Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
000646 – what is your evidence that the undisputed fact that women are less interested in objectifying pritzus is due to cultural conditioning? If anything in the frum world women are far less conditioned to avoid pritzus.
As far as point #2, i have a response, yet i don’t think that this is the appropriate forum to discuss those matters.
Jfem – you said: “I can’t speak for men, but I do know that women (based on my experiences and those of my friends I would even say most women) . . . desire [unknown men].”
How is it that you “can’t speak for men” but could speak for “my friends”? Are you saying you don’t know any men?
Additionally, even if you could accurately speak for your friends, it may be a stretch to project their experiences onto “most” [religious] women. It may just be a flawed sample.
While women too were created with some animalistic tendencies, they are [thankfully] not nearly as overpowering as those that men have, giving women a far, far, easier time controlling inappropriate thoughts. Witness in the secular world, who is trying to convince whom to be immoral sooner.
That said, women can likely desensitize themselves, and sacrifice some of their inherent advantage over men in this area.
Feminists and their friends, who campaign against things like abstinence education, and advocate for things like birth control to be more and more available, to younger and younger women, are likely desensitized, and are therefore a flawed sample.
All that said, when a woman dresses within the realm of normal, and is far less exposed than what we all see regularly in the world around us, it should not be a nisayon for most men, and therefore, it should not be our business. Individuals who have issues should work on themselves.
oomis – either being really proficient in talmud predisposes one to the thinking in law school or there is a correlation between those that are really proficient at talmud and at law school. I’d probably go with both being true, with the latter point being far more important. Either way, a BTL is not adequate proof of having high proficiency in talmud.
Popa – I googled a few top schools. The NYC schools have A+ (I found an interesting NYT article in the results on the topic that i’m pretty sure my law and economics professor shared the link to as well. He wasn’t a fan of grade inflation…) Other schools, not as much. Mine: definitely not.
Yatzmich – No you can’t! Making blanket denigrating comments about the “typical” yeshivish person is bad. If you have nasty comments about your own hygiene, I wouldn’t object as much.
keepitcoming – bchukosehem lo selechu is followed just as much by the not in style people: a. the style is just an older goyishe style; b. there are many goyim who don’t care about style. What must follow is that jews must care about style? Also, fyi goyim eat and breathe. stop doing that. R’ Moshe has a tshuva explaining what bchukoseihem means. It doesn’t cover denim. Denim is strong, cheap, and comfortable material. It sounds like a very informed person who dresses in such clothing.
PBA – the grading method is determined by the professor. Most professors I’ve had were explicit in their requirement of proper writing format. Even those who weren’t explicit generally gave the best grades to the best writers.
Granted, I’m providing personal experiences.
What evidence do you have that “most” law schools have an A+? Or that writing ability is generally the “least” factor? At best, we had different experiences. Are you the chronicler of all law professor/school grading procedures?
PBA – I said that a LEGIT udergrad NECESSARILY has built work ethic and writing skills. BTLs may have the above skills and may not. A 3.8 gpa from princeton definitely does. Therefore a 3.8 gpa from princeton proves far more than a btl. As you go lower in terms of undergrad quality you’ll prove less and less.
Your statement “You can get an A+ without a single proper sentence on a law school exam” may be true to your experiences, but mine are 1) there’s no A+ in law school, and 2) writing ability is the primary factor in a grade. It’s not merely what you say, but how you say it. I’ve never seen an A exam answer with clearly improper sentences (with the exception of one professor I had who had strict severe word limits).
YacMo – Work ethic is what goes into preparing the “crystallized intelligence” which informs the “fluid intelligence.” Only crystallized intelligence will get you somewhere. Only fluid intelligence won’t. Both are required to excel. In my personal experience. The lsat measures “fluid intelligence” quite well. In a GPA measurement law schools are or should be looking for evidence of crystallized intelligence.
pba: i do not have accurate aggregate grade numbers for the few people I know in top law schools. they’d have to be self-reported, and you know how that works… my personal knowledge involves my own experience with a few other friends both in applying to, and within law school.
It makes sense, all other things equal, that an lsat score has some accurate predictive tendencies for law school grades.
It makes sense, all other things equal, that an undergraduate gpa in a legit school has some accurate predictive tendencies for law school grades.
It makes no sense, that a BTL [bogus] gpa, has any accurate predictive tendencies for law school grades.
Further, the existence of a BTL, other than identifying one as part of a social group, should have no positive effect on law school grades.
If you disagree with any of those statements, my guess is that it’d be the last one, and not that strongly.
Lastly, you’d likely agree that writing strength and work ethic are the overwhelming majority of what law school grades comprise of. Both those attributes are necessarily present far more in a legit undergrad degree than in a BTL.
Therefore, 1. law schools SHOULD (all other things equal) prefer non-btl admits; and 2. other undergraduate degrees necessarily require one to develop the two crucial law school skills – work ethic and writing, thereby giving them a leg up in adjusting.
As someone with some personal knowledge in this area, I’d say you are both right. A decent education would help grades once in school. A higher GPA would help one get into a better school. The best is a high GPA from a decent undergrad. If you are incapable of pulling that off, you are generally incapable of excelling in law school. Additionally, while schools care about pure gpa numbers for usnews rankings, they know good and well how much the numbers mean. I think a school with a 25/75 gpa of 3.6/3.8 would easily prefer a 3.65 legit degree over a 3.79 btl. Those are my unsupported thoughts though.
Yatzmich – “they’re thinking it’s normal.” Good! Then there’s no problem of tznius violations. I think the main problem is that the men aren’t keeping up with what’s normal. Well start, then. If a man has etzba k’tana issues (read: improper thoughts about “normally” dressed women), how DARE he blame the women? Obviously, minhag hamakom doesn’t remove the issur histaklus of actual ervah. But this is not the issue here. What we’re discussing is men like you making blanket statements about all men. It’s not a nisayon for me, and shouldn’t be for you. Take some responsibility.
“typical yeshivisha guy with the unkempt beard and dirty eyeglasses”
As someone who isn’t yeshivish I nonetheless take offense to your bigoted stereotype. Many yeshivisha people try to look respectable. Your statement reminds me of how Nazis described Jews.
R’ Moshe has a tshuva about chess where he says it should be avoided mechumra (i think b/c of uvda d’chol) unless the loser will get frustrated in which case it’s asur meikkar hadin. No mareh makom right now. From where do you get the idea that “sports” are assur?
torah613 allow me to dissect:
“While there is nothing technically wrong with it,”
Define “technically.” Additionally, are you saying your next arguments aren’t technically provable? If so, I agree. As someone who thrives on technicalities, allow me to hone my craft. Please don’t take this personally.
“I feel this style is not modest”
feelings are unprovable. Also, define modest.
“ feminine,”
same response except replace “modest” with “feminine.”
“and inappropriate for a person who wants to project those traits.”
See above for request to define “these traits.” Also, define propriety in this context. Is it a technical term?
“It connotes tough, manly work (think motorcyclists and leather gloves).”
I think it connotes a new tznius feminine style (think new thread in the coffee room). Stating what it reminds you of doesn’t make it bad.
Additionally, in the yeshiva world, increasingly the women do the “tougher work,” as the men frequently stay in academia until the point that only white collar work tends to produce sufficient income for their large families, leaving their wives to do all the “tough” work. Oh, and please define “tough” as well.
I suppose the points I’m trying to make is 1. that the esoteric concept of tznius doesn’t lend itself well to technical limitations, and 2. stating that it’s technically okay, while listing unprovable technicalities as to why it’s not okay is contradictory.
There is no such thing as denial.
The Goq – no. and yes. unabashedly so. you should be ashamed of yourself. Outsider, you too. Disagreeing with someone’s right to a land is not racism. Disliking someone because of their race is. And imagining negative behaviors and stereotyping a race with it is reprehensible.
If two people where you work didn’t say good morning and were bald, you wouldn’t notice that. Hopefully. And if you did and then made public statements about bald people, you’d be an idiot. This is worse. Have a good night.
Being that you are arbitrarily coming to a conclusion that you are challenging, the person to ask the question to is yourself.
gaw – i happened to have learned that gemara (bb5a) yesterday. I love when that happens. Do you mean rashi? Whether yashar v’tov was a chiyuv for ravina in that case seemed unclear to me (in my admittedly superficial learning of the sugya). regardless, it’d fall into my broad definition of halacha above. My point wasn’t how halachah is made or its internal rules and procedures, my point was that it can be made, definitively. Once something is definitively halacha, either you believe it is moral or you are a kofer. I see no logical third choice. Do you?
Sam2 – you said: “the Rambam Paskening against HaKadosh Baruch Hu in Yevamos 63…”
I’ve never learned Yevamos, but I’ve never come across a machlokes between the rambam and HKBH and certainly not one cited in a gemara. lol. care to elaborate?
Sign Posted – “I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow is not looking good either.”
Sam2, gaw – I suppose this whole conversation about morality turns on what the definition of morality is.
Webster online defines it as: “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.”
If Halacha is the word of God (the Torah) applied to our lives (which btw is how I define halachah — not as the “rules” but as the “application” — the translation of the word after all is “the path”), then saying that it is imperfect is saying c”v that God is imperfect.
Saying that we are imperfect and therefore the word of God doesn’t apply is absolute and utter kfira. The world is full of kofrim, true, but the objectively true words of God preempt other opinions.
GAW – do you recall the story in which the rabbis were arguing and one Rabbi tried to bring proofs from the wall, the river, and the heavenly voice, and the other rabbis responded “lo bashamayaim hi” and won? It is to that idea which I was referring. Because there can be an absolute definition as what the torah means as practically applied, that means that halachah is the absolute word of God. Applying that one step further means that when halachah requires or speaks to something, it preempts the field in terms of opinions on its morality.
To summarize: 1. God objectively defines morality; 2. God gave us his true Torah; 3. Halachah is the practical manifestation of the Torah; THEREFORE Halachah(when it speaks)=Morality.
And streekgeek: MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. IT IS DEFINED BY GOD. At the very least, that is my understanding of orthodox jewish beliefs.
Wolf – I believe the NBH”T idea is the ramban on kedoshim tihyu, and my understanding is that he’s referring to what otherwise would be birshus hatorah. Either way, if the idea is applied torah, it is halacha, which would be included in my definition of morality.
GAW – much of pirkei avos is halacha. And the almighty would be my definition and definer of objective morality.
The gemara in many places cites “lo bashamayim he” to refer to our capabilities of defining the torah generally and particularly halacha (which is the torah applied to the real world). This means that whatever our great authorities interpret the halacha to be is the application of the word of god from sinai, and is the epitome of what I would call morality.
I’m not saying that there can be no other sources to learn morality from (like nature etc.), but the torah is the beginning of the conversation and the only absolute authority on the subject. So believes orthodox judaism. In the opinion of this orthodox jew.
streekgeek – if you subscribe to orthodox judaism, then halacha = morality. Any distinctions between the two is saying either 1. torah is not misinai or 2. you know better than god. Neither of those statement allows one to remain within “the klal.”
Aloud, yes. Allowed, no. Or is it vice versa? Lol. I think that if one charges a hefty sum for doing it, they lose all moral credibility. Similarly, going to extremes based on the testimony of only one party is wrong and foolish, particularly when one has no prior knowledge of said party. Lastly, the risk of chillul hashem and jail time (which now seems inevitable on both counts) should stop even those who wrongly believe that the actions are objectively correct in this country.
@jwashing – it doesn’t take more effort to write “then” over “than” – it takes some elementary knowledge that you clearly don’t have. I’d cite you twenty more examples but I don’t have the time or patience to prove an obvious point.
Jwashing – I don’t know if you are considering attending a top law school yourself. Based on your demonstrated writing ability (including clarity and grammar) I’d say it’s not an option for you in the near future. You don’t have the basic writing skills that most elementary school students have. Law school requires elite writing skills. There are other career options that don’t require elite writing skills.
Because law school applications are down, there are exponentially fewer top lsat scores. Top schools who rely on such scores to maintain their US news ranking are taking the lsat score more seriously as a result. This benefits yeshiva guys. The recent fisher v. texas decision didn’t hurt either although it doesn’t affect private schools much.
Jfem – the discovery and availability of bc is probably one of the worst things that ever happened in the history of the world (in terms of morality). Do you think that the world is a better place because of it? There might be a few more people who’d evilly choose abortions, but there’d be far, far, more decency in the world.
I will not address your point regarding which fetuses it is okay to murder.
Wikipedia is an excellent place to start looking when someone sanctimoniously questions what you took to be basic knowledge.
If God created man and woman to do different things and told us what they are, then blaming men for those roles is a direct contradiction.
Redleg – I made no such assertion. I’d respond in more detail but I wouldn’t want to go off topic.
Jfem – the two ideas in my first point directly contradict each other.
As far as what feminists stand for, here’s wikipedia’s take:
I hope you don’t stand for those things…
I’m so confused. Women? In shul? What are they doing there? Nothing better to do? Regardless, if the reason for “violating” (taking the facts and halachah as presented) halachah is a lack of knowledge, respectful communication is obviously the solution.
The OP, however, made it pretty clear that their knowledge isn’t his issue. I then see 4 possibilities of dealing with his issue: 1. Persuasion; 2. Compulsion; 3. Separation; 4. Nothing.
1. Persuasion is generally difficult.The most effective form would be to convince someone to act in their own self-interest while demonstrating why and how you care about their self-interest. Empathy and rapport needed.
2. Compulsion is most effective in the short term and least effective in the long term. A gun to one’s head works for nearly anything until the police get there. Resentment will inevitably arise. Incarceration may result. This one is least pleasant. Moving to Afghanistan may help you avoid incarceration though.
3. Separation works well in dealing with others’ behavior you can’t control. The problem is, often you have to do the separating or employ methods 1 or 2 to have the other party leave.
4. Nothing. This is the solution for the person who is comfortable in their own skin and recognizes that attempting to control others is useless and fruitless, and often a sign of personality disorders.
Don’t get me wrong, caring about others is important. But that’s not what these things tend to be about. And cut the sanctimonious shmiras einayim and arvus garbage. Arvus requires that you be decent to others. Shmiras einayim is only an issur “im ikka darka achrina.” Getting the women to stop doing laundry in public wasn’t what the gemara said. Just don’t go to places of pritzus unless you have to.
Jfem – The feminist idea that I was fighting has to do with whether the objectification of women by men evolved through male-dominated culture and behavior (the misguided foolish view) or whether hashem placed the yetzer hora in men, and a woman’s primary role is to take care of her husband (see parshas breishis).
As far as whether women should have the RIGHT to equal pay? All things equal, of course!
I was referring to the ideology of the secular feminists not religious ones that mistakenly (that’s dan lkaf zchus) call themselves by the same name.
Much of the recent moral deterioration of society can be attributed whether directly or indirectly to feminism. Birth control for teenagers and abortions were the rallying causes of feminists.
jfem2 –
If your blanket statement hypothesis were true, and modern feminists had a higher percentage of anti-holocaust deniers than others, it likely would “add some points” [albeit far fewer] to the holocaust deniers argument. However, as I haven’t defined what “adding some points” means yet, allow me to elaborate:
When I have a question, and I am unsure of the answer, I, like many others, look for clues. I don’t live my life with a constant need for absolute fact. When I see a group of misguided fools, who are organized for misguided foolery, having an outspoken opinion on the topic of which they have the least expertise and the most bias, I think “ding, ding ding, ding, a clue!” Now, the place I enter the discussion is with an opinion — the fools are likely wrong.
Obviously, when I have no question (like on the issue of whether the holocaust happened or whether men have greater objectifying tendencies) I have no need for clues, and the opinions of related or unrelated fools have no significance.
My point was that modern feminists are so clearly wrong (in my view) regarding their viewpoint on all differences between men and women, that them disagreeing with me on this, doesn’t make me right, but it helps me.
An apt holocaust comparison (if such a thing is possible) would be as follows:
If I say calling someone a “dirty Jew” is anti-Semitic, and Hitler vehemently disagrees with me, it doesn’t prove that I am right, but it sure helps a little, doesn’t it? Not on a logical scientific level, but on an intuitive level of truth.
Hitler’s opinion on feminism would be far less relevant, but might add some points to the other side. If I had the question.
Writersoul: romantic feelings? Men? As a rule, men have physical attractions that involve fewer emotions and more biology. Not to say physical attraction can’t lead to infatuation, but that is further down the road. In other words, men don’t need any meaningful relationship to feel strongly attracted to something. Women, as a rule, do.
Take a look in the world when men and women don’t feel constrained by morality – who is trying to get what from whom sooner?
Now the question is, what does a man who desires a woman-friend who has no feelings for him (yet) do? Answer: manipalatively act more romantic. It works. Often. Particularly on sheltered innocent girls. But no romantic feelings are involved on the man’s side.
Point: men have biological drives that motivate them to fool women into physical relationships that women often later regret.
The cousin question is a biological one for men. And I have heard many men openly discuss that they find their cousin attractive. Sister? Never.
As always, exceptions to rules exist in every context, and my view thankfully would be vehemently disagreed with by modern feminists. That doesn’t prove the truth of what I’m saying, it just adds some points in its favor.
Syag, I didn’t read BYM’s post. I’d probably find this thread more interesting anyway. What I see here is people arguing points with a mix of logic and emotion, and you responding purely with emotion. This leads me think that those claiming that insecurities are involved may have a point. I’m curious if you are capable of admitting that. Let me know…
Before meeting one’s spouse:
Adulthood, Love, Taiva, Fantasy, System.
What Marriage Should be:
Giving, giving, giving, giving, giving.
My Marriage:
Best thing that ever happened.
WIY: Your preconceived notion seems to be that you can tell your 18yo kid what to do, and the question is how to do it in the most effective way.
I’d directly attack your preconceived notion. As a matter of fact, if there’s a question to be asked in this scenario it’s as follows:
My parents think they can control me. I’m 18 years old and my parents don’t understand the fact that I’m no longer a child. Additionally, they are considering making my financial dependence on them a tool through which to control me absolutely. How do I explain to them that at BEST they’re only driving me away temporarily, and if they’re not careful they can drive a wedge between us permanently?
Oomis, I don’t know you and what you went through, but “spar[ing] them from pain” is only a valid rationale if all things considered they wouldn’t want to know. Most times I have heard people use that excuse it is to spare their own discomfort.
Bottom line: the fact that you are pregnant is good news. Withholding good news is selfish without a good reason. Most reasons I’ve heard both here and generally are not good reasons. Share it happily (to those that’d be made happy)! And if c”v there’s a miscarriage, you’ll have support. There’s nothing wrong with that!
It depends on the child and situation. Only a fool would say always and only a fool would say never.
Generally speaking, if the lock is an real issue, that means the child desires it (if not don’t have one and who cares).
Generally speaking, when a child desires privacy, and the parents are completely unwilling to allow any such thing, their relationship is not going to be a healthy one.
Generally speaking, unhealthy parent/child relationships are the root cause of things like OTD teens.
Now I’m sensing racism. From many places. As soon as the discussion shifted from observed correlations to hypothetical causations, biases and judgments shone through clearly. Destructive racism has killed and hurt many. Its hard to see how perpetuating such attitudes are constructive.
jewfem- the high end of medicine is similar to the high end of lawyers. The low end is far better in medicine though.
Torah613 – Blacks have a lower average IQ than whites. This is a measured fact. As to whether IQ measures intelligence completely and accurately, that is up for debate. If IQ was intrinsically valuable (it isn’t — people should be judged by their choices), and the data wasn’t so irrefutable, you might have a slight claim toward racism. There is also a strong correlation between IQ and wealth. Black people are less wealthy on average. There can be many explanations as to why this possibly arbitrary measurement favors ashkenazim over sephardim over caucasians over blacks on average. Facts are never racist, though.
Two wrongs make a fight. A wrongful fight is never right. So… two wrongs don’t make a right. Even if one claims the light. Even if the light seems bright. Even if one is tight, with one who claims the right bright light. Despite the claims of light all you’ll get is the night.
The mabul was a neis nigla. Repopulating earth afterward can easily be included in the neis. Now the only question is: why? Answer: because. Does it matter?
Funnyguy: they won’t take the division at 12-4, but they’ll win the SB? Why do you have more confidence in the harder feat than the easier one? Why do you think 12-4 won’t take the Hernandez-less AFC east? And how, how, could the Jets possibly win more than 6 games with no QB?
Do not look it in the eye!
Of course I want to install free smileys! Who wouldn’t?
Of course I want to install free smileys! Who wouldn’t?
Health: I suppose what we disagree with is the threshold for the extreme act of taking children away from parents.
In this case, if the only abuse of the children is not vaccinating, an easier solution than taking away the children permanently would be to just take them away for 20 minutes,vaccinate them, and give them back.
There is no evidence of any other abuse or neglect besides not vaccinating.
I’d like to apologize for my extreme rhetoric. It was late at night and I was shocked and revolted by the views espoused by some here, and I went too far.
Chance, because you believe you are acting in the best interest of your children you are not worse than a pedophile, and your children should not be taken away from you.
You are dead wrong though, and hurting your children and others.
Perhaps minors should be forcefully vaccinated.
Chance: I honestly believe your children should be taken away from you. Your irrational behavior is putting innocent people at risk. I know, you disagree. However, your agreement is irrelevant. Pedophiles also (generally) disagree with their treatment from society. Pedophiles are better than you. They have less control over their actions, and are less likely to directly cause people to die.
Oomis: you said “it’s kind of like trying to prove to cigarette smokers that they are polluting the environment are opening themselves up to potentially fatal illnesses. Those of us who believe that, don’t smoke. Those who don’t believe, refuse to believe, even in the face of the irrefutable evidence in that regard.”
I don’t think smokers don’t believe that it’s dangerous. They smoke despite their belief. Perhaps because people like yourself use “polluting the environment” as a reason to try to control their behavior. This is wrong both factually and morally. The only moral justification to involve yourself with helping a smoker quit is if you’ll be effective and you care for the person, not the smoking.
Using silly reasons to ineffectively further a personal vendetta is far less rational than engaging in an enjoyable habit with health risks.
Health: Neither. Never went to YU either, as you know. You should’ve gone there though. You might’ve earned a BA and become a college graduate. Perhaps you’re capable of becoming a nurse if you put everything you have into it. Who knows, you might have actually become a health professional. Oh well. It’s still possible I guess. Just study hard and get to work!
I didn’t put anyone down (yet). By all means if you are capable (this excludes you, Health) and willing to become a lawyer (or doctor, for that matter), do so.
It is when people are unsure that I start offering opinions.
Now, back to your schooling, elementary or high school?