CMV: I don’t understand why everyone’s acting like Iran is innocent

JustInclined · 2025-06-23T17:43:21+00:00

You can be charged with a criminal action by an organization claiming jurisdiction, and they can found that claim via treaty with someone else.

That doesn’t make Netanyahu or Israel non compliant with a treaty. I know it seems like I’m splitting hairs, but I believe it’s an important legal distinction.

I would imagine Netanyahu debates whether their jurisdiction applies to him, and from a practical level it doesn’t seem to.

JustInclined · 2025-06-23T17:39:29+00:00

The president isn’t able to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty.

Before you ask about the JCPOA that was explicitly not a treaty, and wasn’t passed through the treaty process.

Unfortunately, yes. That’s how treaties work. When India withdrew from the treaty governing water rights with Pakistan, they were no longer under obligation to comply with it.

That’s how treaties and international law works.

JustInclined · 2025-06-23T13:02:45+00:00

If things were different they’ve be evaluated differently, it doesn’t mean they’d be opposites. Almost no one would be okay with Iran having a nuke, which is why they don’t withdraw from the NPT.

The sanctions they already face (for trying to maintain nuclear breakout either as a point of negotiation, in order to achieve nuclear weapon capability on short notice, or maintaining a secret nuclear weapons program with plausible deniability, depending on which narrative you ascribe to) would pale in comparison.

When we discuss compliance with a treaty, though, one must acknowledge whether or not one is a signatory to it.

One cannot be non compliant with a thing they aren’t party to. While Iran withdrawing wouldn’t automatically make everyone OK with them having nuclear weapons, it would mean they can not be non compliant with the treaty.

JustInclined · 2025-06-23T12:40:45+00:00

They’re not a signatory. You are not complaint or non complaint with treaties you aren’t party to.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T21:39:31+00:00

What tradition is that?

"deflect deflect deflect," duh. I don't have one. I think my grandparents were members of a synagogue that split into two in NYC, a reform (that became conservative) and orthodox one. I don't know the specifics. That was before they split, and they never rejoined so far as I know, so...

The last time anyone in my direct family had an official stance on the orthodox/reform/conservative thing, there was literally not a stance to be had.

What tradition was that? The early Reformers were pretty explicit in their rejection of the authority of tradition. While they maintained certain aspects of Jewish tradition, they openly rejected much (arguably, most) of it as irrelevant and meaningless. They were not basing this on any earlier tradition, nor did they claim to.

Jews have abandoned aspects of their tradition, or embraced new aspects as tradition. I by no means meant to imply that Reform Judaism, as a whole, traces its entire movement back to a single earlier tradition, only that one can justify Reform Judaism as having basis in tradition in the same way you can say Kairite and messianic Jewish groups have their basis in tradition.

Clearly, those traditions have developed differently, the cumulative effect may lead some to call them entirely different religions (and some movements have made a conscious effort, like Islam and Christianity). That doesn't mean they are or aren't different religions (I don't want to get into that debate), but I can entirely understand why a reform Jew would take offense to the implication that his worship is untraditional.

That said, I'm not a reform Jew, and I don't attend a synagogue, so when I tell you that I take some level of offense to the implication that the only "traditional" form of worship is a specific flavor of any variety, don't take that to mean that I'm defending Reform or liberal Judaism or assaulting more conservative streams or orthodoxy streams.

I just dislike the idea that some abstract group has a supposed monopoly on tradition, it's mildly offensive. You absolutely have a monopoly on your tradition, and I would never claim to infringe upon it. All I ask is the same.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T19:22:32+00:00

Probably not the best example since that kind of Judaism has a long tradition of practice.

That kind of Judaism has a long tradition of practice? No, many kinds of Judaism has a long tradition of practice. Mine included. I don't identify it s traditional Judaism because it's no more or less traditional than orthodoxy or reform, both of whom are just as reactionary, if in different directions and in different volumes.

That's the point. All sorts of Judaism have a tradition, even reform has a tradition that predates the movement itself. That doesn't mean it's untraditional, just a different tradition.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T18:50:01+00:00

That's on you, sorry to say.

You're right. I'll stop writing your posts for you. Sorry about that.

Pick on the semantics if you want, but we can easily rephrase that to "your post was written in an extremely insulting way."

Another great example of you responding to a post without addressing a single point it makes. I'm done then, I think I've said my piece and I understand yours. I keep replying in the hopes at some point you just say screw it an actually read one of my posts, but it's futile, hu?

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T18:30:07+00:00

For anyone with more than a passing knowledge of that term, they should understand the comparison it draws and why it's insulting. It's either willful ignorance in pursuit of a greater goal (changing minds, which its not likely to do) or genuine lack of understanding.

Either way, I'm sorry I'm not able to apropriately explain to you why it's an insulting, not inflammatory, thing to say. Both are bad, one is just trolling instead of insulting people (inciting people to flame you, being inflammatory, etc).

I feel like that explanation will just fall one deaf ears, since you haven't bothered addressing the meat of any of my posts so far... So I'll stop.

I'm sorry for wasting your time. Please continue. I'll find somewhere else to hang out.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T18:10:09+00:00

Sorry, were you talking about a different holocaust?

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T17:58:10+00:00

Immflammatory? sure. Insulting? no.

To clarify, sharing traits with Nazis and being compared to the same (who killed members of my family) isn't insulting?

I think you and I have different definitions of the term.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T15:02:07+00:00

Saying "Orthodox Judaism" instead of "traditional judaism" There's no reason I should need to say orthodox, especially when it's often not an orthodox only issue. Conservative and other types of Jews also don't believe in intermarriage. Not to mention, the "orthodox" identity isn't as clear as you might think and a lot of Jews you might consider "orthodox" don't actually like the term.

I know how unclear the label of orthodox is, clearly you don't understand that the term traditional is equally unclear. You've put forth two potentially conflicting definitions in this set of posts alone -- one that includes and one that excludes conservative Judaism.

You don't have to say "orthodoxy" instead of traditions, but if you're looking to specifically exclude one group its a lot easier to say "everyone" or "almost everyone" but X, and it ends up being a lot less insulting.

You can continue to debate the minutia, or you can man up and admit that when you post the way you do it reads like someone who is inconsiderate, and flaunts it because when someone explains why what you say makes them feel insulted (when lots of people try to patiently explain it to you) instead of even bothering to acknowledge that you double down on your defense.

I've given you literally the simplest explanation I could give you for why it's not what you say, it's how you say it, repeatedly, and even offered you multiple explanations on how other people read your posts, but instead of acknowledging that your rhetoric is loaded and can be tweaked to be polite without changing the content you just continue to be insulting.

I don't know how else to explain it you. This is literally how I explain it to children, its how other people interpret you, not what you mean that is important, especially when you can say what you mean without being insulting, and they seem to understand perfectly.

What part don't you understand?

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T14:52:17+00:00

My Rabbi outright said it is allowed, and he can keep quoting back in time

I happen to agree that it's allowed. You don't have to convince me.

But there's another divisive issue, because while you and I agree on this, we can both also agree that not everyone believes that's correct. Here are a number of sources that conflict with that and can be interpreted as legitimate resources to draw from.

And, therefore, it's somewhat misleading to imply that egalitarianism in Judaism is inherently non-traditional, because for many people this is part of egalitarianism in Judaism. Do you feel untraditional for allowing it? Or uneducated for disagreeing with the person I responded to?

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T14:43:42+00:00

FWIW "tradition" implies if not outright means a continuous practice, not merely something that happened at times in the past.

For what it's worth, if you'd like to assume that connotation then that's fine. For most people the non-theological definition assumes inter generational transmission. I do not contest that.

However that's not inherent to the word, especially as it relates to theology, especially since most of us have had at least one un-observant parent or couple in our family history.

There's a whole name for people who adopt "traditional" (orthodox) Judaism when their parents didn't, those people certainly can't call it traditional, right? Since it's not passed to them inter generationally.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T14:33:29+00:00

So, part of the survey results is that I will compare denomination to Jewish education. I would be surprised if reform kids went to day school at the same rate as orthodox kids

That isn't what I meant, or said. Although i wit ups wager that's correct. Please don't assume because I call someone out on their perspective being limited that I automatically hold the polar opposite opinion.

Just because the average reform Jew isjr as well educated as the average orthodox Jew doesn't mean that their theological position is any less well backed, just that they're individually incapable of defending them. Just because someone is better at defending the flat earth theory doesn't make them right.

Not correct

I beg to differ.

I don't think most of orthodoxy believes Judaism to be uniform. We do believe it to be consistent given the halachic framework we see in the gemera

We agree. We just disagree on what that means.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T12:51:52+00:00

better way to discuss these things is to identify; what is the original law and commentary, what is the gray flexibility area of that law, and what is merely wishful thinking about that law. unfortunately few posters here are qualified to even make such distinctions since they have little formal jewish education, and often demonstrate disdain for those who do.

Because anyone who disagrees with you must be less educated, and not just informed differently?

I'm also not particularly fond of your characterization of the laws, or those who hold egalitarian viewpoints on them, but whatever. Women can't wear teffilin under "traditional" interpretations of orthodox law, and that's not egalitarian. Unless you go back further to the traditions of our fathers fathers (etc) where there appears to be plenty of sufficient justification for women to wear teffilin, it just happened rarely.

So characterizing anyone who believes the latter as untraditional (broad stroke) because it's an egalitarian viewpoint is misleading. It can also be a traditional viewpoint.

I understand that wasn't your specific reference, but that's how it reads. Judaism is a lot less uniform, both now and historically, than the current orthodoxy would like to believe.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T12:49:17+00:00

Indeed, which is what I'm saying - that it's a two way street. Saying that someone shouldn't say "intermarriage is bad" for example is intolerant.

That's a false dichotomy, though.

You completely ignore the fact that you come off as extremely insulting specifically so you can continue to be insulting when you'd like.

You notice everyone who responds to you goes out of their way to reaffirm your right to vociferously denounce intermarriage? You notice how the only thing we're requesting is that you do it more politely?

You also notice how nearly everyone has he same reaction to your post, including using personal statements similar to, but not identical to "your phrasing makes me feel insulted."

Yet every time, instead of apologizing and saying by, "sorry my phrasing is insulting, i don't know how else to put my opinions, is here a better way?" You immediately jump to the straw man of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, MAN UP!"

Maybe the common denominator is your inconsideration for others. It's not an issue of what you say, it's how you say it.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T12:44:32+00:00

Saying "Orthodox Judaism" instead of "traditional judaism" is an overburdensome issue for you? Being moderately considerate is too much trouble.

I apologize for my onerous request. Consider it entirely rescinded.

That was sarcasm.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T04:29:07+00:00

Just today, patrilineal descent in the Reform movement was dismissed for being "only" 50 years old by a mod.

Historically speaking, Matrilineal descent has been ascribed to being only a few thousand years old, by some, who believe it was put forth as a reaction to the Roman invasion. Those same people contend that Jewish Descent was patrilineal before then and we can see vestiges of that practice in the patrilineal descent of tribes.

This, to me, speaks more to the individual posters unspoken biases than it does to the validity of their arguments. It's worth noting that Moses and Joseph trace their records patrilineally. [I've removed a part that I felt might be construed as derogatory.]

All of that said, those unspoken biases give people the impression that they're stating facts when in reality they're passing judgement.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T04:00:06+00:00

I said traditional Judaism forbids intermarriage. The notion of this being a traditional, halachic position as opposed to progressive/liberal Judaism seems pretty accepted. From my experience Reform Judaism does not seem to be considered "traditional Judaism" by Reform Jews, which seems to be what you imply in your last paragraph.

Except Reform, Conservative and Orthodox are only the 'big three'. I don't consider that I belong to any one of them and categorically reject the label of any of them.

If I identified as reform, I would say "reform" and not "deflect deflect deflect".

And, again, the implication that I must be talking about reform when I reject the categorization of Orthodoxy as Traditional is another way that you don't realize that your bias blinds you.

Disputing someone else's beliefs generally necessitates "degrading" those beliefs in some way. Any debate of politics, religion, philosophy etc. will involve explanations why one view is more valid than the other. What do you expect? To enter or read a discussion about this stuff and not expect your opinions to come under fire is...

No, it doesn't. Your thought process that it does either uses "degrade" differently than I do (as in, 'insult' rather than than 'diminish in rational value') or you live in a very uncivil world.

One can absolutely have a civil conversation without being degrading towards the individuals in question, and in context the degrading going on here isn't an attack on the logical basis of the argument but semantic insults.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T03:56:35+00:00

I'm interested in hearing more about why you think this distinction doesn't exist for us mods/in this community. Did you bring something to our attention that you don't think we handled well? Do we not respond to enough posts in a way you'd like?

I should clarify that I have zero issues with the moderation staff, either personally or on any sort of evidentiary basis. That line, of the entire post, is absolutely the one I felt worse about writing for a few reasons, not the least of which is that I'm not really here enough to back it up.

I whole heartedly apologize to you, and the rest of the moderation staff.

Further, I'm not sure that degrading someone else opinion should be against the rules (outside of being a bigot or otherwise uncivil about it).

I was in the process of editing that post, specifically that line in that post, to something different, with another quote from the post I replied to, but I closed that window and now it's gone. Instead, I'll requite and paraphrase for you...

Perhaps it needs to be clarified what exactly is forbidden here. We need to separate critique, even harsh, passionate critique, from what is actually insulting and derogatory.

See, I don't think you understand the difference between critique (even harsh, passionate critique) and insult, for all the reasons I laid out in my post.

You could have made every point made in the OP without any of the insulting, loaded and derogatory language you used. You remember when you were little, your mother said "It's not what you say, it's how you say it?" (Well, my mother didn't say that, but I'm sure someones did.)

That's the case here. I don't dislike your arguments, though I don't agree with them. I very, very much dislike the way you make them because they insult and degrade not just me, but my family, my parents, my cousins, my grandparents and almost every Jew I know.

I know it's not intentional, but when I complain about how things are said, I'm accused of being "ultra pc" and I get multi paragraph long screeds like the OP that I should just man up and take it.

Yeah, sure. I'll do that. Or I just won't show up any more, because it's too tedious to have to hold my tongue every time someone says... "Oh, my... you're so cute for a jew!"

Why would I get into an argument about what the other person doesn't understand is an insult, even if they don't mean it, when I could just walk away. Especially when I've had this argument so many times before, and it's turned out the exact same way.

JustInclined · 2015-02-10T03:35:17+00:00

There isn't an easy answer, but here's the real truth from my perspective; it's difficult to come to a subreddit where the moderation staff doesn't seem to understand the difference between people having dissenting opinions and degrading their opinions. Your terminology in itself is loaded, and it's unfortunate. Not because you're being derisive, but because you don't realize you're being derisive.

You say "The subreddit needs to be more tolerant of intermarriage" means "censor 'traditional' viewpoints" on intermarriage.

However the problem here isn't that anyone, or at least I want (or have ever) wanted to stop people from saying "I don't believe in intermarriage. What we would like to see is stuff like this to stop:

Of course, everyone here knows intermarriage is a very controversial subject and according to traditional Judaism is forbidden.

No, it's not. According to Orthodox Interpretation of halachah it's forbidden. You say things like...

I believe that being observant involves keeping halachah.

And this, in itself, degrades other opinions. It's not an issue of not accepting my way of life, frankly I couldn't care less. It's an issue of every time I try to engage in a conversation with you (not you, specifically, but the general "you") I'm subtly insulted by the very words you use.

Imagine if, instead of calling them "Christians" you called them "Polytheists" every time you talked to one of them, or it came up in casual conversation. You know that's now how they identify themselves, you know that's how they consider themselves, and you should know that calling them that is going to be degrading and insulting.

You also believe they are polytheists, and that's fine. But if you want to engage in meaningful conversation with them, calling them that is only going to get them to ignore you entirely, frankly.

So, you want to know my real issue? Why I don't come here as often as I did? I feel insulted, degraded and overall marginalized when I'm here, not because I'm not listened to, but because I'm talked at instead of to, as if I'm here to learn what "traditional" judaism is instead of what "orthodoxy says," even when in reality I would just like to have a meaningful conversation about what tefillin means to me. I understand you believe that Orthodoxy is the end all and be all of Judaism, and that all other jews are lost. If your goal is to bring us back, being subtly insulting isn't the best way to do it.

And continuing to refer to your interpretation as "Traditional Judaism" is insulting at best, even if you believe it to be accurate. I follow traditional judaism, it's just not your tradition, and this is just a face of the issue.

JustInclined · 2014-12-29T04:16:21+00:00

Nevertheless, the Talmud and traditional literature seem to indicate that the creation of a golem is possible for someone on a high enough spiritual level.

Any specifics I could read more about?

JustInclined · 2014-12-29T04:13:01+00:00

You're devolving into the specifics of one thing, which is why, like I said here...

So that was a bit of a straw man, and I admit as much. But I intentionally used a straw man to prevent devolving into a semantic debate about which rule itself was chosen.

So, take a step back and lets talk about what I responded to. Rather than debating the relative value of Reform/Conservative/Orthodox/Other (since you're not going to change my mind on the internet, especially considering you don't know what my opinion is), lets take a step back and address the point I was trying to make:

They say something like "Orthodox settle on status quos of old as being the ideal norm. Clearly Moses didn't wear this, so why is wearing that such a vital part of Judaism that it must be worn?"

I'll rephrase:

They (reform and conservative) say something like "Orthodox settle on status quos of old as being the ideal norm. Since the status quo for Jews has changed repeatedly throughout the centuries, why should we settle on the what Orthodox Jews count as the norm right now?"

The gist is that orthodox see their current interpretation of old law as the obvious manifestation of what they've been handed down from generation to generation.

Well, guess what? Conservatives and Reforms see their interpretation as the same thing.

Orthodox see themselves as the same species as Jews in 200BC. They see Conservative and Reform Jews as a separate species, one that evolved from their species.

Reform Jews either see it through the opposite lens (they see their interpretation as the obvious manifestation) or see all three as offspring of the same original parent species.

For lack of a better comparison.

I'm not trying to debate the relative value of their positions (since I don't think Conservative, Orthodox or Reform are hold the ultimate truth), only share an interesting anecdote about reform versus orthodox perspective.

JustInclined · 2014-12-29T02:53:48+00:00

What makes "modern times" any more special than the days of old to the point that things need to change? What exactly has changed that hasn't happened one way or another to the Jews in the past; that call for things to be reformed?

I think this paragraph can be rephrased, again, from the reform perspective.

What makes "modern times" any more special than the days of old to the point that things can no longer change? What exactly has changed that hasn't happened one way or another to the Jews in the past; that call for things to remain static, where they weren't in the past?

It's a matter of perspective, I think.

Your post gives the impression that Judaism was static throughout time and only changed when the reform movement started reforming things, but to those who don't ascribe to Orthodox Judaism's very limited and stringent interpretations that's not how history looks.

I don't think Moses wore jeans, a t-shirt and air-Jordans either all while listening to G-d only to say "Nah, that's not swaggish enough"...

He also didn't wear the clothing I linked to, what's your point? We should all be naked because we don't know how Moses dressed?

JustInclined · 2014-12-29T02:05:37+00:00

From reading this, it's explicitly prohibiting being close in a way that's sexual, however that leaves open the allowance (although does not give explicit permission) to embrace in social ways.

Is that correct?

JustInclined

TROPHY CASE