- This topic has 443 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
iacisrmma -“Health: I have my own opinion and I only use this alias. From what I can see from all of your posts (on this and all other topics) is that YOU ARE THE ONE TRYING TO MANIPULATE EVERYONE. You quoted the sources for the gedolim you mentioned. All I said was that quoting R’ Moshe accurately is not a krumkeit.”
“YOU ARE THE ONE TRYING TO MANIPULATE EVERYONE.”
How so?
“All I said was that quoting R’ Moshe accurately is not a krumkeit.”
I’m sorry Health….Your last post accusing me and apashtayid of being the same person turned me off from reading most of what you wrote.
Until I have a chance to go through the actual teshuvah from R’ Moshe I will not comment on whether you or anyone else quoted him accurately.
iacarisma. I was addressing health, not you.
health. no, we are not the same person, but, we both agree that you misunderstand (distort is too harsh a word I decided) R’ Moshe.
“I quoted Rav Moshe that says being that the chance of getting sick from smoking is only a ??? ???? so therefore it’s Mutter.”
Actually, you misunderstood the teshuva completely. The fact that it is a ??? ???? allows us to apply shomer pisayim hashem. Read the teshuva from the beginning. Ordinarily one can not say, I will put myself in a dangerous situation and rely on shomer pisayim… however, he goes on to say what you quoted. He does not use ??? ???? as a basis for permitting smoking, and now that we have more research we can assume he would have assured it. In fact, the very same teshuva strongly encourages people not to start smoking, for parents and rabbeim to discourage their children and talmidim from starting. However, he does not say, as you imply that it is categorically assur to smoke. In fact, in another teshuva he writes that one is is machmir (am pretty sure it is the word he used – but need to double check) not to smoke does not violate lifnei iver by providing a cigarette to someone who does. Again, this does not mean he approved of smoking, far from it. For accuracy sake though, it is not a good habit to misquote poskim, no matter how worthy the cause.
APY -“He does not use ??? ???? as a basis for permitting smoking, and now that we have more research we can assume he would have assured it.”
Actually he does. It’s a 2 step process. First he says Chashah, then Shomer etc.
So if it’s not ????, then there is No Heter!
That’s directly from R’ Moshe. Stop denying what he wrote!
You’re doing all this to say – you’re Never Wrong!
You’re wrong and just admit it!
“Stop denying what he wrote!”
OK, I admit, you are wrong.
You completely misunderstood his teshuva and why he mentions the sevara of chashash rachuk and its relationship to his comment shomer pesayim Hashem.
I freely admit, you have thoroughly confused me. Are you saying that Rav Moshe z’l wrote in his teshuva that smoking is an absolute issur? Are you now saying that chashash rachuk is now a heter that he is proposing to allow one to smoke? if not, please clarify this line “So if it’s not ????, then there is No Heter!”. What heter?
Did you or did you not put Rav Moshe on a list of those poskim who rule smoking is an absolute issur?
Agreed. I never said otherwise.
“The definition of addiction is that someone goes through withdrawal when it’s removed. No one suffers television or movie withdrawal. “
sam – I would be really surprised if that is accurate information
why not ask the mod who gave you your subtitle.
Why not marry a guy with a PhD in the sciences? They’re obviously going to be mumche in math and science.
That’s why I think you’re looking to be a gold digger.
Syag I beleive it’s a waste of time to argue with sparkly’s strong opinion over here. If I wanted her to see my side I think I’d need to sit down with her and have a long long long conversation.
Sparkly: there are many killers that are frummer than people who “pretend” they are frum. C’mon, there’s a type of everything for everything out there.
People if you don’t believe in media or other addictions you have not seen anyone with it. People who ditch school, hang out with boys, just to watch bad movies. People who have run away from home, spent all their money on a smartphone, and is living in the streets wherever there is free wifi, a charging port, and finding money every day for food.
You have not seen the people who have divorced, thrown off the yoke of Judiasm, destroyed their neshoma, attempted suicide multiple times when their inapropriate movies were taken away.
IF not living without _____ brings you to the point where you want to commit suicide and cannot go through your day at all, or even wake up means YOU ARE ADDICTIED.
Syag: she isn’t a troll, just a misguided girl who honestly sees no other side than her opinion.
hey, in all fairness while i did comment on her style and question her credibility i never called her a troll. I just pointed out that the mods had suggested it…
Syag: Quoting DSM-IV
Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric Association) is
defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment
or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring any time in the same
12-month period:
1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
(a) A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or
the desired effect
or
(b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.
2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
(a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance
or
(b) The same (or closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal
symptoms.
3. The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended.
4. There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.
5. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (such as
visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (for example,
chain-smoking), or recover from its effects.
6. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because
of substance use.
7. The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent physical or
psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the
substance (for example, current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced
depression or continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by
alcohol consumption).
DSM V no longer identifies addiction as a whole and instead subsumes it under individual dependencies, to allow for more nuances use of these criteria, depending on which are more relevant to which dependencies. However, it would be rare for a diagnosis for any three that do not include either tolerance or withdrawal (I have this on record from several leading psychiatrists).
One recent study posited that television addiction may exist, but it was not conclusive and called for further study. Television addiction is not recognized under DSM V.
oh sam, the DSM iv is just so yesterday! and the DSM 5 had to remove tv addiction because nobody has a tv anymore. they just watch tv on their computers.
seriously tho, i will have to mull that info over for a bit. having read every dr. twerski book around and having spent 3 months in psych hospitals (staff, not inpatient) and working with people fighting certain addictions i believe it does not match with what i have been taught/been told/learned “on the ground”. (But if it isn’t in print how valid can it really be anyway? Or was that a different thread?)
i don’t want to give away any private information but i am actually a very very prominent psychologist who has authored many books and has my name up all over the place. All of you here in the CR are just fortunate to get my free advice, which thousands of others pay hefty hourly fees for.
why should you read the books when i am here for free? besides, i am just too modest. I dont want to intimidate anyone when they find out my true identity
We thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your generosity, Syag.
that’s not nice, to call me a troll. i think the cr has rules about that!
thank you I.M., just yell if you need me. i might be with a patient but ill squeeze you in
🙂
Anyone else want to second my petition to admit Trolling Paranoia Disorder (TPD) to the DSM-6?
For the record Sparkly, this is going to sound pathetic, but I was accused of being a troll on my very first CR post and I was really hurt by it. It took me a few days to regroup and try to see it from the perspective of the accuser, and feel sympathy for this person. Thank G-d I didn’t let it stop me from contributing to the CR.
Generally speaking:
Are we not supposed to judge each other favorably?
Isn’t the point here to address the validity of the arguments and expand our understanding, rather than rip down the person behind the perspective?
Thank you
APY -“Are you saying that Rav Moshe z’l wrote in his teshuva that smoking is an absolute issur?”
Yes.
“Are you now saying that chashash rachuk is now a heter that he is proposing to allow one to smoke? if not, please clarify this line “So if it’s not ????, then there is No Heter!”. What heter?
“Did you or did you not put Rav Moshe on a list of those poskim who rule smoking is an absolute issur?”
Not me, s/o else did!
Also, even if television addiction exists, the comparison to drugs or smoking is stupid and incorrect. Anything can become addictive to certain people. For various reasons, certain people can go through withdrawal symptoms for the tiniest and most random things. There are documented cases of people going through withdrawal after staying away from tanning booths, chewing ice, getting tattoos, and there is even a case of a woman suffering withdrawal after she stopped eating the cremated remains of dead relatives. These things come from a certain predispositions and a billion-to-one confluence of circumstances. So the fact that there have been cases of someone being addicted to television does not make television addictive any more than chewing on an ice cube is addictive. Smoking and drugs have addictive qualities. They mess with the body and the brain in a way that makes the body and/or brain need to have more in the future. That is what makes them addictive. Television is not addictive. And neither are ice cubes.
Syag, Sam, Shopping613, lightbrite and several others, your only error has been to engage with a poster who seems to have no other recourse but to call them trolls and cast ridiculous aspersions. I would wonder if this poster is even aware of the nuanced meaning of the word ‘troll’ in a CR context. I haven’t been on this forum for long, but I would have hoped that this kind of discussion would have been given a wide berth by those who should know better, and I include myself in that. If only there were some way of measuring the number of posters, especially established, informed and erudite ones, who simply glance at this nonsense and move on. Of course, the general discourse is often as interesting and thought-out as ever, but certain posters have been reprehensible at best. This phenomenon perhaps deserves a wider discussion, I’m just unpleasantly surprised at some of the meaningless accusations been thrown around, especially by one quite new poster in particular.
Syag: good to know there’s a free phsyoclogist on the CR. lol
Now I will look out for a frum phsycologist that authored tons of books….lol
Is smoking thee root cause for lung cancer or perhaps air pollution due to frivolous driving is the cause? If you would slow down instead of speeding, beside consuming less gas and creating fewer accidents it would decrease the amount of air pollution. Likewise instead of hopping in the car to go a block or two besides saving gas and time and the environment it is also healthy.
shopping: I’m curious if you read any of my responses to your TV and movies addiction claim.
“Is smoking thee root cause for lung cancer or perhaps air pollution due to frivolous driving is the cause? If you would slow down instead of speeding, beside consuming less gas and creating fewer accidents it would decrease the amount of air pollution. Likewise instead of hopping in the car to go a block or two besides saving gas and time and the environment it is also healthy.”
You are wrong. Because science.
Health: On Page 2 of this thread/discussion YOU posted:
Health
!
apushatayid -“Can someone cite the teshuva where R’ Moshe says it is ASSUR to smoke?”
From 4 years ago:
“The little I know
is still a lot more than you know.
To all the disbelieving nicotine addicts:
Here is a list of poskim who proclaimed smoking as an absolute issur:
Rav A. L. Shteinman
Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro
Rav Michel Yehuda Lefkowitz
Rav Shmuel Wosner
Rav Nisim Karelitz
Rav Y.G. Edelstein
Rav B.D. Povarsky
Rav Matisyahu Salomon
Rav Shimon Bedni
Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein
Chofetz Chaim
Chazon Ish
Rav Shach
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
Rav Moshe Sterbuch
Rav Avigdor Miller
Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky
Rav Moshe Feinstein
Rav Benzion Abba Shaul
This a partial list. Each and every name here can be verified with specific reference.
Do you mean there are two users named “Health”?
iacisrmma -“Do you mean there are two users named “Health”?”
Sorry, just me from a few years ago.
Does this mean that you won’t find me a Shidduch?!?
“Yes.”
You are wrong.
APY -“You are wrong.”
Why? Cause you say so?
Call up R’ Revain and ask him what his father held if it wasn’t
a ??? ???? to get sick because of smoking?
Then come back here & inform us!
jewishfeminist02 “You are wrong. Because science.” I am not sure why I am wrong but how does science answer this question. Please explain if your going 70 MPH you are going 103 feet per second and if you have to make a short stop you can’t stop in time.
Science is anti religion so bring a proof from science is not really a proof. Science can be used for example to say someone committed a crime because it can be shown to be accurate beyond a reasonable doubt while with lung cancer it’s statistics and or actuarial tables.
“Why? Cause you say so?”
No, because you are wrong. Because nowhere in the Igros Moshe does it say what you claim again and again it says.
“Call up R’ Revain and ask him what his father held if it wasn’t
a ??? ???? to get sick because of smoking?”
I have no reason to call Rav Reuvain and waste his time because you misunderstand soemething written in the Igros Moshe.
Why dont you call him and ask him to explain the teshuva for you.
Even in his second teshuva written in 1981 (the 1st was written in 1964 several months after the first surgeons general warning about smoking) R’ Moshe held one should not start smoking and in fact held it is assur to get addicted, but as far as saying smoking was outright assur he never wrote such a thing. I am very well aware that the sefer Vidibarta Bam (piskei Rav Dovid Feinstien shlita) quotes R’ David as saying that had his father been alive today (I dont know what year “today” refers to) he surely would have assured it. However, that is not an excuse to say that Rav Moshe z’l ruled it an absolute issur to smoke, when in fact he did not. If anyone should admit they are wrong for making claims about what R’ moshe wrote in the Igros it is you. Clearly, you have no intention to. I dont expect you to. This is the last I will write on this matter. (This is an open invitation to let you have the last word)
APY -“In fact, the very same teshuva strongly encourages people not to start smoking, for parents and rabbeim to discourage their children and talmidim from starting. However, he does not say, as you imply that it is categorically assur to smoke. In fact, in another teshuva he writes that one is is machmir (am pretty sure it is the word he used – but need to double check) not to smoke does not violate lifnei iver by providing a cigarette to someone who does.
I freely admit, you have thoroughly confused me. Are you saying that Rav Moshe z’l wrote in his teshuva that smoking is an absolute issur?
Did you or did you not put Rav Moshe on a list of those poskim who rule smoking is an absolute issur?”
I just quoted what you wrote on top.
Now this is your last quote:
“R’ Moshe held one should not start smoking and in fact held it is assur to get addicted, but as far as saying smoking was outright assur he never wrote such a thing.”
Your posts are full of hypocrisy!
R’ Moshe never differentiated between getting addicted and smoking!
I never meant if you smoke one cig. you’re Oiver an Issur!
I was talking about s/o who’s addicted to smoking!
Now is your chance to correct all your posts!
Sparky to believe in science is kferah but to learn it to see the miracles of Hashem then that’s fine.
LSS: “Believe in science”? What does that even mean? “Science” is not a system of beliefs. It’s a study of the world as we see it. It’s Kefirah to study how things work?
I’ve taken over 20 science classes and I agree with Sam2
You never meant…
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.