Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Elluuuuuuuuuuuuull! Rabboissai Ellluuuuuuuul! Only 6 months away! What? You goyim don’t feel it? In Europe a lady once fainted….She then became the N’Tziv. Wait, all those stories just confuse me. The common denominator: you’re not good, be better! Elllllllllluuuuuuuuulllll!
With odd old ends stolen out of holy writ;
There is no such thing as denial.
pba,vm: LSAC likely reports everything they get to the law school. If I remember correctly, they require all transcripts from all schools that your undergraduate degree came from.
I was unaware of a requirement or an implication that any more information was desired.
vm: As far as BTLs doing poorly, I meant relative to their LSAT scores. The LSAT is officially supposed to be a predictor of grades in law school. It doesn’t measure writing ability – the most fundamental part of all law school grades. Writing well usually takes years of training. A BTL unquestionably has far, far, less mandatory writing experience (in English) than the typical student in even an average undergraduate institution.
The typical law student in a better school has excelled their entire life, including while attending a prestigious undergrad institution. This gives the non-BTL (with the same LSAT) a huge head start.
I’d be surprised if the Fordham study wasn’t true.
VM: When I say I scored it, I mean officially. Your suggestions are noted, appreciated, and rejected.
When you said before that the GPA of credits that are not part of your degree are considered by HLS, how do you know this? How would HLS know every credit you took? Even if they did, LSAC wouldn’t allow such numbers to be included in admissions statistics because of potential game-playing. This means that it wouldn’t affect HLS’s numbers at all.
The likely reason HLS would accept a BTL over a more demonstrative proof of ability, would be to help their 25/75 numbers, particularly recently, due to the lower number of elite scores applying.
I see no reason to doubt the story of a slacker with a BTL that got into HLS. I think the reason law schools in the NYC area hesitate with BTLs is if they don’t particularly help with the #s, particularly because many BTL applicants [understandably] don’t do that well once within law school.
Finally, “took college as a joke” and “dropped out” do not imply “slacker” or even low grades to me, particularly if the reason was to learn more Torah. Quite to the contrary this sounds like a responsible and honorable person who has their priorities in order.
Health: “I’m not a mental health prof…” Interesting. I was once a lifeguard who dealt with controlling children’s behaviors. Therefore, I’m equally a health professional and a mental health professional. I wonder how you’d distinguish between the two.
The term “Addiction” requires a threshold amount of loss of self-control or bechira. I’m with jbaldy in the sense that I don’t buy Facebook usage as a typical cause of such loss.
Veltz: op said dropped out to learn full time, not “slacking.” Additionally, I scored low 170s without studying much (approx 20 hours total, mostly in a class), and if you only met 2 people marginally smarter than me, you haven’t been meeting the right people.
pba- offensive behavior bothers you? what are you, retarded?
I think the PC term should be develop-Mentally retarded. That way we can use the word root mental in a respectful, yet not misleading way.
Veltz – “Slackers don’t do well on the LSAT.” I know a slacker who would strongly disagree with you. I think the LSAT measures ability more than anything. Sure a slacker won’t do as well as s/he potentially could (assuming the slacking is a changeable trait), but unlike Law School itself, it is possible to do exceptionally well, with little work.
@Dovnyc: have you ever heard of the concept of kateigor and saneigor? An adversarial system may be more Jewish than you think.
Additionally, a lawyer can always not take a client (with the rare exception of judicial involvement), the issues are more between the lawyer and the lawyer’s boss. These problems aren’t exclusive to the legal profession.
Lastly, the question in a criminal case is: according to the government’s rules, has the government provided enough proof to override the presumption of innocence that every person has? This question has nothing directly to do with what the client did or said.
There is an entirely different question of what happens to people who do bad things but aren’t convicted. I believe God knows what he’s doing, and everyone will eventually face the music for their actions.
Is any of this a lie?
I was always under the impression that health was a phlebotomist. I’m not sure why, though. That requires a high school education (or a GED) and a certificate. I’m an expired lifeguard. I too am a “health professional.”
OneofMany: “It always irks me when people dismiss what they have trouble with as ‘not worth knowing’ . . ..” Always? The sour grapes fable is often right on but that doesn’t prove that the grapes aren’t sour. Additionally, it irks me when people take a dismissal as a presumptive indication that the dismisser had or would have had trouble with the dismissed.
VeltzMeshugene: “[Y]ou can’t know that without having the foggiest idea what it is that you don’t know.”
Yes you can. By hearing it from someone who does know.
“It teaches them to be slackers” – Any empirical evidence to provide an informed basis to that undefined generality?
I’m not against a high level of secular education. There might even be an inherent value to some of it. However, the idea that Hashem would prefer that one should engage in more religious pursuits if one can, may be the furthest thing from “bizarre” I have ever seen on this website (granted, that is not saying much).
What constitutes behavior that is “more” religious may be up for debate. Additionally, I’m operating with the assumption that religion is good and that y’all share my assumption.
yehudayona – I’ve been in Radin. Indoor plumbing is more widespread today than photography was then, yet many there seemingly didn’t know it.
If ADHD is a real thing then use real remedies (Aderrall etc.). I’ve never understood the mentality of legitimizing the label without legitimizing the solution.
Hi mods. can I get “which all agree is better than yeshivishnotfrum” as my subtitle?
yitzchokm – R’ Abadi is an expert, who also happens to have some unconventional views. The fact that the majority don’t pasken like him doesn’t mean you have a right to demean him.
Ctrl Alt Del: there’s non-commission of a mitzva chiyuvis due to oneis [“act-of-god” like situation], which is unfortunate, but not an “aveira”. There is also non-commission of a mitzva chiyuvis due to not caring enough to really try. This is incorrect. Even worse than that, would be to try to disguise not caring about a mitzva as caring about the fact that wives are much more than their reproductive organs. While this is an undeniable truth, as religous jews, the first and primary reason why we marry is to fulfill the first and primary mitzva in the torah.
Obviously, there is an entirely different discussion to be had about whether this individual girl has significant fertility issues. I have no clue. But to say that such concerns are somehow reducing a woman to her reproductive organs, seems directly, repeat, directly, opposite to what God wrote in our holy infallible Torah.
CTRL-ALT-DEL: Please answer the question, what is your source for the strong statement that a man is not obligated to have children? Mankind is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. The gemara discusses whether learning is a heter for not getting married (seemingly because it is self-understood that having a family involves working to support it), and there is a shita that says that in limited situations it is, but there is no shita that one is not commanded to marry and have children (to my knowledge)…
control-alt-del: Are you sure of what you are saying? I was (and still am) definitely under the impression that pru urvu is a mitzva chiyuvis…
jewishness – human beings, even “repulsive excuses” still must be treated with more respect than one must treat a sefer torah in many ways. This means that I deem you [and myself] a repulsive excuse for a human being.
I am exasperating though… at least two iotas.
Saw an interesting mechaber recently. Hilchos shabbos. dont have the siman offhand, halachos of business on shabbos.
It is mutar to hire someone (some say even discussing an exact price) to teach your son a profession on shabbos.
I believe it is the mb who explains that it is a dvar mitzva, because if you don’t, he will steal from people.
To be fair, I believe the biur halacha explains that this doesn’t mean that learning is bad.
It is hard to justify a protest against a dvar mitzva though.
OneOfMany: So the amount of numbers possible between 0 and 2 is infiter than the amount between 0 and 1? The paradox itself is why your argument makes no sense. Additionally, I wasn’t defining paradox, I was stating a fact about this one.
My issue generally (nothing to do with the bechira issue before), is that there was so much debate over what is infinite here, and how, and if, and what couldn’t possibly be, and it seems almost silly to me, because my human brain is incapable of getting past stage 1 of the conversation.
A paradox is something that can’t rationally be explained (by mortals).
You can debate whether the thing you don’t understand includes xyz or not, but you can’t really be authoritative on it (without immortal sources).
Additionally, in what way can infinite be relative? Please give an example.
One ofMany: See, that’s the problem. Bigness is a relative term. Infinity is an objective term, which [likely] can’t fit into something finite [like myself]. Either that or I’m dumb. I guess you guys are just more in touch with your infinite neshamas, or learn much more infinite torah, or are infinitely familiar with Vogons, respectively.
I come to y’all with an urgent question: What is infinity?
So many here seem to have intimate knowledge of its details, yet I never was able to grasp its definition. Am I just an idiot who doesn’t understand anything?
cnatgetit – it’s only gaaiva if there’s an assumption that $40,000 is better than a cheaper one, and having money is better than having no money.
Obviously, we all know, that Hashem gives everyone the perfect amount of money.
Therefore, there is no gaava to the informed individual.
yitay and OoM thanks for responding. I will focus on what you wrote later. I can’t help but address another point at this juncture. Please forgive me for getting sidetracked away from an interesting conversation.
My orifice disagrees with you.
It was my understanding from the sources you quoted above that the secular book is not assur per se but only because of what’s within it. That makes one count.
As to that one count, once again, please define kfira. Is it defined by writing something that violates the Rambam’s 13 ikrim?
OoM’s quote didn’t do that as far as I was able to see.
Is a silly novel, written by a kofer, kfira? I am not saying it isn’t. Nor am I saying it is.
You are saying it is. From where do you get this knowledge?
Now the question is, is a short neutral quote, of a joke, from a silly novel, written by a kofer, kfira?
You said it exemplifies kfira. Based on your warning.
The problem is that your warning isn’t halacha. Halacha is halacha. Focusing on what you said is self-centered (because it’s really about what God said) and arrogant (because it assuming that we are supposed to care about what you warned).
Whether buying $40,000 watches is appropriate is a good question. For someone considering buying one. Are you considering buying one? No? Then none of your business. Unless you are acting out of love for someone that you think is making a misguided error.
So much compassion out there I see.
RN – my orifice is pathetically anti-jewish? Please explain.
All I did was to focus on YOUR reaction to another post. Someone posted a secular quote. Your response was that they didn’t listen to YOUR warning, and that kfira is assur to read. Being that this was self-centered, illogical, and not focused on the only possible argument you have – WHY the quote is kfira – I called you on it.
If you wish to attack what I say, please feel free. Just focus on what I say, and why you are attacking me.
yitayningwut – so then my question is, is it better to be nothing or to be something?
ready now – slow down… “I have warned everyone that most secular books are forbidden.” You have? Wow. And they didn’t listen? Who do THEY think THEY are?
I suppose everything turns on how all-encompassing the term “heresy” is. Is it infinite? Being that in your world it encompasses everything you don’t agree with, maybe it is…
WIY – I agree that it is exceptionally rare to have an innocent murderer, and that no human can judge this.
My questions, however, don’t go away because of the extreme example I used.
OoM – the Russian classic? No. (thanks Wikipedia…)
fiddlesticks – “There are times that you just know that the reason you are rejected is because of your looks…” I guess I’ll have to take your word for it. If it helps, I understand this part of your response the best.
As far as friends vs. spouses are concerned, your point is ludicrous. Marriage is different. Not being attracted to your spouse is a recipe toward making ex-spouses; being attracted to your friends is a recipe toward ex-friends.
“I said that basing your initial decision to date someone based on their looks is ridiculous, unfair, and the girls are better off without someone who does that. To reject someone based on the shape of their nose or the size of their eyes as opposed to whether or not she’ll make a good wife is unfair.”
If they are better off, then why complain? The system self-selects for you.
As far as your good wife argument, two points:
1. In your definition, looks don’t factor in to whats makes a “good wife.” To men, they do. They also use their own definition when deciding.
2. Men have to make decisions, who to cross off and who not. Unlike the rest of the important characteristics which add to the “goodness” of a potential wife, looks are pretty easy to get a clue about. No phone calls needed. People are busy.
If you think pictures are inaccurate and misleading, what do you think of references?
“…I can bet you that he’s been redt girls that on paper would be what he’s looking for, but because he already knows what they look like, he rejects them based on that. “
What do you think he’s LOOKING for again?
“Let’s be real-most guys are not going to get a drop dead gorgeous stunner.”
I think you are wrong. Beauty is subjective.
“[If he rejected me for my personality/views I’d be okay with that] because at least a chance was given.”
I fail to see how a decision about looks doesn’t give a chance but personality does. Those are two distinct areas of compatibility. You need both. A chance was given for both. Your statement seems to be implying that you feel you would stand more of a chance if you were evaluated solely on your personality/views. Someone else might stand more of a chance if evaluated just on looks. This doesn’t speak to the merits of evaluating only one or the other.
Your learning experience idea is very nice. I have a better idea. Find a learning experience that doesn’t involve someone who has better things to do than pay to spend awkward time with a total stranger on date that has no hope of getting anywhere.
Kozov –
A) They know it is wrong generally, but think that their deity commanded it.
B) We must have laws that punish actions. This does not define culpability.
fiddlesticks – you have convinced me start posting in this thread again.
“Why can’t you just give people a CHANCE? Why do you NEED to see a picture and decide based on that?”
He is giving people a chance. The better people. For HIM. If he is at all similar to me, the picture was more to establish a baseline than to be the deciding factor. A guy has a limited amount of dates he can physically do (and pay for, but that’s a whole other conversation). That means some girls will be rejected. A sane person will reject those that are highly, highly unlikely to ever be his wife, if he can choose from those that are far, far more likely to be his wife.
Personally, I’d feel a whole lot more insulted if I was rejected for something important to ME like not happy/kind/good/frum etc. enough, than something out of my control like my looks. How shallow are these girls? Additionally, how do they know it’s the looks? Would they feel better if it was after a date? Why?
Comparing wife-finding to friendships is undermining the premise of the shidduch system.
While physical attraction can slightly change over time if the emotional attraction is growing, it is limited in both quantity and quality of attraction. (It can make an “8” a “10” but it can’t make a “2” a “10” and you never really forget the real number. These numbers are just an approximation of an objectively subjective measurement of the amount of relative attractiveness a girl has.)
OoM – Your arguments are the closest thing I’ve heard to rational here, but they are still somewhat flawed. You are saying that it is in the guy’s benefit not to decide based on pictures, because of the bias. Problems:
A) A cost/benefit analysis is in order: the difference in how much MORE flawed the picture makes the decision vs. time/expense/energy etc. saved by avoiding many complete wastes of time.
B) It can only matter in the pre-date decisions. Maybe the other pre-date decisions are made first, or by a proxy?
C) Is it assuming that the bias of attraction is a bad thing? Most men wouldn’t get married without it.
D) I don’t think any guy makes his decision on looks alone. WIY seemed to me to be trying to make a point on an extreme example.
Celebrities are just a bad example. Their problems could come from so many places that you can’t really isolate the cause.
SaysMe – it was. Clearly.
Popa – the market is the aggregate of all the individual moral decisions.
WIY – Who is talking about bes din (shel mata/court)?
Haleivi – “They are completely convinced that they are right, after arguing about it.” Agreed. Always. Me too. Everyone’s wrong sometimes. Now what?
Advocating Rumspringa = questions? One is action, the other thought. One says that finding the truth lies elsewhere, questions don’t.
“Rabbeinu Saadya Gaon writes that although it is important to understand the arguments, it is equally important to accept what you agreed to. Otherwise, you will have a different faith every day, and you’d be coming back, and switching between, religions twice a day.”
I believe a questioner today would first ask, did I agree to it (don’t answer that question, it’s not the point)? Should they?
Having a different faith daily is implying that one won’t reach the right answer. How do you know? Additionally, If that is the case are you advocating doing something which if you think about it you wouldn’t do it?
SaysMe – put it in your resume.
Popa – every decision is a moral decision.
ready now – “Your question genuinely should NEVER have been asked.”
That is my question, should I? Thanks for answering.
Behavior can be absolutely evil, but can people? Personally, I think that a perfectly bad person is exactly as common as a perfectly good one; I’ve never met either.
Wisey – so am I correct in understanding that you are saying that it is better not to ask? Then how does one know they are right?
But again, no one has answered my question. It is as basic and as fundamental as it gets. Anyone?
The free market is the best way to do things (when talking policy over many people with different ideals) unless it brings clear injustice. The free market clearly shows that men favor thin girls.
In what way is this unjust? And if it is, how would anyone recommend changing it in a way that doesn’t cause greater injustice?
Rav Dessler writes about one who was brought up between thieves may not be responsible for theft.
Are all the philosophers stumped? Wow…
I’m not sure what is offending people here. The law states that theft is prohibited from all. All agree. The question is one of sources, with few practical differences.
rebdoniel – keeping shabbos cannot be “victimizing” unless the master of the world said not to. I’m sure Rav Solovetchik had a source for this. You should argue his position on its merits. Additionally, when great men write holy words, they NEVER cause harm. All is from Hashem.
WIY – Rav Dessler writes otherwise. Everyone has a subjective level of bechira.
I think the answers to my question inevitably lead to this: is it one’s responsibility to be frum by choice, or should one blind his/herself, with the possible consequence (in their own logical sub-conscious mind) of being good, but wrong? The advantage of the second path is to avoid temptations and confusion. The advantage of the first path is that would differentiate our choices from those of the Taliban. I’m not implying c”v not to be frum, I’m just questioning: which is the best underlying motive?
I’m not sure in what way NJ is special here. Narcotics are deadly. They are also highly useful. The balanced approach in all states is to allow limited, supervised, use of narcotics when an expert says it is appropriate.
Marijuana is fun, slightly harmful, and not all that useful. The usefulness and the dangers of narcotics significantly outweigh those of weed.
Isn’t Darkei Shalom brought down as the main reason?
JMH – I completely disagree with you. I wrote a post explaining why, but it got censored. I’ll take the hint and stop posting in this thread.
No comment.