Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
First comes the list of things I wouldn’t do.
I wouldn’t-
Quit my job,
Fly any class besides coach,
Add on to my house,
Own a luxury vehicle,
Make a donation anywhere in my own name,
Donate buildings to Yeshivas (I think the campaigns are beautiful and give thousands of people the zechus to be part of it),
Let my kids know.As far as what I would do- mainly look around to see what kind of voids I can fill in the kehila.
Create a Gemach that helps people help themselves (e.g. provide assistance in finishing their education…),Get Shadchanim under control (e.g. create a training course and certification so that people don’t wake up one morning and say “I’m a Shadchan”… Have some sort of discipline process for Shadchanim who don’t follow the rules- up to losing their certification and being banned from suggesting shidduchim.)
Have a fund of say $5,000,000 to co-sign a mortgage application for families struggling to pay tuition and can’t come up with money for a down payment.
Some other projects but I assume you get the idea.
The above analysis was made using a guaranteed rate of 5% for the entire duration. If the winner wants to try for a higher rate of return he/she could try riskier investments, the lottery commission can’t take that chance.
The advantage of taking it earlier is in case the lottery goes bankrupt or the government raises the tax rates later on.
The advantage of going for the annuity is if the interest rates drop to .1% or something and the winner is still getting paid as if it’s 5%.
Assuming interest is always a constant 5% there’s no advantage.
If all the money is put straight into the bank once received the future values are exactly the same.
With the lump sum payment the value of the payment will be 50,000,000 x ((1-(1/1.05^20)))/.05) x 1.05 = 654,266,042.98. After 19 years (when the 20th payment is made) the future value will be 654,266,042.98 x 1.05^19 = 1,653,297,705.14.
With the annuity option the year number, payment number, payment amount, present value at time 0 and value of the payment at time 19 (when the last payment is made) is as follows:
(Hope this copies from Excel nicely)
Time Payment # Payment Present Value at Time 0 Value at Time 19
0 1 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 126,347,509.77
1 2 50,000,000.00 47,619,047.62 120,330,961.68
2 3 50,000,000.00 45,351,473.92 114,600,915.89
3 4 50,000,000.00 43,191,879.93 109,143,729.42
4 5 50,000,000.00 41,135,123.74 103,946,408.97
5 6 50,000,000.00 39,176,308.32 98,996,579.97
6 7 50,000,000.00 37,310,769.83 94,282,457.12
7 8 50,000,000.00 35,534,066.51 89,792,816.30
8 9 50,000,000.00 33,841,968.10 85,516,967.91
9 10 50,000,000.00 32,230,445.81 81,444,731.34
10 11 50,000,000.00 30,695,662.68 77,566,410.80
11 12 50,000,000.00 29,233,964.45 73,872,772.19
12 13 50,000,000.00 27,841,870.91 70,355,021.13
13 14 50,000,000.00 26,516,067.53 67,004,782.03
14 15 50,000,000.00 25,253,397.65 63,814,078.13
15 16 50,000,000.00 24,050,854.90 60,775,312.50
16 17 50,000,000.00 22,905,576.10 57,881,250.00
17 18 50,000,000.00 21,814,834.38 55,125,000.00
18 19 50,000,000.00 20,776,032.74 52,500,000.00
19 20 50,000,000.00 19,786,697.85 50,000,000.00
Total 1,000,000,000.00 654,266,042.98 1,653,297,705.14So either way, the future value at year 19 (when the 20th payment is made) with interest is 1,653,297,705.14.
Of course if the winner is a savvy investor that number could be significantly higher.
Is that what you were asking?
Technically it’s the same as the net present values are equal to each other.
It’s actually two different reasons. Years ago jackpots were annuitized over say 20 year with the first payment paid this year and 19 additional equal payments. More recently different state lotteries have allowed users to choose to get the full amount (pre-tax) in 20 equal payments or the present value (also pre-tax) right away.
I can show you the annuitization calculations but it’s kind of boring.
Regardless of the winners choice the winnings are heavily taxed.
I heard Reb Malkiel Kotker speaking once and he said that it’s OK to buy one ticket but buying more than one is a lack of bitachon.
Given that I’m sure BMG would accept a donation.
Are you just going to go ahead and vote for the people who created this mess in the first place since you think his plan might not work?
Welcome back, hope you had an inspirational Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
In case you missed his plan you can rewatch the debate. For starters he plans to get rid of the DA and end cashless bail on day 1.
At least he thinks. (That’s much more than you can say for your leader.)
If I had to guess the heter was meant to be a last resort when all else has already failed. If she’s alive and well there’s still a chance that she’ll come to her senses or they’ll reconcile.
Do you have any more information on the cases where Reb Moshe allowed Bachurim to sign a heter? I’m curious to know if it was cases where the wife refused to accept the gett or cases after the war where husbands couldn’t track down if their wives were still alive.
I’m definitely not the expert in this area. There are definitely more situations- I picked a simple one (e.g. where she is in a vegetative state or disappeared) and a difficult one (e.g. where she’s disputing that the marriage is over, claims everything he said is untrue and claims that for the kids sake they should stay together and each Rov needs to thoroughly investigate the case and decide if he should sign on or not). Of course there are many situations in between.
I was under the impression that the signatories have to be in 100 different cities in 3 different countries or continents and I honestly have no idea if they each need to sign the same document in person or if an email will suffice.
I’m not trying to nitpick your post but aside from the mesader at a future wedding (which could easily be anyone) his future wife also needs to agree that it’s valid. It would be a shame to get a heter and then get engaged only to find out that his future wife wants it done differently and he needs to start all over again.
The intention of the heter was for the husband (or a messenger) to literally travel all over the world to present their case and get 100 Rabonim to sign on. Even in the easiest of cases (e.g. where the wife is in a vegetative state or disappeared a number of years ago and hasn’t been seen since) the traveling itself can be cost prohibitive. In this case, where the wife clearly hasn’t disappeared and isn’t in a vegetative state, on top of the traveling the person also has to present his side of the story and the Rov will try to contact the wife who will dispute everything he says. This will make the process significantly longer if at all possible.
Part of the cherem is that the gett can’t be forcefully given and there may be places where someone will walk into a Kollel and as 100 Yungeleit to sign on but it’s probably not universally accepted.
I’m general debt can be divided into two groups- healthy debt and unhealthy debt. Taking out student loans that will increase a persons earnings by $4,000 a month while the person pays $500 a month in student loans for six years is a healthy debt. Taking out student loans for a degree in gender studies where the student will stock shelves at Walmart for $15 an hour while owing $3,000 per month in student loans is unhealthy debt.
Republicans aren’t trying to keep people in debt per se, they’re trying to make people take responsibility for themselves so the Government can take a step back. There’s only so much help the Government could provide if everyone threw the burden of their bad decisions onto the Government.
As with everything in life- there’s a risk involved and the risk has to be calculated to determine the level of risk one is willing to take. As a simple example- say someone takes out an insurance policy for $1,000,000 and the company needs to know how much cash to keep on hand in case the person dies. It would be foolish to say that they’re not going to hold anything “because it’s such a small chance that the person will die”, while on the other hand it wouldn’t be profitable to hold the entire $1,000,000. An actuary can calculate the perfect amount to set aside but ultimately (regardless of whether the actuary did the calculation properly) the company is responsible to pay the claim. If the company can’t pay out it’s ultimately the policy holder who will suffer for not choosing a reputable enough company.
From what I understand there weren’t too many details disclosed regarding what went wrong with the restaurant in question. From a risk point of view the certifying agency has to determine the amount of risk they are willing to take (from simply taking the owners word for it and having no supervision to having armed guards, metal detectors and raw chicken sniffing dogs stationed 24/7 at each point of entry). So unless it can be proven that משגיח didn’t follow his responsibilities 100% he shouldn’t be held responsible and regardless of that outcome the certifying agency needs to take responsibility.
If someone is trying to circumvent the controls (e.g. locks where the owner isn’t given a key, alarm systems where the owner doesn’t have the code, surveillance cameras that someone externally is monitoring…) it’s going to take a lot to stop them. You’d be surprised at the covert things we’d come up with in high school. How long do you think it took us to remove the doorknob on an empty classroom and replace it with an exact replica? We then had all afternoon to impression a key for the lock and swap it back in to the door. How long do you think it took someone to climb into the drop ceiling near the alarm wire for a particular door and stick a staple or safety pin through the alarm wire to bypass it? And the surveillance camera- it was easily blocked with streamers and balloons for a supposed birthday party. When the principal came the next day he had no idea that some late notes were taken from his drawer (unless he counted them before he left and recounted them when he came back).
Were there additional steps that could have been taken? Sure! Have each doorknob affixed with tamper proof screws, have end of line resistors installed on the alarm system, have a security company monitor the camera and send someone out immediately if it gets blocked. There also could have been motion sensors and heat sensors installed in his office. But ultimately it comes down to making a calculated decision on the proper amount of precautions that are needed. And the consumer has to decide if they have enough trust in the agency that they have the proper level of control.
It would be nice if everyone was ehrliche and comes to (and listens to) Bais Din but unfortunately that’s not the case.
From the three general categories that I believe the heter was created for:
1. The wife has simply disappeared (i.e. her whereabout are unknown),
2. The wife is in a coma or mentally unfit to accept a get and
3. The wife simply refuses to accept the get,
The first two are negated once the wife competently walks into Bais Din and the third one is negated if you’re under the assumption that she’s ehrliche, wants to do the right thing and is going to follow Bais Din.So given that we’re discussing the heter we’re under the assumption that both parties are not sitting in front of Bais Din as Ehrliche Yidden waiting for a Psak and fully intent on following it.
If the wife is fully competent and being obnoxious it’s easier for Bais Din if she refuses to show up than if she shows up, pretends to be the victim while spewing forth an infinite amount of sheker. In the former case the Bais Din will see who the aggressor is while in the latter case the Bais Din will have to sort through all the information and hopefully figure it out. That’s why I think her complying with the summons makes things more complicated for Bais Din.
If your starting assumption is that both parties are ehrliche Yidden, once the Bais Din tells him he can not divorce her- that’s the end of it- they’ll both leave and hopefully work things out on their own. An ehrliche person will not go ahead and find another Bais Din if they don’t like the ruling. The first Bais Din will probably not write up a get for him and give him the go ahead to start getting 100 signatures.
The point of the heter, in my opinion, was to not keep the husband chained forever due to unfortunate extenuating circumstances. As with anything in life that was created with good intent- there are those out there that will exploit it for horrible purposes which goes 100% against what the creators had in mind. The Heter Meah Rabonim is no exception.
You make a good point regarding the current state of Batei Dinim nowadays. If things worked a little better, even in the fragmented state of our communities, if a person is summoned to a Bais Din that he’s not familiar with he should be able to call a local Bais Din to see if they are legit or not (kind of like a hashgacha that he’s unfamiliar with). If research does show that it’s unfortunately a corrupt Bais Din, the litigants (who are hopefully only out for the truth and for what Hashem wants them to do) should be able to find a Bais Din that works for both of them.
When I got summoned to a Bais Din I never heard of a number of years ago I reached out to a dayan on a Bais Din that I was familiar with and trusted. He informed me that the particular Bais Din was as corrupt as they get (one of the dayanim was later arrested and is actually sitting in jail at the moment). Under the guidance of Daas Torah, I informed the plaintiff that I was not going to answer the summons but he is welcome to work with me on choosing a Bais Din that we both trust. He refused to even try that. This showed me that he wasn’t trying to get the emes (to say the least).
Thanks for the link you tried posting- it looks like I was mostly correct with what I wrote earlier with the exception of the dates.
I chose the case where she ignored the subpoena as then the get will possibly be written without her present, she’ll be notified that it’s waiting for her to pick it up and he can start the process (you wanted to know when he can start the process and that’s a simpler case).
If she responds to the subpoena and comes to Bais Din and the two of them can not agree on a single thing and decide to fight it out- it’ll get more complicated. If Bais Din sides with him and issues the get but she refuses to accept it- it’ll stay there until she decides to pick it up. Either way- once the get is written he can initiate the process. If Bais Din refuses to write a get maybe he’ll go ahead and find a different Bais Din- he may have to try multiple Batei Dinim until one sides with him. Either way- until a get is written and waiting for her to pick it up I don’t think he can proceed.
I can’t say what the Rabonim had in mind when they decided on the heter as I don’t even know the names of the Rabonim but I’d like to think that they took the following into account.
If the wife is R”L in a coma- it shouldn’t be too hard for any of the 100 Rabonim to verify the facts through witnesses and sign on. If the wife ignores the subpoena and the get is written in absentia- it may be a little harder but the 100 Rabonim should be able to verify the facts through witnesses and sign on. (It can be costly and time consuming if each ones tries contacting the wife to hear her side of the story and have her explain why she didn’t show up to a legitimate Bais Din, but it is doable.) If the husband kept getting told over and over again that he does not deserve a divorce until he was able to find a Bais Din that is willing to write one up – hopefully the 100 Rabonim that he approaches will catch on to what he did and not sign on.
What if he goes to three friends, calls them his Bais Din, has one of them write up a get and obtains permission to start the process (without his wife even knowing about it) and he gets 100 friends to sign on to the heter? This shouldn’t be too different than some guy calling himself a Rav Hamachshir and giving a Hashgocha- if you hold of the Rov you can go ahead and eat what he certifies, if not stay away from the food.
Similarly- If the husband has the certification that the get was written and 100 signatures that say he can go ahead a marry a second wife- if you trust the Bais Din and 100 signatories- let him marry your sister / daughter… If not- stay away.
Please reread my disclaimer above that I’m not an expert in this topic at all and anything I write is just the way I think it’s supposed to work. (I.e. I don’t have any sources to back it up and it may very well be incorrect.)
You asked when the husband is “entitled” to a Heter Meah Rabonim. I’m not sure that “entitled” is the correct word- maybe the question should be “At what time is it appropriate for a husband to start the process”?
In any regard- if someone is trying to get the heter the way I believe it was intended to work it would be after he sent a subpoena for his wife to appear in Bais Din to initiate the Get procedure. After she refuses to come for a certain amount of time he’ll probably ask the Bais Din to write up the Get in absentia and have a message sent to her that it’s ready to be picked up.
At that point I don’t know if he’s “entitled” to the heter but he can start the process.
(I don’t believe that “entitled” is the correct word- he may very well be the cause of all the issues (and not “entitled” to a Get) and the 100 Rabonim will hopefully realize that and not sign on.)
A rebbe taught us about the Cherem over 30 years ago. Although I still remember the details clearly I have tried over the years to verify the accuracy but haven’t been able to. Keeping that in mind here’s what we were taught.
In the year 949 Rabbeinu Gershon felt that people were taking multiple wives for the wrong reason and instituted a 1,000 year ban against taking multiple wives as well as divorcing a wife against her will (or more specifically- without her knowingly accepting the divorce and what it means). There were two other parts to the cherem but they don’t relate to polygamy.
The ban expired in 1949 but the Rabonim decided to keep them in effect albeit with a loophole in the polygamy ban. The loophole was not intended to allow a person to live with more than one spouse at a time but rather to not keep a person in limbo for the rest of his life due to extenuating circumstances. These circumstances are, for the most part, where a spouse has disappeared, is in a coma or is mentally not competent enough to know what her accepting a Get means. I don’t believe the intent was for situations where they can’t agree on the terms of a divorce- but again, I may be wrong.
There are some basic requirements-
1. He needs to have a Get written up and deposited by a Bais Din where she can pick it up if she decides to,
2. He can not be living in the same house as her once the Get is written up and
3. He must still support her financially.The need for the person to travel the world and get 100 Rabonim from 100 different cities on three different continents was in case one were to question the validity that there was a legitimate necessity- they will hopefully respect that it’ll be very hard to have Rabonim scattered all over the world to collude on it. They may also very well hear that the Rov of City A, City B… (I.e. Rabonim that they know personally and respect) were signatories and not question or snicker at the heter.
Again- I haven’t been able to verify the details so if someone can provide support for (or a reputable source that disputes) this information I’d greatly appreciate it.
Originally I wasn’t going to bother responding to your previous post but I decided to add one more comment to the thread explaining why this will probably be my last one. I’m finding it very difficult to have a productive conversation with someone who, in my opinion, purposely misquotes me, purposely misses the point, purposely ignores questions and attacks me personally in an attempt to discredit me.
Now I’m going to go through your post one point at a time.
For the record- you did concede to my opinion, here’s the quote, “Very well, there are circumstances where an automatic weapon is useful”. If you want to flip flop and take back what you said- that’s fine. To say that you never conceded is simply not true.
We’re in agreement that guns are out of control and a huge overhaul is needed- with respect to mental health I think we agree that something needs to be done.
What I strongly disagree with you on is how to go about this.
As I mentioned in my previous post I never wrote that there’s a common use for automatic weapons. I never mentioned a single case in recent history where a civilian used an automatic weapon for a good reason where a regular small pistol wouldn’t have sufficed because I don’t know of any offhand and that’s not the point- the point is that there can be a reason- even if it’s only one in a billion. I think it’s wrong to deny someone who can prove to be responsible the ability to defend themselves for that rare situation if they want to take on the responsibility (and consequences) of owning a weapon. Take for example the owner of a luxury store that is going through a smash and grab by a group of a dozen or more thugs who are high on drugs. How long will it take for an innocent bystander to be seriously wounded or killed if one of the thugs feels threatened? I personally feel that the owner of the store would be allowed to use lethal force with an automatic weapon to protect his employees and customers, something he may not be able to do with a weapon that can only hold six bullets. The knowledge (or a warning sign) that the owner has an automatic weapon and is justified in using it may be enough of a threat to keep them away altogether. If you don’t agree- there’s not much more I can add and we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
“Stopping growth is also reduction.” Sorry- I don’t agree with you on that one. Most things don’t last forever and when an illegally obtained weapon breaks the owner is not just going to give it to the government to melt down if they can’t easily get a replacement. They’ll get creative and come up with their own fix, purchase parts online, make the part themselves or repurpose the parts from something else. Did you ever see pictures of what cars look like in Cuba? In the US when a car gets old and too expensive to maintain, the owner scraps it and buys another one. In Cuba where new cars aren’t as readily available they get creative in keeping the old ones running. Besides for me not agreeing with you that this is an effective way of reducing the number of illegal weapons- you still haven’t explained how it will stop new ones from flowing across the border. (I explained how the supply will increase as the demand increases and the demand for illegal weapons will increase as it becomes harder to get them legally but you ignored that.)
You brought up a statistic- I’m going to describe what was going through my mind as I read that. First off- you quote a “statistic” without saying where you got it from or who conducted it- so as far as I’m concerned it’s irrelevant. But OK- let’s go on. You’re the one quoting it and I’m thinking that you’re only going to quote a “statistic” that agrees with your agenda so I don’t know how many other “statistics” you skipped over as they don’t agree with your mindset. But let’s look at the “statistic” itself. I’m wondering how “average sentence” is defined- is it the amount of time some actually spends in prison or the amount of time some one is sentenced to regardless of if they get out in three months? There’s also no definition for “violence”. Is “violence” when someone gets injured, when a weapon is used in the crime or even if a weapon is brought to the crime regardless of whether it’s used or not (i.e. is the threat of violence considered violence). Was the “statistic” combined from one “study” in the UK and one in the USA and the author merged the two (this can cause the same word to be used differently in each “study” but supposedly represent the same thing in the “statistic”). I find it hard to believe that the average violent offender spends 25 years in prison for violent crimes when many are repeat offenders (many times over) for violent crimes before they even reach 25.
But let’s say somehow the “statistic” is accurate. I think what you’re trying to say is that this proves that the extra violence in the US is caused by the large number of guns in the country compared to the UK. Fine- I’ll agree with you on this- but it’s too late, the illegal guns are here and, in my opinion, you haven’t come up with a reasonable way to get rid of them or even significantly reduce the number.
Why would you even bother to quote the NRA? I don’t trust radical groups on either side. The heck with my NRA studies? What’s that supposed to mean? Are you attacking me with false accusations to try and discredit me because you can’t answer my questions? You look at actual data and draw your conclusions based on that? You’re not fooling me- you look for data that fits the conclusions you want to see and discard everything else- then you make your conclusion. I know nothing about the NRA besides that they advocate for the right for citizens to arm themselves, I don’t ever recall reading an article published by them and definitely never intentionally quoted them.
I made an elementary comment based on my own logic (that you finally attempted to explain the fallacy but didn’t succeed) and you claimed that I was quoting the NRA near-verbatim. You NEVER pointed out which statement from any of my posts were nearly word for word from the NRA. You may have made a mistake and you had numerous opportunities to correct yourself but you didn’t. In English I’d call that a lie. And besides- even if I did accidentally quote them word for word (which I still believe I didn’t) – does that mean that I stand behind everything that say? You quoted Ben Shapiro near-verbatim (“facts don’t care about your beliefs or feelings”)- does that mean you agree with everything he says? (Do you know where he stands on automatic weapons?)
At this point- it’s been great conversing with you but unless you bring up something new I have nothing else to add.
As a parting piece of advice- if the only way you can defend your opinion is by misquoting others, missing the point, ignoring questions you can’t answer and making up false accusations about someone else to discredit him- it may be time to rethink your opinion.
Feel free to not respond or go ahead and respond to get the last word in.
Hatzlacha!
You seem to be missing the point again. Your statement was that there’s never a reason for someone to own an automatic weapon- I proved your statement incorrect by bringing an example- regardless of how rare it is (and you agreed to this). I never wrote that there’s a common use for automatic weapons and you know that. I never mentioned a single case in recent history where a civilian used an automatic weapon for a good reason where a regular small pistol wouldn’t have sufficed because I don’t know of any offhand and that’s not the point- the point is that there can be a reason. I always agreed with you that, for the most part, having automatic weapons in the hands of civilians is a bad thing. The problem is that they already exist- we both agree on that. What we disagree on is how to handle the situation now.
Yes, I want automatic owners to prove responsibility, background checks, regular checkups… I’d go a step further a require home visits as well- all at the expense of the owner- to make sure everything looks normal in the house and the safe is secure (and can’t be opened in less than 60 seconds by methods readily available online). I would’ve even gone further and required a 30-day waiting period for additional applications and background / social media checks (besides- relationship breakups and the murder / attack of a loved one can take longer than 7 days to get over). I don’t believe that a responsible person that meets all the criteria of safeguarding the weapon should have to prove a need but that’s a separate issue.
You still haven’t directed me to something I wrote that’s near word for word something from the NRA so unless you can provide that information, I’m going to assume that it doesn’t exist and you don’t want to own up to your mistake.
What I did write is something that to me makes logical sense and you haven’t been able to explain the fallacy. Let me try again- if there are X number of legal guns out there and Y number of illegal guns- how will reducing the number of X bring down the number of Y? It may stop Y from growing as fast as it’s been growing in the past but you haven’t explained how it’ll be reduced.
For the most part, I don’t care about no name “studies” and “statistics” that don’t make logical sense to me- like you’ve been quoting. You and I both know very well that they can both be used and abused. Would you reply on a “study” conducted by the NRA? What I care is about logic- please explain logically how the “studies” and “statistics” you’ve been quoting make sense. In my profession, even if I am relying on others for statistics and specifically state my reliance, I can be disciplined for using data that I can’t explain the story behind the numbers. (I need to go back to the source and get some clarification. I can only think of one case in close to 20 years where the numbers were actually correct and there was a valid story explaining that.) Since you haven’t been able to do that, feel free to end the conversation here.
You’re purposely ignoring the method I proposed to stop the criminals from getting / using guns. There has to be a strong deterrence to stop the criminals from getting / using them- I believe that’s the only way. (Again- you never explained how the number of illegal weapons out there will be reduced or how to stop new illegal ones from flowing across the border.) How about a 25-year prison sentence – no questions asked- if a criminal commits a crime and a firearm was involved (even if it wasn’t used or displayed).
Feel free to cite whatever “studies”, “research”, “statistics”, “articles”, “laws” and “comparisons” that you want- but please include your sources as well as a logical explanation for the conclusion (when it’s not obvious from the source itself).
Gun control- I agree! It may be the only way but there’s more than one way to go about it and I simply don’t agree that your way is the correct way.
Wishing you a Happy, Healthy and Safe Shabbos!
@yserbius123
It took you over one week to finally admit that there can exist a case where an automatic weapon would be useful. I wasn’t asking you to agree that the pros outweigh the cons- just that an instance can exist. While you seem to be indoctrinated by the far left liberal views and having a hard time thinking for yourself you accuse me of being absorbed in literal corporate propaganda and convinced that the ideas that I thought of on my own were actually put into my head by them without me knowing about it. (All this, without even bothering to explain why the logic I came up with on my own is flawed or incorrect.)
To answer your question- Are there circumstances common enough to warrant an individual civilian to own an automatic weapon (specifically an automatic, not a pistol, or shotgun)? In my opinion the answer is yes. That doesn’t mean that anyone should be able to walk into a store or show and purchase an automatic weapon. If it was up to me I would require extensive background checks, proof of responsibility of safe ownership and operation of the weapon and proof of a secure method of storing the weapon when not in use. I would also make the purchaser be legally responsible (both civilly and criminally) if the owner didn’t safeguard the weapon and it is used in a crime (e.g. a teenage son knew the combination to the safe, the safe was left open, it was left in a locked car but not in an approved safe…).
If you think my explanation of US violence is amateurish please use some logic to explain why, I really don’t care what “studies” (or “statistics”) show. You know good and well that most of the “studies” that you read on the topic have the conclusion decided beforehand. Do you believe AOCs study that the smash and grab robberies of luxury items is due to the thugs being hungry? Do you believe the study from the DA who said that putting people in jail increases crime because then they’ll lose their job and home and become more violent? They knew what they wanted their outcome to be beforehand and concocted a ridiculous story to fit in.
Do England and France really release perpetrators of an armed carjacking immediately without having to post bail? If so, and they have less violence and a lot less gun violence then there must be a parameter missing from the equation. Maybe that parameter is the amount of illegal weapons which you still haven’t given a valid method of removing. The weapons are here already- banning them won’t remove them. You could’ve argued years ago, before the problem came so rampant, that gun purchases need to be controlled better but now it’s too late for that.
You could point and go “NU!” all you want- who’s stopping you? You still haven’t given a single explanation (valid or invalid) how forcing owners of legally purchased weapons to surrender them will force those who have illegal weapons to turn them in. It will reduce the number of weapons but not the number of illegal weapons. You can continue saying that it’s all NRA rhetoric but you may as well point to a mirror and start going “NU!”- it still doesn’t answer anything. I agree that it’s so easy for criminals to get guns but there are still way too many illegal ones out there and again – you haven’t given a valid explanation how to reduce that number, only to possibly stop it from increasing.
You question the statement that “people consider guns to be a necessary evil”. You only quoted half the statement but- fair enough. I think you knew good and well what I meant but let me reword it. Originally people thought that cigarettes were good for their health (or the pros outweighed the cons). People always realized that guns were killing machines and that hasn’t changed. Some people wanted to have these killing machines and some people purchased them as a necessary evil. As a Frum person I try to stay far enough away from the magazines at Rite Aid that I can’t even read the name of the magazine- let alone their stance on guns.
I am scared of the thought of those responsible people that have legally purchased guns from having them taken away. As I mentioned before, I personally am terrified of guns and never held a loaded one, but I do feel more comfortable knowing that some neighbors have guns (due to their professions). These neighbors are responsible people who keep their guns locked up properly when not being worn and have the restraint to only use it if they fear personal harm- not just loss of money. I think it keeps the neighborhood and shuls safer.
Thanks for taking a shot at answering my questions but I don’t think they adequately answer the questions being asked.
1) Saying what the government should do with illegal guns or guns used in a crime doesn’t explain how the government will get their hands on them.
2) Let’s break home burglars into three categories- a) those that are not afraid of breaking into a house with guns, mace, Tasers, baseball bats or alarms systems, b) those that are afraid of breaking into a house with guns but not mace, Tasers, baseball bats or alarms systems and 3) those that are afraid of breaking into a house with guns, mace, Tasers, baseball bats or alarms systems. You may not be able to decide which category a particular criminal belongs in or an accurate percentage for each category but unless you think the percentage of criminals in category b is 0- the number of break-ins will increase if the criminals in that category know there is no gun in the house.
3) There’s a law of supply and demand- if the demand for illegal weapons smuggled across the border is low the supply will be low. If the sale of legal weapons is curbed the demand will go up and hence the supply will go up. Another danger of that is legally sold weapons are regulated (i.e. a background check is done, the serial number is recorded…)- not so much with illegal weapons.
4) You claimed that I was quoting the NRA near-verbatim (i.e. close to word for word), you still haven’t pointed me to what I wrote that matched a quote from the NRA nearly word for word.
5) I agree that both prongs of the problem can be worked on simultaneously but I haven’t seen an emphasis from the government on the people with mental health issues getting the help that they need. On the contrary- the political party that wants to ban guns is promoting certain types of mental illness (even setting aside the entire month of June for this) at the expense of the rest of the population.You commented earlier that there’s NEVER a valid reason for an individual to have an automatic weapon. Period! All I needed to do was to bring a situation, regardless of how rare, where an individual could have benefited from having an automatic weapon and your statement would have been proven false. For example- if you claimed that there’s not a single person on the planet taller than 8′ and it turns out that there are a handful- your statement would be false, even though the number is probably less that one in a billion.
What do you consider “reasonable”? In my example with the mob I specifically didn’t mention guns- I mentioned baseball bats. There have been numerous smash and grabs in the news in the past year or two with a dozen plus thugs who could have easily killed innocent employees or shoppers with their bare hands if they felt threatened. Do you think they would have raided a store if they saw the owner inside with an automatic weapon and his hand on the trigger?
There’s cases besides mobs (again these are exceeding rare as well) where one may need to protect themselves with an automatic weapon. I agree that automatic weapons are ineffective against attack planes and nuclear weapons but let’s say the country decides that there’s a certain part of the population that they want to decimate- they’re not going to use attack planes or nuclear weapons as it will kill much more than those that they want to get rid of. You mentioned earlier that a lot can change in twenty years and brought in the smoking rate as an example- I think the country is much closer to another civil war than we were twenty years ago (I hope I’m wrong about this). I don’t recall the same number of riots and protests 20 years ago and there’s no sign of it slowing down.
I keep explaining why I think the US has such a high rate of gun violence but you refuse to acknowledge it. In my opinion the US teaches people at a young age that you don’t need to take responsibility for your actions and there’s practically nothing discouraging people from committing crimes. When they commit petty crimes and they don’t suffer any consequences they up the ante until they commit murder. It’s usually not the first law that they break. Why should someone be afraid of carjacking someone if they know that if they get caught they’ll be released without even having to post bail? Now imagine the scenario if they don’t even have to worry about the driver having a gun to protect themselves.
You’re correct that if certain guns are banned and confiscated there will be less guns. The problem is that the guns will be removed from the hands of innocent people that had them legally and the remaining guns will be the ones obtained illegally. (You still didn’t mention how the illegal ones will be confiscated and how new ones will be prevented from coming across an open border.) Even if it’s only one one hundredth that are smuggled in (which I don’t believe) a crazy person with the intent on carrying out a mass shooting will be able to get one (it may take longer but they will get one).
I realize that guns are dangerous- I’m terrified of them and never held a loaded gun in my life- but I’m more terrified of the legally owned guns from responsible neighbors being taken away. Like I said earlier on- guns were always known to be dangerous (unlike cigarettes) and the people who obtained them legally considered them to be a necessary evil.
Hopefully you’re enjoying this dialogue as much as I am (and thank you for being respectful) but you seem to be ignoring some of my questions. Would you be able to specifically answer the following questions that I asked in earlier posts?
1) There are probably millions of illegal guns out there- how do you think the government can go about confiscating all of them?
2) If the innocent people have to surrender their guns- what’s going to stop the criminals (armed or not), who until now refrained from breaking into a house because the home owner may have been armed, from burglarizing the house?
3) How should the supply of dangerous weapons flowing across the open southern border be curbed?
4) Which statement of mine was near-verbatim to a statement from the NRA?
5) You seem to agree that it’ll take many years (if at all possible) to get rid of all the guns- it’ll also take a long time to get all people with mental health issues the help that they need. Do you agree that the government should try to get them the help that they need or should the rest of the population have to suffer?No, I don’t think the Yidden could have outgunned the Germans- I didn’t think it through carefully. I was trying to bring some cases where automatic weapons could have otherwise helped innocent people so I chose an example of a government going after its own citizens (the Holocaust) and an invading country going after a specific part of the population (the Jordanian attack on the old city). The point was that these are cases where the oppressors’ couldn’t use air power on their intended targets without killing large numbers of those that they didn’t intend to cause harm to.
Keep in mind though that Yidden weren’t the only targets, the sheet number of civilian victims and that Germany was involved in a full blown war with many allied countries. Had there been a very significant number of heavily armed citizens they may not have had the extra resources at the time to deal with it.
Like most things in life statistics can be used and abused (kind of like guns). As an actuary I’ve seen my share of statistics that are collected and / or interpreted to further ones agenda and intentionally mislead others. I’m fairly confident the statistics your basing your opinions on would fall into that category. As far as I’m concerned the way a statistic is interpreted is an opinion and not a fact. Can you please logically (not statistically) explain why an illegally armed criminal who up until now refrained from breaking into someone’s house because they were afraid that the homeowner may have a legally purchased weapon will not go ahead and break into the persons home if their gun was turned in?
To reiterate again- you CAN NOT compare two countries based on one parameter- it’s like comparing an apple to an orange because they’re both fruits. Just because another country has a lower murder rate doesn’t mean it’s because guns are less rampant. There are other things that cause crime- lack of family structure, being taught at a young age that crime does pay, not having to fear punishment… All these parameters need to be compared. I don’t know what goes on in Scandinavia but let’s say from a young age the schools emphasize proper respect for others and following the law instead of using proper pronouns. I would hope that when they get older they’re afraid of jail because of social stigmas and prefer to stay far away from prison regardless of how comfortable it is. In places in the US where a criminal knows that if they’re arrested for armed carjacking they’ll be released with no bail- there’s no fear in committing the crime. Can you please explain what a life long criminal has to fear if they never faced any consequences?
You mentioned earlier that there’s no valid reason to have an automatic weapon. The case that I mentioned originally was just to poke a hole in your statement by choosing a rare scenario where there would be a valid reason to have an automatic weapon. I believe that I mentioned other situations where it would have been beneficial to have automatic weapons but you chose to not to acknowledge them (i.e. Yidden in Europe during the late 1930’s and residents of the Old City in 1948). Do you mind responding to that? Can you also let me know what I was paraphrasing from the NRA- I honestly have no idea?
You’re probably correct that most mass murders in the US happened with guns purchased legally- you still haven’t explained how banning them will remove the illegally obtained ones. Again- it may may them harder to get but they will still be available to those that have them and obtainable from those who smuggle them across an open border.
I don’t know what cigarettes have to do with guns. They both may be dangerous but they are different. Before there were any known dangers with cigarettes many people got addicted to them and it was going to take some time for the smoking rates to go down. If we’re at that point- great! Guns were known from the start to be dangerous and people either obtained them as a weapon to help their criminal lifestyle or as a necessary evil to protect themselves.
Sorry it’s taking so long to reply- I’m really busy before Shavuos. I know you took the time to respond and I appreciate that.
I’m not trying to offend you but I’m getting the impression that your making your opinions sound like facts. It may be your opinion that the advantages of banning all automatic weapons far outweighs the disadvantages but there are strong opinions to the contrary.
There are numerous situations where one could use (or could have used) automatic weapons- thankfully as you said they are extremely rare. You can’t just look at one situation- you need to look at the sum of all situations. You may very well be correct that the number of lives that have been saved (or that could have been saved) is less than the amount of lives lost but it is something that needs to be taken into account.
In your opinion there’s no good reason to have so many big guns. Do you think the Yidden in Europe would have benefited from having lots of big guns? How about the Yidden who lived in the Old City during the siege in 1948?
I’m not sure what I wrote that’s near-verbatim to the talking points of the NRA. I simply stated that if law abiding citizens need to give up their legally purchased firearms then criminals will have less fear breaking into their homes. It’s something I realized on my own, it makes logical sense to me and you haven’t explained why you feel that it’s incorrect.
Smoking may have gone down significantly over the past 20 years (luckily I live in a community where smoking is virtually nonexistent) but I’m not sure what your point is. (Are you trying to say that things change from one generation to the next?) Did the smokers all die early and the next generation not want to suffer? Did they switch to cigars or e-cigs? As I stated before- if automatic weapons become illegal it’ll be harder to obtain one illegaly but it’ll still be possible for those who really want one. You haven’t explained how banning them will force anyone who already has one illegaly to surrender it or prevent additional ones from being smuggled through the open border.
You can not compare the US to other civilized countries without comparing all relevant parameters. In my opinion the judicial system here is a joke and violent criminals have nothing to fear. If you’re going to compare the US rates of violence to Somalia- let’s see what they have in common. If I had to guess I don’t think the people there have to fear any repercussions for being violent- similar to the US. If the US had strict gun rules and anyone caught with an illegal weapon was sent to prison for 25 years- no questions asked- then maybe the violence would go down, a typical homeowner would have no reason to have a weapon and I’d side with you on banning them.
You imply that the cities with strict gun controls are safer- I’m going to disagree with you on that based on what’s going on in Chicago, New York and many other Democratic run cities. And again- if someone was intent on carrying out a mass murder there are plenty of other ways to go about it- it may not be as easy but they will get it done anyway.
At this point- if you still not convinced of the validity of my opinion (not that you agree- just admit that there is a different side) I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
On the subject of mental illness- it will take a huge investment to try and find the dangerous ones but having the social media giants look for them as opposed to Conservatives may be a good start. Many mass shooters do post their intentions online beforehand and could have been stopped had they been reported, investigated and locked up.
In conclusion- In my opinion, the world would be a better place without dangerous weapons but banning guns is not the correct way to go about it. The place to start is to make criminals fear breaking the law (e.g. stiff prison sentences) and keeping an eye on those with a mental illness. Until then guns are a necessary evil.
You’re saying that there aren’t very specific rare scenarios where an automatic weapon in civilian hands is useful? Or are you saying that weapons shouldn’t be legalized for those reasons?
If it’s the former- I believe I mentioned a rare case where an automatic weapon in civilian hands would be very useful. If it’s the latter I’d tend to agree with you to an extent.
I’m glad to hear that you’re not delusional enough to believe that guns could disappear overnight but I think you’re delusional if you think there’s any possibility of getting rid of them in 20 years. You haven’t explained how you’re going to force criminals to hand in their illegally obtained weapons or how to prevent new weapons from being smuggled over an open border.
My thoughts are my own unless I quote someone else. I don’t know too much about the NRA- let alone enough to quote anything they say. I firmly believe that if criminals have less to be afraid of when burglarizing a residence then crime will go up (look what’s going on in the Democratic run cities that have tough gun laws). There has to be something to discourage criminal behavior and without the fear of the homeowner having a firearm there’s less to be afraid of.
You’re entitled to your opinion that we’ll all be safer if guns are outlawed and only criminals have them but please explain how it’ll make society safer.
You can’t just compare the US to other civilized countries- there are way to many parameters to take into account. If you’re going to say that Country X has strict gun controls and is much safer than the US- I’m going to ask you this: does Country X have a prison system that criminals are afraid of? I strongly believe that if criminals here were afraid of the justice system crime would drop dramatically. There’s no incentive to behave here with the no cash bail reforms and extremely light prison sentences when given at all.
If a criminal wants to get a gun in the US they’ll get it one way or another. It may be easier if they’re able to buy it legally but if not there are plenty of other ways to get it- a firearm ban will not stop them.
As I mentioned before- if someone wants to commit mass murder without a gun there are plenty of other options. They may not be as easy to pull off but that won’t stop someone intent on pulling it off.
Finally- No, I don’t think mentally ill people will disappear overnight. It may be hard to find a needle in a haystack but when they post their hate filled rants online along with their intentions to shoot up a school it makes it much easier. Instead of allowing mentally ill people to live amongst the general population at the expense of everyone else- they should be forced to get the help they need and kept away from the general public until then. I disagree with you that it’s easier to deny them access to the tools of others destruction as finding illegal weapons is like finding a needle in a haystack. Additionally there are many everyday items that can be used and misused- how are you going to keep them away from everything they can possibly use to harm someone else?
By you not answering my question you’re confirming that, regardless of how unlikely the scenario, there are uses for automatic weapons outside of a warzone.
Aside from my hypothetical scenario there’s other, albeit rare, situations where someone could have benefited from a dangerous weapon. Do you recall the motorcyclists gang assaulting an innocent driver on the West Side Highway a number of years ago? Do you think the Holocaust might have turned out differently if Yidden were armed with automatic weapons back then?
Without doing any research I’m going to agree with you that the number of people who saved themselves from automatic weapons is dwarfed by the number of people killed by automatic weapons.
I still, respectfully, disagree with you that banning automatic weapons is the right way to go.
As unlike as you think my scenario is that you refer to it as “ridiculous” an even more unlikely scenario is that all guns in the USA just disappear by tomorrow. If the US does go ahead and ban all guns- do you honestly think that those who have illegal guns will go ahead and surrender them?
Let’s say they do go ahead with the ban and forcibly confiscate all guns from registered owners- do you think the country would be safer or more dangerous as now the criminals won’t be afraid that the person they’re carjacking or burglarizing is armed? Do you honestly think the death rate would go down?
Even if the government would somehow confiscate every single fire arm and the country would be gun free- do you think that would stop mass murderers? These attacks are carefully planned out- they’re not, in general, caused by someone who woke up on the wrong side of his bed, found an automatic weapon and decided to shoot up a school. They’ll resort to truck ramming attacks or something similar.
How about social media companies change their algorithms from searching for people with conservative views to searching for people with mental health issues making threatening posts. If these people are adequately looked into and put away where they can’t harm others I think the mass killings would drop significantly.
To quote from a post of yours earlier on “own dangerous weapons that serve no purpose outside of a warzone”.
You’re implying that there’s never a scenario where you’d need an automatic weapon. I mentioned a case where you would greatly benefit from having one.
Can you answer my question first and then we can discuss whether your scenario is more likely and does the benefit outweigh the risks?
Let’s say you had an automatic weapon with dozens of rounds and you were being chased by a furious mob of BLM rioters wielding baseball bats and screaming for your death.
Would you stand there and say “please stop” or would you defend yourself?
I’m in no way trying to offend you but in my personal opinion the article you copied was missing a critical word- the word “only”.
Here’s what it should have written- “Nine Republicans voted against a bill that would help => only <= poor families buy baby formula.”
It’s a tough decision to vote on and I’m happy that I’m not able to vote on it but it’s only fair for the 9 Republicans who voted against it to explain why they voted against it. (Regardless of whether you agree with their decision or not.)
As far as your next question is concerned- just because someone knows that a proposed solution is the incorrect one, it doesn’t mean that they have the correct solution (or that it even exists).
You’re putting me in a difficult position over here.
On the one hand I try extremely hard to choose my words carefully to ensure that I’m not attacking another poster personally- rather I’m disagreeing with their opinion. On the other hand- I’d like to be able to respectfully express my honest opinion without without having to worry that I’m offending someone.
Without getting into my background too much please just trust me that I’m having a hard time understanding how a Frum Yid can support the Democratic Party. (I respect that you’re probably wondering how a Frum Yid can support the Republican Party.) My only intent in conversing with you on this topic was to have a dialogue back and forth so that I can see where you’re coming from. For obvious reasons this is not a conversation I can have with a friend or neighbor and I felt that the Coffee Room would be a great place. You seemed to be a great candidate for a conversation as you have strong views, you’re carefully thought out and your replies are respectful. I didn’t think I’d get you to switch parties and I didn’t think that you’d get me to switch parties- I just wanted to have a respectful dialogue so I can see your point of view. If this turned into a debate that was definitely not my intent and I apologize.
The name calling and snide remarks (from both sides) is regrettable and does nothing to help the conversation. With that being said- and with me reiterating that those comments are wrong- if you post on a public forum you have to be ready to accept what ever is thrown at you and not let it ruin your day.
There are some guidelines that posters could follow to make the Coffee Room more pleasant when discussing hot topics as my most recent posts to you point out:
1. If you post an opinion- please give a little explanation as to why you feel that way. (E.g. When you posted that Americans will suffer from Elon Musk purchasing Twitter.)
2. If you post a fact that’s in dispute- please either provide a source or clarify / correct the fact. (E.g. When you posted that Elon Musk didn’t pay taxes on the $239 Billion he made during COVID and I pointed out that CNN claims that he’ll be paying $11 Billion in Federal Taxes.)
3. If you post a fact- please state the entire fact. (E.g. I felt it was misleading to state that the ABA rated a judge as non-qualified without stating why she was rated that, or to make it seem like the judge used her lack of medical expertise to make a decision regarding wearing masks on a plane.) In my most recent post I was not attacking you personally- I was attacking your post. The tone in the post was stronger than it usually is because I felt you were intentionally trying to mislead people. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Again- it was never my intention to offend you or any other poster in any way. If I did I apologize and sincerely regret it.
Wishing you a beautiful Shabbos.
Avi
In order to fully appreciate the post by @jackk you have to take into account not only what he wrote but also what he did NOT write (i.e. read between the lines).
Before I get into what I read between the lines; here’s a quote from jackk in a different thread explaining why he so forcefully defends the Democrats despite writing earlier in the same thread that a Frum Yid should not stand behind either party.
“I defend the Democrats forcefully in the CR. They have positions that a Frum Yid should agree with and the Republicans have some positions that a Frum Yid should reject.
If everyone in the CR respected that there can be different views, I would barely have what to say. I am defending the Democrats from the views of those who believe that they are completely Evil and that Republicans are completely Righteous, and that it is assur to vote Democrat.”
With that being said here’s what I read between the lines:
1. jackk made it very clear that he’s angered by this ruling.
What jackk did NOT say is why he’s angered by the ruling. As someone who hasn’t shown the same amount of anger towards the slaughter of unborn babies, or to perverts being allowed to follow young girls into a locker-room under the guise that they woke up feeling like a female that morning- he’s clearly not concerned about the safety of others. If I had to guess what’s really bothering him over here- it’s that he was hoping that before the elections President Biden (or another Democrat) would remove the mask mandate and voters would forget about the price of gas and sky high inflation and vote for Democrats. Now that the mandate had been ruled as unconstitutional, and by a judge appointed by a Republican, that’s no longer an option.
2. jackk did say that he won’t take medical advice from a 35 year old judge…
What jackk did NOT say is that the judge wasn’t making the decision based on medical expertise- the decision was based on whether the CDC had the authority to make the decision in the first place. jackk also did NOT say that a judge is supposed to rule based on the law- not what they want the law to be. The judge’s hands were tied in this case.
3. jackk did say that the ABA rated the judge as not qualified.
What jackk did NOT say is that the rating was made based on the judge not having the recommended amount of legal experience. jackk also did NOT say that the ABA said that she “has a very keen intellect, a strong work ethic and an impressive resume” and that “her integrity and demeanor are not in question”. (You can check out her biography on Wikipedia just like I did.)
4. jackk did say that her admission to the bar was in 2012 and she had not tried a single case, civil or criminal… when she was given… a life-time appointment.
What jackk did NOT say is that Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan was NEVER a judge at all and that was a life-time appointment to an even higher court!
5. jackk did say that “they don’t give a hoot about living humans”.
What jackk DID say is “living” humans- read between the lines over there.
(As a side point I do think that Republicans care more about humans (both living and unborn) hence they are against abortion, against defunding the police and against taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves from the lawlessness that the Democrats are creating.)
To quote what you wrote above- you described Judge Mizelle as “a 35 year old judge who was rated as NOT QUALIFIED by the ABA”.
While you are correct that the ABA rated her as “Not Qualified” you neglected to mention that the reason for the rating was that she only had 8 years of legal experience and the ABA typically requires 12 years for a rating of “Qualified”.
You also neglected to mention that the ABA said that she “has a very keen intellect, a strong work ethic and an impressive resume”. They also stressed that “her integrity and demeanor are not in question”.
Please excuse me for saying this but when you purposely leave out integral parts of the truth to push your agenda you seriously hurt your credibility.
Can you please explain why America will suffer because of it? I’m not a fan of social media so I honestly have no idea and I’m genuinely curious.
Also, according to CNN, Elon Musk stated that he’s going to pay around $11 Billion in Federal taxes for 2021. Can you please let me know where you got your number from?
Thanks
I hope your Yom Tov is going great so far.
With all due respect you seem to have some double standards:
You seem to be pretty agitated over a ruling that affects those that for the most part are able to defend themselves. I don’t think anyone will be denied boarding if they insist on wearing whatever type of mask it takes to them to feel protected and they don’t need to board a flight if they don’t feel safe.
Please correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think you were agitated at all with the supreme court justice nomination of someone who has shown mercy and compassion to perverts who exploited and took advantage of young kids – the second to most defenseless in our society. Nor did I ever see any outrage from you regarding the slaughter of unborn babies- the most defenseless in our society.
In regards to your questioning the qualifications of the 35 year old judge appointed by Former President Trump- I didn’t see you questioning the qualifications of the most recent supreme court nominee (also a lifetime appointment); someone who was nominated predominantly based on her skin color and gender yet can’t even define what a woman is. This same nominee has had numerous rulings overturned- something that’s very concerning as the Supreme Court does not have a higher court to overturn their rulings.
Where were you when Former President Obama nominated Justice Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court? She was never even a judge before she was nominated!
Also- back on March 11th you wrote that you were working on answering me (in the “So you voted for Biden” thread). Are you planning on responding or is that conversation over?
A Gutten Moed,
Avi
@ AriHaleviRosman
I don’t understand why you’re only bothered where it was the mother of the single who nixed the idea for their kids because the references didn’t return the call fast enough. Would you have been just as bothered if it was the single himself / herself who nixed the idea for the same reason?
Would you be bothered if the mother of a single called references and asked questions that you agreed were relevant?
A few years after I graduated high school there was an unfortunate incident there and the place ended up closing down. Someone refused to go out with me, five years after I left, because I went to high school there. I told the shadchan that not only wasn’t I there when it happened but anyone is welcome to check my medical history to see that there was never any sign of me being involved in drugs. I was also in respected Yeshivos since then and had many Rabbeim who could vouch for me.
The girl responded that if she could just get someone from Chaim Berlin or Torah Vodaas why should she date me and then have to explain to her friends that I was in high school there although I wasn’t there during the bust?
At the end I was relieved that she filtered her name out for me as I wouldn’t want someone like that anyway.
Please answer this though- do you feel differently about the situation because she said that as opposed to her mother?
It seems like your issue is not who’s asking the questions per se, rather the poor quality/ relevance of the questions being asked.
Would you have been just as bothered if it was the boys themselves who asked the questions and then threw out the shidduch before going on a first date?
When it first happened to me I was disappointed until I realized the silver lining- why would I want to have to deal with a family like that anyway?
Thanks for your kind words. I definitely wasn’t trying to hurt anyone, I was hoping @AriHaleviRosman would realize that he is bitter about something and set his hurt feelings aside for a moment just to look at the other side.
If you’ve been reading my posts for over a decade you probably know that squeak wouldn’t be offended as he’s a genius and his intelligence is far superior than mine. He is very modest about it and claimed that he had a team of Polish cryptographers break my cipher while in actuality he did it in his head.
After he bestowed upon me all of his designations for solving his riddle with the monkeys and coconuts I was so honored that I made a Kiddush in Shul (to be transparent about the Kiddush I did have a girl born that week as well).
We need to get him back to the Coffee Room, it’s been way too long since I last conversed with him here.
I hope you’re doing well.
I was trying to have an open and honest back and forth dialogue where we could respectfully share our point of view. It’s hard to understand the tone of one’s comments without having the luxury of seeing their facial expressions. I therefore read and reread my posts before submitting them to make sure nothing even had the appearance of being hurtful.
If something did slip by and you felt personally offended, cornered or disrespected please let me reassure you that it was not my intention.
Wishing you a גוט שבת and a גוט חודש.
Are you serious or is this and April Fools joke?
Excuse me for saying this but you seem to be bitter about something and unable to see this from another point of view. If you’re willing to have a respectful dialogue I’m willing to try to show you another point of view- which you may or may not agree with. I’m going to end this discussion with this post if you purposely miss the point I’m trying to make and respond with insults.
In general the tasks that someone needs to take care of in life (regardless of the importance) can be broken into the following categories:
1) Tasks the person completes themselves,
2) Tasks that others can complete for the person more efficiently:
a) Tasks where the person has an interest in how the other person completes the task
b) Tasks where the person has no interest in how the other person completes the task as long as it’s completed.I was not implying that dating and marriage are equated with taking out the garbage. I was trying to show you that just because someone doesn’t do something it doesn’t mean that they’re lazy.
As I said before and I’ll say it again- I let my parents do the research because they had more time, they had more worldly experience and thus could do better research than I could have done. Once they completed the research and gave me the green light I sat down and discussed the results of their research and usually had some additional questions or did some research myself.
The things that my mother can do better than me (e.g. picking out gowns for my daughters to wear at a cousins wedding)- I’m happy to have my mother and wife discuss it together and leave me out of it.
When I was dating I wasn’t fully aware of the amount of disfunction that went on within our community- my parents were. My mother knew the right questions to ask (something I would not have known how to do) and when my mother sensed deception in the conversation she would have my father take over and strategically ask innocent questions to see if the reference would trip up (again- something that I would not have been able to do).
(In one particular case my mother asked a reference if there’s anything else she needs to know about the family and was told that there’s been a long standing feud and Din Torah between them and another family- but it was 1,000% the fault of the other family and 0% the fault of the family in question. She then provided the name of the Av Bais Din who was handling the case. My father called the Av Bais Din who claimed that the family in question was totally innocent and the other family was totally full of sheker. My father steered the conversation elsewhere and can back a few minutes later by saying- “So it seems like both are ehrlech families but they had a dispute so they brought it to Bais Din, is that correct?”. The Av Bais Din answered, “Yes, they’re both ehrlich families but one’s milchig and one’s fleishig so they’re ok by themselves but they’re both ruined when they’re together”. When informed of this blunder the person admitted that he wasn’t even on the Bais Din but was a dayan on a different Bais Din and familiar with the case since they’re family friends.)
With all due respect to my parents- the decisions that I feel that I can do just fine on my own (e.g. choosing a shul that I’m comfortable in, deciding what to learn with my chavrusa…)- I decide on my own.
If someone C”V needed surgery would you suggest they do it themselves because it’s very important or would they go to someone who’s trained in that area and can do the operation as best as possible?
My answer to your question (regardless of whether you agree with me or not) is that just because someone doesn’t do something- it doesn’t mean that they’re extremely lazy. I had my parents do the research because I didn’t have the time and they were able to do a better job at it.
You seem to be stuck on your opinion that anyone who doesn’t do their own research is extremely lazy so I brought in a different scenario regarding the hiring manager who has HR do the research because they can do it better, faster and more efficiently.
Let me ask you some questions-
Do you bring your garbage to the city dump or do you let the sanitation department pick it up?
Do you pick up your mail from the Post Office or do you have the USPS deliver it?
Does that mean that your extremely lazy or that you let them do it because it saves you time and money?
Even if they were extremely lazy why does that bother you- just don’t go out with them?
I’m going to assume that you were being sarcastic in your last post but in case you weren’t I’ll give you a serious response.
While I was dating I was learning in an out of town Yeshiva. Except in the rare situation where I was dating someone local a typical date cost me around $150 and took up around 36 hours of my time. Far more than the one hour (or many times a mere few minutes) that it took for my parents to do the research and determine that someone wasn’t for me.
Also, from a בן אדם לחברו point of view- I thought it was extremely unfair when someone said no to me and gave a reason that they could have easily inquired and found out before the first date.
I can’t fathom the עונש in the next world for someone who does this on a regular basis and causes avoidable hurt feelings to people at such a sensitive time in their life.
You asked “Why are singles so lazy?”
When I was dating I was also in Yeshiva full time, going to college part time and teaching part time as well. You’re entitled to your opinion but most people wouldn’t consider my schedule at the time (or the schedule of any serious Yeshiva guy) as “so lazy”.
If you apply for a corporate job, chances are the supervisor will have a Human Resources representative vet your application before taking a look at it. Are you going to ask why the hiring manager is so lazy that he / she needs to have HR do the background checks?
The obvious answer is that the supervisors time could be worth over $150 per hour and he / she doesn’t have the proper training and tools to do adequate background checks. The HR representative, on the other hand is probably making less than $60 per hour and has the training and skills to do background checks.
So to answer your question- when I was in Yeshiva I didn’t have the time or skills necessary to do the required background checks for the multitude number of names I was getting on a regular basis. My parents, on the other hand, did. We worked hand in hand to filter out the majority of names that weren’t relevant and saved lots of time and aggravation that way.
The system is far from perfect and everyone needs to do what works best for them. If it bothers you when someone has their parents doing the research- don’t go out with them.
Some benefits of doing it this way is that when you’re going out you won’t have other people in mind and if you do have to end the date you don’t have to worry about the shadchan criticizing you or harassing you to give it another chance.
When I was dating I was getting suggested to way too many more people than I had the time to look into. My parents had in mind what they were looking for in a daughter in law so it was in my best interest to let them do the research first to filter out every one that they didn’t want me to marry anyway and then see what the research showed on the rest.
My Mom enjoyed calling all the references and shmoozing with them for hours on end while my father was able to ask brilliantly worded questions to sniff out the lying shadchanim- two talents that I wasn’t blessed with.
Eventually, after too many disasters, we all realized that I wasn’t going to meet my bashert through a shadchan and stopped taking names from them to focus on suggestions from friends and relatives. The next person I went out was my wife.
jackk-
Without going through each of your points I do feel that some posters (on both sides) are pretty uneducated in their political views and just write the first thing that comes to their mind regardless of how ridiculous it sounds.
For example- I do believe that there were abnormalities in the 2020 elections but (from what I know) I don’t think there’s enough evidence to prove or disprove it. I cringe when Republicans claim that the voting machines were rigged and I similarly cringe when the Democrats say that the ballots were hand counted and the numbers match (this only proves that the numbers were counted properly the first time- not that every vote was legitimate).
Anyway- I’m not expecting to hear back from you before שבת so have a גוט שבת.
jackk-
1) We seem to be going in circles over here. He lied under oath (regardless of how minimal it was) – it’s been proven and you agree to that. He committed perjury which is a misdemeanor (you agree that a misdemeanor is an impeachable offense). Until you show me where in the Constitution it says that a misdemeanor isn’t impeachable if it’s regarding a personal relationship and that the Senate has the discretion to decide if the House should have impeached him in the first place; I think this part of the conversation is over.
The Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process as we discussed before (and you didn’t seem to disagree)- did you expect anyone to take them seriously when they started using it as a political weapon? A judge has the discretion to throw out a nuisance lawsuit which is similar to what that was. The Democrats tried to tarnish his name and waste time from getting productive things done- they knew from the start that there was a 0% chance that he’d be removed from office. You still didn’t answer my question as to whether or not you recall Nancy Pelosi giggling as she gave out impeachment souvenir pens.
He tried to dig up dirt on a political rival? Get real- Joe Biden announced the dirt on himself. He’s the one that publicly announced that he threatened to withhold $1 Billion in loan guarantees if the prosecutor investigating Burisma, the company his son was raking in millions from, wasn’t fired within 6 hours- and then he got fired! I would expect that the admission of corruption from a former vice president who wanted to run for president should have been investigated. However, when the president asked for his comments to be investigated- he gets impeached while the person trying to obstruct justice with his threats gets elected!
2) I agree with you regarding the way others here represent the Republican Party and they don’t always come across as educated. If you’re going to defend the Democratic Party so forcefully I do think you need to make it clear that you do have some issues with some of their views and moral values. This is the first time I recall you saying that you’re against redefining the word marriage or killing babies.
Whether or not we are arguing about the Torah, if you are a Frum Yid you shouldn’t be taking lightly the things that the Torah stresses very strongly. When you belittle the issue by saying that it’s just a piece of paper it makes everyone think that you’re taking it lightly. In general, I wouldn’t question whether you put on Tefillin every day but if you said about someone else “Who cares if he puts on Tefillin or not, it’s just some leather?” then I’d have reason to doubt if you put on Tefillin every day.
Similarly- you seemed to justify the issue of killing babies by comparing it to the Republicans not banning assault weapons. It makes one wonder if you’re really bothered by the slaughter. So to bring in the Shabbos example- you wouldn’t normally have to declare that you keep Shabbos but if you’d justify someone else driving on Shabbos because you saw a Christian driving on Sunday, his day of rest- you’d have to explicitly say that you do keep Shabbos.
3 & 5) Resolving the crime issues in the U.S. as well as the health care crisis is indeed a long discussion and beyond the scope of this thread but the points that I raised are much smaller. Instead of dismissing (or deferring) the topics can you just answer these “Yes” or “No” questions?
a) Do you agree that someone stealing less than $950 shouldn’t be arrested?
b) Do you agree that a person who’s arrested for a violent crime should be released without having to post cash bail?
c) Does not arresting or immediately releasing these criminals create an atmosphere of lawlessness?
d) Do you agree that the ACA caused serious financially harm many middle class families (e.g. the ones that had more than adequate health insurance beforehand and now spends over $10,000 more per year for equal or less coverage)?When I discussed voting Democrat earlier on I was referring to politicians that can make decisions that have a national effect (i.e. the president, senators, congress and to a lesser extent governors). In the past decade or so the parties have been split nearly in half and voting as a bloc (on major issues) so an individual senator can wield an enormous amount of power. If there’s a local politician running on the Democratic ticket whose sole agenda is to make life more pleasant for his constituents then go right ahead and vote for him.
There may be some politically active Liberals that are not trying to destroy the moral fabric of society but they don’t realize that by trying to keep everyone happy they are destroying the moral fabric of society. The people that think they’re going to be nice and let people marry whoever they want to are not intending to destroy the moral fabric of society but down the road- that’s what’s going to happen. Like I mentioned earlier on- some of these Liberals who thought they were being nice by allowing anyone to use the restroom that they feel more comfortable with now have to contend with perverts following their daughters into the girl’s locker room under the guise that they identify as a female.
I agree with your comment about the freedom to be a Frum Yid in America but my concern is that once they force their agenda on society our religious freedom will be restricted. They have the freedom to be immoral where it doesn’t affect anyone else- no one is trying to stop what they do behind closed doors- the fight is to stop them from forcing the rest of society from having to deal with their immorality. Would you want your Rov to be sued for not officiating at a redefined marriage. What’s going to stop that?
I didn’t say that the Rosh Hayeshivas made an announcement or told me how to vote- I said that they provided guidance. The guidance that I was referring to was when I asked who they were voting for. I only mentioned that they were members of the Moetzes so that you wouldn’t think the Rov I asked was my colleagues wife. (I specifically didn’t mention any names as it may lead to uncalled for comments.)
As a side point- some time ago there was a Frum politician running on the Democratic ticket and there were Kol Koreis, loudspeakers, comments on YWN and you name it all over the place against him. I went to daven with my Rosh Hayeshiva on election morning and asked him who he’s voting for. He mentioned that he is voting for that politician and invited me to come with him after davening and watch (the volunteers at the voting station didn’t let me into the booth to watch). I did vote for him.
Is there a reason why you didn’t give a straight answer when I asked if you have a Rov that you consult?
huju-
b. What should he be doing differently?
Your question reminds me of a story my father told me some time ago. He’s sitting in his office when one of the partners storms in furiously and slams the door. After throwing himself down into a chair he says- “you’ll never believe what happened to me last night”!
Here’s what happened- His daughter called and woke him up at 2:00 A.M. and asked if he could pick her up from down town. He wanted to know what she was doing down town at that hour and she explained that the bar she works at was going strong when her shift was over and her manager asked her not to leave. He yelled a string of profanities, told her to have her boyfriend pick her up and warned her to never call him in middle of the night again.
Then he looks at my father and says, “you’re a smart guy- would you have handled the situation differently?”
My father said, “I honestly don’t know how I would’ve handled it because that situation would never happen for the following reasons-
1. I wouldn’t go to sleep unless I knew that all my kids were in a safe place,
2. If one of them would call in middle of the night needing a ride I’d be out the door to pick them up before I had a chance to ask what they were doing wherever they were,
3. My kids would never work in a bar,
4. My daughters would never have a boyfriend,
5. I wouldn’t talk to my kids (or anyone else for that matter) with the kind of expletives that you just used.
6. I specifically let my kids know that if they ever need my help at any time they should call and I’ll be right over.”So to ask what the president should be doing differently- he shouldn’t have gotten himself into the situation in the first place.
None of this happened while Former President Trump was in the White House.