Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Health
Lets broaden the hashkafic issue
How much hishtadlus is necessary in health
And how much hishtadlus can actually affect the outcome of a persons lifespan?Daas
Yup
Thats the one that I was thinking of (I hear their advertisements all the time)To be more specific
As I said I was addressing the full body scans
There are those that advertise that they can do “full body scans” to check you out and find latent issues
I don’t remember the specific groups or doctors that advertise this, but they tend to be high end NYC concierge type practices (I’ve had a few of my patients go for these scans)
These are non symptomatic patients who want to see if they have any issues, and “address them” before they become big
If you google full body scan you will find what I am discussing
Obviously , an MD ordered test bears merit
But
Lets keep in mind
In this litigious society, more and more unnecessary tests are being ordered to cover ourselvesZD
the real question is
why doesnt satmar hold nitel nacht at night?Ubiq
I wasn’t addressing medical science, nor giving my personal/medical opinion
I was presenting a different way of looking at things from the perspective of hashkafah/nigleh
hence the “posek” commentHealth
I’m not changing the topic
I addressed an argumentative tactic that you (and others) use, and I pointed out that it is foolish.Now addressing your topic
A very chashuv person/posek once told me that he doesn’t believe in these new full body screening exams. The svarah is that many people have latent issues. Cancerous cells or heart issues that can and will go undetected for a lifetime. A person can potentially keep these latent issues from progressing with tshuva etc.
However, the moment it becomes detected, it is now a medical fact and requires treatment. Because to not treat it is now asking for an open miracle.
Obviously this doesn’t apply to people with risk factors for medical issues, because to ignore those risk factors is also a form of asking for an open miracle.Health
OR
and please follow me on this
maybe, you are making a mistake, the person isn’t doing what you are accusing him of , and he does deserve an answer, instead of a baseless accusation.Health, Midwest and others
I don’t understand why people need to be accused of having multiple screen names.
If they do, we have all seen the mods call them out.
And even if the mods don’t detect it, how does that in any way change the argument of the individual.
Either the argument is logical and has merit, or it doesn’t. Address the issue/argument or don’t.
To me, whenever I see one of these SN accusations it tells me the person is deflecting the more logical argument and the accusation merely weakens the accusers position.Akuperma
Letās not forget Eugenics of a hundred years ago (still comes up today)
Scientists Argued we would all run out of food so they wanted to control the population growth.
What happened? Hashem laughs and instead showed us how to increase crop production so now we are producing more then brought to feed the growing population
I always wondered why those that preach eugenics donāt start by removing themselves from the population? Probably the same reason al gore still flies everywhere on a private jet.DDT bans probably also created our current insect issues. I miss fresh strawberries!
And for those that believe the climate scientists (and i am not stating personal views, only questions that I believe should be asked logically)
How do you deal with something that is clear to everyone, weather modeling is highly unpredictable?
This past month my office closed early for two Wednesdays due to high patient cancellation rates due to predictions of 8-12 inches of snow. On both days we got an inch of snow and then rain. These were predictions made in the am of the storm . It is hard for the average joe to believe that 10-20 year modeling has any chance of being correct.
And isnāt that the case.? The modeling during the 90ās predicted warming. Then when that paused we got climate change. And how many of al gores predictions are true 10 years later?And in case anyone cares about my personal views.
1) Iām all for clean air. Iāve been to China and breathing there is like chain smoking the tailpipe of a nyc bus (though with the new buses, that would be safer then the Chinese air)
2) if getting rid of gas would break the financial power of the Arabs then letās do it (but not bc I think the science is settled. Iāve seen āsettled scienceā debunked numerous times)
3) I find it hard to label the first ingredient of the Krebs cycle a pollutant.The left (liberals) embrace climate science conclusions and disparage the right as āscience deniersā when we question results. This despite numerous reports of manipulation of data , or numerous top level scientists who question the data being fired from governmental and academic positions (you would think scientists would want people Around to question results, isnāt that how you arrive at good conclusions, by debating methodology?!)
Yet these same leftist seem to deny the science of XX and XY and donāt see the hypocrisyThe āvast majorityā of āscientistsā today believe ther is more then one gender, does this mean we need to believe they are correct. Since the psychologist have removed gender dysmorphia and instead come to the conclusion that gender is a choice, should we jump on that bandwagon.
To say that science is not influenced by money and peer pressure (ie political correctness) is obviously incorrect.Little Froggie
Actually I like the solution done by some condo boards
The state could have a dog DNA database. City ticket “cops” could do collections of dog poo which are matched against the database and stiff fines imposed. Its a money maker for the state and cleans up the neighborhood. Win/Win !Midwest
Even “conscientious” owners still have guilt on their hands. Twice today, walking on the street I was startled by dogs running at me. Sure the leash caught the dogs bf they were able to bite/nip me (or whatever they were planning to do) but why do I, and every other person on the street, need to live in fear of someones dog? That fear is a form of damages and it’s on the owner.So the following is true
After my last post I went outside to get into my car
I was parked on an avenue (drivers side facing the street)
Some dog owner had allowed his dog to use my street-side, drivers-side doors as a fire hydrant. Land mines all around the doors. BH, as always, I was looking down and barely missed the deposits. But one unlucky soul was not as fortunate (tell tale treadmark signs)
All the dog lovers here probably feel it’s karma for my last post.
I personally think the Koreans have the only proper hashkafic attitude toward dogs
#feedthehungryinafricaPersonally I think there are numerous halachic and hashkofic problems with dog ownership
Though I can see reasons why people should get one (example, service dogs) the problems in a typical city house outweigh the benefits
Halachically a person is responsible for the actions of his pet
Which means
Every time a little kid walks by a house and gets scared by a barking dog thatās on you. Every time a dog leaves a deposit on the street that damages or causes inconvenience thatās on you. Dogs in the neighborhood I work in have changed my entire way of walking down the street. The problem is so prevalent that you must look constantly down to avoid the land mines . My staff has thrown out numerous rugs from stuff tracked in by patients.
What about making a Bracha around a dog. My neighbor had one for years. The thing produced enough methane to power the electricity of a small city .
Not to mention how degrading it is to literally be a personal pooper scooper to an animal.
I donāt get it.Chabad is the only minyan near my office
Iāve been davening mincha there for years
And Iāve never seen anyone do thatCreole German is just another name for Yiddish
And since many rabbunim hold Yiddish is holy the mods have no choice
On the other hand your shayla would be appropriate concerning ladinoBut letās be honest
Whereas when I sell my chametz I completely have in mind to sell it and would have no problem parting with it.
How many pet owners actually would do that?
Which makes the sale a farceGut Yom Tov to all!!
since my kids spend the whole pesach complaining they have nothing to eat , can I sell them too?
My tenure on a shul board taught me that klal Yisroel can be divided into two groups.
Those that can be counted on to roll up their sleeves and help out.
Those that sit on the sidelines and tell all the helpers what they are doing wrong.Though the origin (and accuracy of the second half) of the following is debated, it is one of my favorite quotes. I often wonder what this country would look like if only taxpayers could vote .
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.Joseph
Around 15 years ago. A cousin in his first year in EY hung up signs all around har nof advertising a ” contest” to see who makes the best cheesecake for shavuos. They promised some minimal prize. He and his friends got close to twenty free cheesecakes that yom tov.
But I’m game
Several years back the wife came home from a shiur telling me that she heard that Rav Pam used to make the potato kugel for shabbos . I took the hint and started experimenting.
I happen to not like potato kugel but I took it as a challenge. I tried every conceivable combination and every idea given to me by frum patients. I even tried multiple types of potatoes and multiple percentages in mixing (I settled on 50/50 red and brown potatoes)
So I’m ready for this challenge!!Gh
This explains a lot
Long term effects of tofu consumptionYudel
I am the undisputed kugel macherUbiq
Based on intent
The national guard is technically part of the militia discussed during the constitutional era
There was to be organized and unorganized militias (discussed in some of the federal paper quotes)
The national guard is officially controlled by the state not the federal govt
And officially is armed to the teeth
So the intent is still thereUbiq
I didnāt say they were correct , as Iāve said from a frum standpoint (my litmus test of right or wrong) the founding fathers were mored bmalchus and implicit in murder of British soldiers.
My guess is the founding fathers would have thought they were correct to start the cw.
My guess is that if the founding fathers were transported to the age of SJW / abortion rights etc that we live in they would think us fools for not revolting sooner
The bottom line like I said at the outset
This is the way they believed and lived and they framed the constitution accordinglyUbiq
Who decided it when the founding fathers declared independence?
Who decided it when the south seceded ?
Change happens and sometimes itās just a few (or even one good orater) that motivate the populace to demand change. The winners of these wars are labeled fathers, the losers , traitors or terroists or madman.
As Iāve said, specifically in the second amendment issue, if the govt decided to confiscate weapons I believe we will see another revolution, and my money is on the guys with the guns.Midwest and ubiq
Our country basically had seven āfounding fathersā. Three (Hamilton, Madison, John jay ) wrote the federalist papers to promote the constitution (signed in 1787)
These papers (about 85 articles) talk about the intent of the militia (among other things)
It is clear that the intent was to have an armed populace to counter a centralized standing army. I believe the papers even state that they should have similar weapons. (And yes we have already rehashed the nuclear weapon and cannon question)
An interesting article came out two years ago in āthe weekā (a slight left of center publication).
Google āthe week Hamilton solved Americaās gun problemā
The gist is that we should mandate that all gun owners join militias and mandate the militias to take care of training and mental screening etc
Itās an interesting article
But my main point is that it has all the the quotes from the federalist papers to prove that armed citizens to counter a standing army was the intent of the founding fathers.
Another point is the disingenuous (or sheer ignorance) of the left and even leftist courts to suggest that the fathers wanted to protect hunting .Midwest
Same sourceIn Pennsylvania, John Smiley told the ratifying convention that “Congress may give us a select militia which will in fact be a standing army”, and worried that, [p.34] with this force in hand, “the people in general may be disarmed”. [122] Similar concerns were raised by Richard Henry Lee in Virginia. In his widely-read pamphlet, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Lee warned that liberties might be undermined by the creation of a select militia that “[would] answer to all the purposes of an army”
It is clear from historical sources that the militia was to function as checks and balances against a tyrannical centralized army. It may have functioned as an additional army resource (like the national guard) but itās individuality was deliberate in the checks and balance system.
Midwest
From Wikipedia militiaAt the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, a political sentiment existed in the newly formed United States involving suspicion of peacetime armies not under civilian control. This political belief has been identified as stemming from the memory of the abuses of the standing army of Oliver Cromwell and King James II, in Great Britain in the prior century, which led to the Glorious Revolution and resulted in placing the standing army under the control of Parliament.[27] During the Congressional debates, James Madison discussed how a militia could help defend liberty against tyranny and oppression. (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789) Though during his presidency, after enduring the failures of the militia in the War of 1812, Madison came to favor the maintenance of a strong standing army.
Ubiq
They are a blast
Midwest, take note . If you ever go through a difficult time itās better then therapy
But I have a problem with your new analogy
Driving a car 100 is an active endangerment to people and laws exist that punish wrong doers
Gun ownership is passive. And laws already exist that penalize people for using them in a way that endangers others. Just like driving 100 in a school zone will get you arrested so will discharging any weapon irresponsibly.Ubiq
I also donāt understand pushing the point about checks and balances of govt tyranny
You know there is a second amendment. Your entire point is knegid the amendment. You may disagree with the amendment. You may want to uproot it. But as of now itās the law.Ubiq
I can ask you the same question in reverse
Do you have proof that it isnāt a benefit?
But I want to take issue with your analogy to nuclear weapons
Iāve repeatedly said that the argument against assault rifles is based on the idea that they are inherently more dangerous, and that is false
That makes the comparison to nuclear weapons apples and oranges. A clear distinction exists between nuclear weapons and rifles.
No such clear distinction exists between an ar and a ruger 14Midwest
Btw
Not using an ar for hunting has nothing to do with bullet fragments (which happens with all calibers)
Itās because 5mm bullets arenāt particularly efficient. Not at killing nor for accuracy. 7mm /30 caliber bullets are much more suitable and therefore are the most common bullet type for big game.
This has been a major argument in military forums since the m16 replaced the 7mm m14 during the Vietnam warmidwest
Apparently you are correct
Just found out my wife is Brooklyn yenta (used her phone to post) she has kept this hidden for years (we will have to have a talk later)Ubiq
No , you canāt own nuclear weapons and no you canāt have an uprising when you donāt want to pay taxes but again the founding fathers didI must confess
I have multiple screen names
I am midwest2 and ubiq
Because I love playing devils advocate and arguing with myselfREDLEG
Re the previous post
One line from the decision is logical (imho)
The court ruled that it is logical to restrict guns commonly used in criminal activity
This is in line with miller (which restricted sawed off shotguns)
NJ has a long term ban on m1 carbines (a ww2 weapon which does NOT fit and is thus not banned by any assault rifle bans) the reason is that it was being commonly used by gangs.
Now you can question the overal effect of such a ban. After all wonāt the gangs just switch to a different weapon? But there is a logic to the position.Redleg
The following is from Wikipedia on the 1994 federal assault rifle ban
The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was “entirely rational for Congress … to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes”.[23]:10[27] It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon “potentially more dangerous”, and were not “commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting”.[23]:10ā11[28]Note
The lower courts didnāt use Miller
They also accepted the features idea of being inherently more dangerous
They also accepted that the second amendment is somehow interpreted to apply to hunting
I will grant you that the features and hunting points are ludicrous, there is no way to interpret the second amendment as regarding hunting and in all likelihood these were liberal lower courts
The ban never reached the Supreme Court and ever since then we have the Heller decisionToi and daas
There is a legal definition of āassault rifleā but as I have pointed out time and time again itās not based on addressing the lethality of the rifle (ie itās ability to rapidly kill people) rather itās based on its cosmetics.
Assault rifle laws all identify āfeatures ā that politicians somewhere decided are problematic and ban them from semi automatic rifles. For example a bayonet lug under the barrel (the funniest and most idiotic/illogical of the banned features) or the ability to adjust the stock (useful if multiple people of different arm lengths want to use the same weapon) . Or the protruding handle. so these laws basically say that if you want to own a semi auto you canāt have any of these other features.
But these features have nothing to do with the lethality of the gun and therefore come across as being nothing but a political fix rather then a logical fix to the problem.
And because of this inherent flaw savvy people can always circumvent these laws
For example
As I pointed out on the previous thread
You can cut off the handle from the the gun (for ex. The RAK 47)
Or even if you want to preserve the looks of your AR/AK you can fix the magazine (make it non removable) and then load it with speed loaders made by a company called āmeanā. Their you tube clips show them loading the gun in under 5 seconds, roughly equivalent to the time necessary to change a ar/ak clip.
Thus my harping on the Illogic of the situation/laws. And thus my constant questioning of laws that will create felons of Americans that see the illogic.
A freilichin Purim to all šUbiq
Well the liberal Supreme Court of NYS apparently disagrees with you as they struck down the provision.
And clearly the use of ages such as 18 and 21 are used because it is understood that those ages represent levels of maturity so clearly they arenāt āarbitrary ā
And since the Torah recognizes 20 as the final age of consent clearly itās not arbitrary and clearly the Torah disagreesJoseph
When a NYS resident put an eighth bullet into his pistol after the NYS Safe act, he was arrested and charged with a felony. The court finally struck down that provision of the law as being “arbitrary” but imagine what that man went through in terms of lawyer fees and aggravation. Is that common sense?
As I pointed out on the other thread, hundreds of thousands of NY’ers are at risk of being charged due to non compliance with the laws.
It could be that we will eventually ban these weapons on a national scale (we already did that once in the 90’s) but as I also pointed out on the other thread, ultimately the difference between a semi auto rifle and an “assault rifle” is nothing more then the extension of the handle past the trigger housing, and if you think that will solve mass shootings you are delusional.GadolH
I’m going to ask the question again
You keep using the word “stealing”
Were do you find a halachic basis for your accusation? Were do we find that quoting torah in any format (or any quote for the matter) can possibly be construed as “stealing”? or improper. Just the opposite we all know that as long as you attribute torah to its author it’s all good.
and even in american law
for non-commercial purposes please tell us how an attributed statement used during a free speech discussion of ideas can possibly be considered copyright infringement?Neville
There is a difference between plagiarism and fair use
When you quote you canāt be accused of plagiarism but you can infringe on copyright laws
But unless this website was given the rights to the material then they are technically guilty of copyright infringement as the quotes/ideas belong to the owner or his inheritors for something like 90 years (fair use laws)
I would love to get CTL opinion
I also find it hard to believe that the non commercial use of ideas being used in discussions can be copyrighted as that essentially puts freedom of thought / discussion at risk
Not to mention the idea that halachically, case law always centered around the effort of the typesetters. Copyright was granted to protect and insure profit so that Torah would continue to be disseminated, where is the loss here? If the website is free they canāt claim Torah copyright.
The only argument that seems to hold water is Rav Millers views and if his descendants /inheritors donāt follow them why should Joseph?funny
If you have understood anything I have written then you should understand the fundamental difference between practices. A concierge doctor is essentially getting paid by the hour and therefore has much more control over income, and thus can schedule accordingly (to keep the income rate at the desired level)
A standard insurance accepting medical office has no control over income other than volume. In fact the same procedure billed to 10 different insurances is unlikely to ever be reimbursed at the same rate.Ubiq
I don’t know what post you are referring to but I never came close to implying that I would shoot someone or be part of some mass uprising.
I fail to see how limiting guns would help anything, after all, it just takes one.
Apparently we will need to agree to disagree.
It is clear that non compliance will be an issue with any govt confiscation. It is clear that any govt that will turn millions into felons is a tyrannical govt. It is clear halachically that the right to defend yourself is a right. It is clear historically that govt’s that confiscated guns often did so as a precuser to repression. From tanach (twice its mentioned that the plishtim forbade weapons in order to repress) to the Warsaw ghetto. It is clear that the second amendment allows gun ownership. It is clear that mass shootings are a fairly recent scourge and therefore unlikely directly linked to gun ownership. It is clear that the vast majority of gun owners who are law abiding citizens never commit felonies with their weapons
What isn’t clear is that limiting guns would help one iota
Bari v’shema bari udifubiq
Because it is a uniquely American problem. I agree that the exact reasons why are hard to pin down, but it is hard to argue that the fact that it is so easy to get a gun, and that we have the highest civiallian arsenal have soemthing to do with itThe first half of your statement is hard to dispute
Sure I have some die hard second amendment fans that feel rights are absolute. But there is middle ground here. Frankly the govt has dropped the ball on background checks. I predict public opinion will succeed in some common sense solutions like background checks
But
You still haven’t given us your plan for the second half
1)the 300M guns cant disappear without confiscation. And then you run into the issues Ive already mentioned (non compliance and massive resistance resulting in millions of new felons, perhaps even violence)
2) All the assault rifle laws are clearly political and have nothing to do with the actual problem. I feel I have proven that from basic logic.
so what is your plan?As I said after vegas. Because the ignorant left reacts emotionally and believes there is a panacea , the right reacts as if the govt is coming to confiscate their weapons
If the left acknowledges the right to bear arms and stops with silly reactionary laws the right will be more willing to compromise.Ubiq
I just went back over your posts to see what your position is
Cars are heavily regulated
If we treated guns the way we treat cars that would be fantastic.
ā You need a license to own/operate one. Need to renew license every so often
ā All guns must be registrerd and Re-registered every few years
ā safety inspection they need to be equiped with safety features (safety lock?)
ā maybe we can start requiring mandatory gun insurance
ā If physician thinks you are unsafe s/he can report to DMV and possibly have license revokedIf you read my posts you would see I am in favor of mandatory safety training etc. Higher age requirements. Federal background checks
so how do we disagree?Ubiq
I’m pretty sure my statement about schools in europe (and it’s more then france) was made in response to the comment “we shouldn’t have to protect schools”
I’m curious
Clearly you want to draw some distinction between terrorism and school shootings.
why?
Is your point: terrorism we cant stop bc there are homicidal crazy people but school shootings you can stop if you take the guns? Why arent school shootings a form of terrorism (that we all seem to realize can’t be stopped)?At no point did i defend the NRA (i’m not a fan and dropped my membership years ago when they faught armor penetrating bullets) At every point in this discussion I promoted logic. Logic dictates some gun control., as I have said numerous times.
AviK
Seems like Rabbi Pruzansky has been reading my posts on Yeshiva World
But I take issue with the criminal responsibility for someone else getting there hands on a weapon
1)I cant think of a halachic argument to be made for sending someone to jail for someone elses crime
2) where there is a will there is a way. I figured out the combination to my fathers gun safe early on. It wasnt his fault it was my persistance