Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You only explained why we don’t eat dog. You didn’t explain why we do eat chicken.
Any “immoral scenes” performed by actors are 1) fictional and 2) out there for the world to see. Politicians, on the other hand, are tempted all the time by corruption and bribery which are very real and, as we have seen, can be concealed.
Stop judging those who choose to donate to the ASPCA. Just because you don’t care to donate, or your rav said not to, or whatever, doesn’t make it wrong for anyone else to do so (and just because it isn’t a mitzvah doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing, either). When the judgment goes away, I’ll believe that the hatred isn’t there. And YES I WOULD want to save an anthill. Part of the reason I am a vegetarian is that I have never understood why people make arbitrary distinctions among animals, e.g. dogs are our friends but chickens are our dinner.
First of all, I don’t agree with my husband. I think that some politicians are decent human beings. I do think it’s very difficult to become president (as opposed to a lower-ranking politician) and remain a decent human being, but I think it’s possible. I was simply quoting my husband b’sheim amro. (My mother, incidentally, agrees with him– she’s fond of saying “They’re all crooks!”)
Second of all. I think that the inherent immoral temptations of a career in politics are significantly more dangerous than the inherent immoral temptations of a career in acting.
My husband is a big fan of Clinton. He says all politicians are immoral, and the fact that Clinton’s immorality was made more public than others’ has no bearing on his achievements.
Great, thanks for the support. Really appreciate it. So what is your definition of moderate?
yitzchokm, animals “dying on the street” is not simply a description of the location of their death. It is also indicative of their lifestyle and cause of death. It means that the animal did not find a place with a family or even a shelter, and instead scavenged scraps on the street, was likely disease-ridden, and almost certainly died of starvation. What misery. Even those who do not prioritize helping these briyos when it comes to tzedakah should not laugh at their plight.
Yes, those are separate things. I was responding to Health’s accusation of me being a) a “lib” and b) PC.
I oppose gay marriage. I support raising the minimum wage. I support private school vouchers. I oppose late-term abortion with an exception for saving the life of the mother, and I oppose early-term abortion with additional exceptions for rape and incest. I support state funding ONLY for political advertising. I vote based on the person, not the party. I voted for Obama in 2008 (primary and general election) and Romney in 2012. My candidate “picks” for 2016 are Martin O’Malley (D) and Marco Rubio (R). If they were to run against each other, I would find it difficult to decide which way to vote.
What is funny about animals dying on the street?
From a recent article in Tablet:
The Egyptian military is announcing a new political roadmap to help resolve the crisis…stay tuned…
Said Fr. Arne Panula, Director of the Catholic Information Center, in a recent press release:
[Supreme Court’s decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA]
The future of the family is the future of society. I couldn’t agree more. (Maybe we have more in common with the Catholics than we thought…)
Wow…what hatred…
Like any nonprofit organization, the ASPCA has every right to promote its mission, using whatever advertising it deems most effective. The ASPCA is not “tricking” anyone into giving up their money any more than any other charity is.
As for “liberal love” and what animals do or don’t need…no one is suggesting that animals have anything like a human consciousness. But they do feel physical pain and are capable of basic emotion. Several years ago, an elderly man in my neighborhood passed away. I went to pay a shiva visit to his widow and observed their dog in obvious distress, whining and pacing the house in search of the man. I heard from friends who also visited that the dog behaved this way all week.
Most importantly, animals are Hashem’s briyos. Where you spend your tzedakah money is your choice, but don’t knock those who make different choices.
She looked at photos taken immediately after the incident.
Politically, I am a moderate. I base my opinions on real facts and common sense, not fear of societal judgment.
Additionally, being outside for several hours on a fast day can cause dehydration.
Hey! This thread is for complainers! If you’re not going to complain, go somewhere else! 😛
(You’re right, it’s better to have a positive outlook, but sometimes you just need to rant a little. And what better place to do that than the CR?)
Me too!!!!
1) I’m not a “lib”.
2) I’m not trying to be “PC”.
3) I saw this on the news yesterday, which is why I posted it. It is true that this woman did not physically examine Zimmerman, but she offered her professional opinion based on photos of his injuries. It’s just like if you were to show a carpenter some photos of a bookcase. Do you think he would be unable to tell you what type of wood the bookcase was made out of, or what quality it was? And would you accuse him of “lying” about it since he hadn’t seen the bookcase in person?
SlichosGenendel: Actually, we have found it very convenient to have a shared bank account. It means we can deposit checks written out to either one of us and it’s easier to keep track of our money since it’s all in one place.
We only keep separate bank accounts for gifts, so we can surprise each other for birthdays, anniversaries, etc. and not have those purchases show up on a joint statement.
From my husband:
The principle of “tav l’meitav” was never intended to be a universal statement advocating the choice of an undesirable husband over spinsterhood. Instead, it is applied to prove (Yevamos 118b, et. al.) that even though a particular type of husband is undesirable (e.g. he has boils all over his body), that type of husband is not
- so
undesirable that we can assume that no reasonable woman would prefer this husband to spinsterhood.
In other words, the gemara is asking “how bad does a husband have to be for a woman to prefer being single?” Also, the question isn’t asked about a woman choosing a particular bad husband – it is about a husband that the woman otherwise already has (a yavam). The gemara answers that boils over his body isn’t enough to nullify a marriage ab initio.
If one is to be offended by the principle of “tav l’meitav,” it should not be for its mere existence, but for where Chazal drew the line. All women (and men, for that matter) are willing to overlook significant physical flaws or negative character traits because they love the particular spouse that they chose (you can ask both me and my wife). According to Rav J. David Bleich, the theo-political controversies over “tav l’meitav” are caused only when people interpret a halachic test as a metaphysical principle: “nonsense is nonsense; theological analysis of nonsense can only create an aura of cogency where none exists.” (Orthodox Forum Series on Lomdus).
Okay, since you asked:
I went to return a rental car today. I parked in the designated location and gave the key to the attendant, who noted the mileage and fuel gauge and checked the car for damage. She checked a few boxes on a form, gave it to me, and told me to bring it to the front desk (downstairs) for a receipt. I went to the front desk and found there were two families in line ahead of me to rent a car. Okay. I waited, and waited, and waited. After about fifteen minutes, I called my husband and he said we didn’t need a receipt, and that I should just bring the form to the counter and leave. I tried this, but the man said he needed to “close it out of the computer” and that I had to wait. Fine. I waited for another fifteen minutes until both families were finished. The man then asked me how I was doing, thanked me for waiting, took my form, and typed a few things in to the computer before handing me a receipt. The whole thing took less than a minute (I am not exaggerating). I just stood there in shock that I had been forced to wait for thirty minutes for something that took thirty seconds and probably didn’t even require my presence. He then had the nerve to ask me “Is there anything else I can help you with?” I was SO upset with this company for wasting my time. I considered expressing my frustration, but I knew that this was not necessarily the employee’s fault, probably just company policy.
FYI, the company was Budget.
A medical examiner testified that Zimmerman’s injuries were “very insignificant”.
“He’s called himself Barry since his college days.”
To his friends, sure. But do you think he introduces himself as “Barry” when meeting people for the first time? Would you mind someone who is not your spouse calling you “honey” or “sweetie”?
“Barry” is disrespectful not because it is an inaccurate name, but because using it indicates a degree of intimacy with the president which most people do not have.
Getting a concert T-shirt signed by the lead singer and then never washing the shirt– that’s “idolizing”. Getting an autograph of an actor scribbled on a napkin or a program– that’s just healthy admiration, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with wanting a souvenir from an enjoyable performance.
“and the actors represent nothing but sheker and immorality. Basically what you are doing is agreeing to the actors morals and values by idolizing them and OOing and Ahhing thaem bc what he does for a living is immoral and stupidity and brings nothing but impurity to the world.”
Not all actors are immoral, not all movies and TV shows are impure, and not all acting is stupidity. Think about what you are saying. It obviously depends on the case.
The protagonist in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn asks her mother for a cup of coffee every morning. And every morning she sits and smells the coffee for a few minutes until it cools off. Then she pours it down the sink.
The girl’s father asks the mother why she allows her to do this, and she replies that with all of their penny-pinching, the girl needs to feel like she has the luxury of throwing something away.
I agree. There are dozens of insulting nicknames for politicians and political parties out there and every time I see mention of one, whether or not I support the politician in question, it makes me cringe. Major pet peeve.
“And how does allowing Toeiva marriage not harm those seeking mates? Marriage is more of a commitment, but before this even if they were Toeiva prone these relationships could and would end and the possibility of becoming straight again is much more likely than once there is legal marriage.”
This is absolute nonsense. Even in states where gay marriage is prohibited, there are many gay couples who have lived together for decades and consider themselves to be “married” even if the state doesn’t. They’re no more likely to break up than they would be with an official marriage license.
Furthermore, sure, those relationships *can* end. But even when they do, the gay people will just find new partners, or engage in sexual activity outside of relationships. There is no way to “become straight again” because homosexuality is biological.
No straight woman in her right mind would ever want to be married to a gay man.
so excited for this 🙂
“I shudder to think what the US would look like today had we followed Jefferson’s economic model.”
About Jefferson’s economic model charliehall does shudder?
We would love to spend a shabbos in Henderson. It sounds like a very warm community. Hopefully we will get there at some point before the end of the summer. It’s only about 20 miles away, but without a car, that’s complicated.
mewho:
To “bump” is to write an arbitrary or unnecessary comment on an old thread (usually just the word “bump”) in order to “bump” it up to “recent posts” so people will read it and revive the discussion.
Who said the question was about American presidents?
Really? Then why does the law say that you have to shovel the snow on the sidewalk in front of your house?
Even though you say you are not going to “drop” your friends, you may end up pushing them away regardless if you start to give them mussar. Right now they just need a lot of love. Show them that you will support them no matter what, and then after a while you can gently start to introduce mussar a little at a time. I would just hate for you to lose them over this because of overzealous tochacha.
“The defenders of Toeiva marriage here, namely, ‘heretohelp’ & ‘jewishfeminist02’, can only bring a defense for bestiality, but they have no argument why polygamy is illegal.”
Excuse me. Please read what I actually wrote.
1) I did NOT defend gay marriage. I merely explained what those who defend gay marriage commonly argue in the context of explaining what we can respond to them so as not to be painted as homophobic religious extremists.
2) I already explained that the difference between gay marriage and bestiality is not the same as the difference between gay marriage and polygamy.
3) I also already explained that polygamy should remain illegal because of a “legitimate state interest” in that the federal government does not want to have to pay health benefits for Ploni’s 200 spouses.
I knew the first one, but didn’t think of the second. Nice!
If I’m not mistaken, in addition to the initial inflated cost of the smartphone itself, you will get charged a “data” fee every month even if you don’t actually use the Internet. Your contacts can easily be transferred and it’s a minor inconvenience to get used to a new phone in comparison to the money you will save.
Yes, it is rude.
When I am one of those cars waiting in line, I will really try not to let the car in if I can help it. I think it is very inconsiderate.
I never said that this was my position, or that this was my only position. My premise is based on arguing with pro gay marriage activists. You cannot go up to someone who believes that gay people have civil rights and should be able to get married just like anybody else and say “you can’t get married because God said so”. It isn’t going to fly and it’s only going to give us a bad name.
Now, yes, man/dog and man/man relationships are both perverse. But they are perverse in different ways, and there is a way to make a distinction between them using the American justice system. If you ignore that distinction, you show your ignorance and immediately lose all credibility with a gay rights activist.
It’s not about being right. It’s about winning.
Very funny.
Please stop telling me that you know what I *really* believe and think. It is rude, condescending, and entirely inaccurate.
Because marriage is an equal partnership.
Imagine, for instance, if a man wanted to marry a six-year-old, or someone who is mentally retarded. Like the dog, they have no right to marry and wouldn’t even understand the concept. Remember that marriage done in secular court requires an oath. Ever heard of a dog raising his right paw?
What, all the shuddering isn’t “watered down” enough for you?
I am not saying that it is unconscionable to FORCE the dog into marriage. Quite the opposite. I am saying that while a man is entitled to marriage as a civil right, a dog is not. There is no reason why the government should grant the dog the privilege of getting married.
The man is out of luck, and needs to find a marriage partner who also is entitled to marriage by right.
Avi K, I have heard your solution proposed before, and I like it. Why does the government need to be involved in marriage in the first place? Let people get married on their own, and the benefit system can be dealt with completely separately.
Incest and polygamy are significantly stronger arguments for the “slippery slope” than bestiality. Critics, though, would probably say that they are illegal because there is a “legitimate state interest” in preventing both those things– incest, because it will create children with birth defects or abnormalities, and polygamy, because the government will have to provide health insurance benefits for multiple spouses.
That means the congregants will have to disclose their salaries to the shul in order for the shul to calculate what the median is.
I kind of doubt anyone will go along with this plan.
Listen, I am against gay marriage too. But anyone who argues it from the perspective of the “slippery slope” and bestiality is only hurting the cause. It is NOT the same thing to marry someone of the same gender and to marry an animal, and the constant parroting of that line is what allows gay marriage advocates to slur the opposition and get away with it. Here’s why:
The pro gay marriage perspective is that people should be able to marry– and be married to– whomever they choose. No, that is not redundant. When you have two men who want to get married, each of those men is a human being with consciousness. One has the right to marry and the other also has the right to marry. The question is whether or not they can marry each other.
The case of a man and a dog is different. The man has the right to marry. The dog does not. The man unquestionably must find an equal partner for his marriage who has the right to marry him just as he has the right to marry her (or, according to some, him).