Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Also, there will be shadchanim circulating at the siyum hashas, and trophy wives being handed out like candy.
I am protesting. I am very against people who learn daf yomi. Who ever said to cap your day’s learning at one daf? Meheicha blazing teisi?
But who was teaching whom?
Poppa, Charlie Brown and On the Ball all got the joke
To be fair, I was sitting next to him.
[or rant, if he really is crackers]
This is more accurate.
A survey in New York found One in five American divorces now involve Facebook….
All that proves is that people socialize today via facebook. Even a higher percentage of marriages involve facebook.
Syag: Wow. What a charge.
I said you were being not nice, because your first post said that I was “spouting insanity” and then requested that I not post on this topic. You then proceeded to agree with me several posts later, but still insisted that you had an objection which I “didn’t understand”.
Then, somehow you are accusing me of not allowing room for other opinions. If you’ll look back through this thread, you’ll see that it is you and others who have requested that I not post my opinions here because you insist that yours are fact, and that my opinions may dissuade someone from seeing your truth.
So yes, you aren’t being very nice. Just my opinion.
If you’ve googled articles on addiction, you know there are more definitions than there are addicts.
And I have indeed read some of the forums on guardyoureyes, and I was quite shocked to see what a poor understanding was being sold there.
Does pornography use correspond with “diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships”? I don’t think we are talking about halachic problems.
And I’m not aware that it causes problems with relationships, except inasmuch as it makes your wife mad, and perhaps makes you unhappy with your wife. And certainly, if it is ruining his relationships and he is still unable to stop after he sees that, then it is probably because of an addiction. But absent that, I don’t see how it would be.
Does it correspond with a “dysfunctional emotional response”? Not that I’ve ever heard tell.
More fundamentally though, your definition leaves out a key part of what an addiction is. Your definition focuses on the irrationality of behavior–so that, if behavior is interfering with your relationships, it is probably an addiction or you would stop. This may usually be true, but falls short of defining the psyche which we may call addiction.
I think addiction is more defined by the reason you are doing the behavior, irrespective of whether it happens to be interfering with you relationships and so forth. As I noted before, the difference is whether you are doing the behavior for the normal and natural reasons that it is usually done, or to satisfy an emotional need that you have created and which is only filled by indulging in the behavior.
As is obvious, that is not usually the case with pornography.
So why do you call it a mental illness? Don’t you cheapen the problems that real addicts have when you do that? Don’t you harm the efforts of people to conform their actions to halacha when you misconstrue the problem they have?
If you view pornography even once every few months you still have an addiction
lol
I guess you should take your own advice.
My socrates, you don’t read other people’s posts either.
Well, then. That was what I thought you meant that entire time.
And to that I responded by pointing out that the percentage of men who only learn seems like a pretty reasonably percentage, since it is probably about 1%, and that I have no idea what you mean when you say that it has become “a blanket policy for everyone”.
Look at the whole sugya and you will see that the gemoro understood that one ultimately had to work to be able to learn properly.
I don’t see that, unless you mean because otherwise you will be hungry.
In any event, there are many other gemaras which say the opposite. For example, in Eruvin 22a, Rav adda bar masna was going to learn and his wife asked him how she would feed their kids. His response: ???? ????? ?????, there are wild vegetables in the swamp.
Also, that would mean that you think nobody should learn full time at all even for a few years. I didn’t think that was what you were arguing, and it certainly was not what I was responding to.
Ummm. Ok. I don’t see how that is responsive to anything I said…
I was responding to the charge that: until this generation , no one ever said that everyone should be in kollel. My response is that we still don’t say that. All we’re saying is that 1% should be in kollel. Seems like a pretty reasonable percentage to me; 1% learn, and the rest support them.
I still don’t see anything relevant. What does it say?
popa- you are quoting a daas jochid in R’Nehoroi-look at the gemoro berochos 35B
I don’t know what you are referring to. I wasn’t attempting to quote any gemera. All I see on that page is that wine is better than bread because bread just makes you full, but wine makes you happy and full.
I don’t know what you agree with or disagree with, but you are not being very nice.
Health: I don’t know what you were going to post, but I agree that there is such a thing as internet addiction. I don’t agree, however, with your absurd conclusion that everyone who looks at pornography is suffering from that addiction.
ROB:
I’m counting only the people who are learning their whole life. I assumed we agreed that everyone should learn for some portion of their life, and thus, the only disagreement was how many should do nothing but learn.
So, again, you’ve defined what isn’t the problem.
To paraphrase GI Joe: Knowing what it isn’t is half the battle.
What would I recommend? I have no advise. Maybe try SSRI’s, it is about as likely to help as a 12 step program.
The way I see it, is that there are about 15m jews in the world. So that makes some 7.5m men.
So, if there are 150,000 men who just learn, that would be 2%, or one in 50. That seems like a very reasonable percentage, and in line with what all you people scream about how it was always only a small percentage.
But, there aren’t even close to that many.
I know precisely what you were objecting to. And I stand by it.
Men who look at pornography are not suffering from an addiction. Therefore, any anti-addictive cures are stupid, useless, and probably harmful. Using the 12 step program to fight something which is not an addiction is retarded.
I define addiction as when you do something for reasons other than the regular reason. So for example, if you drink because you like getting drunk, then you are not addicted. But if you drink because you emotionally need to get drunk, that is an addiction. If you overeat because you like food, that is not an addiction. If you overeat because you emotionally need to, that is an addiction.
You might like my definition, and you might not. Psychologists can’t really agree on a definition, but mine seems fairly rational, and a well regarded frum psychologist agreed with me when I discussed it with her.
But, under no definition of addiction is the exercise of a normal desire–an addiction. Looking at pornography is a normal and healthy desire–albeit assur. If your husband was eating pig at night on the computer–you would call a rav, not a 12 step program. If he was eating pig every night on the computer, you would still call a rav–not Pigaholics Anonymous. Of course, if he was neglecting his relationships and your kids, and going to bed at 3AM every night (not once in while) to get his fix of pig, that would sound more like an addiction.
Sorry Syag, but I’m exactly correct here. If you give me a call on my cell phone, I’m sure I can explain it to you, and give you relevant people you can contact who will confirm.
I don’t know what you want me to say more. You are drawing a line that a torah event should be all inclusive and include any group whatsoever that wants to join. Thus, my line.
jewish unity: You draw your lines; they draw their lines. The fact that you cannot respect their line drawing says more about you than about them.
Re: Guardyoureyes.
That website is about addictions. Men who look at pornography usually do not have an addiction, the same way men who drink beer usually do not have an addiction. It is a natural, normal–and assur–thing to do.
Look at this this way: 99% of non-religious men look at pornography; they are not suffering from an addiction.
Sam: OK. So do you read that to mean that you can never exclude another group based on their beliefs? No. So it depends on the beliefs. So we agree.
Shticky:
First, I’d like to see that source.
Second: I don’t think you should read that the way you are. It doesn’t mean that it is always inappropriate to exclude a group because of their beliefs. It just means that for groups which you are not otherwise mechuyav to hate, you should not allow your hashkafa disagreement to become hate as well.
As far as that goes, you have no reason to think that has happened here.
But also as far as that goes, I think we need to understand your source a bit more. We are mechuyav to hate tzedukim “??? ?????? ? ????”. So (if this source exists), it may be differentiating between hate based on the rishuus, and hate based on the personal things. So perhaps it is saying that the hate there became personal.
On point 1: Is that the difference? And after 30 years the misnagdim would have gone to a siyum hashas with the chassidim? I think not.
And have these parties (if they exist) ever accepted any of those as bar hochi?
On point 2: Sorry, hatred is an emotion, not a specific action. Killing someone is also often hatred, but when a state executioner kills someone, there is not necessarily hatred.
Sam:
It’d be easier if you’d be precise about which points you are addressing.
On point 1: I’m not sure why you think it is more obvious that Rabbi Lau is a bar hochi, than the Baal Shem Tov. Certainly the chassidim won’t agree with you on that.
On point 2: Where is the hatred? What has this to do with hatred?
Jewish unity: You don’t need to make this personal. You can just talk about the issue without talking about my motivations for saying what I say.
Sam: You are wrong, and for two reasons. First, you should not be critical of this position (if indeed anyone is taking it). Second, even if it is wrong, it is certainly not sinaah, and calling it that is harmful.
First: It is entirely natural that if you disagree about something important enough, you would not want to lend any stamp of approval to it. For example, I am confident that the Gra would not have gone to a siyum hashas where the Besht was speaking.
Part of having an opinion, is that you think the other side is wrong. And if you think they are wrong on something which is important, then you would want to make sure that people don’t think what they are doing is legitimate.
Second: It simply is not sinaah. They don’t hate them. They aren’t really motivated by some inner hatred for Rabbi Lau. To suggest that is ridiculous, and is motzi shem ra.
It is also harmful in that when you tag everything you don’t like with the term “sinaas chinam”, you cheapen real sinaas chinam, similar to what the liberals have done to terms like racism.
And Zdad: You always seem to assume that I will take a hypocritical position. Have you ever seen me do so? Of course I would think the same way if Rabbi Lau were to refuse to come.
gavra: When chassidim say they’re going to boycott the siyum because a Zionist will be speaking, it isn’t a show of achdus. It’s very sad, especially during this time of year.
The Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of sinas chinam, and these people are preventing it from being rebuilt.
You are way off here, and you should really take that back.
Sinas chinam? Since when is disagreeing with someone sinas chinam?
If they disagree with zionism, and think it is krum, and feel strongly enough about it, then it would be quite natural for them to boycott an event where a zionist was speaking. I don’t know if they feel that way or not, but I don’t go calling them sinas chinam for it.
And why sinaa? Do you think this has something to do with hatred? Where do you get this ideas?
Suppose you would decide to not attend because a zionist wasn’t speaking. Would that be sinas chinam.
I am very bothered by your comment.
I was in a group that asked about this to Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky right after the Dolphinarium bombing. He said that’s how it is.
I agree with the question though.
1. This is stupid.
2. It doesn’t matter who we think; it matters who the people we listen to think. As RSRH eloquently said.
So you see, nothing has changed for us; I still listen to who I listen to, and you still listen to who you listen to.
But, it seems as if Rav Shteinman is currently being listened to by the Israeli chareidi litvish world. So, I guess he’s up. I don’t think he has the cache that Rav Elyashiv had–yet. Also, I’m not aware that he is a posek the way Rav Elyashiv was.
Hair extensions aren’t tznius.
Dachtzuch mir a gemara of harei at mekudeshes li hayom ul’mochor l’ploni. Mistama she must have been dating both.
I’m sorry you don’t feel part of a community. I would have pegged you as part of the RWMO American community, which feels kinship to chardal. You should feel part of it.
As far as chilonim, I don’t know who you are trying to fool.