If you think the catholics are deluded...check this out!!

Dades

I'm sorry Peregrinus, but hand over your shovel.

Your first line of attack on this thread was that we had no idea whether the story and associated picture was fake or not.

When shown links that provide ample evidence that the original story was close to the truth, you acused MrP's bare-bones description as "pure invention".

When I went through his description, addressing each part of it, you focused your incredulity-ray on one single element of it - which I already alluded to as being vague. That part was not only vague, it was the least relevant part of this whole piece.

As if that reaching wasn't enough, you want us to examine the personal motivation of the guy on the plane in a effort to push the debate into the realm of the unknowable.

If you'd dug something up (and I'm sure you tried) to show it was all done in Photoshop, you be validated. But you didn't, and the opposite happened. You lost this thread. But the worst thing is, you're trying to shine a negative light on the way atheists conduct their discussion, and their own lack of critical thinking. Not your finest hour.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What has plastic bag man got to do with being atheist?

Nothing at all. It does, however, have quite a lot to do with demonstrating the point that religion can lead to some very, very dumb behaviours.(*)

(*) I'm assuming, of course, that you agree that it's dumb to dress up in a plastic bag in a plane in order to avoid becoming ritually impure because a line which connects any point in your body and the center of the earth passes through a corpse buried in the earth.

Peregrinus

pH wrote: »

Ah yes, when you posted here first, you were not pointing out our credulity for believing that a man was wrapping himself in plastic for religious reasons, you were merely being a hair-splitting pedant and claiming that the someone had gotten the basis of these religious reasons slightly wrong. That's your story (and I guess you're sticking to it now).

No, no, wrong on both counts.

My scepticism about this story hasn’t changed at any point. I never doubted that the photograph was genuine – not even the journalistic standards of the Daily Mail will allow them to fabricate a photograph so that they can then fabricate a story about the fabricated photograph – and that it did show a devoutly religious Jew who had wrapped himself in plastic sheeting on a plane, and that religious concerns did feature here.

What I was sceptical of was the claim in the story that he “wrapped himself in plastic in the belief that this would shield him from the spirits far below”. I’m no expert on Jewish religious beliefs and practices, but I know enough to know that this is what we in the plain-speaking trade call complete balls. The beliefs which motivated this behaviour have nothing to do with either spirits or shields. And I was also pretty confident that the journalist ethics of a Daily Mail hack, faced with the alternative of asking the bloke himself or someone with a modicum of knowledge what the motivation was, or simply making up a motivation, would not hesitate to do the latter. And, to top matters off, there’s a fairly clear signal in the Mail article itself that it’s not exactly journalism of the first water; it contains text in inverted commas, as though it were a quote from someone or something, but the quoted text is not attributed to anyone or anything. This is a device for lending the journalist’s invention a degree of authority, suggesting without explicitly claiming that is is actually the opinon of someone who knows something about the subject in hand. In an actual newspaper, any hack trying that on would get a bollocking from an editor; in the Mail, they just print it.

Others were not so sceptical. Whitebriar launched a thread suggesting the man was “deluded”. As the only clue to the man’s beliefs was what I have a quoted above from the Mail, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Whitebriar took the Mail’s claim about his beliefs at face value. Jd893 clearly bought uncritically into the Mail’s material barrier theory, as did you in post #20. Mr Pudding uncritically accepted both spirits and shield in post #41, even though at that stage I’d already pointed out that he was placing his faith in the Daily Mail, which is always a foolhardy thing to do

pH wrote: »

Your pedantry seems to revolve around the use of the words "spirits", and you include my post #20 in this, when in fact I don't mention spirits, but use the word "impurities", which is exactly what this "well known"! halachic purity code seems to be about.

No, your problem in post #20 was that you were still assuming, or accepting the Mail’s assumption, that this man’s behaviour was motivated by his beliefs as to the relative qualities of aluminium and polythene as barrier materials. That is not the motivation for his actions and, unless you place a touchingly childlike trust in the Mail, you have no reason for thinking that it is.

pH

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no, wrong on both counts.

My scepticism about this story hasn’t changed at any point. I never doubted that the photograph was genuine – not even the journalistic standards of the Daily Mail will allow them to fabricate a photograph so that they can then fabricate a story about the fabricated photograph – and that it did show a devoutly religious Jew who had wrapped himself in plastic sheeting on a plane, and that religious concerns did feature here.

What I was sceptical of was the claim in the story that he “wrapped himself in plastic in the belief that this would shield him from the spirits far below”. I’m no expert on Jewish religious beliefs and practices, but I know enough to know that this is what we in the plain-speaking trade call complete balls. The beliefs which motivated this behaviour have nothing to do with either spirits or shields. And I was also pretty confident that the journalist ethics of a Daily Mail hack, faced with the alternative of asking the bloke himself or someone with a modicum of knowledge what the motivation was, or simply making up a motivation, would not hesitate to do the latter. And, to top matters off, there’s a fairly clear signal in the Mail article itself that it’s not exactly journalism of the first water; it contains text in inverted commas, as though it were a quote from someone or something, but the quoted text is not attributed to anyone or anything. This is a device for lending the journalist’s invention a degree of authority, suggesting without explicitly claiming that is is actually the opinon of someone who knows something about the subject in hand. In an actual newspaper, any hack trying that on would get a bollocking from an editor; in the Mail, they just print it.

Others were not so sceptical. Whitebriar launched a thread suggesting the man was “deluded”. As the only clue to the man’s beliefs was what I have a quoted above from the Mail, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Whitebriar took the Mail’s claim about his beliefs at face value. Jd893 clearly bought uncritically into the Mail’s material barrier theory, as did you in post #20. Mr Pudding uncritically accepted both spirits and shield in post #41, even though at that stage I’d already pointed out that he was placing his faith in the Daily Mail, which is always a foolhardy thing to do

This is just too tiresome, I'd forgotten about "theological interpretation", which is seen when arguing with xians about the bible, when it says 2 things which seem incompatible then just pick the one you like and ignore the other.

The article, as well as taking a bit of artistic license with "spirits" clearly says "forbids its followers from coming into contact with the deceased - including flying over cemeteries - because it will 'render them impure'.

So the article is right about what the man is doing and why, down to a reasonable level of detail that's enough for anyone not intimately familiar with the nuances of these purity laws.

The final paragraph is a small bit of journalistic license, which in no way invalidates or makes the rest of the article incorrect.

As for your comments about aluminium and plastic as barriers,

This is not so simple at all. The dinim of taharos are a most complex section of halacha and there are very few specialists in this field. Only an absolute specialist can avail himself of this option. Let us try and explain this matter in reasonably simple terms. For a kohein to have protection from the surrounding tumah, he would have to be totally enclosed in the plastic cover. Plastic itself is considered not to be mekabel tumah, and as a material, it could be a barrier consideration. But a plastic sheet or ordinary dustbin bag is not usable. The object which is to provide that potential protection has to be a structure which is a keili that holds its own form independently. Furthermore, for a person to enclose himself in plastic, some air holes would be needed. Any person enclosing himself in a bag with no air holes would be in physical danger. Pre-punched holes invalidate the barrier system. Only if when the kohein is putting on this bag it accidentally rips can there be some leniency.
(from my link above)

No, your problem in post #20 was that you were still assuming, or accepting the Mail’s assumption, that this man’s behaviour was motivated by his beliefs as to the relative qualities of aluminium and polythene as barrier materials. That is not the motivation for his actions and, unless you place a touchingly childlike trust in the Mail, you have no reason for thinking that it is.

I await your explanation then as to the need of the plastic and the inadequacy of the plane's body.
Secondly you appear not to have read that post at all, or considered how it was phrased.
And thirdly when you initially criticised my post #20 you did it clearly in the context of the misuse of "spirits", only when challenged on this have you moved the goalposts now to the comparative effects of plastic and aluminium.

darjeeling

Come here mama....and dig this crazy scene
He's not too fancy....but his line is pretty clean
He ain't no drag.
Papa's got a brand new bag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogGAiyjMNY

Spooky!

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

Nothing at all. It does, however, have quite a lot to do with demonstrating the point that religion can lead to some very, very dumb behaviours.

There's lots of things in life that lead to "very, very dumb" behaviors, yet its the religious things that get picked out here. For people who are not religious, I find that strange.

MagicMarker

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There's lots of things in life that lead to "very, very dumb" behaviors, yet its the religious things that get picked out here. For people who are not religious, I find that strange.

I find it strange that you keep visiting this forum when all you do is piss and moan about it.

I tend not to read forums I don't like.

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There's lots of things in life that lead to "very, very dumb" behaviors, yet its the religious things that get picked out here. For people who are not religious, I find that strange.

I presume you've contacted the Daily Mail, Huffington Post etc to register your concern as to why they carried the story? As far as I'm aware they're not religious publications.

Yourself and Peregrinus have sucked any humour out of this thread. You, with your faux bewilderment and Pere with his flogging of a dead horse.

Kivaro

Dades wrote: »

Yourself and Peregrinus have sucked any humour out of this thread. You, with your faux bewilderment and Pere with his flogging of a dead horse.

So mission accomplished for them, right?

Turtwig

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There's lots of things in life that lead to "very, very dumb" behaviors, yet its the religious things that get picked out here. For people who are not religious, I find that strange.

In a soccer forum people point out 'very very dumb' behaviour of soccer fans.
In a vegetarian forum people point out 'very very dumb' hypocrisies of non vegetarians.
In a politics forum people point out 'very very dumb' behaviour or actions of politicians or political parties.
In a sex forum people point out 'very very dumb' sex acts.
In a tv forum people point out 'very very dumb' plot holes of tv shows.
In a celeb forum people point out 'very very dumb' behaviours of celebrities.


I do not find any of these strange. Do you?
There are not the only exclusive occurrences on the forums either. Some topics could also be had on a choice of forums e.g politics and vegetarians might have an overlap on discussion regarding food standards.

So, I see nothing strange if, among other things, people point out 'very very dumb' aspects of religious things in a religious sub-forum.

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

Yourself and Peregrinus have sucked any humour out of this thread. You, with your faux bewilderment and Pere with his flogging of a dead horse.

Humour is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I think the thread was pretty feeble in the humour department to begin with - people looking for a giggle were forced to develop a pretty tired, and completely irrelevant, discussion of red hair - but now it's showing some promise.

To continue Jernal's line of thought, in an atheist forum, people can point out the "very, very dumb" behaviour of some atheists, no?

Pherekydes

Peregrinus wrote: »

To continue Jernal's line of thought, in an atheist forum, people can point out the "very, very dumb" behaviour of some atheists, no?

Unpossible!

Kidchameleon

MagicMarker wrote: »

I find it strange that you keep visiting this forum when all you do is piss and moan about it.

I tend not to read forums I don't like.

It would be nice to have an atheist forum where you dont get shot down for having an opinion that differs from the majority. I dont thing its funny to slag somebody for their religious beliefs and I'm being shot down for it.

Kidchameleon

Dades wrote: »

I presume you've contacted the Daily Mail, Huffington Post etc to register your concern as to why they carried the story? As far as I'm aware they're not religious publications.

Yourself and Peregrinus have sucked any humour out of this thread. You, with your faux bewilderment and Pere with his flogging of a dead horse.

Wasn't any to begin with.

byrnemaloney89

How the hell did he tie the knot on the outside of the bag

RustyNut

byrnemaloney89 wrote: »

How the hell did he tie the knot on the outside of the bag

God tied it for him silly.. :pac:

Peregrinus

RustyNut wrote: »

God tied it for him silly.. :pac:

That's it.

I think that could be God sitting in the next seat. In the photograph, you can just see God's left ear.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It would be nice to have an atheist forum where you dont get shot down for having an opinion that differs from the majority. I dont thing its funny to slag somebody for their religious beliefs and I'm being shot down for it.

G'wan and set one up so.

kylith

ninja900 wrote: »

G'wan and set one up so.

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It would be nice to have an atheist forum where you dont get shot down for having an opinion that differs from the majority. I dont thing its funny to slag somebody for their religious beliefs and I'm being shot down for it.

Your ideal atheist forum sounds pretty lame, tbh.

Nobody can offer a proportionate response without being accused of "shooting down" a poster, and you can't take an interest in religious-related whatnot because you're atheists.

pH

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It would be nice to have an atheist forum where you dont get shot down for having an opinion that differs from the majority. I dont thing its funny to slag somebody for their religious beliefs and I'm being shot down for it.

When you say "shot down" I think you mean "politely disagree", if you find the mildly disapproving type of disagreement allowed on boards.ie too much then you're in for a huge shock when you discover the rest of the internet.