Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Health,
1.) I’m not making any assumptions. Why would you assume that for 30 years the disease was only circulating in certain populations? Most people didn’t know if they had it at that time as more and more people got educated about it more and more cases were noticed everywhere. Also even just “intravenous drug users” is way too big of a group to quarantine in any case. That group alone would include an incredible amount of people, how do you think they would track down anyone who had used an intravenous drug in the previous 10 years??
2.) Outbreaks start with 1 person. 1 person can expose hundreds of people in just a few hours (just has to take a plane and then an airport shuttle etc.) by trying to block off half a continent and not trying to stop the epidemic over there it is virtually guaranteed that people will slip through the cracks eventually, the only difference then will be that the virus would have had more time to mutate.
Health,
1.)You are wrong. It wasn’t only in “certain populations” it was first clinically diagnosed in “certain populations” but it had been circulating in the general population for anywhere from 10-30 years before it was even noticed in those populations. The first victims of it in the USA (way before the 80s) were a diverse group.
2.) My point is simply that if Ebola isn’t controlled in Africa and we just attempt to lock out that entire part of the world it is virtually guaranteed that the virus will get here somehow. Expecting the whole world to want to follow (or even be able to have secure enough borders to follow if they wanted to do so)is far from being realistic.
Health,
1.) You are making up facts. Saying that the disease would have been easy to control on the early 8s does not make it so. Once a virus is circulating in a population for over a decade there is practically no way to figure out how many people had been exposed over that period and isolate them. How could you know that there was only a handful cases after the disease had been circulating for probably 30 years before anyone recognized it ?!
2.) You aren’t addressing my point here. If all countries on earth don’t do a quarantine at once it won’t help for the reasons i wrote above
Health,
1.) If HIV had been circulating in the American population for 10-30 years before it was recognized quarantining a couple thousand people would not have done anything. The amount of people that would have to be quarantined after a virus has been circulating that long would be astronomical and it would be just about impossible to track down everyone who may have been infected and quarantine them
2.) Looking at people’s passports won’t help because of the reasons I listed above. In order to have an affective quarantine you would need to quarantine not only West Africans but also anyone who had contact with one or with anyone who had contact with someone who had contact with one etc. it’s simply not possible. See the example i gave lior above.
Lior,
1.) As CharlieHall pointed out above barring entry comes at an extremely high cost.
2.) The point is that an ineffective quarantine (like barring entry from countries with cases) would in any case prove useless and only prevent people from actually fighting the virus. If it wouldn’t have come over here with a West African then it would have come over with someone who had contact with a West African, or someone who had contact with someone who had contact with one etc.
An ineffective quarantine is about the most harmful thing you can do in a situation like this
Health,
1.) You are wrong about HIV. It had been in the USA at least 7 to 10 years and probably closer to 30 years before it was recognized in the early 80s (first probable case was in the 50s and there was what was later definitively recognized as cases by the late 60s early 70s)
2.) My point is that to be effective the quarantine would also have to cover people who had contact with people who may have traveled to West Africa and this is not practical. I elaborated in my posts above.
Lior,
My point is that you won’t stop the virus from coming here and spreading that way and all that you will do is spend tons of money and prevent doctors/educators from going over there and actually beating the thing.
Lior,
Sure, but in order to stop a virus you would also have to stop people who had contact with anyone who may have traveled to any of those countries, and then anyone who may have had contact with those people etc.
For example: Tom from Liberia can travel to Mozambique where he has contact with Fred from Haiti. Fred now returns to Haiti and has contact with his cousin Carlos from Dominican Republic. Carlos’s brother Elvis works in Florida and comes to the Dominican Republic for the holidays where he spends the holidays with Carlos and then flies back to Florida on a plane with 250 passengers from all over the USA.
The USA can have the strictest laws blocking travel from Liberia. It won’t help.
Health,
1.) I do not work for the government
2.) Where HIV first found it’s way into the human population has nothing to do with the fact that it was probably not introduced to America by an African, and was not recognized as an emerging virus or threat until it was already imbedded in the population, it is thought that the first case of it in the USA probably occurred as early as the 1950s and as the article that you copy and pasted above stated it only showed itself by causing it’s victims to succumb to other diseases it did not have it’s own easily recognized symptoms.
3.) My point was that it isn’t practical to effectively quarantine a section of the world that big and that all that attempting to do so would do is prevent foreign doctors from going to fight the virus which would allow it to mutate and evolve into more virulent and infectious strains. Trying to hide from it won’t work. It’s got to be dealt with.
Health,
1.) HIV was brought to the U.S.A by a European
2.) Nobody knew what HIV was and being that it kills by attacking the immune system it’s symptoms are not readily apparent as a new virus and by the time it was already recognized as an merging virus it was already imbedded in the population
3.) it is not possible to quarantine a country and anyone that travels to one. It’s just not practical unless you would stop ALL immigration and ALL travel from any country on earth. All that restricting travel would do is make it impossible for foreign doctors to fight the virus and let it evolve and mutate further into more dangerous/ infectious strains.
alternative medicine is by definition a medical procedure or treatment that either has not been proven to work or proven not to work. Alternative medicine that has been scientifically proven to work is just called “medicine” and the companies that make them are called “pharmaceutical” companies.
Coffee Addict,
My point is that no one is critical of Germany’s policies today because of their past Nazi government the same with Persian government and Greek government.
Beniguman,
1.) You said,
“There are two problems with this position. First, as you yourself hint at, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine what will impose the most suffereing over the long term. ISIS might argue that they are causing a lot of suffering in the short term but in the long term the world will be vastly better off under a thousand-year world-wide caliphate. There is no way to demontrate, or even provide evidence, that ISIS is incorrect.”
They can “argue” that all they want. They would however need proof to justify it in order for anyone to take their arguments seriously: They would have to provide proof that a caliphate will cause the world to contain less suffering, and that there is no other way of accomplishing whatever the goals of having a caliphate would accomplish to lessen the suffering by causing less pain. If they did this then we could have a discussion.
2.) You said
“Second, and more fundamentally, by what objective means did you determine that “suffering” or the lack thereof, is the most important thing? Maybe truth is the most important? Maybe justice is the most important? My what objective means did you determine that it is moral and good to avoid suffering and immoral and bad to cause suffering?”
Pointless suffering by definition is something that is not what human beings (or even animals) consider a good thing, completely independent of any religious beliefs they may or may not have.
Objectivity will always from the standpoint of our existence even from a religious standpoint. What is “objectively” moral about pleasing a God? maybe God being constantly upset is more moral?
Coffee Addict,
Again, the war with Midian or anything that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago is not relevant to this conversation as I pointed out in my earlier comments. All that matters is what a religion or ideology causes or does today. No-one is critical of Isis, Islam or any religion because of what they may have done in the past, they are critical of what they do today.
Beniguman, You said,
“Meaning, there is no objective, outsider, point-of-view that can be used to examine the actions and positions of any group from a moral perspective. Our morals and values are shaped by the society we are brought up and reside in. Very little, if anything, can be said to be objectively bad.”
You can judge “morality” of a group or ideology objectively by looking at it and seeing if it imposes suffering on the world or does the opposite. If it decreases suffering you can call it “moral” if it increases it then it is “immoral”. So if an ideology says to kill a million people, or wound them etc. etc. or increases the suffering of the population that carries it then that ideology can be called “objectively immoral” no matter what it’s reason for imposing that suffering is.
It gets slightly more complicated when it comes to things that claim to cause suffering in the short term to specific people in order to alleviate it in the future for the society at large.
The key here would be that if you can do something without causing suffering and you choose the way that causes suffering then that would be immoral: For example; if you have a thief and you can educate him not to steal (which will cause less suffering) or lock him in Jail for 20 years, or chop off his head etc. (which would cause more suffering) then taking the second choice would be immoral. (letting him steal from victims would also cause more suffering then educating him not to steal, so here educating him would be more moral then just ignoring the situation)
Visiting an old lady in the hospital or feeding a poor person, or educating a child are all things that cause less suffering in the world and could be called moral
Coffee addict,
I don’t know of any frum people in the government of israel or Rabbonim who have ever suggested it to be ideal to stone women or kill non jewish thieves let alone kill people who speak against the government or rabbonim all things Isis or lehavdil etc. a Jewish government a couple thousand years ago would do)
Pattur,
Here’s my point: if we wanted to act the way isis is acting we would be able to find plenty of sources in our religious books telling us we should do so. We don’t want to act like Isis so we look at the sources that support not killing. They act that way because they want to. They then blame it on religion.
Patur,
You said: “‘m not following you. If we hadn’t stopped what we used to do then we would still be doing it because we would say that our religion demands it…. All you are saying is that our religion no longer demands it. Now it is fine to condemn them as long as you have no problem if the world would condemn us for following our religion.”
No, we would have found a reason to stop doing it. You know how I know that’s what we would have done? Because that’s what we did. We never got a direct command from Hashem to stop doing things that way, we found reasons not to (even when we had autonomy and technically could have if we wanted to).
Two people can read the same exact religious book and one will be able to find reasons why they should kill etc. and one will find a bunch of reasons why they should be nice and that killing is wrong. Both will “blame” their actions on their religious book and both will be wrong.
Patur,
It’s not an argument defending what was done then.
The facts are we would not do today what isis is doing. Most European countries 1000 years ago committed atrocities back then, we are no different.
Until pretty recently the entire world and their legal systems committed atrocities. The main (and only) thing that matters is what we do today. If a Jewish Gadol said today that we should kill anyone who speaks against what he says or kill thieves or stone adulterers we would all agree that the Gadol that said this and his followers are out of their minds.
Being yeshiva guys we find lumdishe reasons as to why even though we wouldn’t do it today our ancestors were right for doing it then. (See Sam2 above) But that’s not really relevant.
The facts are a state run according us 3000 years ago would not look that different then IS looks today. We would execute non jews who steal or transgress any of the Sheva Mitzvos for that matter.
We would stone adulterers
We would kill anyone who spoke against the king etc etc.
It’s not that different. The main difference is that we stopped doing that sort of thing about 3000 years ago.
I never quite understood why we should show Hakoros Hatov to America for treating us like all other human beings. America has never been eager to accept Jewish immigrants and they aren’t doing us a favor by giving us equal rights- they just aren’t being Anti Semitic animals. It’s like telling the weak kids in a class that they owe the strong kids Hakaros Hatov for not beating them up for no reason.
Halevi,
My point isn’t if the Rabbonim can be blamed. I would never presume to judge any Jewish leader in Europe at that time, Secular or Religious. The discussion here is if it is necessarily smarter to listen to someone because they have “Daas Torah” and what meaning and value the term even has. From the example I brought above it would seem that blindly listening to “Daas Torah” is not always the smartest thing to do. That’s all. I would never be so arrogant as to actually judge them as human beings
You asked ” Did the Rabbonim do that? Did they declare that no one should escape?”
The answer is Yes many Rabbonim did declare that no one should escape. The point isn’t really if they can be blamed for making this mistake (I don’t believe anyone sitting here can really judge anyone living in Europe then) as much as that clearly a mistake was made. The fact that other secular leaders didn’t make this mistake and did advise people to leave would seem to support those that say you shouldn’t take the advise of a Gadol over a secular person just because it was said by Gadol who has “Daas Torah”. This raises the question of what does the term Daas Torah even mean? If both opinions are equally valid what’s the Daas Torah do?
Your comparisons to yirmyahu etc is flawed the Rabbonim didn’t say “a huge percentage of European Jews will die” they said for the most part “don’t worry about it”
Halevi,
Just curious if thousands of people had died and or lost family members as a result of listening to Jabotinky’s (or other early Zionist leaders) advice, Would you be as forgiving? Would you hold those leaders responsible? If you would dont you see a double standard in your position?
It’s also disappointing to see people who you would expect to be above twisting facts for a political end clearly saying things that are clearly untrue for a political purpose. (i.e “they are making laws against learning Torah” “they are making us choose between Zionism and the Torah” etc
This whole “having to choose between Torah and Zionism” situation does not exist. Saying that chareidi bochrim should do some sort of national service in lieu of the military service required by every other citizen of the state is not “forcing people to choose” anything over anything. Nobody is saying that bochrim can’t go to yeshiva nobody is forcing anyone to have any ideology over another. They are just saying that no matter what your ideology is you should still have to contribute like everyone else. That’s all.
Ben Levi,
The fact is that the vast vast majority of Chareidim do not serve in any of those organizations in lieu of the Army. If the Chareidim were willing to accept mandatory service for all yeshiva bochrim in an org like Zaka for example then the situation would not be what it is today. The Chareidim will not accept such a proposal they want to be left alone and not have to do anything but learn if that’s what they want, while secular people must go join the army by age 18. That’s the issue.
Getzel,
What you are saying is simply not true. If the Chareidim would be willing to do any service- even in chareidi only groups and even non-combat units the situation would not be what it is today. When someone suggested that instead of serving in the military yeshiva bochrim do community service like street cleaning during bein hazamanim the whole chareidi establishment was up in arms.
Bym,
I have seen some of the other threads you have started and if I may, let me give a bit of advice: trust your mind. You don’t need to have these arguments to see that what your mind is telling you is correct. There is no big deep secret out there that will give you the answer you are seeking. As they say “if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck”
Sam2,
How do you figure? Multiple Mitzvos can’t be the absolute greatest mitzvah, and thats what “keneged kulam” would mean if taken literally.
1.) ?? ???? ????? ????: ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? (????? ??, ?, ??”?
2.) ?? ‘?????? ?????’ ???? ???? ‘????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????’ (????’ ??? ?, ?)
3.) ???? ????????: ????? ???????? ???????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? (????? ??? ??? ?)
4.) “????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????” (????? ??, ?
So it clearly can’t be literal in all the cases. It’s an expression. I don’t understand why when it says it by Talmud Torah everyone has decided that it literally means it.
Logician,
You said “A statement of Chazal of such a nature will often be questioned by the meforshim and explained in a manner different enough from the superficial meaning to warrant what I wrote. While this statement clearly has practical ramifications relating to laziness, I’m confident in my assumption that I can easily find a mareh makom explaining it in a way which would make it far more ‘palatable’ for you.”
I’m sure you can find a Pshat by someone who lived later that will explain it in a way that is more in line with modern sensitivities (chances are that Pshat will have been written by someone who lived or lives in a time when such statements about the inferiority of women are no longer acceptable to the public- which sort of proves my original point)
2)”I have no issue with a statement of Chazal which says a common character deficiency of women. There are plenty about men, and plenty of praiseworthy ones about both genders too. This has nothing to do with either one being intrinsically inferior. As they have different natures, it only makes sense that they have different flaws, with different ramifications.”
The statements we are talking about like “women are lazy” etc. are statements on the intrinsic inferiority of women, don’t fool yourself . And that statement is a mellow one, there are ones that are a whole lot stronger that I won’t quote here out of respect.
3)”You may not understand the Rambam or Gemara, but it says nothing, in those cases, of being dumb or untrustworthy. Nor am I aware of the Halacha having changed”
Yes it does very clearly. From the way the Rambam writes about them it is apparent that he took for granted that women are less intelligent and inferior
Logician,
1.)You probably can’t drink my wine
2.) Two examples would be women learning Gemara or being a witness in court, there are many more. You probably know what the Rambam says about woman and how he talks about them, don’t play dumb I went to Yeshiva as well!
3.) You know what “Atzlanayos” means saying “whatever that means” does not change the fact that it is a statement on the inferiority of women.
StreetGeek,
People are social creatures. Besides for the obvious physical needs that are fulfilled by a Marriage there is something about living with, being loved by, and loving a loyal companion of the opposite gender AND being secure in it, that fills a necessary emotional and psychological need; and that’s all besides the fact that is a Mitzva.
If the only reason someone feels fulfilled in a Marriage is because it is a Mitzvah or because they are serving Hashem by being married (both of which happen to be true) that is indicative of some pretty deep issues-it shouldn’t be even remotely that way.
That being said if you really feel your aren’t ready you probably shouldn’t do it. One thing you should take into consideration is that there are solutions you can find that many Rabbonim will allow like birth control etc. that will lessen the radical changes in your life that take place after marriage.
I personally found marriage to be a less radical change then I thought it would be, and that’s despite my having to go to work right after straight from Yeshiva but that could just be due to my wife’s and my personalities and may not be indicative of the “marriage experience” in general
Ben Levi,
You are missing the point here!
1.) Rabbi Slifkin’s main point is simply that when Chazal say a scientific statement you don’t have to accept it. (So for example if Chazal say the world is not billions of years old, or that all animals that ever lived were created in one day a few thousand years ago, or that the Sun circles the earth etc etc etc) you don’t have to accept that as fact. Rabbi Miller and the Yeshivish establishment had for quite some time said that when modern Science contradicts Chazal’s statements then the Modern Scinetists are wrong.
2.) It doesn’t make a difference if only one person said that Chazal got their Science wrong and everyone who came after that one person argued very forcefully on him. If physical proofs have made it clear that Chazal’s scientific statements are not literally true, then they weren’t and whoever said they weren’t was correct. It doesn’t matter who argued or how forcefully they did so. Facts are facts no matter who on them.
(I am not discussing the proofs themselves here or if modern scientists have proven their assertions. This is not the correct venue for that discussion. Just pointing out that you are missing the point here)
Ben Levi,
It’s no “caricature”. I have read all of Rabbi Millers material on the subject and his view has been the mainstream view in Yeshivish circles for quite some time now. He clearly wrote and said that all modern science that contradicts Chazal’s scientific statements are “Hoaxes” and “Insanity”. ( I remember listening to a tape of his years ago called “The Hoax Of Geology” where he claims to disrove all of the findings of modern geology that contradict the simple meaning of Chazal’s statements)
Now you still haven’t addressed my point that the best way to ascertain if Chazal’s scientific statements were accurate in a scientific sense would be by looking at the proofs that support Chazal’s statements vs the Proofs supporting those of modern Scientists. If Chazal’s scientific statements are not scientifically accurate you are left with two choices:
Either
1.) Chazal didn’t intend to make a scientific statement but were hinting at some sort of “Sod”
Or
2.)Chazal where wrong.
Whichever the case is; ignoring or pretending that modern science is silly (as was the Derech of Rabbi Miller and most other mainstream Rabbonim for a long time) is a very, very difficult position. This is the main position that Rabbi Slifkin takes issue with.
Ben Levi,
Rabbi Slifkin’s main point is that just because Chazal said a scientific statement doesn’t mean that it must be considered true; and that when modern Science has proven a scientific statement of Chazal wrong there is nothing wrong with saying that Chazal’s statement is not scientifically accurate.
This point stands wether the scientific statement was not meant to be accurate because it was hinting at some sort of “Sod” or it was simply wrong.
Ben Levi,
The opinion that when Chazal said scientific statements they meant something else entirely, and the statements are not necessarily accurate scientifically is really not relevant to this discussion. We are discussing if Chazal knew science and if their scientific statements should be taken over those of modern scientists when they contradict each other. If Chazal’s scientific statements were not meant to be taken literally the conversation ends there, (As we can all agree that modern scientific statements are meant to be taken literally)
As far as the position that Moreh Nevuchim is not to be taken at face value and the Rambam was writing some sort of “Sod” in code. I stand by what I said earlier. Unless you have some sort of proof that the Rambam did not in fact mean what he wrote (independent of the fact that what he wrote disagrees with your ideas of how things should be) it is silly to say that he didn’t in fact mean them. He was quite clear what he said and even goes through why he said them at length.
You did not address points 5 and 6 of my above post and keep on listing the people who agreed that the Rambam meant what he wrote but came out against him. I will rewrite the point:
Again, if the Metzius has proven the Rambam correct (that Chazal’s science was based on the science of their times and is not infallible) then it wouldn’t make a difference even if EVERY SINGLE Talmud Chachom that lived after him argued on him. This is a discussion about Metzius. If he was correct then he was correct, doesn’t matter who said or says otherwise.
Ben Levi,
1.) The Rambam clearly writes in the beginning of the Moreh that he is writing it for anyone who struggles with the apparent contradictions between the science of his time and the Torah. He does not say anything that even seems to hint that he is writing the book for any other reason or in some sort of code….
2.)The Ramabam clearly says that Chazal based their science on the science of their times and not Mesorah. I provided the quote two comments ago
3.)Furthermore the Rambam makes it quite clear in the Moreh 2:25 that he did not reject the idea that the Universe is eternal (as Aristotle believed)because the Torah seems to say that it wasn’t around forever. He says
“We do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation.” (here’s the Marah Makom again Moreh 2:25)
He goes on to say that the reason he rejected an eternal universe was because Aristotle failed to prove that the universe was eternal.
4.)Simply saying that anyone that argues with your position was speaking in “Sod” is not a good or even remotely logical argument and frankly seems a bit infantile.
5.)In either case if (and we are not discussing if this is the case) the Metzius has proven that modern scientists statements are the truth, then that itself would prove that the Rambam meant his statement literally-because it is literally true!
6.)Again, if the Metzius has proven the Rambam correct (that Chazal’s science was based on the science of their times and is not infallible) then it wouldn’t make a difference even if EVERY SINGLE Talmud Chachom that lived after him argued on him. This is a discussion about Metzius. If he was correct then he was correct, doesn’t matter who said or says otherwise.
In summation the argument always has to be about the proofs to Chazal’s science vs the proofs to the statements of modern scientists or you are missing the point.
Ben Levi,
My point was simply that when discussing if Chazal erred in science the discussion has to be about the proofs to Chazal’s science vs the Proofs to Modern Scientific statements. Even if EVREY SINGLE talmud chachom who lived after the Rambam argued on him; if the Mitzius is that he was correct then he was correct. Doesn’t matter who argued.
To say that the Moreh Nevuchim is not meant to be read literally is a very difficult statement. As the rambam did not write it for talmidie chachomim only- he wrote it in Arabic so even common people could read it.
The Rambam is pretty clear:
In More Nevuchim (3:14)
“Do not ask me to reconcile everything that they (i.e. Chazal) mentioned regarding astronomy with what is reality, for the sciences in those days were lacking, and they did not speak about them through traditions from the prophets, but rather on their own independent knowledge or what was obtained from contemporary scientists.”
Like was pointed out earlier, Rabbi Slifkin never says that his opponents views are not valid opinions.
In either case I never quite understood the argument that the Rambam is a daas yochid so we can’t Pasken like him.
We are talking about a Mitzius, if the mitzius is that he is correct (That Chazal’s science was based on that of the scientists of their times and was not given to them via the Mesorah) then it doesn’t matter who argued with him-because he was right!
The argument HAS to be about the proofs that exist for what scientists say vs the proofs to what Chazal say in scientific matters; Arguing that we can’t or don’t “Pasken” like someone is missing the point.
Jewish music is music by Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen of course.
Rebyid23,
To make a form of alchol that will be ingestible to anyone who is not a raving alcoholic is not an easy process. It is a whole lot more involved then growing marijauna.
Rebyid23,
Really? By who? It is even easier to grow marijauna.