NeutiquamErro

There is plenty of chance to demonstrate maturity on the date, without having to predate the actual date before the date of the date with a mini-date on an earlier date to arrange the date.

The system of shidduchim being suggested and arranged, ensuring compatible people meet, and then they can determine if they are suitable for marriage, is not broken. There may need to be more networking among shadchanim, different ages getting married, whatever, if there is a need to be met. But more networking between the actual participants before the dates commence is unnecessary, unworkable and problematic. On the dates they can communicate with each other without any barriers being necessary.

Just sayin’

Allow me to sum up, on behalf of the rest of the oilom. Nice, good looking, compatible. These three are on virtually everybody’s list, just use a thesaurus.

Any mention of middos, nature, kind-hearted, etc, all fall neatly into the category ‘nice’.

Attractiveness, commonly agreed to be in the eye of the beholder, fits nicely with ‘good-looking’, i.e. what the other is looking for in terms of looks, be that good looking enough or some more stringent qualification.

And ‘compatible’ is also, as is everything else, subjective, but it encompasses common list items such as ‘intelligent’, ‘funny’, ‘aims’, ‘ideals’. I know that may be a bit too non-specific, but consider this. When people write ‘funny’, for example, or ‘intelligent’, both of which are mentioned above, they mean somebody who shares their level of intelligence or sense of humour. I am sure that if the one who wrote ‘intelligence’ met somebody with far superior intelligence, they would not be happy with that, as the two of them would not be on the same page.

Which leads me on to my main point regarding ‘compatibility’. A large number of the items on lists are purely subjective, meaning there is very little measuring point. In the same way somebody who writes ‘funny’ wishes someone not necessarily with an amazing, but with a similar sense of humour, many values are really just ‘compatible’ in a different term. However, I don’t believe ‘nice’ or ‘good-looking’ necessarily fall into this camp, at least not completely, because virtually everybody agrees on standards of attractiveness, meaning it is not just an issue of compatibility but a separate issue of appeal, what they look for, as opposed to how they match up. And the wish for somebody who is good-natured, i.e. ‘nice’, is also universal, and does not fall into the ‘compatibility’ camp.

Just sayin’.

They were almost certainly guilty of being too violent. Violence per se, when arresting someone who is not coming willingly, should be considered acceptable in most cases, but in this case it was too much.

But to label the officers as murderers is a gross overstatement. They had no way of knowing that this tactic, the chokehold, would kill. For the vast majority of people, a chokehold is not life threatening. He may have been obese, but they had no way of knowing that he had asthma, sleep apnea, etc, that he was fragile in any way. They may have been guilty of manslaughter, but anything more is just being ridiculous.

And to tar all police with one brush is similarly stupid. Not all officers are the same, and most are responsible and hardworking. The officers involved in this case were definitely stupid, following what they probably thought was procedure, were overzealous, and at that moment they suffered a common sense failure. But to say they wouldn’t have done the same in an identical scenario in which the participants were all white is way too far.

This thread is in direct contravention of the ‘Do Not Create New Threads’ dictum. Just sayin’.

Yes.

For me, the mucus is less of an issue than the loud maavir sedra, as one could be involuntary, and it would be wrong to make an issue out of it, unpleasant though it may be, whilst the other is both out of keeping with the tone of the shul and insensitive, as he has already been asked to stop.

Some of my responses were misposted above the posts they were responding to, in case anybody was wondering.

Incidentally, what is going on with the order of the post?

There is a difference between protecting children from the negative aspects of the outside world, of which I can safely say are all available on the internet in some way or other, and neglecting to educate them at all on those matters, leaving them open to those same dangers. The internet is not the prevention, it’s the disease. There is not a single way in which it is needed for a child, and a million ways in which it is not. So the question is, from my point of view, not what’s wrong with it (which I assume and hope we all agree on), but what’s right with it.

What is not realistic is to believe that you can ban the Internet when so many people make their parnassa from it.

This discussion is not about banning the internet, it’s about raising kids with access. Adult usage, in whatever environment, is a debate for another day.

I would agree with the point about being talented, but ProfMac specifically says that James got all ‘Outstanding’ OWLS, whilst the same was in no way true for Harry. There are other direct quotes which would back this up.

Really? Sorry, but please leave it to the professionals.

James was, according to multiple sources, extremely clever. What you’ve pointed out is completely irrelevant. He didn’t know the Fidelius charm had been broken, and it wouldn’t have helped if he had had it on him.

PAA:

OK, I see where you’re coming from, although I won’t begrudge Harry his enormous success.

But I have one observation that overrides my other current pressing concerns about Harry’s life.

There is a film which explores this inyan.

Hashem wants you to listen to daas Torah. Daas Torah says you shouldn’t have the internet in your house, and certainly not for your children. You can’t just think you knew better, that you’re cleverer than them. Do you?

And maybe just maybe Hashem gets a lot of Nachass from all the yidden who are able to learn Torah and hear shiurim they would not otherwise be able to do. Have you considered that possibility?

I’m sure Hashem does get nachas from, and I quote, people who would not otherwise be able to learning from online sites. So if someone will be online anyway it is a mitzva for them to learn, and for others to enable them to do so. But for a frum yid (and the last time I checked, this was the Yeshiva World News, not Aish.com), who has plenty of resources, and for whom the internet is not necessary to learn, using these sites as a justification (there’s that word again) for having internet at home is ridiculous. It’s one thing if a responsible adult looks at these sites whilst working in an office, but the image of a grown, frum man bringing a laptop into the home, endangering himselff and of course his family, because he ‘wants it for learning’ is not only stupid, but against daas Torah.

Are you genuinely trying to be cleverer or more righteous than Reb Chaim Kannievsky, Reb Elyashiv or any other of the numerous Gedolim who have unequivocally banned domestic internet use?

nishtdayngesheft:

Finally, somebody who can see sense. This entire debate has been typified by every reasoned point against the fallacy of having home internet counteracted by the exact one line, badly thought out non-arguments that are calculated to assuage ones conscience. for example, it’s necessary for work (so have it in your office), it’s necessary for learning (arguable, and that can definitely be done outside the home, such as in school or in a community centre), they’ll get online some other way (not true for the vast majority of kids, especially if allowed to use it in a controlled environment outside the home), and so on and so forth. If anybody can provide a reasoned, sensible case for having internet in the home and allowing your children to access it, please provide one, because all that has been until now have been, and I’ll say it again, mindless self-justifications.

And furthermore, pursuant to your observation regarding Harry’s luck, my instinct at this point is to simply say that that is what will happen in a children’s book, that the main characters will have a Tintin-like stroke of luck at moments of great peril, but, this being Harry Potter, such conjecture is unworthy.

So instead –

Firstly, you don’t give Harry enough credit. In almost every book he displays exceptional powers of deduction, as well as other traits such as being an accomplished wizard and possessing great bravery. In the first to discover the secrets of the Stone, battle through to the end, in the second to find the Chamber, and battle Voldermort alone, in the third to find out about Sirius, as well as rescuing him, in the fourth… well not much in the fourth, but he certainly displays initiative. In the fifth he is deliberately misled, but does sterling work with the DA, proving that he is a better wizard then one might have realised, when you see how far advanced he is ahead of his peers. In the sixth, his rescue of Dumbledore at the end was impressive, and in the seventh, he outsmarts one of the cleverest wizards ever, and that was almost completely without help. So to sum up, he does display many talents through the book, even if he does get a lot of help. And that was even if you ignore Hermione’s help.

Secondly, many of these strokes of luck are deliberate design, by other, greater wizards. There is strong evidence, and often explicit proof, that Dumbledore was aware of many of Harry’s challenges, but chose to let him face them apparently alone, but help him in indirect ways. For example, Fawkes in the second book. Add to that Voldermort and Crouch manipulating him, and much of luck is proven to be anything but.

And there is more to be said on a more general point of JK deliberately not writing Harry as a genius, but that can come later. And I join yekke2 in urging you to read Harry Potter and the Method of Rationality, which does exactly that.

Zahavasdad, I sincerely hope that was a poor joke. I myself was bought up in an internet free home, and if I needed to do work or anything I was able to access it elsewhere in a controlled environment, such as when I did my research for exams in school, or when I did my shopping in the the community centre. Currently, I am computer literate, qualified and supremely able to deal with the outside world, and hold down a job. If you would like me to go into detail I would be glad to, but I can think of no way the internet would have made me any more worldly, learned or employable. It would have simply done what it has done to too many people I know, and damage them. It may not, but the risk enormous.

And flatbusher, to quote John McEnro, you cannot be serious. The internet is not a gift, it’s a test. It may be useful and often necessary evil, but a world without it would be an infinitely better one.

Remember, we are not talking about adults here, or even older teens. We are talking about children, as outlined in the thread title. And allowing them any kind of access is simply asking for trouble. And so, allow me to phrase the question thus. Should a child (define that how you wish) have regular internet access in the house? To which the answer is unequivocally a firm no.

Zahavasdad, sorry, but you obviously did not read my post fully. The pros are arguable in terms of domestic use. By which I mean there are useful uses for the internet, but not to the extent that there is any justification for bringing up children with it in the house.

Business and shopping uses can be easily confined to any public computer or office. The excuse of using the internet for learning is the oldest in the book, and still doesn’t hold sway for me. It’s not as if seforim are that hard to come by that you need the internet for it. If you’re that desperate there are many non internet enabled programs, or maybe just get a kindle, as friends of mine have done. Trust me, Hashem would rather you didn’t have internet in the home, as virtually every Godol holds.

And that leaves communication. This easily falls into the exact category outlined in my earlier posts, of a minimal use that does not absolutely require domestic use, and which certainly goes no way towards justifying home internet. So why not do Zahava a favour, and stop attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

The real question is the rather unusual decision of the school to put all the, shall we say, less intelligent students, deemed to be neither smart, ambitious or brave, into one House. It’s not exactly a confidence booster for a quivering eleven year old to be told, by an ancient magical object imbued with mind reading powers by four of the most powerful wizards of all time, which looks into your deepest soul and destiny, that they are neither noble, clever or cunning, and are basically just a bit thick. As the Sorting Hat sings, just prior to the first sorting, they are ‘the rest’.

As I have said numerous times (not that I’m complaining, we’re both bored enough for this inane argument, considering the time), you don’t need to be a computer expert, just computer literate. And virtually every kid around today, especially in that age bracket, knows their way around a computer. And I’m willing to bet that many, if not most, kids over 10 know a good deal more than their parents.

And, as I have also said more than enough times, it is relatively easy for a child to gain access if their parents are anything less than completely careful. All they need is a device that, whilst filtered and passworded, isn’t being monitored carefully. This can easily happen if there is more than one device in the home. It can be a games console, an old laptop, a phone, virtually anything. Remember, many children will endeavour to gain extra access, especially if they have been given a taste in controlled amounts. Virtually every filter has a fault. And even with a filter, a child can get addicted.

Not to be needlessly confrontational, but you still haven’t justified having internet in the house, nor have you addressed my key points as far as addiction and vigilance is concerned. The only attempted rebuttal has been when you’ve just insisted that ‘kids aren’t experts’, and attempted to assert that there is a foolproof method.

But what you need to realise is the benefits are tiny, if present at all, and the risks are about as large as possible. There isn’t any foolproof way. The only fool is the one who needlessly risks the neshomah of his or her family.

Kids can’t get past a filter without full computer access

That is true in most cases, but I know of cases where kids bypasses the admin by rebooting the entire computer manually. But if the child figures out the parent’s passwords, they can do what they want. So inasmuch as if there is one computer in the house, with access limited in terms of time and content, technologically minded parents, and constant vigilance, then I admit the risks are diminished, if not eliminated.

But children are not stupid. I certainly could have got hold of my parent’s passwords, one way or another, had I put my mind to it. And if there are multiple devices in the home, if there is any lapse in concentration, if the child spends too much time on it, if the filter is anything less than completely foolproof (and most aren’t), then the risk becomes enormous. And how many homes can honestly claim to have taken every possible precaution? In my experience, they represent a tiny minority.

And so my point remains. The pros of the internet (as far as domestic use is concerned) are anyway minimal and arguable. The risks, even in a very careful home, are huge. So, to go back to the original point, just don’t do it.

Agreed 100%. A computer in itself isn’t a bad thing. A child should definitely learn how to use a computer, for work, play, whatever. But the internet is fire, and should be kept far from children lest they get burned, perhaps behind a firewall (and that’s it for poor puns).

If you know the openings, you know they are often easily accessed, and yes, there are definitely 8-12 year old’s who know them. Not all, but definitely a significant amount. And had you read my post thoroughly, you would know that the exact numbers and ages are not the main point. The fact is that by giving a child access, no matter how careful you are, you run the risk of there being issues. Some of them are less common than others. They may get addicted, which can happen even if the device is heavily filtered. Not every child will bypass a filter. But I can guarantee, if they attempt to, they stand a better than even chance of succeeding. And, especially when you consider the magnitude of the danger if they do succeed, is that a risk worth taking?