Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“– if hamas reneges on the agreement, US will fully support resumed fighting”
Meaning they otherwise did not fully support Israel.Nobody can know for sure, but it seems an awful lot like Israel was assuming they would get unwavering support from Trump and had an incentive to prolong the war until he took office. Upon finding out that he was not the gift from Hashem that his supporters made him out to be, they agreed to a deal that they could have made back last May if not earlier.
yungermanS
I’m not sure why that comment is addressed to me specifically. You could say that as a reply to any post on any thread to render all discussion of the news superfluous. I’m guessing you didn’t like something I said, but were to lazy to respond in earnest, so you just posted an implication that it’s theologically wrong to have an opinion on current events.“I don’t know if was a מלחמת מצוה or not [due to ignorance. Although I did attempt to study the topic, and leaned toward saying that it was a מלחמת מצוה, there are too many unknowns and lack of information to get clarity. Not that my opinion changes anything, anyway, continue reading.] I also think it was [=could have been] a “justified war”.
But I’m asking לשיטתם that it’s certainly a מלחמת מצוה, it’s the “most justified war Israel has ever fought.”
Their actions speak far louder than their memes.”I’m legitimately a little confused then. It seemed like you were saying unequivocally in your first post that this was NOT a milchamas mitzvah or justified. You’re saying that it is, but others who agree that it is don’t actually mean it?
Who is saying it’s devarim bateilim and in what context? I see your OP got a bit edited, so we might have lost some context.
Hey, CS, I recently had my third coming as well. Also, apparently I’m a Chabad Meshichist nowadays according to some of the posters on here.
“I thought capitulation refers to a recitation of a capitul of tehilim.”
So, now that Israel has capitulated to Hamas, can we all stop capitulating those 2 capituls after davening?“take a longer view – there is just no possibility of a deal that will not make half of Jews and half of the world upset.”
I would be more willing to agree if this had happened ~1 year ago. If they were going to cave, why not do it a month or two after the October 7th attack? What was the point of fighting a war for over a year and getting the whole world to hate the Jews? I can understand people being mad about the deal, and other people being mad about it not coming sooner. I did not think anyone would be of the opinion that fighting a long, drawn-out war only to make the same concessions they could have made right away would be the best move. Either the war was stupid or the deal was stupid. I don’t think Netanyahu is playing “4-D chess” as Trump supporters like to say to justify anything bad that happens.“that lead to vanishing of Syrian dictator”
More specifically, it took out a westernized, suit-and-tie-wearing dictator and replaced him with a beard-having, turban-wearing psycho. When has that ever worked out for Israel or The US? Syria being in a forever civil war was best case scenario. Let them all kill each other so that we don’t have to worry about them killing us.“Oh, and was also convicted of being m’aneis a woman”
He actually wasn’t. Did you not hear about one of the major news networks having to make a big apology and pay a settlement for making this exact same claim?“but in the court of law it was determined that he forced himself upon a woman (E. Jean Carrol) and is therefore liable in the defamation suit.”
You don’t understand how the law works, or the differences between civil and criminal law. Either that or you’re purposely pretending to conflate them in hopes of tricking people who don’t know better.You could write a book on all times that Trump broke promises to his supporters or did the exact opposite of what “conservatives” are supposed to do, but instead you liberals choose to focus on nonsense and no substance.
“I don’t know if you’re serious or goading, so please answer these questions:
1) Why was this war a milchemes mitzvah?
2) Do you support the surrender deal?”So, are we to assume you didn’t support the war, but that you also don’t support ending the war?
I’m not calling it a milchamas mitzvah, but what do you think the alternative was?
“I thought I did
I oppose a regulation requiring everyone to buy Ford cars.”
That’s not a real example. That was a hypothetical I gave to make a mashal. If you have no examples of anything the government currently does that you would want to cut, then I stand by what I said. If my opinion on public health is invalidated by me being too anti-government in general, then your’s is invalidated by you being too pro-government in general.“I thought I would “get you” statement was (and is) so preposterous to me that I assumed 1) you dint know what public health was (are we differed on what was included) or 2) you hadnt thought the statment through”
Just to recap this again because I think it’s important: when you failed to “get me” because I was actually consistent, you switched to calling me evil. Obviously, I’ve considered the merits of the pro-government side since that occupies the mainstream. Have you ever truly entertained the merits of the alternative? Have you even tried? So far as I can tell, your only interest in keeping this going is to be “fascinated” by me as you would by a circus freak. That’s not really a role I’m interested in continually filling for you.
“Because you have yet to provide an example where we would be better off not being regulated.”
Most people asides from diehard bootlickers are finally coming around and admitting that the 2020 overreach was too much. I guess your motto is that we’ll have to pry your medical tyranny from your cold dead hands. Also, why do you need me to feed you an example? Most people, even liberals, have examples of government functions or regulations that they would like to see go. The fact that you don’t seem to have any might make your position as un-mainstream as mine. At the very least, you would end up with more stiras. Do you support state bans on abortion while also supporting federal funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you somehow support republican-proposed bans on trans athletes while also supporting their forced inclusion?“you DO benefit from the eradication of smallpox, you DO benefit from clean water and air.”
So, if the government did force me to buy a Ford, and I drove that Ford around and benefitted from it, then it would be wrong to me to oppose the law mandating me to get it? Once I benefit from something, I’m no longer allowed to oppose it? That makes no sense to me. Of course you could point out that I “benefit” from these things. I just think I would “benefit” more if it were turned over to the private sector, or I could just be saying the costs outweigh the benefits. My point has never been predicated on the argument that I don’t derive any benefit from the government.“Look up negative externality”
Doesn’t really seem to be a new point that hasn’t been discussed. The Love Canal example from early on here would be an example of that. It’s notable that this economic concept was invented just over a century ago to justify more taxes. It’s even referred to as the “Pigovian Tax” after the economist who mainly wrote about this.“Neville, Natan Strauss was trying to protect simple people, aka ignorami, who did not know that spoiled milk kills their children.
This is not a new idea to care about society”
Ah, so after coming to the conclusion that everyone else was stupider than him, he decided that the most “caring” thing to do would be to use the government to compel everyone to align with his enlightened, non-“simple” views? I’m being hard on you, but this is the main nafka mina between individualists and collectivists. We have faith in individuals to make their own decisions whereas collectivists feel that they are on a higher plane and are morally obligated to tell everyone else how to live their lives.“That isnt my shita.”
Then give me an example where you don’t support the government. A real, concrete example. You are defending organizations that were not voted into creation by popular vote despite your repeated claims to support voting on collective decisions. These are organizations that regulate without any system of checks and balances that you claim to support (at least pre-Chevron-decision). I have yet to see any evidence that you actually support any limits on the government by the people or even from within the government. Your shittah seems to be simply to defend the government at all costs.“Because you benefit from them”
I would benefit from the Ford too, but you agree that I shouldn’t have to buy it. I’d benefit from a lot of stuff that I don’t own, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go out and buy it. Also, I’d prefer to leave it up to me what I do and don’t benefit from.“its part of living in society.”
No, it’s part of collectivism. There’s no reason this train of thought would ever not lead to socialism and potentially Communism, but I actually don’t like to use slippery slope arguments even though they usually happen to be true. It’s bad enough already that the government has such overreach that nobody asked for.“But at some point collective decisions need to be made and not every indicdual is happy”
This just isn’t true. Each individual can decide what he wants to pay for in a capitalist society. If enough people decide to pay for the CDC, it will exist. If not, it won’t. Why are you so afraid of leaving it up to this? Is it because you worry you don’t actually have the support you think you do for your authoritarian policies?“what about machine guns? heavy weapons/explosives such as bazookas/ grenades? chemical weapons? any restrictions on those?”
The people should be able to have anything the government can have, so in other words no restrictions on those.“you stuck in “seemingly” was this intentional? is there some government entity/regulation that you do support that I haven’t uncovered?”
Yes, so even in a theoretical universe an anarchist region would just be taken over quickly by a foreign government and subjected to all the same issues. I think military, boarder security, and some way of enforcing court decisions (otherwise the lawsuits would be useless) would have to exist no matter what. If you have time, look up “night watchman state.”“That’s not a gotcha. Exactly right of course I support it”
So then my response when you said the inverse to me is:That’s not a gotcha. Exactly right, of course I don’t support it!
You’re consistent in your shittah of seemingly always supporting government, and I’m consistent in my shittah of seemingly never supporting it.“So we are doing ok! Not like China or naziism.
No need to scrap . If there was then scrap”
To circle all the way back to my original point, I believe the CDC and NIH are bad enough to need to be scrapped.“So we vote and decide as a group.”
If the majority, or even plurality of people drive Fords, should I have to drive a Ford instead of anything else? Why should I be given the individual choice to go against the majority? You like the services that the CDC and NIH provide, so you can pay for them, but I don’t, so why should I have to?“How do we decide what’s your own buisness and what affects others?”
With guns and lawsuits.“just think of families, R’L 100+”
None of the federal, public health organizations in question existed 100+ years ago. Louis Pasteur did not make his discoveries on behalf of the government.“Natan Strauss (Macy’s/Netaniya, Rehov Strauss in Yerushalaim) spend a lot of time convincing New York City to pasteurize that milk – fighting those ignorami who did not trust it.”
I don’t think the City is in the business of pasteurizing milk. I assume you mean he lobbied them to ban unpasteurized milk even though it in no way affects him if someone else choses to take the risk and drink it. Yes, people were forcing their own beliefs on others a long time ago too, maybe even more so. That doesn’t prove that it’s a good idea.“What I mean is any problem with the government, my response is “ok lets work to fix it””
How much does it make sense to sink into repairs before it’s just time to scrap the thing? Should China try to “fix” communism rather than abandoning it? Should Germany have tried to “fix” the Nazi Party?“Ok lets have a system with checks and balances/separation of powers”
Agreed that this is the best we can do in reality.“The “fix” may even be ok lets give that role to the private sector.”
That’s not a “fix;” that’s just you being maskim in those cases that the government should stay out of it.“was a bit of an understatement. within your worldview of course you don’t”
No, because you can have an ideal for a perfect government (or lack thereof) while also holding opinions on how the US government should operate in real life.“no problem is the opposite of what you are suggesting in whcih we only help put out your fire if you pay us”
Ah, no that’s my bad. We were talking about private fire departments because you brought an example of one, so I was defending the idea. I still agree that volunteer ones are good and potentially superior. I was not arguing against voluntarily putting out fires.“Are you suggestign there would be less abuse of children with no government?”
No, I agree that you’re most likely correct that the problem would get worse. Nonetheless, it’s still a prediction whereas government atrocities are an observable reality.“go for it. I cant think of any specific areas”
OK, since you can’t think of any areas where you would cut back government I’ll use the same argument you used above on this page: when you said you do support public health, it “was a bit of an understatement. Within your worldview, of course you do.”“when your decisions DOES affect me do I get a say”
The problem is then it becomes a game of how to twist everything into “affecting me” so that I get to tell everyone how to live their lives.“Do I have this right?”
I’m not sure. I don’t mean to be rude, but I actually didn’t understand a lot of what you meant in there. It seemed like there were some words missing or something.“However Volunteers are the OPPOSITE of your approach.”
Not sure where you get this. Forcing people to give money they don’t want to give or volunteer in ways they don’t want is the opposite of my approach. That’s not what volunteer EMT services do.“Your holocaust part is a bit silly. I’m not advocating for a totalitarian system.”
And I’m not advocating for people to abuse their children. You implied that with my ideology one thing would lead to another, and I did the same with your’s. The difference is that with your’s we’ve already observed it happen so it isn’t just conjecture.In any case, we’ve drifted from the original topic. We live in a reality where there is always going to be a lot of government, in my opinion too much. I get that you’re trying to invalidate my opposition to specific government functions by pointing out that I’m ideologically against all government, but that’s not a good counterpoint (albeit, that wasn’t your original angle). Anarchism is purely idealistic and hypothetical, whereas wanting to cut the CDC and NIH (which the country did fine without for most of its existence) is a perfectly legitimate, concrete position. We’ve blurred the lines of what I’m advocating for in reality vs. what I would want in my hypothetical, ideal universe.
To be fair, your original goal was to catch me in an inconsistency by finding a government function I actually DO support. When you dug deeper, you discovered that I’m too “evil” to have one of these. So, those of us who support deregulation get to chose between being hypocrites or being evil apparently. I’m not saying you’re overtly supporting it, but I can’t see how this rhetoric that you and everyone else is accustomed to using doesn’t always end up rewarding authoritarianism. Case and point, I could just pick apart the areas where you want less government–which allegedly exist despite not being presented here–and do the same thing to you, forcing you to either double-down or accept being inconsistent.
“Eh, you’re just using the same argument greasy US college “communists” have been saying for years, “It’s never been tried for real”. ”
OK, so here are some examples of Communism being tried “for real”: USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. Can you give me a list of examples in which Libertarianism has been adopted as the official form of government anywhere? My angle is not to defend Libertarians, by the way. I’m arguing with you because your point happens to be factually wrong, but if somehow you can find examples of “Libertarian Governments” failing, then it’s not really going to affect me because I’m not a Libertarian.“allowing “the people” or “the economy” full power to decide certain major life altering complex decisions is never a good idea.”
I agree that “the people” should not have power to decide on major life altering decisions; I’m not advocating for populism where the majority always decide on everyone’s behalf. That would be collectivism, which is the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m arguing that the only people making life altering decisions should be the individuals involved. It’s nobody else’s business.“Well all of you are showing why both Communism and Libertarianism never worked out on a large scale.”
Libertarianism has no concrete definition. There’s no way of pointing to a time where Libertarianism was implemented as a type of government and failed. In that sense Communist organizations are more respectable since they have a cohesive ideology whereas the Libertarian party or any such organization doesn’t seem to have any idea what it believes.“Not just cold it sounds evil”
Whatever wording you prefer. To see the government as not evil requires a lot of sticking your head in the sand. I don’t have a good answer to the child services kasheh, but it’s hard for me to believe that the best answer is to implement a system responsible for The Holocaust and every war throughout mankind’s history.“not unlikely it is a certainty some people wouldn’t pay.”
Correct. You misunderstood. I was saying it’s unlikely that everyone wouldn’t pay. As long as some people in the building are paying or the building’s management, then the fire department would put it out. They wouldn’t let the entire building burn just because the fire started in a unit owned by someone who did not pay. By the way, a large potion of the country exists on volunteer fire departments. Hatzolah has been more effective at reaching emergencies quickly than government-funded EMTs. How can that be so? It’s almost like the government isn’t better at everything.“Closer to an Anarchist.”
Correct, but I have my priorities. Some parts of government more urgently need to be dissolved than others.“Im not big on arguments of authority”
I appreciate that, and I appreciate you not bringing down that pro-government mishnah in Pirkei Avos as an argument of authority as tempting as I’m sure that might be.“I’m not looking for an all encompassing solution. Each area can be different.”
Agreed in theory, but with all due respect, I don’t think you really mean this. I think you treat government as the fallback solution when nothing else is obvious. I don’t say this to insult you. This is the shittah you share with pretty much the entire world. I’m not looking for a fallback solution. My shittah is that if there are problems that aren’t financially advantageous enough to be naturally dealt with within a free capitalistic system, then they aren’t truly worth dealing with at all no matter how cold that may sound.
“(*however we define it)”
This renders all of those statements meaningless. If they’re all allowed to be subjective, then I will just declare that I personally think the government solution is subjectively worse. That’s just my opinion, but you left it up to my opinion with this clause.
“Your position is a bit odd to me though overall consistent.”
I appreciate your restraint. My position could be called a lot worse than odd. Genuinely, I really do appreciate how interested you seem to be in something that 99% of people would just swear off as “crazy” almost right away.
“There are areas where unquestionably need govt involvement. For example where your decidions impact other people . Suing you after the fact is too little too late.”
I do not agree. At the very least, it is not “unquestionable.”
“Someone who hadn’t paid had a fire they let it burn. Tgis would never work in a dense place like NY.”
On the contrary, it would work better in a place like NYC since it’s unlikely an entire building would not pay for protection. Moreover, most buildings would have an HOA or some such thing that would pay for it then pass on the bill to the tenants. Really small areas have volunteer fire departments, so it’s the in-betweens where this would be an issue. To be fair, I used to use this exact story as an argument against privatization before I went off the political derech, so it’s also not a bad case. If fire departments were always private, I don’t think this ever would have been an issue. What I think you’re touching on is our societal addiction to public services and the need to feel like everything is “free” because we ignore the fact that we pay for it with taxes.
“Why didn’t you say then you didn’t include it in public health”
I don’t know. I was just answering your questions at that point; you gave me a whole list of things some of which were public health, some of which I would not call public health.
“Except of course in these cases they literally do.”
There are plenty of people that die as a result of government as well (demonstrably more, I would say). I’m not sure why deaths caused by lack of government would be considered somehow worse. People are going to die either way; nobody has an all-encompassing solution. It’s the profound lack of self-awareness on the pro-government side that fascinates me as it seems to result from people just never considering that there could be other ways.
“It sure does
ensuring clean water supply is squarely (and waste management) is absolutely part of public health”You could say this about anything. Getting blown up is bad for your health, therefore the military falls under public health. Getting mugged is harmful, therefore the police fall under public health. You could always keep broadening the definition until you find a good case, but you’re departing from what I or anyone else actually means by public health. We’re talking about regulation of medical decisions and/or the medical/pharmaceutical field. Almost everyone would label what you’re talking about as environmental regulation, which I personally do think has more merit. That being said, I’m b’klal anti-government so I’m pretty much always going to respond the same way no matter how much you widen the definition. The only reason I’m splitting hairs now is because I think public health (going by my definition, so CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.) is far more detrimental than the government functions you’re mentioning.
“I have heard all sort of libertarians arguments before
being anti (government involvement in) clean water isnt one Ive heard before”Probably because I’m not really a libertarian. They would concede to the “usefulness” of government a lot earlier than I would in this conversation. People feel the need to surrender to the pro-government side anytime they don’t have a good answer, which I think is a mistake. Like I prefaced my first response to you, I don’t have a good answer to your case. I hope that doesn’t frustrate you, but I’m pretty much okay with it. Socialism and libertarianism don’t have a solution for cancer, but nobody is claiming that delegitimizes those philosophies. I don’t have a great solution to water poisoning or even more so child protective services, but you don’t die from a kasheh.
“Rambam Shecheinim 9:11 and MEchaber CM 155:1 both pasken are chayav. Clearly the regulation is NOT just to allow the damaged to sue for damages .”
That’s all nice, but not really relevant to what we’re talking about. We follow the halacha regardless of whether or not the government forces us to, and I assume we both agree that we don’t want to US government to start forcing people to follow halacha. That won’t really be nogeia to any government until Moshiach comes at which point I will finally have a government with which I’m OK since it will literally have Hashem behind it, but until then…
“Drunk driving probably doesn’t fall under “public health” (or does it?)”
I don’t believe poisoning people’s water supply falls under public health either; I thought we had moved on from just talking about that one aspect of government regulation.“The Government can (and does) set regulations BEFORE they occur. These regulations can be enforced BEFORE they cause damage.”
They don’t have a crystal ball to know what will and won’t cause damage. In this system they just haphazardly ban stuff based on a little bit of quack science and a whole lot of corruption. I put far more trust in private companies’ fear of lawsuits than I do in the government dictating what will and won’t cause damage based on abstract, ungrounded theories.“thats why its a GOOD example. Suing isnt enough. The damage has been done already. What comfort is that to a town Ive poisoned?”
What more do you think the government would do about it? From the company’s point of view, it’s a monetary fine either way. Obviously, it makes more sense for the money to go to the victims, not to some government bureaucracy. They need to pay for medical bills, relocation, etc. I’m not sure why your acting like the victims don’t need the money but Uncle Sam does.
“I dont know seems like regulations up front BEFORE there is a problem is a better approach”
Why would they regulate something that doesn’t cause problems? Either they put the regulation in place after the problem has occurred–something lawsuits would also accomplish–or they’re randomly guessing what things will cause future problems. The latter approach gives them the absolute power to just ban stuff on a whim as long as they can get some socialist in a white lab coat to say that it’s for the greater good. Laws should never be justified on the basis of predictions.
“and more often it is years down the line my factory may have moved or disbanded before he is diagnosed .”
I get that sometimes the liable party in a lawsuit can’t pay, but since when does that mean taxpayers collectively have to foot the bill? If a big company wrongs people living in upstate NY and now owes 200 million that they cannot pay, why is it more “fair” that random people living on the other side of the country should have to cover it for the big company? If you (or anyone else) feel sympathy for the people–rightfully so–you would be free to donate, but if someone else living in Colorado or wherever can’t afford or simply doesn’t want to pay, the government should have no right to force him; he wasn’t the one found liable. Other than being raised in a system that arbitrarily condones it, how can you justify forcing an innocent party to pay the bill for the guilty party in a lawsuit?
Yeah fumes was not the best case he could have chosen since it’s not like the government can really do anything about those either (i.e. they can’t suck them back out of the air once they’re there).
Water supply would be a better argument since the EPA theoretically deals with those cases. That being said, I think you overestimate their effectiveness. They more often than not just ban just ban people from moving to superfund sites and relocate the residents (look into Picher Oklahoma for an interesting read), then don’t actually clean up the problem. With Love Canal they [allegedly] did clean up the problem, but it took ~30 years, cost hundreds of billions, and now everybody is still afraid to live there.
“It’s weird to see intelligent individuals like yourself resort to silly bashing and twisting a narrative to satisfy their political position.”
How so? He brought Agudah and Reb Moshe as authorities that disagree with DST, then AAQ and I argued that they might be [inadvertently] missing the needs of baalhabatim who struggle to make it home before Shabbos. None of our discussion had anything to do with Trump until you came along. The DOGE news was just the catalyst. Our discussion would have looked exactly the same had it been reported as you are saying.
Ubiq:
I actually do think the issue of Superfund sites like Love Canal are one of the biggest kinks in the armor for people that are anti-EPA. Between you and me, the EPA was always treated as low-hanging fruit by small-government proponents, but I could actually argue it’s more necessary than the FBI, which nobody is fighting to disband.I don’t have a great answer for you, but just to not leave you empty-handed I would say that the penalties from lawsuits would replace the EPA fines in function. A lot of our economy is already more regulated by fear of lawsuits than it is by the government, but I hear.
Any crimes where the victims cannot functionally stick up for themselves (child abuse, animal abuse, elder abuse, poisoning a town’s water supply) are good arguments you could use against me. I don’t have answers to everything, but neither does any political ideology.
“I’m not sure if you’re trying to convince yourself or anyone else that this is really about extending daylight savings time to the entire year, when it is not the case.”
Like I said, I don’t care all that much what Trump’s position is. It could be that you’re right, but you have to realize that you aren’t just arguing against one random guy on the CR. You’re arguing against several major news outlets as well insinuating that Trump is casually making a full 180 on what the Republican party’s stance has been in recent years.
I see you’ve made up your mind as to why I’m wrong about this (scared of facts, trying to convince myself, etc.), but why are all the other sources wrong as well? Same reason?
I fully agree with Ubi about Trump’s tweets. Not only does Trump commonly make mistakes in tweets, but as I pointed out, this is a common mistake to conflate DST with the act of changing clocks. Case and point, none of the articles I found (including the ones that were saying exactly like you) used Trump’s tweet as a “proof.” His tweets are not considered a reliable source even within the pro-Trump media.
In any case, why does any of this matter? Despite the title, this thread was really about how permanent DST would affect the frum community. None of the points that were made were predicated on how Trump holds in the matter.
“Are you really arguing that you should deal with your waste, and I am free dto do with my waste as I please?”
A geographical majority of the country already deals with their own waste. It really isn’t that big of a deal. You pay a private company to deal with it as opposed to paying for it in your taxes.“Are you arguing that there should be no regulation of food/medicines Let the free market decide..”
Yes. You know that things are kosher without the American government having to certify them. If a market exists for private certification programs, then they will come to be. They would likely do a better job than the government anyway.“Are you saying everybody should be free to discharge whatever the ywant into the air?”
If I understand your question correctly, then yes.“strangest of all RFK doesn’t want to get rid of the FDA in fact he wants to greatly expand it by limiting more chemicals in foods.”
I’m not sure if that’s strange or not. The whole political conversation is just about which shittos should be forced on everyone, not whether or not it should be done. There is no constituency among politicians that supports limited government anymore. I think Trump and his guys ruined any chances of this ever being a position of the Republican party again, so I’m certainly not defending him or RFK.“vaccine program?
Food regulations?
environmental regulations ?
drug safety?”
No to all of them being done by the government. Everything would be done better privately. By the way, I’m not saying people should be absolved of civil responsibility.Any other questions?
Yechiell: I don’t public health should exist as a concept. I have my approach to my health and you have your’s. If the government stays out of people’s business, we don’t have problems.
Your problem with Trump seems to be that he doesn’t force everyone at gun point to make exactly the same decisions with their bodies that you make with your’s. This is asinine and condescending. People like you are the reason Trump won again. Just mind your own business.
“And it’s also goodbye Chalav Stam if he gets his way with neutering the FDA.”
Baruch Hashem.
News sources still seem split on how they’re reporting it, but I don’t see any conclusive evidence of what you’re saying. I’m not sure why you’re pretending I’m the only one interpreting it this way.
When I look up articles, some of them report the proposal outright as “permanent daylight savings time,” while many others use wording like “doing away with time changes,” which could mean either. YWN fell on the “permanent DST” side when they reported it a few days back.
The Daily Wire uses your terminology, but the tweets they’re using as sources only mention getting rid of time changes, which, again, could mean either. They also bring Marco Rubio as an advocate for this, and he’s made it explicitly known that he wants year round DST.
The only proof I will accept is if you have a trustworthy source that uses the terminology “permanent standard time.” Even the phrase “doing away with DST” could actually mean adopting permanent DST as the new standard time and thus doing away with time changes. As I said earlier, it is very, very common for people to mix these up and just use the phrase “daylight savings time” to refer to the act of changing clocks in general. How else do you explain different news sources understanding this differently?
The only article I found that really went all-in on interpreting this your way was one by Newsweek that was using it to bash Trump (remember, everyone outside of frum yidden prefer DST over standard time, so it would be wildly unpopular).
In any case, even if it turns out that Trump really is advocating for what you say (wouldn’t surprise me if he chose the authoritarian idea over the pro-states-rights idea as he is a fake conservative after all), that would just mean I disagree with him as usual. I’m not sure why you think my arguments have to be “based on the understanding” that Trump holds a certain way. I’m still going to be pro-DST and pro-states-rights whether Trump agrees or not. To be honest, I did not come across reporting of Trump weighing in on this, just Vivek and Musk.
“I just brought that issue for a reference, I didnt attack someone based on a misquote”
I didn’t actually think you were purposely doing it to attack him.“Next, you’ll say that I don’t value him enough because 1.414 is less than sqrt(2)”
I wish I had thought of that. I also wish I had thought of calling him “Radical Two,” because it sounds way cooler than sqrt(2).“maybe. why these became the issue? it is either increased contact (Austro-Hungarian empire?) or, maybe more likely, chassidic influence in previously litvishe areas bringing those minhagim in.”
You’re framing your theory as an Eastern European elitist. The central European minhagim have their basis in non-Chassidish sources. The fact that most of the people keeping them today happen to be Chassidish does not negate them. Most or all of these minhagim go back way farther than Minhag haGra.
Both sides have some minhagim that actually go far back. Chassidim have some that were changed due to kabalah or whatever, then the Litvaks have some that were changed due to the Gra. Mathematically, if you only look at the changes, I’m not sure Chassidim come out worse. To make the equation work in your favor, you’re left either insulting age-old minhagim that have nothing to do with Chassidus, or basically saying “it’s only okay when WE change the mesora, but you aren’t allowed to.”
“Sephardim say it at the usual times as most Ashkenazim.”
Sephardim do not say it the week following Shavuos, nor on Pesach sheni, nor (I believe) the entire month of Tishrei.“Your arguments were based on the incorrect assumption that the change would be to keep DST all year long. This is not the case.”
No, my argument is that this IS the case, and Trump just isn’t careful with his wording so he randomly says the wrong thing half the time.
Yechiell: Why do you care? If you got the vaccine, you’re fine (unless you’re the one making an anti-vaxxer statement).
If other people want to take risks with their own lives, it shouldn’t bother you.
“1.414 … said> which approach is correct: The Torah’s or the psychologist’s.”
Wow, that’s some CNN-level quoting out of context right there. Here’s what he actually said:“And now I must clarify. It sounds like I’m c”v asking which approach is correct: The Torah’s or the psychologist’s.
That is not my intention at all, but rather to understand the Emes, the Torah.”Sqrt(2): I would tell you that the psychologist is just outdated and wrong. People used to think that schoolyard bullies were these sympathetic monsters who were really suffering more than their victims. Then people paid more attention and realized that more than half the time the bullies have perfectly easy, privileged lives while their victims do not. Obviously, there are exceptions to everything, but to say that that arrogance always comes from low self esteem just isn’t true. More often than not, the opposite is.
“To broaden your limited understanding, a simple Google search will reveal the 1966 Uniform Time Act, which prohibits year-round DST. However, year-round Standard Time is not illegal.”
Correct. Any state could already adopt year round standard time, or more standard time than others, but cannot take on extra DST. Year round federal DST would effectively mean states could take on as much as they want, or as little (as is already their right).
“I’m not sure what your suspicions are based on.”
A couple of things. For starters, the opposite was widely reported before this sudden shinoy lashon. For two, people commonly say “do away with DST” when they really just mean do away with changing the clocks. You only “lose” an hour in the summer due to the time change. Year round DST would also get rid of this problem, so that’s not a proof. It’s all relative; if every state adopted daylight savings time year round, we would eventually stop calling it DST as it would be an outdated reference. It would just be the new standard time.“At this point, the federal government cannot expand DST to be all year”
Sure they could. It’s not like it’s set by a Constitutional Amendment. Sure, they’ll have to change the laws around a bit, but I think that’s always gone without saying. They already can and have expanded DST within our lifetimes.“nor does it make sense for most states to do so.”
Then there should be no concern with leaving it up to the states. “Most” states won’t do it if it doesn’t “make sense,” then those for whom it makes sense will do it.Gadol: I suspect Trump’s position is still in favor of year round DST; I don’t think he made a full 180. Far more likely he just foolishly said the wrong thing.
The way the law is set up right now–from my limited understanding–is that if the federal government allowed for year round DST, it would effectively leave the decision up to the states. If they adopted year-round standard time, it would effectively ban states from doing DST because states cannot do more DST than what is federally sanctioned, but they can do less. A lot of states already adopted legislation saying that if the federal government expands DST or makes it year round they will automatically adopt it as well.
Year round DST would be the pro “states’ rights” approach that one should expect from Republicans. That being said, I have absolutely no idea what to expect from them now that their platform is completely left up to the fleeting whims of one person.
“how many of the men are exiting for other reasons (eg off the derech)”
Not many, and if there were it would just make the problem worse.“Is the age gap really that wide? (real data says no)”
You’re simply wrong. Everybody knows that Litvishers marry at an age gap as I explained earlier. I’m not sure if you’re turning the blind eye to reality or just shamelessly lying at this point. It’s hard for me to believe that anyone even marginally acquainted with the yeshivish world could possibly suggest that the minhag is not for the husband to be older. Your “data” (if it actually exists) is probably pulling from too many groups. This crisis is very specific to one community. Chassidim and MO people don’t have this problem.“IT would be very odd if after the dust settles and the 10 men went on their 50 dates 5 women never got dates.”
Huh? This has nothing to do with anything. Nobody cares about whether or not people can go on dates. If there is a surplus of let’s say 5 thousand women this past year, then it’s perfectly possible that every women gets to date, but 5 thousand still won’t get married as there won’t enough guys.Your denial seems to be based on denying that Litvishers marry at an age gap, but you seem like you would accept that if there were an age gap there therefore would be a surplus. I’m not sure what I can say to convince you of the easily observable minhag. If you, as I suspect, live in a smallish, OOT community where you really don’t interact with many real yeshivish people, then you can either take our word for it or keep being willfully ignorant.
“I am still not sure why this is our issur d’rabonan v. someone else’s aveira.”
I agree completely with you here, but I can tell you why he thought that based on your previous posts. You made mention of “people who are less committed,” seemingly suggesting that we should be choshesh for people who would be willing to be machellel shabbos b’meizid. Reb Moshe consistently was against this line to reasoning with regards to building eruvin, so it makes sense that it would not apply here either.“Just in another thread, someone presumed that non-observant people are only interested in a Tanach to mock it …”
This is off-topic, but this is not actually what I said. I said they were either interested in it as a academic pursuit, or to mock it; in either case they would want an accurate translation. What other interest would a secular person have in it? If they are interested in it for religious reasons, then we aren’t talking about secular people anymore.“It is a thing about people not understanding others …”
More so I would say it’s a problem with adopting a collectivist approach. Meaning, if I personally benefit from year-round DST, then that’s the position I should support, but the collectivist approach that Agudah seems to be taking would say that I should be mevatel my own needs because some other guy somewhere might have trouble making it to minyan.“The gist of it is we arent oiver even a D’rabanan to prevent someone else’s issur.”
That’s all fine, but then it also isn’t my problem that a more beneficial-for-me system would make another guy miss minyan. They can’t have it both ways. Either we worry about how it affects others, in which case Shabbos is a valid concern, or it’s every man for himself, in which case I don’t care about people who miss minyan as a result unless I’m one of those people.“Gemora does”
No, it doesn’t.“so confirmed by the (very yeshivish) maggid shiur”
It doesn’t even sound like he said it’s assur to wear a hat. How would he feel about you putting those words in his mouth? Not to mention the thing you’re pretending he said would not even be historically accurate. Everyone, including goyim, wore hats 70 years ago in both America and the alter heim. Since you apparently disregard the Mishnah Berurah as proof, you can look up photographs.“Put yourself in my place: after rav said this to my face, am I allowed to disregard this just because seforim say differently?”
The short answer is yes. If a rav told you to do something that is k’neged widely accepted and written halachah, then there’s no reason not to disregard what he says. Why would you even think otherwise? Again, however, it does not seem like this rav told you not to wear a hat. He said not to dress like a talmid chacham and you took the liberty of interpreting that to suit your own desires. The common application of this in the yeshivish world is that roshei yeshivos wear kapotes and up-brim hats while bochrim wear short jackets and down-brim hats.Even within your crazy shittah, how does it show a lack of humility to dress exactly like everyone else in a given shul? You’re the one insisting on standing out because you want to show off your self-proclaimed humility, which is obviously counterintuitive.
“I retract my apology now.”
Again?“I personally didnt insult anyone for believing Yaacov Avinu is physically alive”
Why is it only called “insulting” when it’s directed at you? Do you realize how juvenile this sounds? And, yes, I know, now you’re going to say I just insulted you again. Spare us.If you want to say that calling us liars, purposely misrepresenting meforshim, etc. is not insulting because it’s just part of the discussion process, then fine, but don’t say that anything we’ve said to you in insulting either. You can’t have it both ways, and frankly we’ve been a lot more tame than you have.
“i was led to believe that “Yaacov being alive is the classic interpretation” of klal Yisroel.”
Again, it’s the classic interpretation of Rashi, not the classic interpretation of reality. If ARSo really is saying, as you seem to suggest, that we all just randomly came to the conclusion that Rashi is saying this on our own, then I would have to disagree with him. This is the “classic interpretation” of Rashi as I’ve said to you many times. You were “led to believe” correctly.