1. **Assumption of Unwillingness:** It assumes that the other party is entirely unwilling to understand the Chareidi perspective, potentially overlooking opportunities for mutual understanding.
2. **Generalization:** The argument generalizes the larger Israeli society's attitude, possibly oversimplifying diverse perspectives within that community.
3. **Absolute Statements:** The use of absolute statements like "any conversation is impossible" might be overly definitive, as there could be individuals open to understanding different perspectives.
4. **Dismissal of Valid Points:** While emphasizing a lack of understanding, it also acknowledges that the other side might have valid points. Ignoring these points could weaken the overall argument.
5. **Rigidity in Communication:** The argument implies a fixed stance on the futility of dialogue, potentially hindering flexibility in communication and problem-solving.
Addressing these points could strengthen the argument and foster more constructive conversations.
If they're mad because the burden is not equal (an obfuscating slogan), that’s on them. - Huh? We are talking about defending Klal Yisrael in an Eis Tzara. To be moser nefesh like the rest of the nation is not a burden, it's a huge mitzva. Why is the blood of a chareidi bachur redder than a dati?
Can you clarify what point you are trying to respond to?
Are you arying to respond to the allegation that charedim are highly inconsistent and hypocritical - they are happy to preach the Desslerian/heavy yeshivish model of hishtadlus (its all a smokescreen, the same result will happen with zero hishtadlus for a true ba'al bitochon) as the ideal when it comes to parnossoh and army, but in ALL other things they do as much hishtadlus as everybody else (including numerous hours of lost learning time canvassing in elections) and fund raising.
In that case, you have not explained anything at all.
Democracy: rule of the retarded by the retarded. The whole army issue could become a non issue if our side started campaigning for the end of the draft model for all citizens. The establishment doesn't want that because then the army will be filled with people who actually want to be there. Conscription is slavery: any claim that the state has ownership of you in any way is completely illegitimate. That is what the Haredi parties should have been saying since day one.
"Is playing the political game in line with the Torah? Absolutely! We will use the tactics provided for us as a right of democracy, simply to allow the Torah community to thrive. Anyone willing to engage with us and convince us that our moral system is wrong, good luck!"
You're conflating representative democracy with freedom of expression. The 2 aren't the same thing. For example, children have rights. But they can't vote. They're welcome to try to change that- as women did with the 19th amendment to the U.S. constitution, and 18 year olds did with the 26th, but for now the fact remains that even if all 14 year olds across the country were to unite, they still wouldn't have any political representation. Equally, just because they can't vote doesn't mean they don't have civil rights e.g. first amendment protection of their tik-tok videos.
"In all honesty, we'd rather be left alone and stay out of things. But we can't. Because our opponents won't leave us alone."
That's not accurate at all. No one is forcing anyone to take money from the government. And charedim don't just 'want to be left alone.' They want streets closed on shaboss, a mechitza at the kosel etc. These are things which wouldn't fly in any other western democracy. https://www.timesofisrael.com/assailing-chief-rabbi-lapid-says-haredim-would-have-to-get-jobs-if-they-moved-abroad/ (To be clear, I happen to support many of those policies. But let's call a spade a spade.)
This argument may have a few flaws:
1. **Assumption of Unwillingness:** It assumes that the other party is entirely unwilling to understand the Chareidi perspective, potentially overlooking opportunities for mutual understanding.
2. **Generalization:** The argument generalizes the larger Israeli society's attitude, possibly oversimplifying diverse perspectives within that community.
3. **Absolute Statements:** The use of absolute statements like "any conversation is impossible" might be overly definitive, as there could be individuals open to understanding different perspectives.
4. **Dismissal of Valid Points:** While emphasizing a lack of understanding, it also acknowledges that the other side might have valid points. Ignoring these points could weaken the overall argument.
5. **Rigidity in Communication:** The argument implies a fixed stance on the futility of dialogue, potentially hindering flexibility in communication and problem-solving.
Addressing these points could strengthen the argument and foster more constructive conversations.
Wasn't this the topic of discussion between ben-gurion and Lehavdil the Chazon Ish?
I agree with Shaul here. I wouldn't exactly say we want to be left alone. We want other Jews to keep the Torah as well.
No! Chareidim must serve! No excuses!
If they're mad because the burden is not equal (an obfuscating slogan), that’s on them. - Huh? We are talking about defending Klal Yisrael in an Eis Tzara. To be moser nefesh like the rest of the nation is not a burden, it's a huge mitzva. Why is the blood of a chareidi bachur redder than a dati?
Can you clarify what point you are trying to respond to?
Are you arying to respond to the allegation that charedim are highly inconsistent and hypocritical - they are happy to preach the Desslerian/heavy yeshivish model of hishtadlus (its all a smokescreen, the same result will happen with zero hishtadlus for a true ba'al bitochon) as the ideal when it comes to parnossoh and army, but in ALL other things they do as much hishtadlus as everybody else (including numerous hours of lost learning time canvassing in elections) and fund raising.
In that case, you have not explained anything at all.
Democracy: rule of the retarded by the retarded. The whole army issue could become a non issue if our side started campaigning for the end of the draft model for all citizens. The establishment doesn't want that because then the army will be filled with people who actually want to be there. Conscription is slavery: any claim that the state has ownership of you in any way is completely illegitimate. That is what the Haredi parties should have been saying since day one.
"Is playing the political game in line with the Torah? Absolutely! We will use the tactics provided for us as a right of democracy, simply to allow the Torah community to thrive. Anyone willing to engage with us and convince us that our moral system is wrong, good luck!"
You're conflating representative democracy with freedom of expression. The 2 aren't the same thing. For example, children have rights. But they can't vote. They're welcome to try to change that- as women did with the 19th amendment to the U.S. constitution, and 18 year olds did with the 26th, but for now the fact remains that even if all 14 year olds across the country were to unite, they still wouldn't have any political representation. Equally, just because they can't vote doesn't mean they don't have civil rights e.g. first amendment protection of their tik-tok videos.
"In all honesty, we'd rather be left alone and stay out of things. But we can't. Because our opponents won't leave us alone."
That's not accurate at all. No one is forcing anyone to take money from the government. And charedim don't just 'want to be left alone.' They want streets closed on shaboss, a mechitza at the kosel etc. These are things which wouldn't fly in any other western democracy. https://www.timesofisrael.com/assailing-chief-rabbi-lapid-says-haredim-would-have-to-get-jobs-if-they-moved-abroad/ (To be clear, I happen to support many of those policies. But let's call a spade a spade.)