Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Has anyone yet clearly explained the difference between nivel peh and curse words?
theroshyeshiva: Is that price comparison for the same model Borsalino? The last merchant you cited with two different prices.
In the early ’90s the doomsday prophets were still carrying on about Global Cooling. When that didn’t pan out after a couple decades of rants, the hoax became about global warming being “man made”.
What kind of naughty posts have you been trying to slip through?
KS products are high quality.
A long scraggly white beard and mustache.
Government doesn’t provide anywhere close to enough Kollel funding, even when they do provide governmental funds.
“To determine damages the courts will determine whether the certifying agencies reputation (business) was damaged by negative remarks.”
There are no damages awarded if the negative remarks were true. And the court will refuse to determine whether they were true for the earlier mentioned reasons.
“Don’t take my word for it, look up the case law”
I already cited case law above supporting what I am telling you. You will not be able to find a case by a kashrus agency successfully winning a lawsuit against someone for saying their kashrus certification is unreliable or non-kosher.
“You can definitely say this persons qualifications do not meet my standards, but you can not say “the food that person certifies is not kosher”.
You can say that Kashruth Agency Z certifies non-kosher food as kosher. Or you can say Kashruth Agency Z’s certification is completely unreliable.
“The more private an individual the better chance they have at a successful defamation suit.”
Regardless whether they are private or not they have little to no chance of being successful in a defamation suit based on someone stating the food they certify as kosher is treif.
Big deal. So they blurred it. The only people that are bothered are the usual small cadre of loud “activists”.
Nivel peh?
APY/Sam/ubiq:
All civil courts in the United States lack any authority to answer a question of religious law such as whether a claim that kosher certification is unreliably kosher. I can say a particular hechsher’s is unreliable in certifying foods as kosher, or even say that they certify non-kosher food as kosher, and even if I am wrong the agency cannot successfully sue for damages in court. This is because in order to determine damages the civil court would need to answer whether the agencies certification is in fact kosher under Jewish law. And civil courts legally cannot attempt to answer that question.
The idea that anyone can certify anything as kosher and no one is permitted to outright dispute their claim of it being kosher — because the certifyer can claim it is kosher under their own standards — is inaccurate. I can claim it isn’t kosher under MY standards. And if I say it isn’t kosher I mean it isn’t kosher under my standards.
No one has been successfully sued for saying an agencies kashrus standards are unreliable or even non-kosher unless they’ve had grossly incompetent counsel. And you can check court case history and you will not find any such example(s). I can say with impunity that Agency Z certifies non-Kosher food as kosher; or say Agency Z’s kosher certification is unreliable. If Agency Z sued me the case would be tossed out of court in a heartbeat.
If I publicly say that the kosher certified food is in fact non-kosher, I am saying that it isn’t kosher under MY standards of kosher. And I have the right to say that.
In fact, fairly recently there was a somewhat analogous court decision precisely along these lines. Hebrew National was sued for claiming their food is kosher where the plaintiff claimed it in fact was not kosher. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul federal court ruled that he does not have jurisdiction over a dispute that he described as “intrinsically religious in nature.” Frank said he was constrained by clear Supreme Court precedent barring civil judges from resolving faith-based disputes. “Any judicial inquiry as to whether defendant misrepresented that its Hebrew National products are “100% kosher” would necessarily intrude upon rabbinical religious autonomy,” Frank wrote. “Naturally, therefore, this court cannot determine whether defendant’s Hebrew National products are in fact kosher without delving into questions of religious doctrine.”
The original claim in this case isn’t the important point I am bringing. Primarily note the reasoning and logic the federal court used to throw out the case without trial.
apushatayid: No a lawsuit could not go forward. If the comment is true it isn’t slander or libel and it is legally permissible to publicly be said. And in order for a court to determine whether it was or wasn’t slander to say that “Kashrus Agency Z is not reliable in giving kashrus certification” (or even commenting that Agency Z certifies non-kosher as kosher), the court would need to determine whether in fact Agency Z is reliable or if any of the food that they certify as kosher is in fact kosher. And no court in the United States is legally able to even attempt to make a determination of whether the foods Agency Z certifies is reliably kosher under Jewish Law. Because only Jewish Law can tell us whether the agencies kashrus certification is reliable or whether agency is certifying food that isn’t kosher. Only Jewish Law determine the kosher status of the food. And no American court is Constitutionally able to delve into or attempt to answer questions of what the laws of any religion determine. The court will be forced to throw out any libel or other such lawsuit filed on the basis that the court is Constitutionally unable to address an issue of ecclesiastical law.
A lawsuit against someone saying an agencies hechsher is unreliable would fail. A secular court cannot rule whether a particular agencies kashrus certification is reliably kosher as it would involve determining a matter of ecclesiastical law, something Constitutionally impermissible for an American court to rule upon.
Not all movies are bad.
Uncle Moishy is okay.
P.S. I didn’t write “edited”. The PG description was so bad that it was the mods who decided even the description of PG is unfit to publish!
What is wrong with a PG movie where the woman are modestly dressed and there is no overtly pritzisdick themes?
According to the MPAA, in PG films “there could be some profanity, some violence, or brief edited, however there will not be any drug use in a PG film.”
That’s PG!! Not PG-13. PG. You hear that? No drug use. Gevaldik! Just, y’know, a bissel profanity and edited. No more than that, chas v’shalom. Did you read that? Read it again. (Even G allows a minimal amount of violence.)
Now, again, in any movie from the last 50 years in which women appear in, you tell me how many of your fingers you need to use to count in how many of them all the women were dressed tznius all the time. “Modestly dressed” you ask? Modestly dressed according to Betty Crocker or modestly dressed according to halacha?
1)What is the problem with a female modestly dressed?
How many fingers on your right-hand do you need to use to count the number of movies over the last quarter century that have females that are all dressed in long sleeve shirts, long skirts, not tight and covering all required areas?
2) What do you mean “even most Gs are assur”? Just the opposite, most Gs are mutar.
No, I correctly said what I meant: even most Gs are assur.
3) Why is PG assur?
Why was it rated PG rather than G? Why is Parental Guidance required?
“Hashem, please send me my zivug now. Thank you Hashem.”
There are a lot of G movies that are mutar.
Maybe if they’re cartoons without any actual females. Anything other than G is certainly assur (for the reasons it wasn’t able to earn a G.) Even most Gs are assur. And how many Gs are playing right now in that Sheepshead Bay place you mentioned?
LC: You missed the subtly of my point to Simcha.
Thanks, Goq. I recall Joe Franklin on WOR radio’s Memory Lane used to replay episodes on Saturday nights in the 90s and at least early 2000s. Do episodes still replay in the city now that old Joe passed about a month ago?
When did The Shadow stop airing new radio episodes? Where does it replay these days?
Hershel:
The Bostoner Rebbe does not support Yachad:
ca: No aveira for skipping any of the following mitzvas aseih?:
Believe that there is a Hashem
Davening (i.e. skip tefilos)
Tefilin
Say krias shma
Eat Matzah on Pesach
Kiddush and Havdala on Shabbos
Put mezuza on door
Kibud Av V’Eim
Bris Mila
etc.
Obviously it got your attention and got you talking. So their marketing campaign is a clear success with you.
Apparently you’ve never been to chasidishe shtiebelech for shoolishsiedes.
And the Conservative’s shitta is that women should sing at the kosel. Just ’cause they don’t have the same hashkafa as you ain’t mean they’re against religious observance.
And the test (both the first and second) would’ve produced the same results had you named this as I suggested above.
It is better for a Yid to not wear any four-cornered garment with tzitzis (i.e. he wears no tzitzis) than for him to wear a four-cornered garment with posul tzitzis. There is no chiyuv to wear a four-corner garment with tzitzis. But there is a chiyuv to wear kosher tzitzus on a four-corner garment being worn. So if he isn’t wearing any tzitzus he is committing no aveira. If he is wearing posul tzitzis he is committing an aveira.
The U.S. Hamodia’s influence on the election is close to nil.
To answer your opening question with another question, what will Hamodia do if Hillary becomes president. Print a picture of a black box?
Actually it wasn’t necessary for the second part.
U.S. Hamodia or Israeli Hamodia?
…or that the group of kids sitting and partying in McDonald’s brought their own glatt kosher food.
VM: If it isn’t a kiddush Hashem then it is most proper to keep the change.
This knowledge accomplishes…?
Di oich.
You could have simply called this thread 0, and you’d have had the same url.
akuperma: The return favor of the Jewish community would be to provide the Governor the bloc vote.
His father, as Governor, didn’t attach many strings when funding a Jewish special ed school. And going to bat for it (and winning) when the Supreme Court kept trying to outlaw it.
Sounds like tuition would be tax deductible.
Why less work for his wife?
Because naturally the wife tends to the household duties.
The naming system only supports alphanumeric characters and the dash symbol. Non-alphanumeric characters are ignored unless there are no alphanumeric characters in the title, in which case it is assigned 0. Since this is the 12th such thread (most of the previous ones not approved), it was assigned -11 after the 0. (The first one was 0, the second 0-1, etc.)