other animals - tends to limit his violence.
    Other societies - precisely because of a negative cultural development - developed more violent behaviors.
    Now some of these companies are finally starting to free themselves from the culture of violence in favor of a more sober culture.
    A distinction must be made between different types of violence between members of the same sex.
    Monkeys commit organized murder of members of their species belonging to other groups.
    Lions and tigers kill the children of other fathers.
    The article discusses situations of competition for a benefit that is not a very important condition for the survival of genes, which is also one that has a high cost for the winner as well (this explains the difference compared to natal predators). The article also does not discuss murders that are the result of the individual being carried away as part of a group (this explains the difference with the monkeys, although this difference also has something from the previous difference because an individual in a group risks less as long as the group is fighting individuals and not other groups of comparable size).
    The acts of murder and extreme violence of people are usually the result of belonging to a group that distinguishes the members of the group from the rest of the people.
    It is interesting to read, in this context, Arthur Koestler's book - The ghost in the machine, which sheds light on this flaw in the personality structure of the person who too easily associates himself with different groups and thus creates the basis for a large part of the violence between people.

  260. Nadav: You are right. There is clear evidence that as human society progresses, the rate of violence decreases (yes, even with modern wars included). It is clear that this trend does not stem from genetic evolution but from cultural development.
    There is a lecture on the subject by Prof. Steven Pinker with instructive data b

  261. A person. Unfortunately I was not understood correctly, I know perfectly well that a romantic background is not a trivial matter at all
    I answered Roy by saying that even animals will not fight over small things like humans will not fight over a matchmaker in the office but humans like animals will also fight over very important things like a romantic conflict

  262. volunteer,
    Just a small point that caught my eye.
    You claim that a romantic background is a minor matter and it is exactly the opposite.
    After all, the quality of the female's genes will directly affect the offspring's chances of survival.
    It's already a matter worth fighting for.

  263. That's why humans are the only animals that need the rule of law, the animals get along fine on their own

  264. Roy, I absolutely agree with you that humans avoid maximum violence, but the question is whether this is a natural equilibrium achieved in the form of natural selection, as exists in animals or is it the result of the rule of law and the normalization of society, I lean towards the second option because humans are not great followers of conservation The balance, they violate it in every other area (pollution, systematic destruction, etc.) My personal feeling is that the principle of avoiding maximum violence applies to simpler animals that are not capable of strategic thinking, if a person comes to the conclusion that using maximum violence will fulfill his desires perfectly then grow The chances that he will resort to it, there is also a matter of proportionality, even animals will not fight with each other over a small matter, but how many times have we heard of murders that result from a conflict over a romantic background?

  265. Hello and thank you for the many responses. I will try to answer each one briefly.


    The latest wave of murders came mainly from exceptions in society, who do not represent the general. In general we try to avoid maximum violence. And to illustrate, if it weren't for this tendency, a murder would occur every time there was an office conflict over the paper clip.

    I would also like to concentrate on the social/sociological issues that are in the program, in the hope that there will be analyzes of additional episodes as well.

    John and Adam,
    You are absolutely right. Please read the article again, and I believe you will see that I said the same thing.

    The emphasis is on the statement "usually nothing happens". If a human and a tiger were fighting, would it make sense to you to say, "Well, usually nothing happens"? It turns out that the tigers and the lions do not use their full abilities in the fights between them, and this says Darshani. As with any competition, including football and basketball, occasionally more serious injuries than usual occur. But in general, the competition between the males is kept at a low simmer of violence.

    I agree with you, and I believe that reality TV is an art of directing in itself. At the same time, survivors do not use text messages every week, so the point you mentioned is more suitable for the Big Brother format and the like.

    Are people 'just photographed' there, and this is not their real behavior? for sure. But it is still possible to get impressions and hints about the character of each. Most of the participants are not skilled theater actors, and their actions speak for themselves in many cases, especially in the grueling conditions of lack of food (which at least are supposed to prevail on the islands).
    In any case, if people are just being photographed there and trying to present their best side, then many of them fail miserably, as we could see in the last episode.

    greetings to all of you,



    my new blog - Another science

  266. The reluctance to use nuclear weapons is not necessarily due to the fear of excessive use of force, but rather the fear of the reaction of those around. Even with the enemy destroyed, the world watching from the sidelines will react so that the nuclear attack becomes retroactively useless.

    Maybe just like the attack of the contestant that gave her an advantage but it is not worthwhile in light of the reaction of the environment.

  267. Scholars?
    Do yourself a favor, survival, this is a dumb show for everything, and you are one of the only ones who see it that way, and the same thing, every even dumber show like "The Sting" can take a lesson from it
    I don't think it indicates anything because everyone there is filmed and it's not even reality
    Because if there were no cameras or at least they weren't aware
    we could see "reality"
    Here these are people who want "publicity" together with the million dollars so that they behave in a manner
    the most attractive
    As they said in Big Brother
    "You have a lot more to see from me [just not my natural self]"
    I think that sums it up

    Yael Petar: An interesting and cynical point

  268. Humans often choose to use high-intensity violence in conflicts between societies.
    See every war.
    As a general rule, the weaker the opponent, the stronger the side tends to use more brutal violence, see Russia's last war for example.
    It is true that there are obstacles to using maximum violence and atomic weapons, let's hope it stays that way.

  269. I completely agree with John, who also chose a good name.
    To say that an animal does a certain action because it is good for the species as a whole is to go back at least 50 years in understanding evolution.

  270. The Israeli audience always leans on the side of the "underdog".
    Whether it's Moshe-a-waiter-of-Holon, or a disadvantaged-Mizrachi-Bovalil, or a poor-Dathalshit-cow, or the-aunt-dances-with-the-stars.
    The plot is built so that the audience will feel that they are saving the day with this fateful SMS.

  271. What about lions and tigers? These can kill each other. It is true that usually nothing happens but sometimes there are serious injuries and even both sides die (one in the battle and the other from the injuries).

  272. Dear John:
    What you wrote is exactly what Roy said, only without the words.
    He did not say that the population "chooses" something. read well He said that if one of the group had chosen that is a completely different thing.
    Later he spoke precisely about the fact that those who resort to unbridled violence endanger themselves.
    Then he also described stabilization through behavior.
    By the way - even if he had said "chooser" there would have been no problem because the "personification" of the process of evolution is a common custom that should be avoided in a conversation with ignorant people and peoples of other countries, but in a conversation with someone who understands the matter it is simply a convenient way to shorten the phrase without any fear of misunderstanding.

  273. Roy, your explanation is not convincing:
    Populations in nature do not "choose" a maximal strategy but stabilize in a Nash equilibrium.
    A more plausible explanation is that a horseman resorting to unbridled violence leads directly to his own risk.

  274. Cute and fun article. And thanks to Roy who skillfully combines science and entertainment. And as for survival, one of the lessons is that it is not the strong who survive and succeed. And as many have encountered in many workplaces, it is precisely the intriguers and those who are more successful.

  275. I think Hades is an interesting character. It annoys me that everyone calls her derogatory names just because of her appearance. The attitude towards her illustrates the essential problems in Israeli society: non-acceptance of difference, lack of tolerance, arrogance, narrow-mindedness and ignorance.
    Hades' tactics in the mission in question were unwise to say the least. But I would not go so far as to give her the title of the one who crossed the line towards excessive and unacceptable violence. Maybe her opponent was just too gentle and maybe a bit whiny.
    And regarding the article, in my opinion it is too shallow, survival is the place to delve into psychological and social phenomena. In contrast to articles like: "Did you notice that the sun rises every day in the survival of the Philippines?!", which are in the nature of artificial, immaterial and unnecessary acceptance.

  276. Oh Roy, just a champion!
    Once or twice I saw about half an episode of the Survivors (in the first season) and when I realized that it was another piece of TV stupidity I made a turn.
    But with reporters like you - I think I'm coming back to watch the show!

    Is there by any chance a connection to what Dr. Ayelet Baram-Zabri said, regarding the need to know how to publicize science? 🙂

  277. It's quite nice and interesting, but it seems to me that the reason that the violence between the participants did not become deadly is simply because everyone knows that it's just a game and that you shouldn't get carried away with it, regarding the principle of preventing lethal activity among a population of the same species, it seems to me that it does not apply to humans at all, It is enough just to give our hearts to the latest wave of murders.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.