So These Are the Arguments of the “Intellectuals”

Many times we have heard people who hate hassidic, yeshivish, and in general more religous people, argue that these groups are not “intellectual” and the only books they look at are the gemara so they obviously know nothing about a scholarly argument.

On that note I would like to point out what some people I have been arguing with have said after I wrecked them in an intellectual argument.

Half Sours:

You sir, are liar, liar pants on fire. And everyone knows it now. Another kiruvnik discredited. My work here is done.

DK:

Cheerer, have you considered dating a militant feminist? Because your whole, “That’s not funny!” refrain would go over quite well with those women.

DK after someone questioned his making holocaust jokes in the context of the Heeb Magazine Contest for fake holocaust stories

Liz: No matter how you want to spin it, Holocaust “jokes” are not funny.

DK:  Then don’t laugh.

And of course DK’s response to my argument based on his making a satirical posting about the OU giving a haskgacha to Zyklon B

Me: I will not be told that I “didn’t think” from someone who marginalizes the holocaust.

DK: I will not have one of my best satires marginalized by someone who connects issues that are not interrelated.

These are the people who claim there that frummies are “anti-intellectual”.

These are the people who are trying to stop kiruv.

These are the people who say religious people are stopping the advancement of the Jewish People

These are the people we fight for future of our people.

Don’t ever forget it.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “So These Are the Arguments of the “Intellectuals””

  1. Facts Shmacks « The Cheerer Says:

    […] So These Are the Arguments of the “Intellectuals” […]

  2. HalfSours Says:

    OK, I concede that you ‘wrecked’ us. As soon as you produce that name of the U. Maryland professor you’re waiting to hear back from.

  3. cheerer Says:

    I think you missed the point. I dont need you to concede. I dont care what you think.

  4. Garnel Ironheart Says:

    Here’s the point, Cheerer: these so-called skeptics enter an argument without any sketpicism at all, for their side of things. You have to prove everything: that there’s a God, that the Torah is true, etc. But them? No, they don’t have to because it’s a given that they’re right and we’re wrong. Haven’t you noticed how every single one of their forays starts with: Given that God doesn’t exist and the Torah’s not true and every claim made by skeptics is accurate and everything you’re going to say in your defense is wrong, what do you have to say for yourself?

    As I noted on my blog, don’t waste your time trying to teach pigs to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

  5. DK Says:

    No one is anything all the time. I know much greater minds than myself who will speak in much less strictly intellectual terms than in their lectures and essays in causal conversation. I do not seek to make every comment a serious one.

    Having said that, you are trying hard to take all comments out of context and not discern anything beyond a flip response. I don’t have time or interest in defending each example, but I’ll give you one.

    Liz: No matter how you want to spin it, Holocaust “jokes” are not funny.

    DK: Then don’t laugh.

    My point was that fine, you don’t find it funny, and you insist that this is about the Holocaust, even if the magazine in question believes they are mocking something different — i.e., FAKE memoirs, Holocaustism (remember, Jewdar is Orthodox, and is concerned about the Holocaust as an ersatz religion replacing Judaism).

    But that is not an acceptable reason to go on a campaign of sabotage.

    That was my point. And I think I elucidated it clearly enough in my post and in other comments for you to know that was my point, even if you disagreed with it.

    And here’s one more. You had written,

    I will not be told that I “didn’t think” from someone who marginalizes the holocaust. Anyone who writes a post that makes light of the gas that was used to kill Jews is someone who does not think.

    My point was that this is an illogical, reactive statement not connected to the point of discussion. So I threw it back at you, because your wasn’t a serious rebuttal in the first place.

    Your attempt to dismiss me as “anti-intellectual” will only work for your own choir. You will only succeed in convincing those who already agree with you that I am a bad person who does not see the truth of Gedolymism.

    But that is not where the battle will be fought. It will be on my turf. In the secular Jewish world. And they will pay your attempts to dismiss my contentions about kiruv based on my supposedly anti-intellectual character with a yawn. And as you and yours fail to answer the litany of complaints with anything except attempted character assassination, I will succeed in creating greater and greater skepticism about the Kiruv world generally.

    The right-wing MO have responded quite differently. But the ultra-Orthodox world will remain impervious to criticism from outside.

    This will prove Big Kiruv’s downfall. So keep up the good work. You cannot change, you cannot reform. You have few options. And suspicion and resentment of Big Kiruv will expand more and more over the years.

    Garnel wrote,

    You have to prove everything: …that the Torah is true, etc.

    Oh, how unreasonable.

  6. HalfSours Says:

    I’m not a skeptic.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: