Bible justifies rape in times of war, despite rabbis’ efforts to spin or hide the teaching

Israel/Palestine
on 42 Comments
As I mentioned in my article Tuesday about Rabbi Eyal Qarim’s appointment to be chief Israeli army rabbi and his egregious advocacy concerning rape of a “comely woman” “in times of war”, I began looking into Qarim’s comments some three weeks ago, leading to a discussion on my Facebook wall. In the thread, Michael Lesher offered a comprehensive and informative response, pointing out the prevailing rabbinical views concerning the biblical episode. Lesher also points out how rabbis manage to escape the heat when their words end up being exposed to an “unintended audience”.
This is very important, because this culture is not being scrutinised that much, and a lot of it is kept rather secret amongst a Hebrew speaking religious group. It is doubtful that Qarim’s ‘interpretations’ would ever have come to be noticed in mainstream media as they have now, if it hadn’t been for the very fact of his appointment for Chief Army Rabbi. Lesher’s analysis also sheds light upon a wider issue, which is the Talmudic consensus in this matter. Qarim is not acting in a vacuum of Jewish religious opinion. He is not an extreme ideologue inside orthodox Judaism. In fact, he appears to be in a historical consensus.
Here is Michael Lesher’s comment (posted on my wall on June 20th):
For what it’s worth, I can add a bit to this mess.

The Talmud discusses the passage in question (Deut. 21:10-14) at Qiddushin 22a. Most of the passage is devoted to the details of the process that, according to these verses, must precede the soldier’s marriage to the captive woman. However, it is unclear from the Talmud whether or not the soldier is allowed to RAPE the woman BEFORE she begins that process — and commentators, predictably, differ.

Rashi takes the position Qarim falls back on in his “clarification”: namely, that no rape is ever permitted. A few other sources concur. However, the 19th century rabbi — and famous Orthodox “liberal” — Samson Raphael Hirsch was unfortunately correct in writing (in his own Pentateuch commentary) that the great majority of commentators disagree with Rashi; they insist that the soldier may FIRST rape the captive, and only then must take the steps prescribed in Deuteronomy 21:11-14. These commentators stress the Talmud’s words that the commandment in question was designed with the soldier’s “evil inclination” in mind: in other words, he must satisfy his lust, and divine law concedes this much to him, adding only certain qualifications in the event he intends to “keep” his victim. This was clearly the view — again, the traditional MAJORITY view — that Rabbi Qarim had in mind when he wrote his first response. Rabbi Qarim then added his own gloss to the effect that anything that helps a soldier maintain his fighting morale in time of war can’t be all bad. Given the premises of the previous commentators, I’m afraid I can’t call his position illogical.

I won’t waste time on the revolting assumptions at work here: this passage is perhaps the starkest example in the Hebrew Bible of woman-as-object misogyny. And although commentators like Rashi, Ramban and Ohr ha-Hayyim all clearly wanted to purge the passage of its nastiest aspects, they never won the day. People who naively suppose that today’s Orthodox rabbis, in light of modern feminism — or just basic decency — would be rushing to disown these laws, or at least the most vicious interpretations of them, don’t know much about the rabbinate.

The real point I think this episode illustrates — and this is one that’s hard to fit into a tight paragraph — is the methodological dishonesty employed by far too many Orthodox rabbis when they discover their Talmudic analyses are reaching an unexpected audience and that the audience isn’t happy with what it’s hearing. Instead of telling the truth about the traditional material they’re interpreting, or even — still more breathtaking — acknowledging its moral flaws, these rabbis spin the material into the form that best suits their purpose at that particular moment, hoping the reader won’t know how to check sources for herself and will never realize she’s being lied to. Afterwards, of course, the rabbi can go back to the faithful and repeat what he really believes.

I doubt that many outside the Orthodox Jewish community realize how often this sort of thing happens when rabbis address a non-Orthodox public, or how easily, almost unconsciously, rabbis like Qarim lapse into dishonest apologetics once they realize something they’ve said didn’t have the desired effect on an unfamiliar group of readers. Israel Shahak’s savage critique of the Orthodox rabbinate on this score was, alas, quite justified. And when influential rabbis play this game — in this case, a rabbi whose word is relied on by real soldiers in a real army, dealing (all too often) with real captives — the consequences can only be disastrous. I can assure you that no Orthodox IDF soldier will be impressed by Qarim’s backpedaling, because he will understand at once what it means: that’s the story for THEM; the real story is more complicated, meaning, in the end, do what you want, it’s all right, no one can blame you (assuming you can get away with it). Some religious counsel.

Such opinions aren’t just the product of one eccentric rabbi but exist within a larger (and normally unchallenged) consensus.
It’s possible that some prominent rabbi has come out with a public statement condemning the majority interpretation of this law and I just missed it, but I think it’s unlikely. By now, if there had been such a statement, I can’t imagine it wouldn’t have been quoted in order, at least, to support Qarim’s attempt to walk back his original position. In fact, the Orthodox Jewish Press had a piece yesterday defending Qarim (or, more accurately, attacking “the left” for daring to criticize him), and the piece doesn’t quote any rabbi other than Qarim himself:
About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

42 Responses

  1. hophmi
    July 16, 2016, 8:28 am

    Jonathan, do you really think that the readers at Mondoweiss care about the subtleties of this exegesis? this is your message, take it to the Orthodox community.

    I think you’re doing to Jews exactly what Islamophobes do Muslims; you’re suggesting that Orthodox Jews are fundamentally dishonest, and you’re doing this in a forum already predisposed to believe the worst about Jews.

    That’s pretty weak.

    • Keith
      July 16, 2016, 12:55 pm

      HOPHMI- “…and you’re doing this in a forum already predisposed to believe the worst about Jews.”

      You essentially prove the validity and importance of this topic by your attempt to keep this highly relevant discussion inside the tribal tent away from Gentiles. That is the traditional approach. Yet, Israel Shahak maintained that Israel and its actions could not be properly understood without reference to the teachings of Classical (medieval) Judaism.

      “It became apparent to me, as drawing on knowledge acquired in my youth, I began to study the Talmudic laws governing relations between Jews and non-Jews, that neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli policies since the inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the policies of the Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper influence of those laws, and the worldview they create and express is taken into account.” (p1, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” Israel Shahak)

      • hophmi
        July 16, 2016, 3:21 pm

        I have no doubt that you find it highly relevant, Keith. And as usual, in a world where there are many, many scholars of Judaism, you continue to cite Israel Shahak, who was neither a scholar of Judaism nor a well-regarded author on the subject. We all know why. He says the nasty things for you.

      • Keith
        July 16, 2016, 6:08 pm

        HOPHMI- “…you continue to cite Israel Shahak, who was neither a scholar of Judaism nor a well-regarded author on the subject.”

        According to you and other Zionist apologists. What do others have to say? “But it is as a scholar of Judaism that he towers over so many others, since it is Judaism that has occupied his energies as a scholar and political activist from the beginning.” (Edward Said from the foreword to Jewish History). “Those who heed him will certainly be wiser and – dare I say? – better. He is the latest, if not the last, of the great prophets.” (Gore Vidal from the foreword to Jewish History). He is a widely respected and frequently cited author, Noam Chomsky makes multiple references in “Fateful Triangle.” Interesting that you attempt to smear Shahak rather than discussing his unassailable facts and conclusions.

        HOPHMI- “…in a world where there are many, many scholars of Judaism….”

        If that is the case, then it should be child’s play for you to provide a well referenced rebuttal rather than your typical argument by name-calling. In the above article, Michael Lesher notes that “Israel Shahak’s savage critique of the Orthodox rabbinate on this score was, alas, quite justified.” Since Michael Lesher seems to be making similar observations to Shahak, you might care discuss his observations with him rather attempting to insult a deceased human rights activist.

      • Mooser
        July 16, 2016, 6:20 pm

        “We all know why. He says the nasty things for you.”

        Don’t blame me “Hophmi”!
        I’ve explained to “Keith” many, many times, that there isn’t a single thing, not a single wicked act that anti-semites have not accused Jews of, either as individuals or as a group, over the last couple of centuries. You know that’s true, don’t you, “Hophmi”?

        Therefore any indictment, any charge made against a Jew, or group of Jews, will bear some resemblance to an anti-semitic accusation, and can be dismissed. That’s natural international law, too!

        He’s just jealous because other people don’t have that get-out-of-jail-free, existential double jeopardy card we have to play. It’s like having an ass up our sleeve.
        Nor does “Keith” realize that if 50,000 Frenchman can’t be wrong, 200 million Jews can pretty much make their own rules.

      • Mooser
        July 17, 2016, 12:40 am

        “And as usual, in a world where there are many, many scholars of Judaism, you continue to cite Israel Shahak,”

        “Hophmi” knows the Modern Orthodox have no connection to Classical or Talmudic Judaism. They actually just make it all up as they go along.

      • Boo
        July 18, 2016, 1:43 pm

        As a progressive Christian who grew up in the ’50s and formulated my youthful beliefs about Israel based on the Leon Uris “Exodus” model (before being thoroughly disabused by Israel’s conduct in the new millennium), I’m deeply interested in what the IDF’s chief rabbi has to say on this particular subject and I do in fact care about “the subtleties of this exegesis”. How insulting that you imagine only rabbis have an interest in pilpul — particularly that which concerns basic human rights and the sanctity of the human body.

        If anything is “weak”, it’s Qarim’s equivocation and feeble attempts at rationalization when confronted with his previous statements:

        “How easily, almost unconsciously, rabbis like Qarim lapse into dishonest apologetics once they realize something they’ve said didn’t have the desired effect on an unfamiliar group of readers.”

        Again I emphasize it’s not just rabbis, but anyone who’s capable of parsing an argument and recognizing its speciousness, who will judge Qarim accordingly. There’s nothing at all subtle about his original exegesis or his subsequent pathetic failure to try to make it more palatable. I hardly need the consensus of tens, hundreds, or thousands of distinguished rabbis to validate my conclusion. It’s as plain as the nose on a camel’s punim.

      • Yuval
        July 21, 2016, 12:58 pm

        Keith, this is a worth reading article for @hophmi to get ability to face the bitter truth

        https://acmcu.georgetown.edu/islamophobia

  2. yonah fredman
    July 16, 2016, 10:59 am

    michael lesher in the quoted facebook quote: “in other words, he must satisfy his lust,” Shouldn’t this read: in other words, he may satisfy his lust”?

    • Michael Lesher
      July 17, 2016, 8:57 am

      Fair point. For clarity, the phrase could be (maybe should be) “in other words, the ‘evil inclination’ compels him to satisfy his lust…” It didn’t occur to me that the words could be read as suggesting that the LAW compels him.

      • silamcuz
        July 17, 2016, 10:00 am

        Evil inclination suggest a form of cosmic determinism. Just as homosexual inclination compels someone to seek same-sex relationships, evil inclination compels people to satisfy their lusts?

      • Mooser
        July 17, 2016, 2:34 pm

        “Just as homosexual inclination compels someone to seek same-sex relationships, evil inclination compels people to satisfy their lusts?”

        Wow, how’s that for inter-sectional what-aboutery?
        Sure, “Simalcuz” asking IDF soldiers not to rape is just like Homophobia! It’s an assault against Gay people world-wide to say that rape is an “evil inclination”!

      • Annie Robbins
        July 17, 2016, 4:31 pm

        also. why the homosexual analogy? note how he didn’t say:

        “Just as sexual inclination compels someone to seek relationship[s], evil inclination compels people to satisfy their lusts?”

      • Mooser
        July 17, 2016, 3:49 pm

        “It didn’t occur to me that the words could be read as suggesting that the LAW compels him.”

        Of course not. There are many other powerful motivators besides a mere compulsion of law. There’s the satisfaction of restoring the ancient religious and military verities, of making what was, during our oppression a “theoretical discussion,” real. And then there’s some other stuff, too.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 17, 2016, 4:35 pm

        sadists, torturers and other human rights violators will always seek legal means to carry out their plans — if they can get away with it. sometimes (often) laws are designed for just that very purpose.

      • Mooser
        July 17, 2016, 8:53 pm

        “sadists, torturers and other human rights violators will always seek legal means to carry out their plans”

        I was just thinking: “When you start a colonial project based on religious texts you gotta go with the Old Testament you have, not the Old Testament you wish you had.”

      • Michael Lesher
        July 17, 2016, 10:30 pm

        … or “his evil inclination,” if “THE evil inclination” seems to externalize the mechanics of temptation.

        Again, what the traditional consensus seems to be saying is that since a soldier is likely to take advantage of his opportunity to rape a captive, the law of the Torah was designed to grant him what he would take anyway. Or as Rabbi Hirsch put it, summarizing the view in the 19th century, rape is not considered culpable when “in the first heat of the conquest he [the soldier] has already yielded once to his passion.” Of course, the intelligibility of this view — let’s not even talk about morality — depends on the assumption that the woman is a mere object; that she can be classified as “permitted” or “forbidden” no differently from a piece of bread; that rape is, in essence, a victimless crime because the victim is understood only from the perspective of the rapist, for whom she is assumed to be nothing more than impulse-stimulant. (Note how Hirsch’s language depicts the attacker as essentially passive: he is said to have “yielded” to his passion, not to have assaulted a woman. This form of words would not occur to anyone who conceived the victim as fully human.)

        The indecency of this sort of thinking seems to me too obvious to need much emphasis, which is why I didn’t emphasize it in my original post. But maybe I should take a moment to note that none of this seems to have troubled Rabbi Qarim or his defenders. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that if pressed (or shamed by public exposure, as I think more likely) they would genuinely prefer the minority view of the Talmud’s reading of this passage, under which the law permits, not a battlefield rape, but a “marriage” with a captive after a 30-day hiatus. Where and when has Qarim ever suggested that, even in this scenario, the desire to “marry” is, or ought to be, mutual? What choice ought the captive to have in the matter? Commentators say she is to let her nails and hair grow, and to bewail her (slain) parents, in order to make her less attractive to the captor and thus to reduce the likelihood that he will go through with his original intention. Wouldn’t matters be simpler if she were allowed to refuse to be abducted by a member of the army that killed off her family?

        A fair critical reading of the ancient text would, of course, take into account what sort of treatment female captives typically received in the ancient Near East; such an approach would have the virtue of honesty, though it would leave the text no less appalling as a piece of a purportedly divine tradition. Some commentators (notably Ohr ha-Hayyim) have tried to sanitize the passage altogether by reducing it to allegory. But it’s worth noting that Rabbi Qarim doesn’t seem to have considered either of these escape routes. Indeed, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Biblical passage really doesn’t bother him very much, and that his only problem with it arose when it turned out to be bad form to publicly sanction battlefield rapes instead of mere forced marriages with female captives. And that, in turn, tells a chilling tale about the rabbi’s whole moral universe, all the more chilling because he seems quite unaware of what he is revealing.

        Which brings us back to the original problem. What does it mean when a government — a society, a religion, a rabbinate — places a man of a such impenetrable brutishness — I can’t think of a better word — in a position of religious authority over men and women who, as part of a heavily armed and notoriously aggressive army of occupation, will likely have plenty of opportunities to inflict all sorts of violence, sexual and otherwise, on a large number of victims? I’m afraid the question pretty much answers itself. Yet that’s the question popular media seem to be allowing to slip away amid dishonest apologetics, half-truths and indignant counterattacks against “the left.”

      • Mooser
        July 18, 2016, 12:02 pm

        “Which brings us back to the original problem. What does it mean when a government…/… on a large number of victims?”

        You want to know what it means?
        Don’t expect us to live or make war by their rules. It means 200 million Jews are returning to their “historical homeland” and will not be bound by rules and moralities made by nuns from the Geneva Convents.

  3. Keith
    July 16, 2016, 1:23 pm

    JONATHAN OFIR- (Michael Lesher quote)- “Israel Shahak’s savage critique of the Orthodox rabbinate on this score was, alas, quite justified.”

    Indeed it was. This is a very important discussion insofar as Israeli policies seem to be based at least as much on a medieval religious ideology rather than upon cold rationality. Quoting Shahak:

    “The persistent attitudes of classical Judaism toward non-Jews strongly influence its followers, Orthodox Jews and those who can be regarded as its continuators, zionists. Through the latter it also influences the policies of the State of Israel. Since 1967, as Israel becomes more and more ‘Jewish’, so its policies are influenced more by Jewish ideological considerations than by those of a coldly conceived imperial interest. This ideological influence is not usually perceived by foreign experts, who tend to ignore or downplay the influence of Jewish religion on Israeli policies.” (p99, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” Israel Shahak).

  4. MHughes976
    July 17, 2016, 7:16 pm

    Christians too are embarrassed. The Oxford Bible Commentary, normally verse by verse and on Deuteronomy written by the Lutheran theologian Christoph Bultmann, has not a word to say about this passage.

    • Mooser
      July 17, 2016, 9:03 pm

      “has not a word to say about this passage.”

      Not even a “theoretical discussion”? That’s weird. I mean, what if the Lutherans had to fight a war again?

  5. echinococcus
    July 18, 2016, 2:55 am

    Just looked at the picture.
    After seeing the head imam-or-chacham, anyone who says there is a significant difference between ISIL and JSIL must be out of his mind.
    And, of course, anyone who reads the facts in the article and says things about Islam bad–Judaism good should be tied and committed.

  6. silamcuz
    July 18, 2016, 4:39 am

    Also, we must never forget that despite Israel being a multiracial, multi-ethnic nation, the problematic Rabbis that incite mayhem is almost always white European, not unlike what is happening in the US. This is white supremacy. This is why we need to focus on dismantling white supremacy, instead of being distracted in fighting strawmen constructed by the establishment.

    White supremacy kills blacks and natives in America, Muslims in Western Europe, and Palestinians in Israel. White supremacy.

    • echinococcus
      July 20, 2016, 1:09 am

      Silmacruz,
      The “problematic Rabbis that incite mayhem” were also Arab. One was of Spanish-Ottoman origin. Dunno if there was an Ethiopian. Of course, the Spaniards and Arabs are Caucasians too but I don’t know how each counts in your racist phantasmagory. I think there is or has been an Ethiopian, too.

      • silamcuz
        July 21, 2016, 3:30 am

        So what are you trying to imply? That the rabid hatred of Islam and Arabs that is central to Zionism is rooted in all Jews, regardless of their ethnic or cultural backgrounds?

        Arab Jews have lived peacefully alongside Arab Christians and Arab Muslims for hundreds of years in Palestine, while Ethiopian Jews never had any hostile history with Arabs of any faith prior to their mass transfer into Israel.

        You sound like an apologist for White Supremacy, which Zionism is a part of. There are Hispanic and black cops, along with white ones who murder black civilians with impunity in the US, but that doesn’t mean there is no systemic pattern of hatred and racism towards black people in particular. This is white supremacy, which everyone is part of. Whites at the top, blacks at the bottom with the hierarchy held in place by those who conform to the fundamentals of the system. Black people who are racist against their own kind, and therefore conforming to the system, will be rewarded by their white overseers.

        Same thing here in Israel, sure you could find some hack Ethiopian Jew rabbi preaching racist hatred or even Arab Jews towards their own kind, but they are merely conforming to the present system of white supremacy, which they are rewarded for by their white Jewish overseers.

      • echinococcus
        July 21, 2016, 12:05 pm

        Hey, Simalcruz,

        I don’t imply anything. You didn’t read. I stated that some of said genocidal rabbies were Arabs (so you could have skipped the stupid lecture about Arabs etc.), another one was Spanish-Ottoman, and so on.
        I questioned you about something very specific: asking what your racial (or rather racist) definitions are in your delirious compartments.
        No response seems to be forthcoming, but more delirium. QED.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 21, 2016, 1:43 pm

        echi, he knows you didn’t imply “rabid hatred of Islam and Arabs that is central to Zionism is rooted in all Jews” , he’s setting up a strawman to highjack the conversation to incite via his white supremacy obsession/accusation.

        you know what i found interesting and revealing in his comment tho:

        Same thing here in Israel

        here in israel eh? is that where you’re located sila? i’m so shocked.

      • silamcuz
        July 21, 2016, 9:13 pm

        Echinoccus,

        The problem is your transparent attempt in minimising the root of the problem that is encouraging these rabbis to spout such hateful vitriol.

        It’s like saying black cops kill civilians too, when addressing the issue of police killing black people, or Asians can be racist too when discussing white racism in society.

        Your intent is so clear, that is to discount the very real phenomena of white supremacy that empowers racists by trying to distribute blame equally on others as if Ethiopian Jews are in the same power level as White Jews in Israel. You are ignoring the racial hierarchy in place and therefore you are being complicit in furthering it’s existence .

      • Annie Robbins
        July 22, 2016, 4:18 am

        echi, notice no comment on

        here in Israel

        ;) lol, busterd! cracks me up.

        transparent attempt in minimising the root of the problem

        funny how he simultaneously claims the white race was invented in recent centuries while claiming the root of the problem in these passages from the torah are — white supremacy. triple yawn.

      • silamcuz
        July 22, 2016, 5:16 am

        Same thing here in Israel

        here in israel eh? is that where you’re located sila? i’m so shocked.

        No, that’s an awful deduction to make. I mentioned several locations in my initial comment under the subject of white supremacy. Replying to this comment, Echinococcus shifted the focus on Israel while still staying under the subject of white supremacy.

        So naturally, I assumed the POV of a non-white in Israel, and used the US as the foreign yardstick for comparison. It would make no sense for me to present the POV in the US or any other location, since the focus of the subject matter had already shifted to Israel.

      • Mooser
        July 22, 2016, 11:01 am

        “You are ignoring the racial hierarchy in place…”

        So the “racial hierarchy in place” during the writing of the Talmud or the Torah is the exact same racial dichotomy you always attempt to exploit? Gee, I never would have guessed.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 22, 2016, 11:18 am

        I find it quite bizarre really.

        hmm, there’s here and then there’s there and they are distinctly different. here means “at this location”. when one says here in the bay area or here in the US it doesn’t mean over there in israel, which is across the world. >>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/here

      • Mooser
        July 22, 2016, 12:08 pm

        “So naturally, I assumed the POV of a non-white in Israel”

        Remember what the little dog did?

        And, if you don’t mind me asking, when do you plan to explain your paeans to violence, and genetic determinism fits in with social activism?
        I’ll take my answer on the air, if you don’t mind.

        Why would an activist for POC enthusiastically espouse the very fundamental concepts of a white supremacist; That is, the efficacy of violence, and the genetic determinism which controls racial destinies?

      • echinococcus
        July 22, 2016, 9:07 pm

        Annie,

        That “here in Israel” was no surprise at all, so I didn’t react. Of course that kind of nonsense is paid by the line and presented to the payers as superlative propaganda work: it sure does confuse the enemy. I mean, it confuses anyone period.

        Your patience, though, is something to envy. You read them and you answer each of them seriously.

      • silamcuz
        July 23, 2016, 9:50 am

        Mooser

        And, if you don’t mind me asking, when do you plan to explain your paeans to violence, and genetic determinism fits in with social activism?

        Sure I’m happy to explain my ideas on violence and determinism within the context of social activism. Violence in any form, cannot be judged by absolute moral terms. I believe we all have an obligation to pursue justice for ourselves and those we are responsible for, as well to seek the return of the rightful order of everything. How this is done would greatly vary according to the circumstances one find themselves in, some may require violent actions, some may be done through diplomacy, some a mix of both.

        Stop imaging activism as mainly involving stereotypical protests by impressionable kids on college campuses demanding free tuition, surrounded by onlookers and photographers. Mentioning the use of violence in this context would obviously sound malevolent and evil. The scale of activism however is only limited by the capacity of humans for committing injustice. Whilst the use of violence may not be necessary to remedy the lack of safe spaces in universities, it certainly would be in forcing the crooked police force to be accountable for brutality and unlawful killings of civilians or when trying to bring down a genocidal government on the verge of exterminating your entire race.

        Violence is an option that is available to everyone, good or bad. It’s up to each individual, each group and each nation to make the judgement to either use it, or some other tool to further their cause. At the end of the day, you have to be accountable for your action, and yours only and as long as it was for the purpose of fighting injustice, I see no harm in exploiting violent means.

        Genetic determinism states that the behavior and decision-making of a person is strongly influenced by their genetic makeup, all other factors constant. Hence, it can be said that some people are bound to be harmful to society purely on the basis of his birth. Hence we, as a society, have the collective responsibility to ensure every birth comes from good stock and minimize the reproduction rates of those who exhibit tendencies for malice and mischief. Essentially, it is a sociological take on the idiom, ‘prevention is better than the cure’.

      • Mooser
        July 23, 2016, 9:52 pm

        So, “Simalcuz” it is apparent you endorse the use of violence and racism to keep POC in their place. That is the logical conclusion from your drivel.

        Give ’em a “good old fashioned slap”, and tell those folks who try to refuse servitude it’s “natural law” .

      • silamcuz
        July 24, 2016, 3:35 am

        it is apparent you endorse the use of violence and racism to keep POC in their place. That is the logical conclusion from your drivel.

        That would be a meaningless endorsement considering the exact thing has been the status quo in America and other Western countries for the past 500 years. It’s like you’re accusing me of endorsing marriage for straight people.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 2:26 pm

        “That would be a meaningless endorsement considering the exact thing has been the status quo in America and other Western countries for the past 500 years.”

        Exactly, “Simalcuz”, exactly. That’s my point.

        But now that “Simalcuz”, “an anonymous person online”, is here, a new leader has arisen who will change all this!

        Helter Skelter is coming down fast!

  7. Mooser
    July 23, 2016, 1:00 pm

    “Sure I’m happy to explain my ideas on violence and determinism within the context of social activism.”

    You only have one idea “Simalcuz”:

    To give POC and “social activism” the worst and most ignorant image you can.

    • silamcuz
      July 24, 2016, 3:29 am

      Anyone who judges POC as a group and the field of social activism based on the comments of an anonymous person online is the worst and most ignorant person already.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 2:07 pm

        “Anyone who judges POC as a group and the field of social activism based on the comments of an anonymous person on line is the worst and most ignorant person already. “

        Thank you for admitting you are full of shit. It’s about time, already.

        The kind of ‘fishing’ you do is the lowest, most contemptible thing on the internet.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 10:14 pm

        “Anyone who judges POC as a group and the field of social activism based on the comments of an anonymous person online”

        Why on earth would I ever, ever judge “POC as a group and the field of social activism” based on your comments, “Simalcuz”?
        It’s very obvious you intend no good towards either of them.

        In fact, I am doing just the opposite. And judging by that, I can only come to the conclusion you are trying to do harm to “POC as a group and the field of social activism”. It’s despicable.

Leave a Reply