November 7, 2017

Should a Jew feel responsible for the bad behavior of other Jews — like Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wieseltier, and Anthony Weiner?

Harold Pollack (of University of Chicago and The Century Foundation) says he feels responsible (and questions Glenn Loury about whether he feels responsible for the bad behavior of other people in his group):



At one point, Loury suggests that Jews should feel some pride in what Harvey Weinstein did because it shows that they're not all nerds!

Pollack responds that he "would take more pride" if Weinstein were "a swaggering playboy."

Yikes.

126 comments:

rhhardin said...

You're tagged with your group's stereotype when enough information about you isn't known.

You may like the tag or not.

rhhardin said...

Probably Jewish men are kinkier than others because they get less sex from their wives.

A Jewish marriage.

MadisonMan said...

I don't feel responsible for what white people did in the 1800s re: Slavery. So, no, Jews shouldn't feel responsible for Weinstein's actions.

One is responsible for one's own actions. That's about it. Anything else is hubris.

Rusty said...

Yes. because all jews are a political unit. Just like all whites and all blacks.

Greg Hlatky said...

A schande vor de goyim.

Mary Beth said...

If someone in my group behaves can behave in a way that makes it appear they don't feel much responsibility for their behavior, I should feel responsible for them? I think not. (I may be a bad example, though, I don't feel any strong group identity.)

rhhardin said...

Collective shame is material for a collective sense of humor.

tim in vermont said...

Dylan Roof forced Bubba Watson to repaint the roof of the General Lee...

rhhardin said...

My peope would be fellow high school band members.

We see through empty ceremony as naturally as breathing.

tim in vermont said...

How do you get a Jewish girl to stop fucking? Marry her.

Not true, but funny because it matches a stereotype.

Quaestor said...

The following may come across as anti-Semitic, but I do not intend to convey any such thing. Jews dominate Hollywood. Fact. There are many reasons both historical and cultural, but those reasons are irrelevant. What is relevant is the question of possible "clannish" fellow-feeling as an enabling factor in the depredations committed by Harvey Weinstein and others. Every Jew who works in the entertainment industry needs to examine his own conscience. Have I ever excused a fellow Jew from his moral, ethical, or legal obligation because he was Jewish? Have I allowed ethnic prejudice to overrule my responsibilities to others who are not Jewish? If the answer is yes, then a degree of guilt must be admitted.

Bob Boyd said...

I guess if a person feels pride when a member of his race wins a Nobel Prize or an Olympic medal or something, then shame over a guy like Weinstein would be corallary to that.

tim maguire said...

My wife is a bit concerned and embarrassed that so many of the accused are Jewish, but I think that's just because the scandal is hitting fields where Jews are over-represented.

MikeR said...

Yeah, we Jews all do it. Non-Jews don't really understand: even in America, we all still feel _vulnerable_. Could be it's in our genes by now.
Anyhow, from the Talmud: "All of Israel are responsible one for the other." Even I with my pretty secular background was brought up to feel that way.

Robert Cook said...

Apparently, no one here thinks any member of a group should feel bad or responsible for the bad behavior of others in their group.

Muslims must be the exception.

Gahrie said...

No.

Gahrie said...

Muslims must be the exception.

Not Muslims...Islam. There is nothing in Judaism that orders Jews to be sexual harassers. Islam does command Muslims to kill unbelievers.

Bad Lieutenant said...

rhhardin said...
Probably Jewish men are kinkier than others because they get less sex from their wives.

A Jewish marriage.
11/7/17, 9:04 AM

Please tell me if you understand the following words: If you don't know shit about a subject, it's perfectly all right to keep your goddamned mouth shut.

Curious: when was the last time someone stomped you on account of your fool's tongue? Because it must have happened by now, whether you learned from the experience or not.

Fernananidinaniade said...

Harold Pollack ... bad behavior of other people in his group

What's his group? He's an atheist, therefore not Jewish...or is he?

tim maguire said...
Jews are over-represented.


That's why I posted that "Oh, C'mon" thing about Jews running Hollywood. That and I liked the part about the 700 Club.

rhhardin said...

In a coma?! I thought she was Jewish!

rhhardin said...

Woody Allen, commenting on his former wife being raped in Central Park: well, it wasn't a moving violation.

Assrat said...

No, provided you do not approve of the behavior.

Bad Lieutenant said...

MikeR +1

Larry David +1

Blogger tim maguire said...
My wife is a bit concerned and embarrassed that so many of the accused are Jewish, but I think that's just because the scandal is hitting fields where Jews are over-represented.
11/7/17, 9:22 AM

What it seems to me is, power corrupts. I'm not aware of a system in Hollywood that excludes or marginalizes Gentiles per se. Plenty of Christian, atheist, and other malefactors, also, to the extent of their means. Sure are plenty in DC.

One thing Jews are good at is creating new worlds. Perhaps because the real one has not always been kind to us. Hollywood, and the other arts, are natural loci for Jews and others of that inclination. (Steve Jobs, who was not Jewish, evidently was another who favored the changing of reality towards his own vision. It worked well for him in computing, less so in medicine.)

Some call Washington Hollywood for ugly people. By that logic one might call Hollywood Washington for Jews.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Fernananidinaniade said...
Harold Pollack ... bad behavior of other people in his group

What's his group? He's an atheist, therefore not Jewish...or is he?

You know how Trotsky said, You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you? Well, atheists of Jewish heritage may not have been interested in the Final Solution, but it was interested in them.

rhhardin said...

Judiasm allows atheists.

Thorley Winston said...

There’s a passage in Ezekiel which I assume is also in the Torah “[t]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Basically, what it means is that each of us is responsible for our own actions (good or bad) and no one, even if they are your parent or your child, is responsible for your sins. The idea that anyone could bear any sort of collective blame for the bad actions of someone else who happens to be a member of the same race or ethnicity is in direct opposition to this principle.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"What's his group? He's an atheist, therefore not Jewish...or is he?"

Yes, he is Jewish - a secular Jew. It's my understanding that Jewishness is both a religion and an ethnicity so you can still be Jewish without believing in God. However, I think you are no longer considered a Jew by other Jews if you convert.

To Nazis, a Jew was a Jew was a Jew though. Didn't matter if you were chief rabbi or someone who had never set foot in a synagogue. Didn't matter if you converted. St. Edith Stein was a nun. They murdered her anyway.

tim in vermont said...

Muslims must be the exception

Actually, adherents to murderous ideologies, of which Judaism is not one, at least not in the past couple thousand years. Muslim's and there Muslim Supremacist ideology, actual White Supremacists, not just those accused for being white, Communists, Maoists. They all get the same treatment. Islam is a political system under the color of religion.

Nazis too, not Germans, Nazis. So, for example, if you join a gang like MS-13, I will judge you by the actions of that gang.

tim in vermont said...

How did everybody who kind of liked the Confederate flag as a cultural symbol get dragged up into the Dylan Roof thing? When his big beef was that he couldn't find any fellow KKKers? Lynard Skynard, Allman Brothers, all dragged in as co-conspirators.

But that doesn't matter because that's your side's hypocrisy, which is not up for discussion.

Michael said...

Movies and publishing are disproportionately Jewish, so you would expect more offenders to be Jewish regardless. Baysian inference.

Unknown said...

Democrats keep teaching me. Vote, hire and do business with only your tribe, because that is all that matters.

tim in vermont said...

I consider myself a Christian Atheist who respects Jesus Christ as a great philosopher and a bit of a showman, who dragged a large part of the world out of barbarianism.

Fernananindiananaide said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
"What's his group? He's an atheist, therefore not Jewish...or is he?"
Yes, he is Jewish - a secular Jew. It's my understanding that Jewishness is both a religion and an ethnicity so you can still be Jewish without believing in God.


Most of my friends have Jewish atheists; at least one told me that most Rabbis are probably atheists. I can't recall one ever quoting or referring to anything from the Talmud or whatever, although one Jewish guy converted to actual Judaism, started wearing a beanie and disappeared, to Israel I think, which was a shame because the world lost a very good mathematician.

I figure that most Jews you hear about in the news, for better or worse, are probably atheists.

Otto said...

Shit is shit and not exclusive to any group, not even the Jews. In our culture we have been conditioned to give moral authority to those groups that have been victimized in the past.But those groups are human beings and are not immune to the foibles of humanity. You are who you are forgetting what happen a long time ago. A perfect example is the Christian saying "there are no grandchildren in heaven".

exiledonmainstreet said...

" Lynard Skynard, Allman Brothers, all dragged in as co-conspirators."

But not Tom Petty, despite the fact that he was born a Rebel.

William said...

I'm nowhere near as cynical about the anti-Semite card as I am about the race card, but it's definitely a thing. Roman Polanski certainly knew how to play it. His family was murdered in the Holocaust. He made a movie about the Holocaust. The cheers and standing ovation at the Academy Award were about his indomitable spirit overcoming the horrors of the Holocaust. Everything else about him was not only forgiven but forgotten. Well played Roman......Sadly, Harvey cannot claim Holocaust status, but I'm sure his crimes and general demeanor will attract unfavorable notice from anti-Semites. I don't see how he comes out of this looking like Dreyfus, but it's worth a shot. At this point, it's about the only card he has left.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Most of my friends have Jewish atheists; at least one told me that most Rabbis are probably atheists."

I wouldn't be surprised if that is true of Reform or Conservative rabbis.

The Orthodox, not so much.

And they're the most politically conservative Jews. See Ben Shapiro.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"The cheers and standing ovation at the Academy Award were about his indomitable spirit overcoming the horrors of the Holocaust. Everything else about him was not only forgiven but forgotten."

A person who survived the Holocaust (or any other horrible atrocity) might still be a horrible individual. Soros, I'm looking at you.

Robert Cook said...

So, if Islam is like Nazism or MS-13, why do so few Muslims commit terrorist acts of murder?

There are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world. If even just 1% of Muslims were terrorists, that would be 200 million of them. Or, if only 1% of this 1% were terrorists, that would still be 2 million terrorists.

There are not 2,000,000 Islamic terrorists in the world, so the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is somewhere less than 1% of 1% of all Muslims in the world.

So, because a fraction of a fraction of 1% (or less) of all Muslims in the world are terrorists, we are to accept that they are their religion is a murderous political ideology disguised as religion, and that all Muslims must be held responsible for those few that are terrorists...but no other ethnic, social, cultural, or other cohort of people need feel responsible for the bad acts of bad people in their cohort?

You guys are hopeless.

Gahrie said...

So, because a fraction of a fraction of 1% (or less) of all Muslims in the world are terrorists, we are to accept that they are their religion is a murderous political ideology disguised as religion,

No...their religion is a murderous political ideology disguised as a religion because it is a murderous ideology disguised as a religion. Have you bothered to read the Koran, hadith or Sura? The message is not hidden.

and that all Muslims must be held responsible for those few that are terrorists

Depends on their actions and behavior. But Islam itself certainly must.

...but no other ethnic, social, cultural, or other cohort of people need feel responsible for the bad acts of bad people in their cohort?

It depends. Do they belong to an organization that promotes violence and bad acts?

Are you saying members of the KKK shouldn't be held responsible for the acts of the KKK? Members of MS-13 shouldn't be held responsible for the acts of MS-13?

exiledonmainstreet said...

The question I have always had about secular Jews is if you are going to be secular, why be Jewish at all? For thousands of years, Jews endured horrible persecution rather than convert. It was that insistence on their own place in God’s plan that was responsible for both their persecution and their survival as a group. If they had given up the faith, they would have vanished into the larger population long ago. If you take the religion out of the mix, all you have left are the same things that any other ethnicity has – food and little sayings and expressions and well, what that’s about it. 4000 years of Judaism is boiled down to bagels and chicken soup and jokes about my son the doctor and funny Yiddish expressions (and voting for Democrats), but there is no spiritual core there. Holocaust remembrance seems to be a sort of substitute religion for Jews, but how long will that last after the very last survivors are dead?

When you look at the intermarriage rates, the declining support of American Jews for Israel (not to mention the down hostility of many leftist Jews toward the Jewish state), it looks like many secular Jews don’t believe they have a faith and heritage worth preserving and passing on.

This gentile finds that rather sad.

Robert Cook said...

"No...their religion is a murderous political ideology disguised as a religion because it is a murderous ideology disguised as a religion. Have you bothered to read the Koran, hadith or Sura? The message is not hidden."

Well, then, assuming this is so, (which I don't), this just proves most Muslims are no better Muslims than most Christians are Christians. In short, there's nothing to fear!

William said...

When the Harvey story first broke, I thought it was sui generis. His sexual compulsions seemed strange and rare, but they've since been mirrored with Ratner and Toback. Who on earth whips it out and starts masturbating in front of a girl as part of the courtship dance? Well, these three men did. I suppose it has more to do with Hollywood than Judaism, but I think the fact that all three men share the same ethnic background is part of the equation.

Robert Cook said...

"Are you saying members of the KKK shouldn't be held responsible for the acts of the KKK? Members of MS-13 shouldn't be held responsible for the acts of MS-13?

No. But then, I'm also not saying something stupid like "Islam = KKK / Nazis / MS-13,"etc.

Amadeus 48 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

Judaism is a poetic expression of ethics, is why you might stay with it.

Everybody is a Jew.

Amadeus 48 said...

This was already addressed on SNL.

Larry David takes no pride in "Weinstein gets it out!"

Apparently Harold Pollack might under the right conditions, after Glenn Loury trolls him.

U of Chicago drops in US News college standings based on this one episode of Bloggingheads.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Probably Jewish men are kinkier than others because they get less sex from their wives.

A Jewish marriage.


Like those Hasidic Jews with ten kids? Yeah, those are frigid marriages all right.

Honestly dude your commentary on anything pertaining to marriage, women or sex is getting really fucking old, when 1/3 of it refers to your sage advice on living like a weird avoidant hermit.

Char Char Binks said...

"Woody Allen, commenting on his former wife being raped in Central Park: well, it wasn't a moving violation."

Thus disproving the stereotype that Jews are the best comedians.

Amadeus 48 said...

As the kid in the high school play who was cast as "The Jewish Husband" said, "I would have preferred a speaking part."

(Ba-da-bing!)

Hagar said...

"Jewish" encompasses a number of ethnicities, the number depending on how fine you want to slice it, but certainly Ashkenazim, Sephardic, East European, I do not know the designation for Jews in the various Moslem countries, not to mention China, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc.

I think the crème de la crème - at least in their own estimation - are the Ashkenazim descended from the late 19th century Viennese Jewish aristocracy, and the lowest on the totem pole are those of East European peasant descent, some of which were the moving picture pioneers who moved from New York to California and founded Hollywood.

Robert Cook said...

"When the Harvey story first broke, I thought it was sui generis. His sexual compulsions seemed strange and rare, but they've since been mirrored with Ratner and Toback. Who on earth whips it out and starts masturbating in front of a girl as part of the courtship dance? Well, these three men did. I suppose it has more to do with Hollywood than Judaism, but I think the fact that all three men share the same ethnic background is part of the equation."

No. I think it has to do with powerful men who come to believe they have a right to grab anything or satisfy any desire they have, because they have the money and power to make it so. Such powerfully placed people know that most of the people they deal with rely on them for jobs or for business deals, so they know they can act with impunity: either the other party will comply or will, at the least, never speak about the incident.

As the man said, "Power corrupts, absolute power..., etc."

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

One of the interesting takeaways that I had after watching the new Netflix documentary One of Us, which focuses on three persons trying to leave their Hasidic community, is how much I take for granted my WASPy sense of the individual as the starting point for understanding the world. Individual freedom, individual responsibility, the dignity and unique identity of each individual person is the core of my worldview. I forget sometimes that that is not the case for every culture.

rhhardin said...

Thus disproving the stereotype that Jews are the best comedians.

I think it was a comment on the rape solicited by a newspaper reporter. And he got sued by his former wife for it.

mandrewa said...

Robert Cook.

In Turkey, roughly one hundred years ago, one-fifth of the population was Christian. Something happened and in a short span of time that Christian population was either killed or they left because they were afraid they would be killed. Today Turkey is 99% Muslim.

In Pakistan, roughly seventy years ago, a very large percentage of the population was not Muslim. In a short span of time, the non-Muslims were either killed or they left because they were afraid they would be killed. Today Pakistan is 99% Muslim.

How many countries in the world today are ruled by Islam and are also intolerant of anyone that is not Muslim? I think it's quite a list.

I don't understand people that look at this and say that this isn't about Islam.

I also don't understand how you can think that people that support ISIS or something similar somehow don't count. Your numbers are disingenuous. Your fraction of 1% is true if we count actual ISIS fighters. But there's a huge number of Muslims that support ISIS or similar things without being ISIS fighters.

exiledonmainstreet said...

" His sexual compulsions seemed strange and rare, but they've since been mirrored with Ratner and Toback. Who on earth whips it out and starts masturbating in front of a girl as part of the courtship dance?"

Yes, that is so bizarre. I am a woman and so don't claim I have any great insight into male fantasies, but I assume most men dream about actually having sex with beautiful women, not jacking off in front of them!

But then I remember Clinton and the blue dress. Fear of impregnating the woman, perhaps, which means they avoid actual intercourse?

MikeR said...

Always hard to watch Pollack. See around 54 minutes. He just cannot, will not, think outside his bubble. Glenn does an excellent job explaining how the people outside might think, but it just doesn't register.

buwaya said...

"He just cannot, will not, think outside his bubble. Glenn does an excellent job explaining how the people outside might think, but it just doesn't register."

Typical situation. You find this very often, and just as much with very intelligent people. It may come from a life lived without true mental exercise out of field. Atrophies the brain. Leads to a lack of flexibility.

This is one of those things a liberal education is meant to address, but liberal education has been getting bad for a long time.

tim in vermont said...

"But then, I'm also not saying something stupid like "Islam = KKK / Nazis / MS-13,"etc."

Well it's a common interpretation Muslims have been inexplicably been making for over a thousand years.

Wilbur said...

Bob Boyd said...
I guess if a person feels pride when a member of his race wins a Nobel Prize or an Olympic medal or something, then shame over a guy like Weinstein would be corallary to that.
____________________________________________________________________________________

I wrote something similar to this on a past St. Patrick's Day, to the effect that just as it is ridiculous to be ashamed of one's ancestors, so is it with taking pride in one's ancestors.

It was not received well by the local commentators.

Angel-Dyne said...

It's normal and human to feel embarrassed or ashamed of the bad behavior of one's group, whatever kind of group it is. (Family, ethnic, national, religious, professional.)

I'm embarrassed by family members with bad character. I'm embarrassed by members of my ethnic group who seem determined to embody its every negative stereotype. (Like, say, still voting Democrat). I'm embarrassed by American women whose screeching conversations rape ears from a half a mile away in city venues and quiet countrysides the world over. (Though I'm somewhat consoled that Chinese tourists are now offering serious competition in that particular global arena.) I take the ongoing scandals and idiocies of the modern Roman Catholic Church "personally", even though I neither practice nor believe.

Feeling responsible for any of this? Not really.

Assrat said...

>It was not received well by the local commentators.

Nor should it be. It's not that clear-cut. Hey, you want to be proud someone from your tribe wrote Macbeth or put the first Man in orbit? That's awesome stuff and I hope you'll knock one back for me. There's not enough pride in accomplishment in this world.

Char Char Binks said...

"I think it was a comment on the rape solicited by a newspaper reporter. And he got sued by his former wife for it."

You think wrong. It was part of Allen's standup routine. It wasn't an off-the-cuff -- he wrote it, thought about it, and STILL decided it was a suitable part of his act, and his moronic fans yukked it up.

BTW, your excuse for it, if true, would have made it even more reprehensible. Allen's joke, although stupid, not funny, and in poor taste, was about his wife being sexually unresponsive. If he'd been joking about his wife actually getting raped, that would have been something even Laslo probably wouldn't have done.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

American women whose screeching conversations rape ears from a half a mile away in city venues and quiet countrysides the world over. (Though I'm somewhat consoled that Chinese tourists are now offering serious competition in that particular global arena.)

OT, but why does no one value quiet anymore?!

It's now becoming commonplace for people to watch idiot movies for idiots (Marvel, I'm looking in your general direction) at deafening volume on phones or tablets on planes with no headphones. [Practitioners of this who may be reading: I sincerely and fervently wish for your sudden death when you do this.] People let their kids watch and play more idiot entertainment on phones in restaurants. Everyone has to yell out their conversations. A couple rows back on a recent flight I took a Chinese woman was listening to that godawful gongy music pouring out of her phone's tinny speakers for hours. Every time I go to an OB appt there is dumbassery pouring from the blaring TV in the corner of the waiting room and more people watching videos of people run in to walls and what the fuck else ever because God forbid you just sit quietly for fifteen minutes.
Oh my god, world SHUT UP!!!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Pants, the Hasids are but one subset of Orthodox Judaism. When I look at Ben Shapiro or an Orthodox Jewish physician of my acquaintance, I do not see people who have closed themselves off from the outside, unclean world. I don't think it's a choice between secularism and the closed-in world of Hasidic Jewry.

There's no doubt it's a demanding religion, even if you are not Hasidic. I would have a tough time with the prohibition on bacon and shellfish!

Wilbur said...

"There's not enough pride in accomplishment in this world."

And you mentioned nothing that YOU accomplished. Your connection to it, good or bad, is an accident of birth.

It's as nonsensical as a Jew feeling tainted by what Harvey did.

Gahrie said...

No. But then, I'm also not saying something stupid like "Islam = KKK / Nazis / MS-13,"etc.

I'm not either...Islam is much worse.

Either you are entirely ignorant of Islam or like Althouse you are choosing to ignore the truth because it makes you feel bad.

Wilbur said...

Robert Cook said...
"I think it has to do with powerful men who come to believe they have a right to grab anything or satisfy any desire they have, because they have the money and power to make it so. Such powerfully placed people know that most of the people they deal with rely on them for jobs or for business deals, so they know they can act with impunity: either the other party will comply or will, at the least, never speak about the incident."

This is correct. It's less about a warp in the sexual psyche, than about the raw exercise of power.

Assrat said...

>And you mentioned nothing that YOU accomplished. Your connection to it, good or bad, is an accident of birth.

Predictable answer. You could have saved time by saying yes, you want people to feel a bit worse.

n.n said...

Unless there is principled alignment, then no, they are merely a coincidence of incidence (e.g. "color of skin").

Angel-Dyne said...

wilbur: I wrote something similar to this on a past St. Patrick's Day, to the effect that just as it is ridiculous to be ashamed of one's ancestors, so is it with taking pride in one's ancestors.

It was not received well by the local commentators.


Probably because they were normal human beings, and normal human beings recognize that there's something "off" about people who don't understand normal human feelings about ancestors and relations.

It's what people do. What is ridiculous is to think that human beings should be strictly rational about what are essentially a-rational things.

If you want to go all spergy on Jews for being embarrassed by their Weinsteins and proud of their Nobel laureates, be my guest. But it makes you ridiculous, in the fully human, social sense, which is where the concept of "ridiculous" resides.

Angel-Dyne said...

Pants @11:49 AM:

Don't get me started, Pants. Don't even get me started...

Danno said...

Robert Cook said..."There are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world. If even just 1% of Muslims were terrorists, that would be 200 million of them. Or, if only 1% of this 1% were terrorists, that would still be 2 million terrorists. There are not 2,000,000 Islamic terrorists in the world, so the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is somewhere less than 1% of 1% of all Muslims in the world."

Math is hard! One percent of 2 billion is 20 million not 200 million. One percent of 20 million is 200 thousand. There may well be 200 thousand Muslims that are terrorists or are in support of terrorism!

Wilbur said...

The one who thinks it's normal for someone to be ashamed of one's ancestors is the one who wants to make people feel a bit worse.

And I don't know what "spergy" means.

Assrat said...

>And I don't know what "spergy" means.

Perhaps the Thought Masters of your home planet of Vulcan can explain.

Rick said...

Should a Jew feel responsible for the bad behavior of other Jews — like Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wieseltier, and Anthony Weiner?


Be serious. We all know only white skin confers guilt.

Angel-Dyne said...

Wilbur: And you mentioned nothing that YOU accomplished. Your connection to it, good or bad, is an accident of birth.

A great many things that are profoundly meaningful and consequential in human lives are mere "accidents of birth".

That one should feel this or that emotion only toward things that one has personally accomplished is just a bit of spergy dogma that has little relation to how human beings think and feel about their relation to time, history, culture, and other human beings.

Bad Lieutenant said...

This is correct. It's less about a warp in the sexual psyche, than about the raw exercise of power.


It's a dessert topping AND a floor wax. Deviant or perverse sexuality is a null concept these days as we are always being told not to judge. But in fact, if you can stomach the reading, eg the actual 120 Days of Sodom, written by the actual Marquis de Sade, the acts therein are all in the form of: players abuse one another, while the masters, well, masturbate to climax.

The girl getting whipped, the boy used as furniture, they may (they sure do!) get violated, but the master doesn't even touch them. Their own junk might be doorknobs for all the use it gets.

So, Roman Polanski. Not good, but not off the charts of comprehensible human behavior. He screwed her, yes, in all three holes, but he didn't make her lick his floors clean with a blender jammed up her ass set to frappe. The only real beef here is that she was underage, and consent was the issue. If he'd plucked that flower five years later (and there is no suggestion that she was a virgin), we wouldn't even be discussing this.

So, Polanski: bad, wrong, but not a sick fuck.

Weinstein, Clinton, Toback, sick fucks. In some cases with, in some cases without consent.

R.J. Chatt said...

The Torah makes clear that the Jews are a people with a unique mission in the world, not to rule the world, but to be a holy people. There has never been a mandate to proselytize but a mandate to be an example of a people devoted to God. The whole emphasis of the religion is to love and honor God by following laws set out for ethical behavior. Many Jews may not even be aware of any of this but the truth of it lies deep in the collective consciousness. So for those reasons, the minority status and the ethical mandate, there is automatically some sense of shame over Jews who transgress. Also however, Judaism is traditionally patriarchal and that might account for the dismissive misogyny of an exceptional intellectual like Leon Wieseltier and others, but not sexual abuse and intimidation.

I found it strange of Glenn to suggest that some Jews might feel a sense of pride about Weinstein and his sexual exploitation. Not even close.

R.J. Chatt said...

In contrast to the Jews the shame and anger that Muslims feel about being blamed for terrorism is not because the terrorists are violating the deepest teachings of the Koran. The shame come from the exposure that the terrorists are following the Koran literally and is what the religion demands.

David Baker said...

"Math is hard!... There may well be 200 thousand Muslims that are terrorists or are in support of terrorism!"

Math may also be misleading. Regarding Islam, for example, all Muslims (ie 100% of two billion followers) are active and/or potentially willing terrorists. It's part of their so-called "religion," which by western standards is not a religion at all, but rather a violent political movement.

"There are not 2,000,000 Islamic terrorists in the world, so the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is somewhere less than 1% of 1% of all Muslims in the world."

At the very least, the above figures should read; There are not 2,000,000 Islamic terrorists in the world, there are 2,000,000,000.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Bad Lieutenant said...
So, Polanski: bad, wrong, but not a sick fuck.

Weinstein, Clinton, Toback, sick fucks. In some cases with, in some cases without consent.


An interesting moral calculus. 13-year-olds were more socially acceptable back in the day, but butt-fucking was yet to be taught in junior high. Maybe Polanski was just ahead of his time. My brother's reasoning is that Polanski deserves a life-time pass for what the Manson gang did to Sharon Tate.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Be serious. We all know only white skin confers guilt.

11/7/17, 12:29 PM

All three of them look pretty white to me.


If you didn't know who Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wieseltier, and Anthony Weiner were and were just shown pictures of them and were told their names were Otto Klutz, Jean-Pierre LePew and Vito Schmuckatelli, you'd say, OK.

David Baker said...

BTW, Glenn Loury makes a valid point regarding the stereotypical Jewish male. In fact, I was genuinely surprised by the actions of Anthony Weiner.

Although there's also something to be said about sexual abnormalities in general, that they tend to be more common as we ascend the success scale. And apparently more so among Jews.

For the sake of fairness, however, Mahatma Gandhi was also no saint.

Bill said...

I think you are no longer considered a Jew by other Jews if you convert.

Yiddish proverb: A meshumed iz nit keyn yid und nit keyn goy. = A convert is neither Jew nor Gentile.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Pants, the Hasids are but one subset of Orthodox Judaism. When I look at Ben Shapiro or an Orthodox Jewish physician of my acquaintance, I do not see people who have closed themselves off from the outside, unclean world. I don't think it's a choice between secularism and the closed-in world of Hasidic Jewry.

Yes, I realize this, that there is a continuum, but what struck me was how deeply and frankly the people interviewed in this particular setting believed and articulated that the individual has a higher duty to the community than to the self, and that children belong to the community and not to their parents. Not judgin' ~ they can do their thing all day long and I'll go over here and do my thing ~ but it was interesting to compare and contrast to my own value system and identity which is all about my right to freely claim or freely reject expectations that others have of me. Doing so does not cost me my family/community, which it seems to in other cultures. Just interesting, is all.

pdug said...

"I think you are no longer considered a Jew by other Jews if you convert."

But white people are bad for saying if a white has kids with a black person, the kids are black?

buwaya said...

Nazi rules, IIRC, were that three Jewish grandparents made you a Jew whatever your religion.

But with two Jewish grandparents (mischling) you were a Jew only if you were a practicing Jew.

buwaya said...

Among Basques, the old rule (or joke) was you didn't count as Basque, and hence weren't socially acceptable, unless you had the "Ocho Apellidos Bascos" - or eight Basque names, i.e., eight Basque great-grandparents, else you were a "maketo", a mischling.

A compendium of Basque jokes, in case you want humor about entirely alien categories of ethnic prejudice -

"Ocho Apellidos Bascos"(Spanish Affair), Martinez-Lazaro, 2014

A couple of years ago I arranged for a genetic test of an aged relative of ours, who wanted to verify that her "ocho apellidos" really were. They were.

holdfast said...

SHOULD Jews feel responsible for Weinstein et al? No, they shouldn't.

DO many Jews feel at least a little responsible, or at least sullied? Probably.

Is that a bad thing? Nope - a little collective guilt or responsibility keeps us humble and may even lead to some shaming and group pressure to be better. That's a good thing.

Of course, Weinstein didn't commit his gross acts in the name of, or to further the reach of, Judaism. Unlike Jihadis, who commit their heinous acts in the name of Islam and to increase the power and reach of Islam.

William Chadwick said...

I'm of Brooklyn Irish descent, and I feel exactly zero responsibility for any of the Irish who beat up Jews (until they ran into young Bugsy Siegel and his pals) on the streets of NYC.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Oso Negro said...
Blogger Bad Lieutenant said...
So, Polanski: bad, wrong, but not a sick fuck.

Weinstein, Clinton, Toback, sick fucks. In some cases with, in some cases without consent.

An interesting moral calculus. 13-year-olds were more socially acceptable back in the day, but butt-fucking was yet to be taught in junior high. Maybe Polanski was just ahead of his time.



Well he was European after all. But I don't think anal is or was so occult even to Americans; certainly an effective method of birth control, which I believe was his declared intent.

But he had a broadly normal interaction with the girl. I don't believe he meant her any harm, which is not to say that he did it for her benefit. Would she be better off if he had impregnated her?

He did not beat her, he did not humiliate or terrorize her (at least it was not his aim), he did not knock her up or give her a disease, he had sex with her, as I daresay you and I understand sex. But Weinstein wanking onto a plant, Clinton into a sink? Call me crazy, I find that nuts.


Frankly given the circumstances surrounding her presence, it's fair enough to conclude that if she didn't go there for sex, her mother sent her there for sex. But I'm not here to beg Polanski off his punishment, I'm just saying that while what he did was wrong, it does not to me seem insane. The wanking, the intimidation, seem insane.



My brother's reasoning is that Polanski deserves a life-time pass for what the Manson gang did to Sharon Tate.

11/7/17, 1:03 PM

I got nothing. Didn't know her. Before my time. But if losing your whole family in the Holocaust doesn't get you a pass, I guess he'd accept mercy under the hot-wife-murdered-by-Mansons rule.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Blogger David Baker said...
BTW, Glenn Loury makes a valid point regarding the stereotypical Jewish male. In fact, I was genuinely surprised by the actions of Anthony Weiner.

Although there's also something to be said about sexual abnormalities in general, that they tend to be more common as we ascend the success scale. And apparently more so among Jews.


Are you trolling?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Is that a bad thing? Nope - a little collective guilt or responsibility keeps us humble and may even lead to some shaming and group pressure to be better. That's a good thing."

True. The problem is that a lot of collective guilt leads to the situation we have now, where white males are told to check their privilege because Slavery and/or Imperialism (in England).

Somehow the Golden Mean seems impossible to achieve en masse. In the West, there has been a swing from triumphalism to self-abasement in the space of a century (and yes, I know of all the historical events that led to this point.)

Dave in Tucson said...

They told me if I voted for Trump, whole religions would be judged on the actions of a few bad actors, and they were right!

exiledonmainstreet said...

buwaya said...
Nazi rules, IIRC, were that three Jewish grandparents made you a Jew whatever your religion.

But with two Jewish grandparents (mischling) you were a Jew only if you were a practicing Jew.

11/7/17, 2:26 PM

Well, there are Nazi rules and there is how the Jews actually define themselves. Jewish: born of a Jewish mother, unless you convert. Not born of a Jewish mother: not Jewish unless you convert (and I believe Israel recognizes only Orthodox conversions.)

pdug said:

"But white people are bad for saying if a white has kids with a black person, the kids are black?"

Actually, I think blacks say that as well. Have you ever heard a black describe Obama as a "half-white President?"

David Baker said...

"Are you trolling?"

What does that mean, exactly?

Bad Lieutenant said...

David, it means that I found your remarks offensive and stupid, and I wondered whether or not you were sincere, or perhaps had expressed yourself badly, or were speaking with the specific intent to provoke.

David Baker said...

Bad Lieutenant,

No, I wasn't trolling or trying to provoke. In fact, I consider my remarks on the subject pretty tame, that is, based on my experience. Of course, it doesn't mean I'm right.

Apparently you've had a different experience, one that makes no distinctions.

Bad Lieutenant said...

BTW, Glenn Loury makes a valid point

What point?

regarding the stereotypical Jewish male.


What stereotype?


In fact, I was genuinely surprised by the actions of Anthony Weiner.

Weren't we all. But why, in your case?


Although there's also something to be said about sexual abnormalities in general, that they tend to be more common as we ascend the success scale.

Interesting, and with a ring of truth, depending on how you define "abnormalities."

And apparently more so among Jews.

How does this appear to you to be so?

Luke Lea said...

tim in vermont said: "I consider myself a Christian Atheist who respects Jesus Christ as a great philosopher and a bit of a showman, who dragged a large part of the world out of barbarianism."

I'll try to remember that. The world could use more people like you.

holdfast said...

@ exiledonmainstreet

Well that's true. I absolutely refuse to accept any guilt or responsibility for something that some groups of white people were doing long ago when my people were getting the crap beaten out of them by Cossacks and others, and weren't generally considered to be "white" anyway.

Luke Lea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

It's a commonplace to observe that Jews are just like other people, only more so. It stands to reason then that their pervs are just like other pervs, only pervier. Harvey will not soon be topped in the annals of perverts. It's not just the wanking. It's the wanking in front of A-list movie stars. Most of us never even get in the same room as an A-list movie star.............I would be interested to know the ethnic makeup of the furries. That's a fresh new perversion. I can't stereotype any of its practitioners, but it looks like the kind of thing pajama boy would be into.

David Baker said...

"What point?"

That Jewish men are passive. And I agree. But Weiner was/is not. Nor is Weinstein and the others.

I grew up in NY and dated a number of Jewish girls - who generally took a dim view of Jewish boys, that is, as regards romance and dating. Because they considered Jewish boys wimps. Say what you will about Weiner, he doesn't come across as the stereotypical wimp.






Bad Lieutenant said...

Uhhhh... Hmm. Well, OK, you have me there; if he had a shyness problem, I guess he got over it.

Robert Cook said...

David Baker said:

"Regarding Islam, for example, all Muslims (ie 100% of two billion followers) are active and/or potentially willing terrorists. It's part of their so-called 'religion,' which by western standards is not a religion at all, but rather a violent political movement.

'There are not 2,000,000 Islamic terrorists in the world, so the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is somewhere less than 1% of 1% of all Muslims in the world.'

"At the very least, the above figures should read; There are not 2,000,000 Islamic terrorists in the world, there are 2,000,000,000."


As I said, (my math mistake notwithstanding), you guys are hopeless. You assert huge numbers of Islamic terrorists simply because you want it to be so, to justify your own fear and/or hatred of Muslims.

Danno said:

"There may well be 200 thousand Muslims that are terrorists or are in support of terrorism!"

Even accepting your speculation as true for argument's sake, that amounts to 1% of 1% of all Muslims in the world, still a negligible fraction of the whole. it doesn't warrant any accusations or assumptions that Muslims as a whole cohort are terrorists, potential terrorists, or supporters of terrorism.

mockturtle said...

Should a Jew feel responsible...? Hell no! And I wish they would quit reflexively voting Democratic.

David Baker said...

Mr. Cook,

Until there's a foolproof way to separate the "good" Muslims from the bad Muslims, we must assume that ALL Muslims are terrorists - not based on fear, but on the Koran and other Islamic teachings. Muslims themselves don't have a choice; they either all Muslim, or all apostate.

This differs greatly from western religions where, for example, a "good" Catholic may also be an advocate for baby killers (ie Nancy Pelosi).

Rick said...

Robert Cook said...
As I said, (my math mistake notwithstanding), you guys are hopeless. You assert huge numbers of Islamic terrorists simply because you want it to be so, to justify your own fear and/or hatred of Muslims.


We assert large numbers of Muslims support terrorism because we live in the real world. You do not because as a supporter of fantasy economics you realized how much easier it to simply argue counterfactuals and ignore real world evidence.

Here's Pew (following the modified Althouse Rule) giving us the good news that that only 43% of Jordanians (for example) suicide bombings and violence against civilians.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/

Here's a Gallup poll showing that about 15% of Muslims believe attacks on civilians are at least sometimes justified.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx

Meanwhile the idiots are still confused about the difference between what they wish were true and what is actually true.

Leonard Pailet said...

I have often said that just because a person has a lobotomy does not make him Jewish. You have to be very careful about who says what about whom. Too many people pick quotes from people whom they know will discredit people they want discredited. I would not believe Noam Chomsky even if he were telling the truth because he would be doing so for some dishonest reason.

mandrewa said...

Robert Cook said, "...1% of 1% of all Muslims in the world, still a negligible fraction of the whole. it doesn't warrant any accusations or assumptions that Muslims as a whole cohort are terrorists, potential terrorists, or supporters of terrorism."

This is simply not true. At https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx there is long list of surveys of Muslim opinion done by different polling organizations at different times in a great variety of countries on different specific acts of Islamic terrorism. The numbers are all over the place but not surprisingly in countries where almost everyone is Muslim, that is where you get really high percentages of people supporting terrorism.

There are to many numbers to go through, but here's just one poll that gives a ballpark figure.

Pew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda.

To me that implies that at least 43% of the Muslims that Pew Research surveyed supported ISIS. I say 'at least' because this is exactly the sort of issue that people are likely to lie about. And I know what direction the lie is going to go and that means the real level of support is probably higher than 43%. Further I would guess that the Pew Research poll did not cover all Muslim countries and in fact is biased towards Muslim populations in Western countries, and if that's the case, the real level of support for ISIS was significantly higher.

Of course most Muslims are not well-informed about the West. What about Muslims living in western countries?

For example Britain. There are few western nations that have tried harder to accommodate Muslims than Britain. Seriously, you can be sent away to prison for 15 years for criticizing Islam in Britain. It's an appalling situation.

So how do British Muslims respond to their very special treatment?

BBC Radio (2015): 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam".

Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.

Channel Four (2006): 31% of younger British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified compared to 14% of those over 45.

To me that suggests that it's a least 45% of the British Muslim population that would support ISIS. I mean when you allow for the probability of people of lying about their feelings on this issue. This isn't the kind of thing you'd expect people to admit to. But here they are in huge numbers, in the West even, admitting to feeling this way.

So the 1% thing is a big lie. There's huge number of people that supported ISIS. It dwarfs the population of the United States.

Ken B said...

They're alive, I’m alive. I'd be prouder of being alive if these guys didn’t say such stuff.

Ken B said...

@Robert Cook
So few of anything commit murder. It’s silly to say “believing in X doesn’t lead to Y because few Xs do Y” . The relevant question is whether X makes Y more likely. You make EXACTLY This argument when you advocate for gun control.

Gahrie said...

They told me if I voted for Trump, whole religions would be judged on the actions of a few bad actors, and they were right!

I judge religions by what they teach their followers.

Rusty said...

Robert Cook said...
Apparently, no one here thinks any member of a group should feel bad or responsible for the bad behavior of others in their group.

Muslims must be the exception.


And gun owners

Robert Cook said...

"@Robert Cook
So few of anything commit murder. It’s silly to say “believing in X doesn’t lead to Y because few Xs do Y” . The relevant question is whether X makes Y more likely. You make EXACTLY This argument when you advocate for gun control."


As far as I can recall, I have never made any comments here regarding gun control, pro or con.

I do think there should be licensing requirements for persons to buy guns. They're dangerous instruments--simply having firearms in a household increase the statistical chances someone in that household will be killed by a gun--and beyond having to show identification of who they are, people should be required to take classes in safe handling and use of firearms, and have to show those license before they can purchase firearms...just as we require of people to drive automobiles. (If this isn't already required, it would be a good idea to require people to purchase gun insurance just as we require them to buy automobile insurance, to insure that when people are injured or killed by irresponsible or careless use of a gun by others, they or their survivors can be compensated for cost of medical care, damages, etc.)

Robert Cook said...

"Until there's a foolproof way to separate the 'good' Muslims from the bad Muslims, we must assume that ALL Muslims are terrorists - not based on fear, but on the Koran and other Islamic teachings."

Until we have a foolproof way of separating "good" human beings from bad human beings, we must assume that ALL human beings are murderers--not based on fear, but on the reality that murder occurs among all humans. What do we do with this information? Do we implant tracking devices in every human to ensure our safety against the unlikely* possibility any one of us will be murdered?

Given how few Muslims commit terrorism, we must assume most of them are "good" Muslims, or, at least, as is true of many people, not inclined for various reasons to act on anti-social, violent impulses they may hold).


*(Though far more likely than that we will be murdered by Islamic terrorists in particular.)

Daniel Jackson said...

Back in the late fifties and sixties, a lot of my landsmen five to seven years older thought only about "passing" into the White World (aka The Goyim). It was a dream shared by most ethnic New York--you knew you made it when people thought you were White. Since, by the history of my ethnic group, we were immigrants, there was the usual first steps of acquiring a goysch name (such as Jackson or Yankelevitch from Ben Yaakov). For the second generation, it was getting a Schiksa wife, a desire shared by the Irish and Italianos competition in the same neighbs.

The PRIZE has always been the BLOND Schiksa. Tall, does what she is told, very blonde, and decidedly White. And there were always plenty of Bimbos to be had.

The landsmen of that generation also share a deplorable disdain for such women because they were easy to get and easy to manipulate. Oh, the Landsmen would justify what they were doing as fighting the Good Fight against the Goyim for their racism and, OF COURSE, the Holocaust. Perhaps it was because the Blond Schiksei were such easy prey due to their White Guilt.

They, the Landsmen, said they were really emulating The Spades (as in Firesign Theater's dictum that ALL SPADES ARE GROOVY) who could nail a White Blond with the question, "well, baby, you ain't prejudice?"

The Columbia University sociologist Peter Blau wrote that it was a numbers game: there were simply more of them than us. But, for us on the street, our Sisters and Cousins were plain, shrill, and caustic. To the Schiksei, the Landsmen were shocking but not that shocking.

The Landsmen saw opportunity in a field of willing victims who were willing to make atonement for their Whiteness. They could play on their neurotic pain (see Woody Allen) or they could trade on their Street-wise gutter tough guy or their sharp biting tongue. All of them were cool in their way. All knew how to get their share of Swag or ride the Gravy Train.

Alas, I found the entire charade repellent and still do. It's not a new thing: read Proverbs. They lie awaiting their pigeons. In the university, for example, there were generations of men (and women) who entered the hallowed halls to fondle the bodies of willing boys and girls in exchange for an injection of Knowledge and Truth.

Should we be held accountable for the actions of our Landsmen of all ethnic persuasions? An interesting question; but, not the correct one. Are we willing to tolerate ANY form of predatory behavior that takes the shape of Wolves in Sheep Skins? IF there is a social dimension to the problem, it is one that affects all and THAT is the venue for examination.

If Harvey, Alec, Bill, Woody, Martin, [your favorite man/woman here] are to be held accountable, at most it should be due to the contextual effects operational at that time. Same for the adherents of radical islam. Let's be Marxists here and hold religious/ethnic elements as epi-phenomena and focus on the Means and Modes of Production: MONEY!

When I studied Street Dynamics in Seattle years back, the "market" triangle was Dope, Sex, and Money. I do not see the difference between that Street and Hollywood, Washington DC, New York, London, or Paris--at any level of Society. If you want to get in the Game, you have to ante up. Those Blonds are not innocent, which is why my Jewish Grandmother (a veteran of the Schmata District) always warned me to stay away from Bimbos--"they use their good looks for as long as they hold; and they are VERY SMART; and much SMARTER than YOU!"

If Harvey or Bill feel from anything it is because they did not understand Anna Jackson's LAST comment.

I'm more ashamed of the "victims" than the predators.

mandrewa said...

contextual effects: A context effect is an aspect of cognitive psychology that describes the influence of environmental factors on one's perception of a stimulus. The impact of context effects is considered to be part of top-down design. The concept is supported by the theoretical approach to perception known as constructive perception.

Street Dynamics, guessing this phrase is related to Crowd Dynamics: In other words, the psychological processes which relate society to crowd action are those of identity. ... In either case, it will be impossible to complete the cycle of crowd dynamics whereby social factors affect identity which organizes action which then reflects back upon society - and so on.

So Daniel Jackson, did I decode that correctly? That doesn't mean I understand what you're saying. I take it that these clues would enable me to guess what you mean if I shared the vocabulary.

So I take it you're a psychologist or at least you've had that training?

You're last sentence seems easy to interpret: I'm more ashamed of the "victims" than the predators.

I don't agree with that.

But it has struck me that few of the "victims" speaking out actually feel like victims to me. I'm not a psychologist or anything like that but in my experience of talking to others it seems to me the more serious an issue is the less likely a person is to talk about it. So my expectation is that if someone was sexually abused and traumatized that they are unlikely to talk about it, and certainly not in public. So there is kind of a paradox here, because the people talking are probably people that were not hurt, so they lack authenticity, but that doesn't mean that there aren't real victims.

Daniel Jackson said...

Street Dynamics refers to the market forces that fuel the Dope, Sex, and Money triangle that plays out in modern urban centers. Commodities of Dope, Sex, and Money are exchanged by players that control one or more commodities but seek one of the others.

In Seattle, where I studied the street market, the price of street sex approached the price of enough white powder obtained with money from a source of supply.

My point was simply that entertainment (and to some extent education) is run on a similar market system. The days of theatrical talent seem over replaced by sexy boys and girls who want a chance at the big time controlled by Jaba The Hut creatures (physically as well as psychologically). This is known up front by everyone.

I put victim in scare marks to point out these people reaped benefits from their participation. I would agree that there was the potential for violent retaliation for coming out; but, that's a choice not unlike a person deciding that they will take adjunct faculty positions and sleep in cars so long as they can stay in the game.

I'm a sociologist by training and disposition who wanted to see his subjects up close and personal rather than numbers in spreadsheet cells.

Gahrie said...

Given how few Muslims commit terrorism, we must assume most of them are "good" Muslims

Most Muslims don't commit violence because they live in Muslim societies ruled by Sharia law. But they support violence against non-believers by Muslims who live in non-Muslim societies.

Gahrie said...

They're dangerous instruments--simply having firearms in a household increase the statistical chances someone in that household will be killed by a gun--

Brilliant, simply brilliant. Next he'll tell us that owning cars increases the chances that you will die in a car crash.

Gahrie said...

(If this isn't already required, it would be a good idea to require people to purchase gun insurance

That would be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to own a gun.

Robert Cook said...

"Most Muslims don't commit violence because they live in Muslim societies ruled by Sharia law. But they support violence against non-believers by Muslims who live in non-Muslim societies."

Aside from your unsubstantiated "reason" most Muslims don't commit violence, what about the Muslims who live in non-Muslim countries, such as America?

"'They're dangerous instruments--simply having firearms in a household increase the statistical chances someone in that household will be killed by a gun--'

"Brilliant, simply brilliant. Next he'll tell us that owning cars increases the chances that you will die in a car crash."

Of course you don't get it: many people buy guns for their own safety, to protect themselves and their homes against intruders. Yet, having guns in the home means more of those gun-owners will die by gunshot. They would be statistically safer if they never bought the guns. So...why do deaths go up when people have guns in the home? Because they're dangerous implements and having one around means there's greater likelihood someone will shoot someone else in the home though accident, in a moment of passion, or by committing suicide. This is why, ahem, people who want to buy guns should be required to take classes in safe handling, storage, and use of firearms, and should have to be licensed to verify they have taken these classes. It may not prevent the murderers and suicides, but it could very well reduce the accidental gun deaths that occur in the home. (More Americans by far are killed by toddlers shooting guns each year than by terrorists--the annual death rate by Muslim terrorists in America is about one person per year.)

Robert Cook said...

"'(If this isn't already required, it would be a good idea to require people to purchase gun insurance'

"That would be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to own a gun"


How so? One could still buy a gun, but would simply have to take steps protect against the damaging results of intentional or accidental misuse of the gun. With rights come responsibilities, sport.