Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Always_Ask_Questions,
“Also important what is the trade off between. I believe (meaning read something, but did not check) that there is a general decline in teenage crime & pregnancies attributed to teens spending times on the phone instead of in malls & gangs.”
Another false equivalence. There’d be an even bigger decline in teenage crime and pregnancy if humans went extinct. Also, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Violent crime among youth skyrocketed in the 1980s and early 1990s, but started declining in the late 1990s, well before the first iPhone was introduced.
n0mesorah,
“It is obvious to the phone addict that s/he has way too much screen time. It’s not obvious to the kosher phone crusader how much time s/he devotes to a pointless crusade.”
False equivalence fallacy. The average American screen time on a smartphone is around 3.25 hours per day, contributing to a total daily screen time just north of 7 hours per day. Do you think the average “kosher phone crusader” is spending that amount of time per day on the crusade?
Also, I have already disputed your contention that advocating for kosher phones, filters, etc. is pointless.
SQUARE_ROOT,
“In the secular world, people who are the most intelligent and the most highly-educated already know this.”
I agree with you regarding ad hominem arguments; however, why are you juxtaposing the frum community unfavorably with the secular world? Do you think that the “most intelligent and most highly-educated” frum people don’t understand logical fallacies? Or that secular online forums are not rife with ad hominem attacks?
1a2b3c,
I suspect AAQ had some typos in his post and meant “appropriate” instead of “inappropriate”.
Who are “they” who are angry or not angry?
I think the riots were a chillul Hashem.
n0mesorah,
“My point is that instead of saying to stop looking at this or you might see this, it would be better to say put your full attention on what you are trying to be immersed in.”
That’s nice in theory; however, it ignores the reality of how smartphones and their apps are designed. Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. have a vested interest in users spending time in their apps, viewing as much content as possible, and coughing up personal data. Smartphone apps and Web sites play on human psychology to accomplish this, providing a constant stream of dopamine-inducing stimuli in an easy to carry form factor that also has a lot of useful tools people want available (phone, messaging, flashlight, camera, etc.). A person may intentionally seek out one piece of information, but the app or Web site then throws a ton of unsolicited content back – links to other articles, pictures, etc. So is it really a bad thing that some people would prefer to stay off that battlefield?
“I wish people without smart phones would fill the void by being more attentive. But they are just as unaware of their surroundings as when they were phone addicts.”
This seems rather negative, and doesn’t fit with my own observations. How do you define being “aware” of your surroundings?
AviraDeArah,
“To put ourselves in situations where the best we can do is posit ad-hoc theories about what the halacha “might” be, is to push avodas Hashem on the back burner and put our own interests first. This is what “I” want to do, now let’s see how we can fit halacha into it… that’s not an eved to a master, it’s a person who is living for themselves and trying to assuage his guilty conscience.”
Why such hostility and assuming the worst of intentions? Going into space is likely assur for a much more simple reason: pikuach nefesh. Rockets are dangerous, as is outer space. Very few people go into space at all right now, and those who do go at most stay in a low Earth orbit. Most space tourism right now doesn’t even achieve orbit, so the whole trip takes less than an hour from launch to landing (you get to see the blackness of space and the curvature of the Earth for a few minutes, and experience weightlessness as the capsule free-falls back towards Earth).
If rocket or novel transportation technologies become safer and cheaper, more advanced space tourism, e.g., orbiting hotels, lunar resorts, may become feasible. Large-scale lunar or Martian colonization is further off, as there is mounting evidence that the challenges are greater than previously believed, due to harmful effects of long stays in space, radiation exposure due to weak magnetic fields on the moon or Mars, solar flares, etc. It’s also possible that mining asteroids for raw materials could become big business, though I imagine that much of that work would be done by robots. So maybe in our lifetimes we’d see shailos come up about whether a 2 week vacation to the Moon is appropriate, or if a frum business man needs to take a trip to a space station overseeing a mining operation, but who knows? Nobody is trying to skirt mitzvos by taking a hyperwarp cruiser to planet Xorkon 7. It’s purely science fiction and a theoretical exercise. And the latest astronomy research has been suggesting that Earth-like potentially habitable planets are much more rare than previously thought, as the most common star type (red dwarf) likely emits atmosphere-stripping amounts of solar wind. Not that we even have the capability of interstellar travel.
AviraDeArah,
“we indeed kept the mitzvos in the midbar for 40 years before going into EY.”
A lot of mitzvos were learned in the midbar but had to wait until we were in E”Y to perform them. We couldn’t fulfill mitzvos such as kelayim or shemitta in the midbar, where there was no agriculture.
“Every part of the world has a shkiah, a tzeis…and yes, living in problematic areas such as Hawaii or Shanghai are discouraged bh poskim, because it isn’t clear how to keep zmanim.”
Not the polar regions, though poskim also discourage living there too.
“Trees planted hydroponically or in an atzitz sheaino nakuv aren’t considered gidulei karka for things like schach, etc… according to most poskim.”
Great points!
AviraDeArah,
“the mitzvos are all earth-centered; zmanim, 4 minim, all food related mitzvos, etc, are all based on earth. It’s untenable that they would go to a place where they can’t keep mitzvos properly”
Not Earth centered, but E”Y centered. Zmanim are challenging north of the Arctic circle. In past generations when transportation was harder, the arba minim were hard to come by in much of Europe, as citrus trees do not grow in cold climates. We start saying mashiv haruach by Shemini Atzeres and stop by Pesach because that is the beginning and ending of E”Y’s wet season, but Florida’s rainy season tapers off after Shemini Atzeres and picks up after Pesach. And the seasons and agriculture in the Southern Hemisphere are flipped from the Northern, meaning they plant when E”Y harvests, and harvest when E”Y plants. Your argument could be applied to living on Earth as well. And until we have the Beis Hamikdash, we cannot keep the mitzvos properly anywhere, even in E”Y.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“are there TCim that are not ben Torah? learning well, but sometimes reads newspapers?”
I know some. Extremely learned but a terror to their wives and children.
“are there BT that are not TChim? guided by the Torah but not so good at learning it?”
Perhaps, though learning Torah is part and parcel of being a ben Torah.
Always_Ask_Questions,
I’m not sure that ranking from better to worse is the right way to compare the terms talmid chacham and ben Torah. Talmid chacham specifically refers to prowess in learning, and I think ben Torah is a broader term referring to a person who makes the Torah his guiding force in life, of which learning is certainly a part.
Gadolhadorah,
“That is NOT the issue in the Karen syndrome. As I understand it, that term was originally being applied to a narrow subset of cases where individuals engaged in baseless assumptions clearly tied to race/ethnicity to summon police to investigate the innocent behavior of a minority.”
Nah, it was a guy on the social media platform reddit who wanted to get back at his ex-wife named Karen, which then merged with older stereotypes like Becky (the privileged white woman) or Stacy (misogynistic stereotype), and went supernova because the left wing media wanted to absolutely destroy the woman who called the cops on the black birdwatcher who complained about her dog. It was never a narrow application and it has never been about racial justice. How is racial justice served by stereotyping and denigrating others? How is it served when a man follows a woman all of the way to her home because she was allegedly rude to him on the road, harassing her until she is in hysterics in front of her house, filming and doxxing her on social media, all to sell Karen T-shirts?
“Yidden have suffered enough from stereotyping and we should avoid engaging in such behavior. That does not mean we should be discouraged from seeking assistance when we feel at risk.”
The “woke” movement has a serious problem with sexism and antisemitism. To deal with the cognitive dissonance of hating some groups while professing to be anti-hate, women and Jews are said to have privilege while weaponizing their supposed victimhood to oppress others. Therefore Jewish college students reporting discrimination are accused of oppressing Palestinians. Women who dare tell their server that he messed up the order are called a Karen. This produces a chilling effect on seeking assistance when we feel at risk.
Always_Ask_Questions,
It’s already Adar where you are??
n0mesorah,
“Please do tell what the counter obsession with the pitfalls of smartphones achieves? All I see is a bunch of people blocking out their surroundings.”
No, rather it is a bunch of people realizing that they have a choice in what surrounds them. As for what the “counter obsession” has achieved, look no further than the title of this thread. Do you mean to argue that it is worse for a person to make conscious choices rather than unconscious ones, just because you personally disagree with the choices some make?
“I don’t realize a difference if it’s by being stuck in technology or stuck being anti technology.”
It’s not anti-technology. Jews are not the Amish. It’s deciding how best to integrate technology into your life so that your life is enhanced, not distracted, and elevated, not brought down. To make tech your tool, and not be its tool.
Of course I realize that we’re talking past each other here, because we’re making different assumptions. Your assumption seems to be that advocates for filtered smartphones or no smartphones believe most smartphone users will eventually seek out inappropriate images. I don’t think that’s accurate. What I do believe is that, due to how smartphones and the Internet work, a person using an unfiltered or inadequately filtered smartphone has a high probability of unintentionally encountering images they wouldn’t otherwise seek out. Maybe a stock photo on a news article. Or a pop-up ad. Or images associated with clickbait at the end of a news article. And images are just one piece of the puzzle of the challenges smartphones pose.
“Either way, people in today’s day are not really cognizant of what is right in front of them.
Maybe because they’re looking down at their phones? 😛
Gadolhadorah,
“The term also seems to be invoked in the context of white women who invoke racist stereotypes of minorities to rationalize their fears and accuse individuals of nonexistent crimes, invasion of their “personal space” or simply breathing while black.”
That’s the sugarcoat that the left puts on it, but in reality the “Karen” meme is straight up misogyny. Some people can’t stand it when a woman dares speak up, so let’s call her a Karen and unleash the Internet shame machine! Now other women will be afraid to advocate for themselves, whether in a store, on the street, or in the hospital, lest they too be labeled a Karen. It’s insidious.
Sure, there are times when women (or men) may misinterpret situations due to prejudices or even act maliciously. And that should be rightly called out. But not by generating a stereotype that can be used as a cudgel against any woman who dares stand up for herself. Note that men who do the same aren’t called “Kens” or “Roberts”, or whatever. I don’t want my daughters to be afraid to speak up if they received inadequate service, are getting pushed around by their doctor, or to hesitate for even one second to get away from a situation or call the police if their instincts tell them there is danger.
“The tag could be used in a gender-neutral context since you don’t have to be a woman to be a Karen.”
But it’s not.
n0mesorah,
“That’s not what appearances mean in this context”
I think that AAQ is closer to the mark on the context than you are.
n0mesorah,
“So you don’t have a life and would spend your time looking at obscene pictures. It’s not for me and it’s not for most people. Only the extremely secular or the extremely religious normalize this garbage”
This comment completely misses the mark. Maybe try to understand people who think differently from you before resorting to insults.
n0mesorah,
“The reason the MO bashing is toleratated in this context is because the yeshivish or chassidish yidden who are slipping are just called not yeshivish or chassidish. It’s an easy fix which MO has been unable to enact.”
This is not true. The difference I think lies more in what causes the slipper to be declared outside the fold. When Sholom Rubashkin was released from prison, he was greeted with dancing in the streets of Brooklyn, with much hand wringing over the spectacle in MO circles. In contrast, when Jack Abramoff was released from prison, he was persona non grata in his former DC/Baltimore area MO communities. MO rabbis have had no trouble excommunicating people for not adhering to Covid orthodoxy. The dispute here perhaps seems to be what each community is willing to tolerate.
“Which must cause great displeasure to hashem. Well, he can always start a new ‘who is a jew’ battle, to cheer himself up. “
Uhh, what does this mean?
n0mesorah,
“The only reason the yesivishe velt is not being tried for institutionalized sin and heresy”
What heresy is promulgated in the “yeshivishe velt”? And who would conduct the trials?
AviraDeArah,
“Avram, as with kany studies, it’s important to look at the raw data and not focus on the conclusions that the pollster makes.”
I didn’t rely on or reference any of the subjective statements made by Nishma. I just noted that they included OO and LWMO respondents in the survey.
ujm,
“Avram: Isn’t that a No True Scotsman?”
Yes, it could be. However, I think that the left and right within MO are heading towards a schism. The open-orthodox have already started the process, giving their movement a unique name and establishing separate communal infrastructures. Some clear lines in the sand have been drawn, though some will say not clear enough. Given that, I think there’s legitimacy to a MO person declaring that someone holding certain OO “shittos” are outside the bounds of MO.
“That would be similar, perhaps, to Ultra-Orthodox excluding ganovim and molesters from their own definition of Ultra-Orthodox.”
So similar to what I wrote to Gadolhadofi, I think there’s a difference between those within a group who fail as people, and questions about the shittos a group holds. This debate is not making those differences clear at all.
Gadolhadofi,
“No single group of Jews has an “exclusive mantle of victimhood” and none deserves this kind of bashing. My point was that this thread became open season on a specific group and the worst bashers would react with righteous indignation if their group was in the gunsights.”
That’s fair. I will admit that I have not followed this thread closely, so I may have missed a lot, but the “those in glass houses” retorts seem to be bringing up faults of “Yeshivish” or “Chassidish” people that reflect personal failures to maintain ideals, rather than problematic shittos. Do you feel AviraDeArah is doing the same?
GadolHadofi,
“So which group of Jews should get bashed next, Yeshivish or Chasidish?”
Like they don’t already? Why do MO get the exclusive mantle of victimhood? I have been in many MO environments, and they give just as good as they get, if not more. I’m in full agreement with the “let’s not bash” philosophy – though I don’t think debating a legitimate tayna is bashing. But to use the “bashing is bad” as a shield while wielding a club to bash others?
AviraDeArah,
“While we’re on the subject of the nishma study…”
I took a very brief look at the summary of the survey – and they note that 12% of the respondents self-identify as “open-orthodox”, and 22% as LWMO. A lot of the MO posters here exclude these groups from their own definition of Modern Orthodox. The survey summary noted a polarization within modern orthodoxy, with the right-leaning going more towards the right, and the left-leaning going more towards the left. This seems somewhat similar to the mechitza wars in the mid-20th century US, which ultimately resulted in shuls that were strictly Orthodox, and shuls that were Conservative. Though the flashpoint issues are different today, ein chadash tachas hashemmesh.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“producing people with balanced lifestyle that integrate Torah into normal life”
And this, right here, is the epitome of the world view that has AviraDeArah up in arms. Hopefully Yserbius123 can acknowledge that the “YV” do not hold a monopoly on the “holier than thou” mentality.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“Same as when a person is sick – is it a gezera or a cure is possible?”
It’s both – the two are not mutually exclusive.
“Maybe, you have a similar cognitive dissonance with the meteor: you clearly need to know physics and engineering to confront the meteor, but this would require you to admit that going to college is useful, and you would rather have the whole world destroyed than admit you were wrong. Understandable. “
This broadside is not apropos to the discussion – I think AviraDeArah was trying to come up with an example of a prediction of unavoidable destruction and how we should respond as Jews. He did posit leaving Earth as a potential solution that he then rejected, which is also a separate yet interesting discussion.
emes nisht sheker,
“the word “mabul” was in quotes (single quotes) because it was a hebrew word. If you look I put “environmentalists” in double quotes to give emphasis to that word. The single quotes was to indicate the change in language. Hope that makes sense.”
That is an atypical usage of quotation marks, and I have never seen them used in that manner before. Double-quotes are used for quoting, and single-quotes are used for quotes within quotes. For informal usage in forums like this one, quotation marks are frequently applied to words that are not actual quotes, with the intention of indicating doubt, casting aspersions, or to distancing the writer from what is written. For example, imagine a Trump supporter writing “Liz Cheney, the former ‘Republican’ representative from Wyoming”. The function of the quotes around Republican is to indicate that the writer does not believe she is a real Republican. Now imagine a Democrat writing “the annual ‘March for Life’ recently wrapped up in Washington, DC.” Again, March for Life was not a quotation, but the writer put it in quotes to imply that s/he does not support that name. This is how I initially interpreted your quotes, and it confused me.
AviraDeArah,
“But are we commanded not to do actions which harm the environment?”
This is an excellent question, and I think it gets to the heart of the matter. It seems that your position is that actions that change the environment are forbidden if they harm humans – garbage on the head or toxic pollution being some concrete examples. AGW is more complex, because the effects on people are unclear and long term. Akuperma wants to argue that warming will be a net benefit to humanity. Climate change doomsayers focus only on the perceived threats. But only Hashem knows and controls the results.
Environmental thought seems to fall into two camps. One camp views human interference with the environment as a bad thing, and their ideal of environmental action is to lessen humanity’s footprint on the planet. The most benign policies from this camp are the carving out of wild, natural areas. The most malignant policies advocate for human population reduction. A crazy loon shot up the Discovery building in Silver Spring, MD years ago because the television network aired reality shows featuring large families, and he demanded the voluntary extinction of the human species. This camp is antithetical to Torah.
A second camp acknowledges the damage humans cause to the environment, and advocates for humans to continue molding their environment, but to do so with better thought and planning – i.e., instead of the extremes of wild nature or high pollution, build clean gardens that benefit both people and other life. If the focus is on benefiting people, I don’t see this position as a conflict with Torah thought.
“It would be similar to a scientific prediction that a meteor is about to hit earth in 25 years”
The simplistic difference between a meteor and AGW is that the latter is presumably caused by people, and thus it is within the scope of human ability to change it (though even if human CO2 and methane emissions went to zero today, various planetary systems are still slowly responding to warming that’s already baked into the system). Whether something is within our abilities to handle or not, we should certainly daven and do teshuva.
As far as moon colonies – that leads to some other interesting questions that I’ll have to think about before articulating,
AviraDeArah,
“Avram, bechira allows a person to decide to do something, but does not allow it to happen unless it’s min hashomayim. There’s no other power besides Hashem in the world.”
I agree. This doesn’t really answer my question; however. Hashem set up our universe with a sense of cause and effect to allow us to participate in it. If I walk across the street, I’ll find myself on the other side. If I put a flame to a candle wick, the candle will light. If I turn the furnace on in my home, the home warms up. And I don’t have to be desiring or even cognizant of the effect for the effect to occur. If I dump garbage out of my window, it may land on someone’s head, even if I didn’t know someone was there. So on the one hand, that garbage would not have landed on the person’s head unless Hashem willed it, but on the other hand, the garbage landing on his head was a result of my action. So could we say that of course AGW will not occur unless Hashem wills it, but if Hashem does will it, its physical cause is due to human activities?
The reverse of this is that had I not dumped the garbage from my window and the person below deserved a petch, he would have gotten it by some other means. But does this mean I can be unconcerned with the impacts of dumping garbage out my window?
AviraDeArah,
I think it’s not kefira to say that a human being can change or even destroy his house. And on a bigger scale, his block. Or neighborhood, or city, or even region. Fly across the expanse of the U.S. on an airplane and one can see that humans have drastically altered the entire countryside, with roads, cities, and farmland like patchwork quilts. At what point or scale do we say that the idea that humans can change their environment becomes kefira? I’m honestly curious where the boundary is.
emes nisht sheker,
“I find this whole conversation funny as frankly many of the ideas “environmentalists” want to enact are beneficial regardless of whether climate change is or is not an issue.”
You perceive the notion that environmental policies are objectively beneficial to humanity as poshut, but actually this is one of the cruxes of the disagreement, so if you actually want to convince people instead of just insulting them to demonstrate your intellectual superiority, maybe tone down the laughter and hostility.
“What type of lunatic do you have to be to not want us to move off fossil fuels? The streets of our cities will be quieter and the air cleaner.”
The streets would be quieter and cleaner, and electric vehicles are certainly a better prospect than diesel, which Europe adopted en masse to reduce emissions, and are now dealing with the far more toxic exhaust in urban areas than gasoline emissions as a reward for their short-sightedness. However, electric cars are currently more expensive to produce and buy than conventional combustion based vehicles. Their reliability is perceived to be poorer. The distance they can travel before requiring recharging is shorter than the distance between each refueling of a conventional vehicle. Charging an electric vehicle takes longer than refueling a gasoline vehicle. So I’m not surprised that consumers who are already stressed by increasing costs and demands with decreasing time in the day for family, learning, and personal needs would feel resentful towards shaming, “nudging” or outright regulating (i.e., California) the purchase of vehicles that would increase the stress. For this to change, electric cars must become superior to conventional combustion cars. Then people will buy them!
Now move beyond the consumer perspective. Electric cars must be charged. This requires them to be plugged into power grids that are already decrepit, functionally obsolete, and overtaxed. When Californians hear that electric vehicles will be mandated, but the state cannot even provide sufficient electricity to its citizens over the summers right now, and we hear nothing of big plans to improve the power-supply infrastructure, why shouldn’t there be opposition?
Also, what impact on places such as Africa where the materials originate would the dramatic expansion of demand for large lithium based batteries have? When mandating electric vehicles, is California being a good global citizen by ensuring other places are not negatively impacted?
“breathing in partially combusted hydrocarbons that were buried at least since the ‘mabul’ is fine with them.”
Just curious – why did you put mabul in quotation marks?
“As to garbage… Where does all that garbage we produce go? It is not an easy job transporting it. If we can figure out a better way to handle garbage, such as better recycling and the like, it would save places like NYC lots of money.”
So demonstrate this benefit clearly and calmly to people. The current perception is that recycling has little overall benefit, as the material has to be transported long distances, much of it is ultimately landfilled anyway, and there are companies who are make a lot of money from recycling operations while those who are actively separating the materials see little benefit, e.g., reduced taxes or increased services from the supposed savings.
Gadolhadorah,
“adopting such practices was either minhag hagoyim”
Given your high level of hostility to and unfamiliarity with frum Jews, I suspect that either you did not understand the responses you got, or are making up this response. I have never heard “minhag hagoyim” as a reason to not recycle.
“or simply encouraged more “extreme” demands from environmentalists (e.g. not paving over your front lawn to park 2 minivans or not trashing local parks during chol hamoed outings).”
Wow, who needs anti-Semites? You’ll perhaps be disappointed to know that when I went to Hershey Park for the first time on chol hamoed Sukkos, there were thousands of frum Jews in attendance, yet the park was clean and orderly, and the patrons well behaved.
Quayboardwarrior,
“I wonder why Jewish people have such a strong bias against environmentalism?”
It’s not environmentalism that engenders frum opposition per se, but rather the anti-humanism expressed by many so-called environmentalists under the guise of environmentalism. Separate the two successfully and you’ll find that the hostility drops considerably.
Shimon Nodel,
Just curious why you assume that concern about microplastics and other toxins is a liberal issue?
maskildoresh,
“Ok. Nuff said”
More than enough. Better to be an am haaretz than to speak lashon hara about the Jewish people.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“do we read Gemora as a strictly legal cases or as a guide of living. Strictly legal reading defines edge cases indeed.”
Why does it have to be either-or? And it seems that you weren’t seeking a guide of living, but rather taking wild guesses at how people lived 2000 years ago. I mean, I really hope you’re not advocating for 12 year old girls to marry men their father’s age?
Always_Ask_Questions,
“Still, you can look at a variety of cases and get a feeling when a case is a stretch case or reasonably a norm – in the latter case, it is discussed in many situations, with practical details. “
A category can be rare to occur in practice, but highly complicated halachically and thus require considerable discussion.
“Also, a notion that a man should not live/visit too long at his in-laws before of mother-in-law there. This hints that husband and bride’s mother are typically close to each other in age.”
No it doesn’t.
n0mesorah,
“It’s hard to be specific on this thread.”
You wrote a lot, and it seems to me that you’re trying to make a specific point, I just wish I could understand it. “The paragraph is about all religions” – what paragraph? “Religions are not for one person. They are only for people.” – I never heard of this limitation in the definition of religion. It’s not what makes religion distinct from ethics, if that’s what you’re trying to argue. “So what the people as a group think of their religion tends to make up what their religion consists of. But that is not the religion itself.” – These two sentences seem to directly contradict one another.
“I never heard of this specific label [EO] before.”
No, but it’s quite common in the non-Orthodox movements. A notable example is the Conservative Movement’s “hechsher tzedek” where they seek to “certify” food that is made according to their own ethical and social justice standards. They claim a distinction between Torah and “Jewish values”, which doesn’t exist. Orthodox Jews refute the notion that the Torah, written by Hashem, is lacking something that must be filled by a separate set of ethics. I think what really bugs the OP is that someone who keeps Shabbos, kashrus, and taharas mishpacha, but is mean, or took benefits he wasn’t entitled to, is still considered “Orthodox”, while someone who’s a nice guy and submits a squeaky clean tax return to the IRS on Jan 2, but who eats out in non-kosher restaurants or uses a smartphone on Shabbos, is not considered Orthodox. So he created his own category of “Ethical Orthdox” where he could exclude the former. The thing is, inclusion in the frum community is not necessarily an attestation that a person is good or doing the right thing.
“It was all a lead up to the statement in bold and the question. As in, does the OP feel confident about adding a clause (ethics – or whatever they think it means) into something (Judiaism – as it was Divinely given) that will eternally outlast them?”
Seems so. He’s already done it after all, right?
“Religions are not for one person. They are only for people.”
Says who?
So what the people as a group think of their religion tends to make up what their religion consists of. But that is not the religion itself. It is only how they relate to it. It doesn’t go by what people claim they think of their religion. It thrives off of how they perform as a religious group.””
As I wrote above, these seem like contradictory notions to me, and thus needs more explanation. How I’m interpreting it:
1. Religion is a collective exercise, not a personal thing. Huh? Religion is all about one’s personal beliefs in the divine. Adherents with similar beliefs may opt to form religious communities though it’s not a requirement, e.g., Protestant Christianity, or one’s religious tenants may dictate that adherents form communities, as is the case with Orthodox Judaism.
2. Religion is what this collective group thinks it is, except that it’s not. Huh? I can’t reconcile these two statements.
3. Religion is independent of the people who adhere to it, but what it is depends on what those people do. Huh? I feel like the definitions of terms are shifting rapidly.n0mesorah,
“Religion is collective thought. That thought gives it no legitimacy. It could only be useful if it is believed to be Divine. It takes it’s legitimacy from it’s own context. It can never think itself into a non-existing situation. Therefore it always entertains those with serious moral failings. It allows those failings to modify the system. Some people see this as a major threat to authenticity. But it has no strength against true religion. Because true religion is convinced that it cannot be permanently vanquished Do you feel so strongly about Ethics? “
Can you clarify this paragraph? I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“But, the impression from various halochos related to marriage creates an impression that if by the bas mitzva the girl is still in the father’s house, it is time to say tehilim”
This is an extrapolation that is well beyond the scope of those gemaros, which is surprising coming from someone with a strong STEM background. The fact that the gemara deals with a case does not mean that case is or was culturally normative. Given that halachos define the parameters of what is or is not permitted, they often deal with edge cases.
Ctrl Alt Del,
Knowing you need a lot of dental work, it might be a good idea to pursue better dental insurance. Sometimes plans are offered with “high” options that have greater allowances. On the other front, can you discuss your insurance and payment problems openly with the dentist? Perhaps you and s/he can come up with a treatment plan that prioritizes the most critical treatments and waits on less urgent issues? Also, the dentist may offer a payment plan so you can spread the cost out over multiple months.
My advice – don’t wait on any dental issues that are causing pain, or fillings that have fallen out. I put those issues off due to dental phobia and ended up with days of excruciating pain, an extraction and a root canal in a period of less than 2 weeks.
n0mesorah,
“Also in reality, viruses are good at wiping out civilizations.”
I don’t think anyone held that Covid would wipe out civilization.
“The cost of ignoring an outbreak is much higher than any single lockdown.”
False dilemma fallacy.
“Maybe we could all be generous enough to drop the topic.”
Lol.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“your timeline sounds similar to what I recall from Bourla’s book.”
Given that Moonshot is a 240-page infomercial for Pfizer written by its CEO, I’m not surprised that you find it saying that Pfizer was awesome and all badness came from others.
“Delta started like June”
And Pfizer spent June touting that its vaccines would protect against Delta.
“Then, Pfizer announced a booster idea (probably, several weeks before official request). So, Bourla says they immediately got angry responses (I do not recall now – public or private) as this seemingly did not match official line that Biden defeated the virus.”
They announced that they would try and develop a new booster to specifically target Delta (would need clinical trials, etc.) and stated that they’d soon seek FDA authorization for a third shot of the original stuff, which they did in August. And they said people would need that booster around 12 months after the initial series, which Fauci/NIAID/NIH had been saying was likely since April 2021. The only evidence I could find of an “angry” response was a news article in July stating “Federal officials” said a booster wasn’t necessary yet. But by the time Pfizer actually submitted the application, the FDA approved it ridiculously fast.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“But, when every say third argument is totally off-the-charts, it is sad.”
Do you think the “off-the-charts” arguments are exclusive to those critical of the pandemic response?
Kuvult,
“Indefensible borders from who? Lebanon, Syria, Jordan & Egypt have neither the will nor capability to go to war with Israel. The Gulf States have no interest in war with Israel.”
Do you think it’s wise to extrapolate that the future will always be like the present? Could none of these countries opt to build their military strength, form alliances, etc? Also, I find it interesting that you didn’t mention Hezbollah in this list. In the 2006 war, they didn’t even need to invade to cause the evacuation of a million Israeli civilians from their homes. And now their capabilities may be greater, and they have years of combat experience garnered from the Syrian civil war.
“The Palestinians with some automatic rifles & crude rockets are a non threat.”
Only if you dehumanize Israel. The Palestinians are well aware of the military power differential. They have not bombed the Knesset building, or the Dimona power plant, or conducted serious raids on Israeli military assets, or tried to seize territory. Instead they bomb pizza parlors and stab Yeshiva students bent over their gemaras, or men davening shacharis. They’ve crushed commuters with bulldozers, intentionally caused crashes, and commit random stabbings. They launch crude rockets, but at civilian population centers. None of these acts are designed to damage Israel’s military or its state infrastructure, or to conquer territory. They’re designed to try and make Israel unlivable for Jews.
“The only threat is Iran 1,100 miles away giving Israel plenty of time to react before they get near Israel (& truth be told Iran really has no interest in a war with Israel.)”
You mean the only “existential” threat. Suppose Iran develops nuclear weapons, and then begins a military buildup in Syria and Lebanon, threatening retaliation for any attack on its assets. How exactly would it help for Israel to have “plenty of time” to react?
“This is what bothers people about Israel (& Jews). Israel is the undeniable Superpower in the region where this time instead of a 6 day war it’d be max a 3 day war with a total victory for Israel.”
That’s not how things played out in 2006 when Israel finally invaded Lebanon to stop the Hezbollah missile attacks. Israel’s military may have the capability to achieve a rapid victory against its present neighbors, but to do so would require scorched earth tactics that would result in considerable civilian fatalities and damage to civilian infrastructure.
“Yet we’re crying to the world like Israel is on the verge of being destroyed & people resent that.”
That’s the anti-Israel parody of Israel’s position, not what Israel is saying itself. By the Palestinians, Israel is demanding safety and security for its citizens. When Israel mentions existential threats, it’s usually referring to Iran.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“Pfizer immediately publicized that and recommended boosters, and was first met with anger from Biden’s people (including Fauci) for bad politics, but then they came around to the facts.”
Not sure that the timeline bears this narrative out. Pfizer sought approval for a single booster on August 25, 2021, as the summer Delta wave was beginning to peak in the US. The FDA convened a public meeting on September 17th and approved the booster via EUA for higher risk populations by September 22, less than a month later, which is a remarkably fast turnaround time.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“By mistake (AKA hashgaha) my finger got stuck on a radio talk show in the car, and it helped me understand where is common & other like posters getting so worked up”
This is a nice example of an ad hominem fallacy. I don’t know if you’re lumping me in with the “worked up” posters, but I don’t listen to radio talk shows.
“The explanation for this informational virus seems simple”
Simple and wrong. But I agree that it’s fun to create broad theories with preconceived notions and little actual information while accusing your opponents of doing the same!
DaasYochid,
“He’s making a simple point that we shouldn’t raise expectations unnecessarily. Not sure what you are reading into his statements that is bothering you so much.”
I think it’s the Catch-22. If a young woman is judged worthy of getting a date by her resume and picture, then of course she will do whatever she can to make the resume and picture stand out. Otherwise she might not get a date at all. But then we criticize her for raising a young man’s expectations and making him “feel cheated”? It’s a no-win situation. Demanding pictures is immodest, and one who does so is cheating himself. And if he has such picky preferences on appearance that he must see a picture before agreeing to a date, I’d consider that a huge red flag for shemiras einayim issues.
Yabia Omer,
“I am claiming to be clean from any of the issues I mentioned.”
I think you are getting a strong reaction because your OP is coming across as hypocritical. “Hallel with Bracha on YH” and “Is Arabic Holy?” are examples of threads you opened seemingly with no purpose but to start flame wars. Other threads such as “Ashkenazic trauma” seemingly have little point other than to insult swaths of Jews. On what basis do you claim to be “clean” of these issues?
“But it got me thinking about just how much time and effort people put into things that are trivial.”
Why do you appoint yourself the arbiter of what is trivial and what is not? So what if people want to discuss socks? Socks are ubiquitous and are one of the more important comfort-related aspects of what we wear. If you have a child with sensory sensitivities, you’ll find that socks can bring on the biggest meltdowns. And that thread wasn’t even really about socks. If a thread topic doesn’t interest you or the conversation doesn’t seem productive or nice, skip it!
“And as soon as someone disagrees with a point of view, the go-to reaction is to insult them. Rather than saying I disagree with you because of a, b, c, instead the go-to is “you’re Reform, you’re open orthodox, you’re liberal….””
I agree and it’s unfortunate. I personally try to avoid labeling and insulting, and stick to the points of debate, and I hope that I’m successful most of the time. But is responding with condescension towards the entire CR really the best way to improve the discourse?
jackk,
Thanks for responding, and I appreciate the tone of this discussion.
“My Merriam-webster’s definition of draconian is “cruel” or “severe.” It is usually used to describe harsh laws, rules, or regulations.”
Yes, and I think that definition is apropos to the Covid lockdowns and mandates. Many of the mandates were davka issued by local governments due to perceived “non-compliance” by the populace, which was ironic because the strictest mandates were typically made in places where compliance was already high (and politically safe to do so). The messaging on the mandates consistently had an air of punishment.
“For example, would you add the adjective ‘draconian’ to police shutting down a highway for an hour due to an accident ? Nobody likes it, but everyone understands the need for it.”
Yes there is no objective definition of draconian, so those opposed to a law are more likely to call it draconian than supporters. But I don’t think “draconian” and “necessary” are necessarily oxymoronic. So perhaps we can drop the word draconian and I can ask, do you feel that the Covid mandates were quite harsh?
“I believe that the crux of the issue is whether the people ordering the draconian measures had a good faith belief – at that time – that the measures were justified to save people’s health and lives.”
I disagree. As the expression goes, the road to gehennom is paved with good intentions. Human society is extremely complex, and we deserved more than a one-dimensional ham-handed authoritarian response dictated by an extremely small set of voices with a narrow vision and financial conflicts of interest.
“Just because there were other alternatives or mitigations in no way refutes, disputes, counters or proves that the reasoning behind the draconian measured was incorrect.”
Nope, the world does not work like that. We even expect our young children to consider alternatives and mitigations to their actions.
“The pikuach nefesh argument can be applied because the mesirah was done in order to protect lives not to harm the synagogue.”
No it wasn’t. As I wrote above, the result of the call was a fine and citation.
“I do not deny people being bullied. I was bullied myself and I know of many instances of the Mitzvah of “bein adam lachaveiro” that metaphorically was flushed down the toilet.
It was a very big nebach of the whole situation.”It was not an unfortunate side-effect – bullying was actively encouraged by government officials at all levels. The Pharmaceutical companies provided wildly incorrect assessments of the effectiveness of their vaccines, and based on this information, the Biden Administration used the July 4th holiday in 2021 to declare “independence” from Covid. When the Delta wave subsequently rolled in, instead of dragging the Pharmaceutical executives into inquiries and investigating their claims, the Administration began a campaign of scapegoating those who declined vaccination or criticized any of the pandemic response orthodoxy.
“In order for us to get through Covid, we needed one plan of action.”
I think that holds true for traditional disaster response, e.g., after a hurricane or earthquake, when the response is straightforward and what is most important is proper coordination, efficiency, and speed. But we’re talking here about a global-scale situation lasting over a period of years when the parameters of the response and metrics of success are poorly understood.
“During the pandemic, the people responsible in the government had to decide a course of action.”
Or rather, provide the resources to facilitate those most directly responding to do their jobs well.
“I probably would want the advice of the person who has been at the head of infectious diseases in the US for the past 40 years.”
I’d want a multifaceted team that could devise 4-dimensional proposals to a 4-dimensional problem.
“The people who were not responsible could criticize all that they want. It was not their responsibility to safeguard the health and lives of the nation, and nobody would be blaming them for any deaths.”
I’ll let you fight this out with Always_Ask_Questions. He holds that it was indeed everyone’s responsibility, and those who disagree with him are to be blamed for the deaths.
“There was one man who shouldered the heavy responsibility and accepted all the criticisms. He did not shirk it although he knew that he would be castigated and made into the Republican’s party scapegoat.”
I really don’t understand the deification of Anthony Fauci. I think millions of people shouldered heavy responsibilities during the pandemic and made tremendous sacrifices. And nobody is immune to questions or critiques, whether their intentions were good or not.