Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
i am leaving the cr for good!! i see over recent weeks the cr has seemed to attract a really obnoxious crowd.
everytime i ask for help all i get is ridiculed.
I didn’t even get a chance!
It is always the woman’s fault. Always.
The passuk says ?????-??? ??? ?? ???? ???. That is, only men–but not women. Women are twisted and crazy. That is why only men learn torah, because ????? ? ?????.
And quite frankly -I don’t think you take anything seriously!
I take peoples money very seriously. I will take yours if I get near it.
And we will miss bar shattya and spleen.
Not to worry, I will make up for it by posting double.
Billionaire Karl Wlaschek is marrying for the 5th time. He is 94 years old, and he hopes to have 5 or 6 more children, at the very least.
They aren’t revealing his bride’s age, but it is unnaturally high, based on the picture. We usually would see her being like 25.
Google “Karl Wlaschek marry”
She wants to marry a kohein and hopes her husband will pass away before she is a gerusha?
Nice.
The solution for this, is for him to give her a passul get against her will. Because, most passul gittin are enough to passul her from kehuna.
And this way he is not oiver on the cherem, since it wasn’t a kosher get.
For example, he could give a get that says that she is divorced, but is not muttar to anyone else. And like the asmachta: ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????
Think of a physics model that explains the world without it existing?
(This is not impossible. They discover things in physics all the time which contradict earlier thinking. You just need to think hard enough.)
My brother was in Israel once during this period, and was leaving during it.
He had already caught up, since the yeshiva he was in caught up the first week in their chutz minyan.
So, the last week he was there, he did this:
He went to a 900 minyan and davened shachris.
Then, he went upstairs to the 800 minyan after shmone esrei.
And he heard leining the next week.
That isn’t realistic. An 80 year old woman can’t have children. There’s no point in engaging in unrealistic hypotheticals.
There is. Because if you can’t even admit to it when it is impossible anyway, it kind of undercuts you.
dachtzuch mir that chicago has as fund which fundraises from the community on this theory, which then in turn funds all the orthodox schools in the city.
uber, this is just fundraising–there is no enforcement.
Facebook
A centralized system into which everyone pays whether or not you have kids in yeshiva. most of what you pay into it ends up being tax deductible too (added benefit). its obviously complicated but i believe we are headed in that direction.
I like this idea, especially if we can make it tax deductible.
But, I’m getting bogged down on the details.
The notion is to provide schools free of charge to everyone who wants it, and structure it in such a way that anyone who might want it would also be in the group who would be “forced” to pay a yearly tax into the pot.
What is our forcing mechanism, that will actually force anyone who would want the schooling?
Which institutions have the power to enforce such a thing?
You might imagine something along the lines of shuls not allowing you to daven there unless you’ve paid your yearly payments to the community chest. But won’t there be shuls and shteibels which won’t care?
So maybe we’ll refuse you other community services, like gmachs and hatzala. But some will still say it is worth it and opt out.
So maybe we’ll refuse to marry your daughters and sons. But see where we’re going?
Chassidishe:
I’m glad your financial situation improved after leaving Eretz yisroel. But, I find your tone and attitude pretty disturbing.
Reminds me of a Readers Digest anecdote.
So this 64 year old guy decides to take a science class at the nearby college. His lab partner is a young lady in her 20’s. He thinks that there can be something between them.
So he is at his doctor the one day, and asks his doctor (why his doctor? they’re not allowed to laugh at you) whether a 40 year gap should stand in the way of love.
Doctor: Why, are you interested in a 104 year old?
Health: When you tell me you would be willing to date an 80 year old woman if she could still have children, I’ll take you seriously.
This thread is astonishing. (Besides for the fact that it is undoubtedly started as a troll).
See, nobody could think that “texting” is objectively wrong. So presumably some think that it leads to things which are wrong.
For arguments sake, we’ll assume that someone somewhere thinks it leads to boys and girls having relationships. So, the relevant question should be whether the amount of boys and girls having relationships based on texting, has gotten out of control.
Or if the problem is wasting time, then we should ask whether wasting time has gotten out of control.
But it makes no sense to simply discuss texting in a vacuum as if it is objectively problematic.
Do they want us to call? Only because didn’t we find out last time with the petitions that they wanted us to stop?
Definitions, please?
good boys What are you calling “good”? Do you mean smart? Do you mean masmidim? Do you mean don’t smoke? Don’t use illegal drugs? Don’t spend the whole night in casinos?
not pressured Do you mean don’t learn outside of seder? Do you mean don’t learn in seder? Do you mean don’t have night seder?
To all the women out there who are wondering if this thread is creepy:
It is.
(This is my first post on it too.)
mochoh: I’m not convinced of that. I think there is something qualitatively worse about a racial crime.
I have two brothers who post in the CR, mostly during bein hazmanim (and we’ve said who they are, in the past). I like when they post–they are funny. My father occasionally posts. My sister reads, but doesn’t post much.
I email my best troll threads to my whole family, and sometimes to friends.
Florida law allows him to shoot to kill in self-defense (even if his life wasnt in danger.)
Yes, for example if he was in danger of great bodily harm, or a forcible felony (like rape). I’m not sure what you’re saying. Here is the statute, in any event:
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
The pictures we see on media seem to make Martin as lanky and a runt looking and the other one as a big guy.
Yes, the news outlets have come under attack from conservatives for showing an old picture of martin when he was 13, and a really bad picture of zimmerman. You can google around, you’ll find recent pictures of martin looking like a thug, and of zimmerman looking like an overweight department store clerk. Pictures are interesting-I can show you pictures of me that look pretty thugish too.
So the evidence has to show this great bodily harms existing or not? is that what the case will come down to?
Evidence that he could have reasonably believed he was being threatened with great bodily harm. But I think it may really be the opposite, the prosecution will have to show beyond reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably think he was being threatened with great bodily harm. (I don’t know who bears the burden of proof on the defenses to murder. And how it shifts.)
And according to this law, was he allowed to shoot to kill or should he have shot in the leg, knowing as he did that Trayvon has no weapon.
Knowing as he did? How do you know what he knew?
According to the law, I think he was only allowed to use “deadly force” if it was necessary to prevent the “great bodily harm” he thought he was being threatened with. If the jury believes martin was indeed on top of him beating his head, the jury could easily find that the force he used was necessary.
Trolling on YWN.
Unless you count raising people’s blood pressure as a physical activity.
Florida’s Stand Your Groind statue allows the use of deadly force in response to great bodily harm, even if he does not fear his life is at risk.
That is correct. And what is the definition of “great bodily harm”? (I think it usually includes broken bones)
It also allows it to prevent any forcible felony (like rape).
It is a policy judgment, what things are bad enough that you can kill to prevent it. FL (and most states) say great bodily harm or rape or death. The only thing FL adds is that you don’t have to try to run away in those cases.
I can’t see Zimmerman fearing for his life. While some high school kids are very strong and big, he was not as big as Zimmerman at all.
You are being deceitful with the facts. Martin was 6’1″, while Zimmerman was 5’9″. However, Martin did weigh more. So, you can truthfully say that zimmerman was “bigger”, but in the ways that count, we should say that martin was taller and in better shape. zimmerman is just short and fat–like most people with the name zimmeman. (I’m not nearly 5’9″-that must be because he’s a goy).
Moreover, you have no idea what happened. If martin was on top of him punching his lights out (I’m making this up), then of course he could have been afraid, even if he was bigger.
I am in favor of “stand your ground”. I think those that attack it do not understand the laws.
Under the common law, if you are attacked and somebody is trying to kill you, you are not allowed to fight back with “deadly force” unless you are unable to run away. This puts victims in a bad situation, since they must try to run away, which may put them in an even more vulnerable situation. Moreover, if they do fight back, they might be prosecuted on the theory that they could have run away.
The stand your ground law changes that, and says that you are not required to run away. Rather, you are allowed to fight back.
But, the stand your ground law only applies in very limited scenarios. If somebody is going to rob you, you are not allowed to kill them. If somebody is going to beat you up, you are not allowed to kill them. If somebody is going to beat up your kids, you are not allowed to kill them.
Moreover, it does not go by what YOU think is going to happen, but by what a reasonable bystander would think. So, if you think he is going to kill you, but the jury thinks that was unreasonable, then you are guilty.
I’m in favor of that law.
Mayor Bloomberg is a rich idiot, and out of touch with the world. Let’s imagine for a moment that the facts of this case are the most positive for Zimmerman. (I’m making this up). That is let’s imagine that he stopped following when the police told him to, and was going back to his car, when Martin snuck behind him, punched him to the ground, straddled him and bashed his head into the ground intending to kill him. And that’s when he shot him. So if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, he’d have been murdered. In that scenario, are you happy he had a gun? I am.
no
IMHO, you can’t say dan kelaf zechus for both people, and since unless proven otherwise murder is an immoral and horrific act, shouldn’t we be dan lekaf zechus for the murder victim and not the murderer?
That does not make sense.
Murder is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. Thus, we don’t know if it was a murder until we know whether it was unlawful. So there is no murderer or murder victim. There is a killer and a killed. So there is no reason to assume either way based on your idea of dan l’kaf zchus.
I also don’t know where you got this idea that when being dan two people l’kaf zchus, we should start with one side being the “muchzak”–you made that up.
Also, I have never heard of being dan a goy l’kaf zchus.
Also, being dan l’kaf zchus is only when it does not make sense to do so–that is when you need a mitzva to do it. When it makes sense to do so, you just do it because it makes sense. In this case, there is so much we don’t know, that forming an opinion either way is absolutely idiotic. What makes sense is to not be dan at all. The prosecutor needs to be dan, and on the basis of what she knows, and she knows more than we do. But we know less than her, and have no obligation to be dan, so it would make no sense to.
I agree with you though, that some people have taken it too far and have started assuming that zimmerman is not guilty, thus making the same mistake as the liberals and blacks who assume he is guilty. Rather, the proper response is to recognize that we don’t know enough yet, and to condemn the white house and the black leadership for turning this into a race issue and inciting racial crimes all over the country.
Thank you always, squeak, noone. I appreciate that, and I’ll even “break character” for a second to note it.
Dolt – a fool, an idiot, a moron, a cheinik hocker, take your pick.
Is a dolt a retard?
Be Lucky, Why should I stay away from him? Is he scaryyyy???? What does he do?
He drinks blood. And puts it in his matza. And sprays it around the room from his arm.
He’s climbin in your windows, he’s snatching your people up… so hide your kids, hide your wife, and hide your husband too..
You don’t have to come and confess, we’re gonna find you… so you can run and tell that homeboy
i have no problem budgeting for a reasonable tuition, its the additional 3-4k of cost shifting funds that bother me.
I agree. It is a bit funny that we shift the cost to the other parents. I don’t see how they are more liable than any one else in the community.
However, I think you need to build more information into your model, thus:
lets work backwards for a second: if a class has 20 boys, each paying 7k that equals 140k. lets subtract 50k for the rebbi’s salary and 30k for the english teacher, we’re left with 60k to cover admin/building/misc. this seems reasonable to me.
with that said tuition shouldn’t be above 7k?
Maybe the model should look like this:
If a rebbi’s salary costs 50k and an english teacher costs 30k, and administration costs 60k, then the cost to run the class is 140k. If there are 10 parents who can afford to pay between 7k and 14k, and 10 parents who cannot afford anything, then the tuition will have to be 14k. Then, the only choice left is whether to have a class of 10, or allow the other 10 to come.
But, you’ll say we have more than 10 who can afford to pay 7-14k, because we could really combine all the payers into one school, and have tuition of 7k, and leave the others out in the cold.
So that’s where I’m holding in the cheshbon now, and that may be the correct way to view it. But, I may be missing more steps. And my model will only hold in larger cities, but not in the smaller ones.
And stay away from the chicago people. they are crazy
Although the tone of the original thread is most certainly out of line and demeans those that are holding up Klal Yisroel worldwide, the larger question is – Is this what Hashem really wants?
That certainly is the real concern, and some of your concerns are valid.
When I have a question and want to know what Hashem wants, and I think I am not qualified to answer the question, I ask people who know more torah than do I.
And I’m assuming that is what the people in question are doing.
Hey I’m not trying to start a big arguement…I just want to know what justifies finding a loophole in something and exploiting it.
Contrast that with your first post:
Since when did our nation sink so low as to steal from a government who gives us so much opportunity to thrive in this country? Does their learning even count??
Go jump in a lake.
I always assumed the rules were that to accept food stamps or welfare you have to be actively looking for work
Are you a lawyer? Did you even google the statutes to look at them?
Assumptions make a donkey out of you and umption.
Are any of the respondents tailors?
popa! popa! I wanna be!
Why do you call that stealing, if they are following the rules?
Is it stealing when you take the Earned Income Tax Credit? It is just money for free from the government. No, you follow the rules, and the government does the stealing.
If you want to allege they don’t follow the rules, that would be another story. But you seem to have a problem even if they are following the rules, which makes no sense.