China Needs Jews

An Israeli company has required thousands of Chinese workers to sign a contract promising not to have sex with Israelis or try to convert them, a police spokesman said today. According to the document, male workers cannot come into contact with Israeli women - including prostitutes - become their lovers or marry them, spokesman Rafi Yaffe said.

This must be a gag. Nobody would name their kid Raffy Yaffy.

Tags: ,

215 Responses:

  1. mulix says:

    Sadly enough, I don't think it's a gag. I've seen it mentioned in the newspapers around here.
    As for the spokeperson's name, it's quite plausible. Raffy is pronounced "Ra-fi", and is sure for "Raphael". "Yaffe" is pronounced "Yah-feh", and is the Hebrew word for beautiful. In Hebrew, it all makes sense...

  2. otterley says:

    I don't think it's a gag -- the UK Guardian, Jerusalem Post and Toronto Star are all corroborating the story.

  3. chgowiz says:

    It strikes me as odd, in this day where the slightest comment is quickly labeled as Anti-Semetic, that we could see such reverse discrimination.

    (Actually, it's not odd, just ironic. And my comment above will probably be seen as Anti-Semetic.)

    • cmm says:

      your comment is seen (by me) as kinda dumb, but not anti-semitic.

      hth.

    • baconmonkey says:

      Since when has israel been a freindly place for non-israeliis?

      • cmm says:

        care to define "friendly" here?

        • baconmonkey says:

          how about a place that doesn't force people into walled settlements? one that doesn't bulldoze homes? one that doesn't destroy orchards as a retaliatory action?

          • cmm says:

            ah, I see.  that surely has a lot of relevance to the treatment of foreign workers, doesn't it?

            • Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Bedouin, Druze, Israeli Arabs (Christian and Muslim) who vote and serve in the Knesset ... or the millions of Russians, Ethiopians and others who've been accepted as Israelis in the past decade ... Israel is an evil, racist, apartheid state. It's eeeeevil! Everyone knows that. Don't you know your Chomsky, Said and Zinn?

              • cmm says:

                you are not talking to me here, do you?

                • No, I was adding (I think) to what you say.

                  Israel's not perfect, but it's criticism is way out of proportion.

                  • baconmonkey says:

                    much of the criticizm stems from the fact that repression of an ethnic sub-group within it's borders seems highly repugnant, especially given that it's very people went through similar repression 60+ years ago. This is by no means suggesting that gas chambers are expected next, merely that when the underdog triumphs over the bully, and then becomes the bully, people tend to get more pissed off than when an established bully goes about the business of bullying.

                  • To hear all the anti-Israel noise, you'd think that it was a living hell and it gives too much of a "pass" on the truly awful human rights violators.

                    Israel has Christians and Muslims in its elected parliament and 20% of Israel citizens are non-Jews; Turkey is the only Muslim nation that's even close to a democracy and apostasy is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia.

                    Israel has gay pride parades; Egypt jails homosexuals.

                    Israeli citizens (even soldiers) dissent openly; Syria kills those who speak against the regime.

                    I could go on and on ...

                    people tend to get more pissed off than when an established bully goes about the business of bullying.

                    That is true, but at the end of the day, I think that's a bullshit double standard with awful consequences.

                  • so... There aren't any problems with Isreal?

                    Everything can become better.

                  • I agree 100%.

                    I'm just saying -- let's keep it in perspective.

              • ex_oishi707 says:

                heh thats like saying "oh America in the 1800s wasn't racist or oppressive because of slavery..since of course the slaves had bread and water!"

                orthodox jews have rights not all israeli citizens have, palestinians cannot vote (includes xtians), palestinians must have special liscences which show they are palestinian, some foreign workers are indebted and get tied to israel, etc, etc.

                it is a horrible country.

                i hope god sends it to hell

            • baconmonkey says:

              yes, it does.
              it becomes not surprising to see "no messin with our wimmin" clauses in a nation that treats "outsiders" like vermin.
              much like how anti-immigrant sentiments in the USA set the stage for for not being surprised over heavy-handed persecution of arabic immigrants post 9/11.

              kinda reminds me of that part in Blazing saddles when the Sherrif, in order to really piss off the KKK folks says "where all the white women at?". Imagine for a moment if a US firm required black foriegn workers rom african nations to not touch white women, lest they get deported.

              • cmm says:

                > "no messin with our wimmin" clauses in a nation

                ahem.  and I thought we were talking about stupid management of one stupid company.

                your anti-Israel agenda is so clear (do you have a good reason to care at all, btw?  because if you don't there are much better and clear-cut targets for your righteous indignation, like, say, Belgium or Rwanda) that I'm not sure there is any point in continuing this "conversation".

                  • cmm says:

                    try googling for words "belgium", "congo", "colony", "leopold".
                    it's really no wonder that Belgium poses as the beacon of light and morality in the modern "international community"; it's really easy for them since all people seem to think about nowadays is a certain tiny and rather inconsequental country in the Middle East?  Belgium is lucky, because it is not populated by jews, see?
                    Belgium was just an example, of course.  ever heard of French actions in the Ivory Coast this year?  very interesting, that, but not as well-publicized as one stupid policy of one Israeli company (whose management, I'm sure, is going to suffer very much in the coming days.  Israel is a modern democratic country, and such things are not tolerated here).

                  • king_mob says:

                    Keep us posted on how their management suffers.

                    Leopold II was a greedy shithead but he's been dead for nearly a century. It's too late to punish him.

                  • cmm says:

                    ah, so all one needs to do is to die in time, then there's no problem, noone will ever remember anything.
                    Chirac is still alive, though, happily committing atrocities in the Ivory Coast.  why don't I see him universally reviled by the lefty media?

                • baconmonkey says:

                  you're on to my secret agenda. yes, every day, I awake trembling with anger knowing that israel still exists. Every waking moment is spent piecing together anti-israel pamphlets which I then pass out to myself later in the day. Let me tell you, when I read the things those pamphlets say, it fills me with even more rage than I previously had.

                  back in reality land, I have no dighteous indignation. I do, however think that the US (Where I was born, raised, and still live) and Israel while far fromt he worst perpetrators of violence and repression, are at the very top of the list of hypocritical perptrators of violence and repression. both are overwhelmingly guilty of holding the rest of the world to different standards of conduct than they expect to be held to.
                  While many other countries commit much more heinous atrocities, they generally don't claim to be lands of unparalelled freedom nor do they rationalize it with claims of past persecution. Both countries are notorious for meddling the the affairs of other countries, and then claim surprise and outrage when there are forceful responses.

                  and I believe "we" were initially talking about how friendly of a place Isreal is for non-israeliis.

                  • cmm says:

                    1. you still haven't provided me with any meaningful definition of "friendly", so we were not talking about that.
                    2. Israel is not meddling in the affairs of other countries.  it is true that every other country feels free to meddle in the Israeli affairs, perhaps you mean that, what with all the mush in your head and all?
                    3. ah, screw it.  just FOAD.

                  • 1eyedkunt says:

                    very succinct, rational and well-thought-out counter-argument. you're a credit to your country. way to represent isreal as a nation of level-headed, thoughtful people who are able to have a civilized discussion with those who don't agree with them, rather than just resorting to senseless and juvenile antagonism.

                  • cmm says:

                    I'm not speaking for anybody, just trying to correct some factual errors (where those corrections don't fall on completely deaf ears).

                  • 1eyedkunt says:

                    if you would actually back your statements up with facts and figures and logical arguments rather than resorting to the "your disagreement with me means you're obviously anti-isreal, and hence an anti-semite and clearly incapable of understanding reason, so i'm not even going to waste my time discussing this with you" copout, you might be a little bit more successful in bringing people around to your point of view.

                  • cmm says:

                    fair enough.
                    many people are really beyond hope, though, and I think I'm not that bad at detecting them.

                  • 1eyedkunt says:

                    seems to me you've written off everyone who's disagreed with you as beyond hope. not very discriminating, if you ask me, and not very productive.

                  • cmm says:

                    all you have to do to see that this is not true is to look over the comments to this post, especially the ones from the last 2 days.
                    (yes, I imagine you'd rather not. :))

                    then again, this is more a matter of debating style than of what one really thinks, anyway.  when two people present themselves to each other as a pro-palestinian idiot and raving far-right israeli maniac respectively (not intentionally, mind you, but through applying the mutual stereotypes to each other's first comments), it takes them a few rounds to stop calling each other "ass" and start talking normally.  it certainly happened here, except for the exchange with that "baconminkey" character.  I'm probably just not sufficiently "in context" to appreciate his fine humor, or something.

                  • king_mob says:

                    In regards to point two, there's these "Mossad" guys that the rest of us hear about sometimes. Once they even meddled with us.

                  • cmm says:

                    that was quite idiotic, yep.  also, long ago.
                    but not even close to the level of meddling the Swiss, say, allow themselves when it comes to Israeli affairs.  heard of the so-called "Geneva Accords"?

                  • It sure is nice to have the jews and the muslims taking the stage for a while, the black vs white thing was getting tedious.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Me? I muddle through life without the burden of faith.

                  • No I mean the racial tension between the groups, and I think that they're an ethnicity too...

                  • king_mob says:


                    I think they're an ethnicity too...


                    You can think the sky is red, if you like, but that'll be just as incorrect.

                  • ethnic group

                    n : people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture

                  • king_mob says:


                    that was quite idiotic, yep. also, long ago.


                    "Long ago?" When it suited your purposes you brought up Leopold freaking II!

                    All the Swiss did was host some people who wanted to talk to each other and sign an "accord" with no legal standing whatsoever.

                  • cmm says:

                    I'm glad you think these accords have no legal standing whatsoever.  I really am.
                    still, the PR damage is considerable...

                  • king_mob says:


                    still, the PR damage is considerable...


                    Yes, I'm sure Sharon is freaking out about the bad PR his government is suffering.

                  • cmm says:

                    you'd be surprised.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Seriously. Surprise me.

                  • cmm says:

                    nah.  my time is limited.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Now your time is limited? Fifty-odd comments later?

                  • cmm says:

                    look, it's like this: you come and say "N is bad, because of X".  after making sure that your objective is to keep arguing and presenting more and more values of X, I conclude that you just want to validate your prejudice.  at this point I consider this "conversation" a DOS attack on my time and start ignoring you.  after all, you are as able to google as me, if not better, so why don't you do it yourself?  try 'sharon "public relation" damage', for starters?  you'll even be lucky.

                  • king_mob says:

                    And here we go again, everyone who disagrees with you is prejudiced.

                  • cmm says:

                    this is not a matter of agreement or disagreement.  you make a preposterous claim and sit back, waiting for me to do the all the work and search for refutations.  except you probably don't even think about this for one second, because to you whatever you claimed seems obvious.  that's prejudice.

                  • king_mob says:

                    This is only prejudice in the sense that I judged it before this conversation ever started. While I suppose that makes your claim literally true, it's not the sense in which the word is usually employed.

                    Look, I did my homework on Sharon a while back and decided he was an evil fuck who didn't care what anyone thought of him. You think you can change my mind, go ahead. I'm sure people's natures can change, and it's even possible his has changed since 1982.

                  • cmm says:

                    > Look, I did my homework on Sharon a while back and decided he was an evil fuck who didn't care what anyone thought of him. You think you can change my mind, go ahead. I'm sure people's natures can change, and it's even possible his has changed since 1982.

                    ah, the Sabra & Shatilla thing.  that's when he decided not to meddle in the affairs of the locals, so the locals slauthered each other.  how terrible of him.

                    just guess what a hero he would be had he interfered, eh?

                  • king_mob says:


                    Sharon resigned after the 1983 Kahane commission of inquiry
                    found he bore indirect responsibility for the killings, in which
                    Israeli troops surrounded the camps as members of the
                    Christian Lebanese Forces massacred hundreds inside.


                    I see you've chosen a radical interpretation of the text.

                  • cmm says:

                    I've choosen the only interpretation that does not presuppose Sharon's guilt.  what is radical about it?

                  • king_mob says:

                    Well, you're contradicting the commission itself, which statement didn't strike me as having been written by knee-jerk anti-Semites.

                  • cmm says:

                    I'm not contradicting anything, as far as I can see.
                    (let's once again make things easier for you: the whole affair is disgusting.  in my opinion, Sharon should have done differently.  however: I do believe this to be the result of negligence on his part, not malice.  and I think his international image is a nasty caricature (I mean, most people seem to think he ordered the slaughter, if not performed it himself!), and that's a shame).

                  • king_mob says:

                    I'm willing to stipulate that he acted out of negligence. It just strikes me as an awful lot of negligence. Like, of sufficient quantity to drive someone from public life forever. Instead, now he runs your country.

                  • cmm says:

                    you are welcome to judge this however you like, of course.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Goodness. Thanks. I actually found the election of the Netanyahu government far more damning; the Sharon government, and the circumstances which seemed to bring it about, were just depressing.

                  • cmm says:

                    from inside the coutry all those givernments look pretty much the same, really.
                    (I thought to ask what terrible things you know (or think you know) about Netanyahu, but decided against it.  good night).

                  • king_mob says:

                    Netanyahu? He's just got his head up his ass.

                  • cmm says:

                    thank you for sharing this, uh, penetrating insight with us.

          • cadmus says:

            Oh, here we go. You might as well have invoked Hitler on Usenet.

            Discussion is officially over now! Have fun flaming.

  4. transgress says:

    sounds about right. NO YOU DAMN PLAESTIANIANS! YOU CANNOT WORK, WE WILL LET THE CHINESE DO THAT. FUCK YOU AND YOUR OLIVE TREE.

    • cmm says:

      well, the statistics are quite clear about members of which group have a strong tendency to blow themselves up in public places.  you had a point?

      • king_mob says:

        How about old people, homosexuals, and Negroes? Got any insightful statistics for us about those groups?

        Ass.

        • baconmonkey says:

          dude, everyone knows the biggest threat to western civilisation is old, gay, black men. They explode in plublic all the time. their internal organs slowly dry out and mutate from organic material into explosives. Why do you think they call it "black powder"

          but even more dangerous than palestinians and old gay black men, are automobile drivers. they kill 3000 people every month in the US. They must be stopped at all cost!

        • cmm says:

          no, but how does this invalidate the statistics I do have?  free hint: some statistics have a good reason to be the way they are.

          dick.

          • king_mob says:

            You have missed the point, and by quite a wide margin. You are making a bigoted statement; you are saying that discrimination against a group is validated by the fact that that group is overrepresented in another group of bad actors. I was not actually asking for statistics about these groups; I mentioned them because they are groups which are often targets of other bigoted statements.

            This is called "irony," and persons of average intelligence should be able to recognize it no matter how out-of-fashion it gets.

            • cmm says:

              > You are making a bigoted statement; you are saying that discrimination against a group is validated by the fact that that group is overrepresented in another group of bad actors.

              I wasn't saying anything like that, because I wasn't talking about moral aspects of the situation at all (as in what is "validated" or "justifyed" or "proper").  I was only making a factual statement.  s/overrepresented/being the only group represented/, btw.

              the sad fact is that this current discrimination is effective, like it or not (to make this completely clear: I don't like seeing fellow human beings collectively discriminated against.  this is, indeed, morally wrong.  it is, however, nesessary and has proven effective.  now go parade your moral smugness at someone else, Mr. Irony).

              • king_mob says:


                it is, however, nesessary and has proven effective.


                Yes, I was just commenting the other day on the fact that Palestinian terrorism had completely come to an end.


                now go parade your moral smugness at someone else, Mr. Irony).


                I don't believe that I'm particularly smug, but I do cling to the belief that some things are wrong no matter how useful they might seem.

                • cmm says:

                  > Yes, I was just commenting the other day on the fact that Palestinian terrorism had completely come to an end.

                  I wonder what part of "proven effective" read like "ended all terrorism" to you.
                  I wonder what it would take for you to argue intelligently for a change.
                  (yes, I know about sarcasm, no need to point that out).

                  > I do cling to the belief that some things are wrong no matter how useful they might seem.

                  this is a very abstract statement, so much that it's completely meaningless, so let's get less abstract.

                  when you say that preventing "palestinians" from working in Israel (which is, btw, wrong, but let's not get into it just yet) is an act of discrimination, are you implying that "palestinians" somehow have a divine right to work in Israel?  if so, why?

                  • king_mob says:


                    are you implying that "palestinians" somehow have a divine right to work in Israel?


                    Christ, the Randroid crap comes next, doesn't it?

                    I've got this really uncomfortable feeling that I've been here before, and I do believe I'll be going now.

                  • cmm says:

                    wait, just one question: do all the Mexicans have a divine right to work in the US?

                    (what is "Randroid"?  something to do with Ain Rand?  never read anything by her)

                  • dwinsper says:

                    If the US took over Mexico, one would hope so...

                  • cmm says:

                    if Mexico were annexed, I would agree.  if you don't see the difference between "annexed" and "disputed" (not that Israel ever wanted to keep those territories anyway.  they were mostly taken from Jordan in 1967, and Jordan was offered them back, but didn't want them), do some reading.

                    anyway: there are industrial areas inside the "territories".  AFAIK "palestinians" can work there, no problem.
                    there not many such industrial areas, though, because Arafat & co. prefer to spend the European & American aid money on bombs instead of improving the economics.  and there's not much Israel can do for them now, they are pretty much independent.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Yeah. Thanks for spending your own aid money on "improving the economics" instead.

                    I ought to figure out how much money you owe me personally.

                  • cmm says:

                    actually, Israeli aid money was used by "Palestinians" to buy weapons too.

                    > I ought to figure out how much money you owe me personally.

                    US aid to Israel is effectively used by the US as a leash.  how it is spent is completely decided by the US.  that's how our military is completely depending on US ammo and spare parts.  anyone in Israel who ever studied the matter wishes the aid wasn't there at all, as far as I know.

                  • king_mob says:


                    anyone in Israel who ever studied the matter wishes the aid wasn't there at all, as far as I know.


                    "Please don't throw me in that briar patch, Brer Fox!"

            • baconmonkey says:

              population of palestine 3,328,300
              http://www.populationworld.com/Palestinian.php

              number of suicide bombings in past 11 years
              123
              http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0i5d0

              percentage of palestinians who blow themselves up
              0.0036955803262927019799897845747078%
              i.e. (123/3,328,300) * 100

            • transgress says:

              my official answer to the topic of discussion is 'what he said'

              as in you, i totally agree with you there.

      • shayel says:

        Chinese slaves are simply cheaper then Palestinians slaves.

        Source: Adva Center for policy analysis

        • cmm says:

          but the chineese were not brought in before the current war, were they?
          so they also happen to be cheaper, so what?
          there is this thing called "logic", you should try using it.

          • shayel says:

            Foreign workers were brought in, en-masse, since 1995.

            In the time between the start of the 1st Intifida and the end of '95, One hundred and thirteen Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian civilians. Since then, and until June this year, 372 added to that count (source: B'Tselem).

            • cmm says:

              I read over what you wrote 3 time, but I still fail to understand your logic.
              are you saying that bringing foreign workers is the cause of terrorism.  if so, what do you propose to do about it?  do you think that saying "ok, fine, we got the message, come back, just please please don't blow up" is the solution?

              • king_mob says:


                do you think that saying "ok, fine, we got the message, come back, just please please don't blow up" is the solution?


                That's excessively reductionist. I would point out that by that logic Israel can never change any of its current policies. (They'd be giving in to terrorists!)

                • cmm says:

                  Israel can change many of its policies, of course.  it's just that some people can't bear the "international community"'s outcry over every step Israel does, and don't realize that the outcry is as inevitable as sunset, unless Israel does something completely suicidal (and even then the absence of outcry is not at all guaranteed).

                  basically, what this guy exemplifies is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.  and I'm not being reductionist with him, I'm just predicting his reactions based on experience.  I've talked to many such people.

                  • king_mob says:


                    it's just that some people can't bear the "international community"'s outcry over every step Israel does,


                    Wait, "some people" who? The Israeli government? I don't see international outcry impacting their decisions a lot.

                  • cmm says:

                    > The Israeli government? I don't see international outcry impacting their decisions a lot.

                    that's because you don't pay much attention.
                    good thing, too.

                  • king_mob says:

                    I pay obsessive attention. Give me a counterexample, some time when outcry from the international community made Israel stop doing something it really wanted to do. You know, like the settlements. Or the wall. Or using assassination as a law enforcement tool.

                  • cmm says:

                    due to international pressure, at various times, Israel was forced to:

                    . ease closure of the "territories", letting terrorists slip in
                    . refrain from performing targeted killings
                    . branding products as "produced in the territories"
                    . other stuff

                    > You know, like the settlements.

                    what makes settlements so demonic, in your view?  what do you know about them?
                    (I'll make it easier for you: yes, there are some fanatics, especially among those who live in Hebron.  no group of people is perfect.  no need to tell me about those.  they are a very small group, anyway.)

                    > Or the wall.

                    you mean the fence, Mr. Poet.  it's a fence, not a wall.  such fence already exists for several years now between Israel and Gaza, and no suicide bomber ever entered Israel from Gaza.  the thing works, and the arabs who enter Israel from Gaza in order to work have do so use official checkpoints.  if you have a better idea how to separate the civillian population from the terrorist zoo, I'm all ears.

                    > Or using assassination as a law enforcement tool.

                    all ears regarding this, too.

                  • king_mob says:


                    what makes settlements so demonic, in your view? what do you know about them?


                    They stir up ill-will and don't ultimately benefit Israel at all. They're a giant "fuck you" to the idea of forward progress.

                    > Or using assassination as a law enforcement tool.

                    all ears regarding this, too.


                    You're kidding, right?

                  • cmm says:

                    > They [settlements] stir up ill-will and don't ultimately benefit Israel at all. They're a giant "fuck you" to the idea of forward progress.

                    why?  they are a bargaining chip.  they can be dismantled if that is deemed right.  it happened in the past, and it is possible in the future.

                    (and if there were no settlements, our dear neighbours would have no trouble whatsoever finding something else to serve as a "fuck you" to whatever.  fundamental dislikes and hatreds are surprisingly easy to rationalize, as you should well know.)

                    > You're kidding, right?

                    nope.

                  • king_mob says:


                    why? they are a bargaining chip.


                    And now we get a lot of insight into why these problems are never going away. They are not just a bargaining chip. They impact the lives of actual human beings.

                  • cmm says:

                    > They are not just a bargaining chip. They impact the lives of actual human beings.

                    you don't say.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Very droll. I thought I should remind you, as your original post bore no sign of you having realized that.

      • transgress says:

        for their second mystifying act, i hear the israeli's plan to build a wall around the chinese workers to ensure they cant leave before the job is done

        • cmm says:

          don't ever try stand-up comedy, for the public will surely beat you up.

          • transgress says:

            made everyone here laugh.

            • cmm says:

              good for you.
              but then the public does beat you up, remember me, OK?

              • king_mob says:

                Standup comedy acts so rarely end with a lynching.

              • transgress says:

                ill take israel's lead then and build a wall around myself also to protect me from people who are sick of/arent humored by jokes with references to israel's inability to learn from the berlin wall.

                • The Berlin wall was built and maintained by a government (the East German communists and their Russian allies) in order to restrict the movement of its own people.

                  If the Berlin wall was built in response to West Germans suicide-bombing busloads of children and old ladies, then maybe there would be a parallel.

                  But there isn't. And your analogy falls flat. Shit, even the Great Wall of China (unilaterally built to fend off murderous attacks) is more apropos.

                  Still, I'm probably expecting too much intelligence from someone whose proudly showcases vitriol (twice) equating Israel's Prime Minister with the Nazis.

                  • transgress says:

                    ACTUALLY your history fails as the east germans told their people that the wall was to protect them from the west germans, now we may all see that as silly, BUT that was the official reason given.

                    and perhaps if they didnt act like the ss, they wouldnt catch references to them.

                    of course israel isnt totally to blame here, to say/think that is silly, but to respond with the violations of basic human rights and the geneva convention/etc earns them that title. Plus i can't think of another government since the nazi regime that was so bent on keeping the race pure.

                  • keeping the race pure

                    Apparently you're unaware that neither Jews, nor Israelis, are a race.

                    Explain to me how a prime minister of European descent airlifts thousands of black Ethiopian Jews for reasons of racial purity ... or how the Israelis of the 1940's -- from Morocco, Yemen, Iraq, Poland, etc. -- constitute a single ethnicity?

                    As I said elsewhere on this thread:

                    Israel has Christians and Muslims in its elected parliament and 20% of Israel citizens are non-Jews; Turkey is the only Muslim nation that's even close to a democracy and apostasy is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia.

                    Israel has gay pride parades; Egypt jails homosexuals.

                    Israeli citizens (even soldiers) dissent openly against the policies they disagree with; Syria kills those who speak against the regime.

                    And which nation gets compared to Nazis?

                    I gladly accept criticism when it's reasonable.

                    But, "act[ing] like the SS"?

                    Goodbye.

                  • node says:

                    Israel has Christians and Muslims in its elected parliament and 20% of Israel citizens are non-Jews;

                    So, what do you think will happen when that figure approaches 51%?

                  • cmm says:

                    well, I guess the state will cease being populated mostly by Jews.

                    actually, there is more than one possible answer to your question.

                    one is the perennial "why do you ask?".

                    the other is the same, but asked seriously.

                    firstly, you asked "when", not "if".  this probably means that you think that the relative rate of jewish vs. non-jewish sectors of Israeli population will stay as it is today.  to me this is by no means certain.

                    secondly, I have to ask what do you mean by "happen".  obviously the answer I gave in the first sentence of this comment is not it, being rather trivial.  what is it you have in mind, then?

                    (I blame <lj user=jwz> for mentioning this thread today :)).

  5. ammonoid says:

    Oh boy, an Israeli flame war.

  6. mbravo says:

    AFAIK, Israeli history is known for the purposeful preservation, enhancement of it's people gene pool, and proactively preventing it's stagnation. So this fact, if you do not try to look at it as an isolated issue, or something to feed a particular instance of today's fashionable bigotry, is quite logical, in a sense.

    See also: Herbert's references to Secret Israel in his Dune series, and allusions to similarity between Bene Gesserit and Israeli.

    • dwinsper says:

      Not to get picky, but isn't limiting oneself to in-breeding going to cause stagnation in the gene pool?

      • Nah, selcetive in-breeding is fine. You can emphasize the strong traits that way. The only thing is, you've got to cull the runts and deformed ones. That was sort of the idea behind the Bene Gesserit breeding program, I think.

      • mbravo says:

        Oh, it certainly would, however I am not aware of any strict limits to cross-breeding for Jews (I grant I am very ignorant of Jewish religious issues, especially orthodox ones); historical realities seem to indicate that selective cross-breeding is sometimes encouraged (at least not prohibited), especially during active assimilation periods; many centuries of world-wide dispersion allow wide differences within today's Jewish gene pool for interbreeding, as well.

        • dwinsper says:

          If the "you can't fuck our countryfolk" rule becomes commonplace, you'll end up with enforced in-breeding, effectively. Still, hopefully such a rule will get smacked down. If not, I can add it to my list of reasons to push for sanctions against Isreal. Win-win ;)

          • cmm says:

            > I can add it to my list of reasons

            you keep a list of actual reasons?  why do you need them?

            • dwinsper says:

              > you keep a list of actual reasons?
              It was a figure of speech.

              > why do you need them?
              It often pays to be able to back up your opinion :)

              • cmm says:

                why do you care about Israel at all, if I may ask?

                • dwinsper says:

                  It's certainly not something I obsess about, but I do have an interest in countries outside of my homeland's borders. I like to think that if my country were abusing its citizens, outside folk would care.

                  • cmm says:

                    Israel does not abuse its citizens, you uninformed twit.

                  • dwinsper says:

                    My apologies, I meant to imply Isreal abuses residents in occupied territories.

                  • cmm says:

                    and it does so to the poor "residents of occupied territories" because it just wants to, right?  those residents obviously have no free will whatsoever, so their own actions are never the reason for what happens to them, right?

                  • dwinsper says:

                    Tell that to the hapless pedestrians walking by during that missile attack on the 25th. Yes, the target was a terrorist, but did they have to use such explosive means with civilians nearby? How about telling the peace protesters who were shot trying to cut through a barrier the UN have branded illegal?

                  • cmm says:

                    I'm always sorry about any collateral damage our army does.  doesn't mean it shouldn't act at all, which the likes of you would probably like.  no Israel, no problem, eh?

                    as for the so called "peace protesters", I believe these are fair game anywhere.  you threaten armed men, you don't whine how you got shot for it.

                  • dwinsper says:

                    I'm always sorry about any collateral damage our army does. doesn't mean it shouldn't act at all, which the likes of you would probably like. no Israel, no problem, eh?
                    Ah, the wonders of gross generalisation. My country suffered 25 years of terrorism, yet the Northern Ireland peace process seems to be working rather well. It's not so much the retaliation I have a problem with, it's the way they go about it. Israel show a complete lack of respect for the Palestinian people when they bulldose the homes of the innocent, when they shoot or blow up the innocent themselves because they can't be bothered to take the time to avoid hitting them.

                    as for the so called "peace protesters", I believe these are fair game anywhere. you threaten armed men, you don't whine how you got shot for it.
                    Did you read the article? All they were doing is attempting to break an illegal barrier. Can you provide evidence the soldiers were in danger? Can you provide evidence that simply arresting them would be the wrong course of action?

                  • cmm says:

                    if you think that the Northern Ireland situation is significantly similar to the Israeli one, you are wrong, for many reasons.

                    > It's not so much the retaliation I have a problem with, it's the way they go about it. Israel show a complete lack of respect for the Palestinian people when they bulldose the homes of the innocent, when they shoot or blow up the innocent themselves because they can't be bothered to take the time to avoid hitting them.

                    you are presuming too much, and you are clearly prejudiced against Israel here.  I again have the impression that it's a waste of time to reason with you about this, so I won't.

                    as for the "peace protesters" and the "illegal barrier": a soldier guarding a military structure doesn't know nor care that some impotent muslim-driven organization thinks that the structure he is guarding is "illegal".  this soldier has clear orders concerning tresspassers, and if he's any good at his duty, he carries those orders out.

                  • hepkitten says:

                    "I have to get the last word in about how I don't need the last word"

                  • unabomber says:

                    I disagree with your last word because you are obviously prejudiced and my last word is more correct because I am the center of the universe. Furthermore, your mother obviously blows goats, and I have proof, which is so obvious I don't feel a need to post it, and if you disagree, maybe you should just check google.

                    -Jon

                  • king_mob says:


                    you are clearly prejudiced against Israel here.


                    It's not clear to me. What made it clear to you, the fact that he disagrees with you?

                  • cmm says:

                    > What made it clear to you, the fact that he disagrees with you?

                    our conversation with him proceeds as follows:

                    he: Israel should be sanctioned because {some preposterous claim}
                    I: {explains why the claim is preposterous}
                    he: OK, so how about {another preposterous claim}
                    I: ...

                    i.e. my conclusion is not based just on the last round of the exchange, but on all of it.  really, I don't see how his prejudice can be not clear to you.

                    at some point one kinda has to give up.  there is an infinite supply of anti-semite ditto-heads out there, and one has to give up at some point.

                  • dwinsper says:

                    The claim is only preposterous to you. The UN have condemned Israel's actions on more than one occasion.

                  • cmm says:

                    UN has Syria as the head of the security council.
                    UN is rather consistently anti-US and anti-Israel.
                    their reactions to any Israeli action are as predictable as the change of seasons.
                    and you surely know all that yourself.

                    this is boring.

                  • dwinsper says:

                    UN has Syria as the head of the security council.
                    I beg your pardon? The UNSC's presidency is a one month term. I didn't know when Syria came into presidency, but as far as I can tell from some Googling, it was June.

                    UN is rather consistently anti-US and anti-Israel.
                    Attempting to make this sound like a personal vendetta won't get you very far. Last I checked, both the US and Israel have a habit of ignoring the UN unless it suits them.

                    their reactions to any Israeli action are as predictable as the change of seasons.
                    You take a neutral statement and try to make it sound like a bad thing. I'd argue that the UNSC being predictable is a good thing. After all, if you're unsure what the international reaction to an action is, it's very difficult to operate in an international communitee.

                  • cmm says:

                    > The UNSC's presidency is a one month term.

                    s/has/had/, yeah.  I don't see how this makes the situation any less farcical.

                    > Attempting to make this sound like a personal vendetta won't get you very far.

                    there's nothing personal about it.  US & Israel are very convenient venting targets, is all.

                    > if you're unsure what the international reaction to an action is, it's very difficult to operate in an international communitee.

                    yeah, UN is extremely easy in this sense.  it always condemns Israel.

                    the Durban conference was very telling in this regard.

                  • dwinsper says:

                    s/has/had/, yeah. I don't see how this makes the situation any less farcical.
                    Yeah, democracy's a bitch, isn't it? Oh, wait...

                    the Durban conference was very telling in this regard.
                    You attack me, claiming bias, yet you happily link to a source that's so biased it makes Bush look objective?!

                  • cmm says:

                    democracy in which Zimbabwe and the US have the same weight?  why, this is hysterical.

                    > You attack me, claiming bias, yet you happily link to a source that's so biased it makes Bush look objective?!

                    do you have any problem with the facts they report?  what is it?
                    (it was the second non-UN-affiliated link in Google.  the first one was to some communist site, perhaps you would find that one more to your taste. :)).

                  • dwinsper says:

                    if you think that the Northern Ireland situation is significantly similar to the Israeli one, you are wrong, for many reasons.
                    Care to explain how?

                    a soldier guarding a military structure doesn't know nor care that some impotent muslim-driven organization thinks that the structure he is guarding is "illegal".
                    The UN is a little more than a Muslim-driven organistation.

                  • cmm says:

                    re: NI vs. Israel

                    in NI, you had a terrorist organization that was willing to negotiate whose objective didn't include the destruction of the other side.

                    in Palestine, you have a terror-drenched society whose chiefs are interested in staying what they are (which is why they repeatedly declined all offers of pieceful settlement that Israel brought them) and one of whose stated objectives is the destruction of Israel.

                    re: UN

                    the UN these days is indeed little more than a Muslim-driven debating club.  the sooner it goes the way of The League of Nations, the better for everyone.

                  • dwinsper says:

                    in NI, you had a terrorist organization that was willing to negotiate whose objective didn't include the destruction of the other side.
                    Well, let's suppose that instead of taking a level-headed approach, the UK government decided to wall off the Catholics in NI and shot/bombed/ran over with a tank anybody who looked shady enough to be IRA.

                    Of course, you can't be that against the IRA, otherwise you'd have to be against the US for sponsoring them.

                  • cmm says:

                    > Well, let's suppose that instead of taking a level-headed approach, the UK government decided to wall off the Catholics in NI and shot/bombed/ran over with a tank anybody who looked shady enough to be IRA.

                    well, let's suppose you stop confusing cause and effect?

                    > Of course, you can't be that against the IRA, otherwise you'd have to be against the US for sponsoring them.

                    US also sponsored Saddam, you know.  I'm really not into taking sides, anyway.

                  • king_mob says:


                    the UN these days is indeed little more than a Muslim-driven debating club.


                    You know, sometimes you fucking sound like you did a search/replace on "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" substituting "Muslim" for "Jew."

                  • cmm says:

                    um.  you have the zillion muslim nations, you have the Europeans & Russia who invariably side with them.
                    doesn't fucking look like a conspiracy theory to me, but what do I know about conspiracy theories.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Yes, it's always England and Iran, ganging up on you. Poor misunderstood Israelis.

                  • cmm says:

                    that's all you have to say?

                  • king_mob says:

                    I think it sufficiently mocks the wrong-headedness of your statement. Seriously, who cares if the kleptocrats in Russia and the kleptocrats in Saudi Arabia vote "Aye" on UN Resolution Whatever-the-fuck? It impacts the real world not a whit. If you literally had MI6 teaming up with Iranian intelligence to work against Israel, I'd take that statement seriously.

                  • cmm says:

                    nowhere was I saying that UN should be taken seriously, anyway.
                    but denying its bias would be a stupid thing to do, no?

                  • king_mob says:

                    I wonder if Saddam spent all his time talking about how the UN was "biased" against Iraqis. Look, some of the shit Israel does legitimately pisses people off. You don't have to be anti-Semitic at all.

                  • cmm says:

                    of course.  problem is, it's waaaay out of proportion.

                  • king_mob says:

                    So you're willing to concede that not every criticism of Israel is a symptom of anti-Semitism?

                  • cmm says:

                    fucking jesus.  what is there to "concede"?  all I'm bothered with is the fact that most of the critisism of Israel that I see here is waaay out of proportion and usually based on misinformation.

                  • king_mob says:

                    In your opinion, was the original article that started this incorrect? If so, how do you know? If not, in what sense is this "misinformation?"

                    You have to realize that the idea of an employer even caring who you marry is bizarre to us. Hell, the Chinese even stopped a couple of years ago.

                  • cmm says:

                    the article that started it splendidly illustrates the "out of proportion" thesis.  is that hard for you to see?

                  • king_mob says:

                    Yeah, actually. Like I said, I honestly can't imagine my boss caring who I fuck. Is this an everyday occurrence in Israel?

                  • cmm says:

                    no, it's not an everyday occurence, and I personally consider it extremely weird.
                    now tell me, what about it merits wide international news coverage, and what about it is illegal?

                  • king_mob says:


                    now tell me, what about it merits wide international news coverage,


                    The bizarreness.


                    and what about it is illegal?

                    Nothing, according to the article. Which doesn't strike me as a ringing endorsement of y'all's legal system.

                  • cmm says:

                    I thought I'd tell you that contracts between consenting adults are nobody's fucking business, but you'd probably call me "randian" again.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Actually, yeah. I disagree with that statement.

                    Pop quiz: who enforces contracts between consenting adults?

                  • cmm says:

                    the rule of law.  what do I win?

                  • king_mob says:

                    Okay, the rule of law with governmental authority backing it up, right?

                    To my mind, that gives the state an interest in regulating contracts between two consenting adults; it has to enforce them, should one party breach and the other sue. I believe that states have an obligation to avoid having to enforce contracts which are just plain wrong. Therefore, yes, I do believe contracts between two consenting adults are other peoples' business; I believe that it's just a question of degree.

                  • cmm says:

                    OK.  so let's wait till someone sues, then.
                    I'm still amazed how <lj user=dwinsper> talked about imposing sanctions on Israel in this context, though.
                    *shakes head*

                  • king_mob says:

                    But it sounded like there wouldn't be any basis for a suit.

                  • cmm says:

                    no basis for a suit can mean two things here:

                    * there's no law that was violated by the contract, and there shouldn't be.

                    * there's no law that was violated by the contract, but there should be.

                    I find the first interpretation more reasonable, because I don't see how anyone can be harmed by the contract in question without giving their explicit consent.  well, apart from apparently humorless idiots like <lj user=dwinsper>, who think their being weirded-out is grounds for sanctions.

                  • dwinsper says:

                    On its own, I would not consider it reason to impose sanctions. It was the fact that it was merely one of a number of reasons I think action should be taken against Israel (Not military, mind you). My comment about sanctions was a throw-away one, I didn't expect to be personally attacked over it.

                  • cmm says:

                    have you considered imposing sanctions on Jordan, for instance?  they have actual anti-semitic laws.

                  • dwinsper says:

                    Alas, I'm not in a position of power to impose sanctions over anyone ;) As far as your comment goes, just because I haven't mentioned my views of other countries doesn't mean I don't have them. My view of Jordan isn't flattering, although so is my view of most eastern countries.

                  • cmm says:

                    > just because I haven't mentioned my views of other countries doesn't mean I don't have them.

                    good.  my assumption was based on past expiriences of talking to European pro-muslim fluff-heads, and your comments here so far suggested you are one of those.

                    so just tell me that you have made public calls for imposing sanctions on Jordan, and I'll happily apologize.

                  • dwinsper says:

                    good. my assumption was based on past expiriences of talking to European pro-muslim fluff-heads, and your comments here so far suggested you are one of those.
                    ?! You're the only person to ever accuse me of being pro-Muslim. The fact that I think the whole idea of religion is absurd might has something to do with that.

                    so just tell me that you have made public calls for imposing sanctions on Jordan, and I'll happily apologize.
                    I certainly don't get up on soap-boxes in the middle of York and scream for sanctions against the East, but I've mentioned many-a-time that I think we should just tell most of the Eastern countries to go fuck themselves until they come up with some rational laws and attitudes. After all, so much of the anti-Afghanistan propaganda went on about how badly the Taliban treat women, yet there was virtually no mention of the fact that many other Arab countries have what most of my country would consider unacceptable attitudes towards race and the sexes.

                  • cmm says:

                    > You're the only person to ever accuse me of being pro-Muslim.

                    your eagerness to call for sanctions on Israel in this discussion prompted my accusation, because it just happens to fit the pattern so perfectly.  such pattern matching, of course, cannot be without false positives.

                    > but I've mentioned many-a-time that I think we should just tell most of the Eastern countries to go fuck themselves until they come up with some rational laws and attitudes.

                    cool.  I apologize for calling you anti-semitic and pro-muslim, then.  some of your comments still, even after all the clarifications, seem prejudiced and even racist to me, but I'm quite willing to believe they are not malicious, just not well thought-out.  I'm tired of this dicussion, anyway.

                    happy new year to you.

          • mbravo says:

            As you wish :) but may I say it doesn't seem to be a very logical position to me. Does it get smacked down or not, is our of your jurisdiction anyway; and assuming you actually mean it about the sanctions, this gets you into a position of meddling with somebody else's problem (making it yours, too). Suppose they will pass the rule - then so be it, inbreeding or not, they are doing it to themselves; let them take the consequences. Also, it doesn't look like they are forcing these Chinese to come and work for them, but rather this workforce is eager to come, even under some possibly silly restrictions.

            • cmm says:

              > it doesn't seem to be a very logical position to me.

              anti-semites do not require logic.

              > Also, it doesn't look like they are forcing these Chinese to come and work for them

              anti-semites are never confused by facts.

              • mbravo says:

                Trying to avoid branding every person who does not like Israel an "anti-semite" is a useful exercise in self-restraint. After all, no one has to like it; OTOH, name-calling and finger-pointing will do nothing to enhance the discussion.

                • cmm says:

                  I'm not pointing fingers.  the fact is that anti-israelism is today's politically-correct form of anti-semitism, so why not use the right term?

                  terminology is very important.  just look what happens these days: people siding with terrorists are called "peace activists", hostile agitators are called "reporters", and the public eats it all up.  all because of the termilology.

                  (nor do I see any point in "enhancing the discussion" with people like that.  it's preferable to recognize them as early as possible, and to avoid wasting the time).

                  • mbravo says:

                    You are being belligerent - it clouds your judgement. There always will be people who do not like Jews, or Israel, for that matter. And it is quite ok - every one of us doesn't like someone, or something (though choosing a race or nationality as a reason for it does seem to be foolish in some degree).

                    As to terminology, I'm all with you - it should be handled with care, but not only it's definitions, but application as well. Do not generalize without necessity.

                    As to discussion enhancement, let's leave it to a personal choice. The nice thing (one of them) about discussion, as opposed to, say, a street brawl, is that you can quit at any time.

                  • king_mob says:


                    the fact is that anti-israelism is today's politically-correct form of anti-semitism, so why not use the right term?


                    This may be a stupid question, but has Orwell ever been translated into Russian? Specifically this essay?

                  • cmm says:

                    naturally.  I've read it in English, though.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Well, you can lead a horse to water.

                  • cmm says:

                    and you can go fuck yourself, funny man of piercing insight.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Does this count as you going ad hom first?

                  • cmm says:

                    you do the counting, if you like.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Really I think someone impartial should decide.

                  • cmm says:

                    bring in the Hague!

                  • king_mob says:

                    They can't be impartial. I'm sure some Dutch people did something bad once. Anyway, if they find against you, you'll just "explain" how that's exactly the same as repeating the blood libel.

                  • cmm says:

                    oh, I've no problem standing for my own words.
                    I also called you a dick yesterday.  but you called me an ass first.  I thought I shouldn't bring it up, but since you insist on counting the ad hominems, well, there you go.

                  • king_mob says:

                    Nah, that's a fair cop.

            • dwinsper says:

              As I said in a previous post, if I were in a situation where my government/overloads/ruling party were abusing me and my countryfolk, I would hope that outsiders would take an interest in the issue. If they were to just say "well, it's not my problem", what hope is there for me?

              As for "the rule", I'm one of those folk who believe everyone has human rights, and I consider a company attempting to dictate who you can and cannot have a relationship with a violation of their human rights.

              • mbravo says:

                There is too much confusion here. Is there abuse? Who abuses whom?

                I do believe in human rights; I do not believe with their enforcement. Heinlein, IIRC, put it that there're no rights, only opportunities; this has a ring of truth to it, also. But that's beside the point here.

                First of all, I do not see any abuse here at all. People come to work in a foreign country, they have to play by the rules the country sets, or do something else. I can't get in freely to USA; I have to pay quite a lot of money by local standards just to undergo a screening procedure based on the presumption of guilt - should I cry foul? how loud? Sure, I grumble, but that's about it.

                Trying to impose public sanctions on someone just because s/he does something I do not approve of (and which, incidentally, isn't even violating any common sense ethical codes, because it is on a voluntary basis) is trying to use force where none is needed.

                • dwinsper says:

                  There is too much confusion here. Is there abuse? Who abuses whom?
                  The Israelis abuse Palestine by taking a very reckless approach to combating terrorism. The Palestinians abuse Israel by killing the innocent and abuse themselves by brain-washing the young into being suicide bombers.

                  Before I get jumped on for being against Israel but not Palestine, I think both are pretty much as bad as each other. However, I think Israel is in a far better position to put an end to the seemingly never-ending circle of violence.

                  Trying to impose public sanctions on someone just because s/he does something I do not approve of (and which, incidentally, isn't even violating any common sense ethical codes, because it is on a voluntary basis) is trying to use force where none is needed.
                  I disagree. If one company gets away with it, what's to stop others from doing it? What if every company decides to come up with a similar rule? Sure, you can claim they could just not work there, but what if it's your only option short of starving? I'd rather nip such problems in the bud before they become a problem.

                  My original point was rather poorly put. If such a rule gets to court and is smacked down, all well and good. If it's found to be legal and is not combatted through the creation of such rules, I could not support such an organisation and would actively encourage everyone to turn their back on them until they buck up their ideas, hence why I advocate sanctions rather than just bombing the fuck out of them.

                  • cmm says:

                    > The Israelis abuse Palestine by taking a very reckless approach to combating terrorism.

                    reckless compared to what?

                    > I think both are pretty much as bad as each other.

                    I think people should be banned from polite companies for saying trite shite like this.

                    > However, I think Israel is in a far better position to put an end to the seemingly never-ending circle of violence.

                    what are you basing this bizarre belief on?
                    ("circle of violence" is another of those things that should get people banned from polite companies, btw).

                    > If it's found to be legal and is not combatted through the creation of such rules, I could not support such an organisation and would actively encourage everyone to turn their back on them until they buck up their ideas, hence why I advocate sanctions rather than just bombing the fuck out of them.

                    let's see: you are advocating meddling in the affairs of an organization if you don't like the conditions it sets in a voluntary contract involving someone other than you?  it's interesting how the sets of Israel-bashers and idiotic socialists seem to increasingly converge.

                    oh, and I'd like to take this moment to thank you for not wanting to bomb the fuck out of us.

                  • king_mob says:


                    let's see: you are advocating meddling in the affairs of an organization if you don't like the conditions it sets in a voluntary contract involving someone other than you? it's interesting how the sets of Israel-bashers and idiotic socialists seem to increasingly converge.


                    Yes, the placing of any restrictions on terms of employment whatsoever constitutes "socialism." This would be the Randroid crap. Don't be stupider than you absolutely have to be, please.

                  • cmm says:

                    > Yes, the placing of any restrictions on terms of employment whatsoever constitutes "socialism." This would be the Randroid crap. Don't be stupider than you absolutely have to be, please.

                    firstly: sorry, I don't see what you mean here.  do humor me and explain.

                    secondly: you can treat this stupid company as "Randroid" or whatever.  is that a good reason to meddle in its affairs?

                  • king_mob says:

                    *sigh* For years, any time any criticism of any restrictions on the absolutely unfettered free market has been angrily called "socialism." Regulation != socialism. (Had Marx written his stuff in 1800, the abolitionists in this country would have been called socialists.)

                    Guess what, it's okay to "meddle" with companies.

                  • cmm says:

                    > Guess what, it's okay to "meddle" with companies.

                    guess what, you are heroically battling a strawman here.

                    meddling in general is OK, frivolous meddling is not OK.

                  • king_mob says:

                    I don't see the word "frivolous" in your original post. Any thinking person would have inferred that you felt all meddling with companies was unjustified. If you want to revise your opinion now, I don't blame you in the slightest.

                  • cmm says:

                    nowhere did I make the general statement you are attributing to me, sorry.  are you perhaps confusing me with someone else?

                  • king_mob says:

                    You have just made a statement which is demonstrably untrue. See this post for details.

                  • cmm says:

                    which statement there are you talking about?

                  • king_mob says:


                    secondly: you can treat this stupid company as "Randroid" or whatever. is that a good reason to meddle in its affairs?



                    meddling in general is OK, frivolous meddling is not OK.


                    You really don't see a contradiction there? That's very Zen of you.

                  • cmm says:

                    no, I don't see the contradiction.  do enlighten me: is this "randianness" thing illegal?  what is it, anyway?

                  • king_mob says:

                    Essentially it's the "free market uber alles" version of Libertarianism. It's not illegal, just foolish; a sophomoric idea in every sense.

                  • cmm says:

                    ah, an extreme idea.  OK then, I don't share it. :)

      • The risk of birth defects, etc. dramatically drops off once you're first cousins.

        Also, it means that you have a better idea of what genetic diseases you and your kids are predisposed to, such as Crone's Disease and Tay-Sachs.

  7. smokedamage says:

    is China still enforcing the one-child policy? They were drowning girl-childs because they trace family through the male line. And isn't Judaism traced through the mother?

    • zahyr says:

      I'm sorry, I came here through ljdrama.org.. but I'm wondering what the point of this ban is? I thought Judaism was traced through the mother as well, ergo any half-Chinese, half-Israeli babies would be Jewish?

      So.. what is the big deal?

  8. ckn says:

    (see subject)

  9. j3ss says:

    This is crazy. We love Chinese food. I don't get it.