ChickenOverlord
No bio...
User ID: 218
Out of context.
Nope, that's a different section of the Talmud. Sanhedrin 54b is what you want:
במאי קמיפלגי רב סבר כל דאיתיה בשוכב איתיה" בנשכב וכל דליתיה בשוכב ליתיה בנשכב The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that any halakha that applies to one who engages in intercourse actively applies to one who engages in intercourse passively, and any halakha that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse actively does not apply to one who engages in intercourse passively. Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old, as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse, so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable."
And Maimonides, applying this part of the Torah many centuries later:
"Once a male has penetrated another male, if both are adults, they are stoned…
If one was a minor but at least nine years and a day old, the active or passive adult is stoned while the minor is exempt.
If the minor was exactly nine years old or less, they are both exempt. Still, it is fitting for the court to give lashes of insubordination to the adult for sleeping with a male, even though that male was less than nine." - Laws of Forbidden Relations 1:14
This is what I'm talking about, there are plenty of things in the Talmud that sound awful out of context but are unobjectionable in context (or the person referencing it is incorrectly summarizing what it actually says). But there are also several that are absolutely horrendous regardless of context.
ChickenOverlord
1d ago
Another example I've seen is the Talmud saying it's ok to rape boys under the age of 9, apologists for the Talmud claiming it was just one rabbi's opinion and not actual Jewish law, but then you look up what Maimonides had to say about it and he agrees it is actual Jewish law
ChickenOverlord
3d ago
Saying, “I think what these government agents are doing is bad and illegal,” is quite squarely within the core area of first-amendment protections for speech on matters of public concern.
I agree, but saying that plus "and I urge members of the military and federal agencies to disobey these orders" would likely fall under incitement.
ChickenOverlord
3d ago
The person you're replying to seems to be constitutionally incapable of engaging in actual argument or debate, at least when the topic is related to feminism or gender roles and similar. Not worth wasting your time with them.
Technically the Democrats in that video are right that soldiers do not have to obey unlawful orders. But in practice, orders are presumed lawful unless a military judge rules otherwise. From the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge."
It seems obvious to me that the implication of what these Democrat legislators are saying is "The stuff Trump is having you do in Portland, D.C., and Chicago is illegal and you should disobey those orders." If that's what they had actually said I think there would be a strong case against them, but with the mere "implied" meaning I think there's enough plausible deniability to avoid any actual consequences.
ChickenOverlord
3d ago
We've all seen a convenience store video or two (or a hundred) of a young black male shooting another young black for the grave sin of bumping into him without apologizing, or something similar.
Immortalized by The Boondocks:
ChickenOverlord
6d ago
https://github.com/themotte/rDrama
It's a fork of the rDrama codebase, there have been a moderate amount of changes done to it
Moses Maimonides says the only punishment the rapist should face is lashings for homosexuality. And perhaps more importantly, on the previous paragraphs hes lists no punishment for women that rape 8 year old boys except thet they have lost any eligibility to marry a member of the priesthood. It seems pretty clear that Maimonides interpreted that section the same way modern normies reading it do.
More options
Context Copy link