h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It does, as long as you don't get caught. In most states homosexual "relations" [so I don't have to be explicit] are illegal, but you don't hear about police raids and arrests of gay men for comitting lewd acts in their private homes.



The Torah is part of a bar/bat mitzvah and these usually take place on Saturdays, so if you're inclined to see the procedure that would be the day to go. The boy/girl goes up to the podium where the rabbi and cantor [he's the 'singer' who leads the congregation in prayers that are sung, exactly like in the movie The Jazz Singer] an usually some relatives are and recites a portion of the torah or haftorah. Talk about being nervous-most are scared to death. Most conservative schuls will let anyone sit in and watch, just stand and sit when everyone else does and likely nobody will notice you. At the temple I went to about half knew no hebrew so a lot was done in english. As you move closer to the more orthodox schuls there's less english if any.



Fascinating, now I can't recall if there were vowels on the torah! In hebrew the vowels are under the letters, and sometimes between them. For example the "alef" or "A" character can be a long "A" if there are two dots side by side under it, a short a if it's a flat line or odd shaped T, or a long "E" if it's a single dot. My history stinks more often than not so I have no clue about the reverse impressions or who added the vowels.

"Jeepers, there's a prayer for almost everything you do with the torah from what I can recall."

One (of several) Jewish jokes I know about prayers.
A subset of Jewish prayers are blessings (broche). Before I go ahead with this joke I should explain that there are three divisions within Jewry: the orthodox, the conservatives and the liberals (I am omitting the Hasidim, which have complexities of their own).

An orthodox mother is asked by her daughter if they could have a Christmas tree. It is unthinkable to have such a thing without a blessing for it. The mother goes to her rabbi and asks for a broche for the Christmas tree. The rabbi asks "What is a Christmas tree?"

She finds a Conservative rabbi and asks for a blessing for the Christmas tree. The rabbi gives her a sermon on whether or not christmas should be recognised by Jews.

She finds a Liberal rabbi and asks for a blessing for the Christmas tree. the rabbi asks "What is a broche?"

"Eccentric beliefs in one area (belief subset) will require adjustments in the rest of the belief set, in order to keep it consistent.

Hence discussion involving eccentric(s) is likely to get 'stuck' relatively easily whatever the topic."

No, I suspect what happens is that an eccentric bleif subset does cover a number of issues, but not the same issues.

For example, my paganism does not affect my sexuality beliefs. Most hetreosexual pagans I know adopt the same belief sets about sexuality as the majority population, which will involve the same views of hetreosexual majority, the same sort of views of non-hetero or other sexualities, and which will also espouse the Abrahimc ideals where marriage (or sexual partnership) entails ownership of the partner's sexuality and a legitimacy of a claim to sole access to the partners physical body for sexual purposes.

This means that my sexual beliefs have more in common with those of non-heterosexuals of whatever religious belief than they have with fellow pagans.

the point about this is to say I entirely disagre with your propostion, toxx, that one eccentricity necessarily entails the same eccentricity in an number of belief areas.

"Fascinating, now I can't recall if there were vowels on the torah! In hebrew the vowels are under the letters, and sometimes between them. For example the "alef" or "A" character can be a long "A" if there are two dots side by side under it, a short a if it's a flat line or odd shaped T, or a long "E" if it's a single dot. My history stinks more often than not so I have no clue about the reverse impressions or who added the vowels."

the vowels were added during the diaspora. I have a vague momry of it occuring during the long period when teh Babylonian Talmud (there are two talmuds) was constructed, but it would be simple enogh to look it up online were anyone interested.

Once again, I hadn't pursued the topic quite so far, HS. I had in mind the foundational beliefs that rarely change (eg; There are material objects), as compared to fairly peripheral beliefs (eg; It will rain tomorrow), which are subject to casual revison.

Then there are the things that cluster in a domain. If we believe 2+2=5, then we are likely to believe 2+2+1=6. I hadn't thought of connecting beliefs about sexuality and religion. Arguably, they have a different degree of foundationality. Presumably, sexuality is more entrenched than religious beliefs. Sometimes the latter is changed because of something involving the former. It could be argued that the reverse also takes place; but that would probably involve observance/behaviour rather than 'belief' in a more internalised sense.

toxx

"Once again, I hadn't pursued the topic quite so far, HS. I had in mind the foundational beliefs that rarely change (eg; There are material objects), as compared to fairly peripheral beliefs (eg; It will rain tomorrow), which are subject to casual revison."

You have me baffled, toxx. To return to your original comment, you said Jez couldn't be argued with and then tied in her religious belifs with that, as though the one had a relationship with the other. I have tried to pursue this comment, which seemed to me to be to assume something in those who hold the same beliefs, and each time I have sought an explanation, you have come up with something obscure and fairly irrelevant.

I think I shall have to assume you intended to insult Jez and, for the moment, forgot that there are others of this board who hold the same beliefs. I do not think it was your intention to inuslt Math or I, but that is what happens if one simply says e.g. "all [insert religion or race of desire] are stupid/stubborn." It seems to me that, once I questioned you, you realised your error but, rather than apologising, then sought to explain the insult as a reference to eccentricity, and that Math would like to be called eccentric, as you might. Which he may, but I don't believe you meant eccentricity at all as the context of the original comment was disparaging. I can't say I find your arguments on this subject since then convincing and, indeed, most make no sense.

Enough. I have tired of this. Subject closed. On my part, anyway.

As I've said, I didn't have a conscious relation in mind between these things. In retrospect, I can see connections which I've outlined. Quite how sober I was at the time of the original post is unrecorded. The answer is rarely 'totally'. It has been a hard four years sorting out the legal mess!

toxx

Never mind Toxx, our birthday is just around the corner.

alji

'sright, alji. That German girl Susanne's too.

The good bit is that I am now free to move. I'm still looking at Wales, but I have a new buddy based in Sheffield. We're planning to get some real ale down us in a few days time when I've tidied up some loose ends. Must mention the birthday to him. We plan to meet half way, which would be Buxton or Derby.

How much of this was in the stars? Did a long-term problem get positively resolved for you on 3rd June too?

toxx

"It does, as long as you don't get caught. In most states homosexual "relations" [so I don't have to be explicit] are illegal, but you don't hear about police raids and arrests of gay men for comitting lewd acts in their private homes. "

States? If you mean US states, that's no longer true--the laws my be on the books, but they've been unconstitutional since Lawrence v. Texas, which I think was about just that--a police raid and arrest of gay men for committing lewd actis in their private home.

No Toxx, I'm still waiting for a long term problem to be solved!


alji

<>


I thought they let only relatives in! Yeah, I'd really be interested..

toxx said

>>I don't think I'd gone far into the logical connections of my thoughts about discussing and unusual beliefs. On reflection, I'd put it as follows.

>>Sometimes, in discussion with an individual, the analysis becomes stuck on a premise which one party believes true and the other false.

>>This will happen with greater frequency if, and to the extent that, one or both of the parties has non-standard (eccentric) beliefs.
>>Eccentric beliefs in one area (belief subset) will require adjustments in the rest of the belief set, in order to keep it consistent.

>>Hence discussion involving eccentric(s) is likely to get 'stuck' relatively easily whatever the topic.
.....................................................................

>>I suggest that holding minority religious views is an indicator of more general eccentricity, although not part of it's definition. Hence there is no circularity. It's possible that the religious views are hived off into a separate 'compartment'. Possibly, they are knowingly inconsistent with other of the person's more generally accepted views.

---


Now, I actually agree with almost all of this.


But the eccentric views I think toxx /should/ be referring to are not _religious_


You see, I hold the opinion that the belief that "downloading child pornography is ok" is the most eccentric view held by /anyone/ in this forum.

And clearly the police, the laws of England and Wales, his solicitor and the judge in the court all believed the same way as I do, or he wouldn't have been arrested, charged, advised to plead guilty, found guilty, and sentenced.

So.

Who is the one holding eccentric views in your opinion, folks?

---

Jez

Please excuse me Jez, if I speak directly to you. I also assure you that no insult was intended by the suggestion of eccentricity.



I too am opposed to child pornography, although there is some doubt as to whether, after someone has created it and distributed it, the final downloader is all that culpable.

The only reason my case took 4 years to be resolved is that the law doesn't even mention 'child pornography' - much less define it. It talks about 'making indecent photographs of a child'. Precedent dictates that downloading = 'making'. 'Indecent' can be anything a jury decides on the day.

Hence a beautiful girl of 15 who wishes to embark on a modelling career may not have photographs taken of which a jury might disapprove! Where such photographs have been taken in countries which permit it, is it so terrible to download them?

This is what we're talking about in my case - not pictures of little kids being sexually abused. You have to admit that there's an enormous difference, and you see why I got such a light sentence in the end.

Hey, if I'd done anything I felt to be really bad, do you think I'd have even mentioned it here. Surely this is a point for discussion, not out-of-hand condemnation.

toxx

Hi All

Just dropping in quickly on this one. Engage po-faced mode.

Let me say for the record that I do not consider the practices or beliefs of my path to be in any way 'eccentric'. I shall assume that this definition was based on the view that as we heathens and druids practice a faith path that is outside the mainstream in Britain our practices are in some way less valid or perhaps even ridiculous.

My beliefs and practices, in the main, predate those of the decidely odd religious tenets of the Christian Churches and have a much deeper rooted connection to this land of ours than that middle-eastern import shall ever have.

For instance we do not partake in weekly ritual cannibalism, nor do we condemn all who do not agree with our faith to eternal damnation, nor do we believe (contrary to all evidence) that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago - now these beliefs ARE eccentric in that they spin wildly away from any rational view of the cosmos.

I, and my pagan colloeagues here, am not eccentric. We are closer to reality than most.

Blessings,
Matholwch the miffed! /|\

Toxxin,

When in Rome....

British law and culture is fairly clear that downloading such images is considered illegal and immoral. If you choose to flout that then you get what you deserve. Arguments based on aesthetics are irrelevant, as are those based on "its legal over there".

They sell videos of women being gang-raped in the markets of the Congo and Angola. It is not illegal in those countries to sell them. Does this mean it would be alright for you to download such a thing here? I think not.

I have kept out of this debate because I have very firm views that would certainly upset you and a few others here. I shall again withdraw.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

I dont want to paint you as some irredeemable monster it ws never my intention so I think your "defense" of your self is uncessary. This however does nothing but add to my growing frustration at your rather obvious attempts to sidestep what are sensible laws meant to protect ALL within a vulnerabel age group.

*Precedent dictates that downloading = 'making'.

Yes because you are making a file by copying it to your harddrive disk or whatever format you store it in.

*'Indecent' can be anything a jury decides on the day.

Laws made by people and interpreted by people. Its the only way until the bigG shows up and makes a direct intervention.

*Hence a beautiful girl of 15 who wishes to embark on a modelling career may not have photographs taken of which a jury might disapprove! Where such photographs have been taken in countries which permit it, is it so terrible to download them?

"beauty" (whatever that is) and gender dont come into it really. It's not even about "so terrible" it is ILLEGAL. Maybe that's a hint you should not be doing it. It might not be terrible for me to take advantage of the offers made to me by teenagers when Im at camps but it would be wrong to abuse my position of trust and ILLEGAL so I just dont. No internal discussion there is a line and you dont cross it.


*This is what we're talking about in my case - not pictures of little kids being sexually abused.

WRONG you are using a very narrow definiton of sexual abuse. Taking indecent images of minors IS sexual abuse.

*You have to admit that there's an enormous difference, and you see why I got such a light sentence in the end.

You maybe using "You have to admit" as a mere turn of phrase, which is fine because no one *has to admit* any such thing. Someone deliberately exploiting minors in this way is doing something perilously close to the mor overt stuff.

Your ignorance feined or genuine is no excuse for breaking the law and your continued defece of your abhorant actions diminishess your worth the more you do it.

one love

You surprise me, Math. I'm sure you recently said that you didn't care if people thought you actually 'mad'. I used the much milder term 'eccentric' and also included myself in that description. After all, 'eccentric' only implies diverging from the norm, not from 'reality'.

Sorry if wires crossed in this regard.

toxx

A touching defence of British Law, Badge, but I don't buy it!



So isn't it odd that huge blow-ups of Tierney Gearon's pictures of her two small children naked were permitted to go on public display in the Saatchi Gallery in 2001. How strange that we can buy David Hamilton's books featuring models of under 16.



I criticise the law because I believe it to be wrong. Our legislators are far from infallible. For example, did you know that the new law on sexual offences is so drafted that breastfeeding a baby comes within the definition of child rape? A friend of mine is having a book published where this is mentioned, so it isn't just my view.

If people didn't criticise the law, we'd still have legal slavery, women would still be chattels and 'witches' would be for burning! Those who don't criticise the law had better observe it. The rest of us too, I guess. I'm not pleased to have fallen foul of it.

toxx

Your defence grows ever more pathetic.

*So isn't it odd that huge blow-ups of Tierney Gearon's pictures of her two small children naked were permitted to go on public display in the Saatchi Gallery in 2001. How strange that we can buy David Hamilton's books featuring models of under 16.

Its not odd for anyone who can construe a difference between "indecent" and naked. There is a difference as an irregular stripper I can tell you its not too difficult to do one while avoiding the other.


*I criticise the law because I believe it to be wrong.

Thing is you didnt get into strife for criticising the law you broke it dont try to pretend that they are one and the same thing.

*Our legislators are far from infallible.

Have you read my post?

*For example, did you know that the new law on sexual offences is so drafted that breastfeeding a baby comes within the definition of child rape?

No I did not but I dont get involved with such issues for fairly obvious reasons. however I feel sure that there are no nursing mothers out there who will be worried metaphysically or bothered literally by the law on this one.

*A friend of mine is having a book published where this is mentioned, so it isn't just my view.

I can find you lots of people who agree with just about anything you'd care to mention. The more people who "buy it" is no indication of how right it is.


*If people didn't criticise the law, we'd still have legal slavery, women would still be chattels and 'witches' would be for burning! Those who don't criticise the law had better observe it. The rest of us too, I guess. I'm not pleased to have fallen foul of it.

Your attempt to align yourself with the great emancipators is beneath contempt the rights of people to the most basic of civil liberties can not meaningfully be compared to your desire to exchage whatever images you find to be within your own parameters of taste and decency.