Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, we only get rewarded according to the amount that we conquered our yetzer hara. So we really would not get very rewarded for something which is easy.
After all, the reason why Hashem makes us work for our reward, is because we would not enjoy if we got it for free, since it would be ???? ??????, bread of embarrassment.
I don’t know about this.
Learning Torah is supposed to be something hard to do, otherwise we wouldn’t get schar for doing it. I don’t think it is supposed to be like ice cream.
Wolf: Maybe he thought he meant steak with ice cream, and he was wondering who would want to put ice cream on steak.
Or maybe he thought it meant stake and eye cream.
I would accept the western provinces, and the far eastern ones. But not Ontario and Quebec. After all, what’s the point of getting all the natural resources if they come with a bunch of lefties who won’t let us exploit them.
Also, I would only let them join as one big state, so that they don’t take over the senate. 10 new states would add 20 senators. Not a good idea.
Like maybe Yukon and Northwest Territories could just become part of Alaska. And BC could become part of Washington state. We don’t want Newfoundland because they kill baby seals.
If anyone wants to read about the legal issues, I found an article which seems to go through the issues pretty well.
See Sarah E. Waldeck, Using Male Circumcision to Understand Social Norms as Multipliers, 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 455, 515 (2003)
The general rule is that “the Free Exercise Clause permits a law that burdens religion as long as the law is neutral, generally applicable, and is not passed to ban behavior solely because of its religious motivation.” The leading case on this is Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
However, the Court also said there in dicta that when another constitutional claim besides for free exercise is also implicated, then there is an even stricter level of review. That would likely apply here, because of the due process claim.
Also, there might be an issue here since it would practically make it impossible to live as a Jew or Moslem, like Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), which struck down a law prohibiting parochial schools. Apparently, this makes it much harder, although I am not sure how.
This article concludes that a law requiring anesthesia would probably stand, but not a law banning bris altogether.
the one thing you should never do is to confide too much to any friend.
That is a pretty cynical view.
Whenever you open up to someone, you risk being burned. But the alternative of never being open with anyone is far worse.
There is a world of difference between “don’t think they are classy”, and “trashy.”
Besides, if you are ok with the dark denim ones, you are on my side already. Because the women who don’t wear them don’t wear any. And men who don’t wear jeans certainly don’t differentiate between colors.
adorable:
Trashy? Come now. Really? When you see someone wearing a full length denim skirt you think trashy?
canine:
It happens to be the case. There is no correlation between the husband not wearing jean pants and the wife not wearing jean skirts.
The reason is that there are reasons for men to not wear jeans, but there is no reason for women not to, and only women who are all into feminism don’t wear them. (or girls who have been told by the teachers who are into feminism that it is assur.)
And if you don’t believe me that there is feminism going on in these joints, just ask yourself why your daughter came home from seminary davening maariv and thinking she has a chiyuv to learn torah)
If this is passed, it will presumably be challenged on two counts. First, that it infringes on the free exercise of religion, and second that it violates substantive due process under the 14th amendment.
Both of these would be measured by weighing the individual need against the governmental interest. There is a pretty good argument here that there is a strong governmental interest, particularly where it is being done for religious reasons. This is not at all a slam dunk for us.
As for the Supreme Court justices being Jewish, I highly doubt it will help us. They are from the liberal wing, which is quite hostile to any religion. Most of the petition was probably jews also.
Would it bother you if your husband regularly wore jeans? If so, why do you wear them?
It would bother her much more if he wore a skirt, and it would bother him if she wore a yarmulke or tzitzis.
There is zero correlation between men and women wearing denim.
Kshmo: You make full length jean skirts for women?
With what you are talking about in mind?
Really? I don’t believe you. You are referring to tight jean pants, and perhaps to denim miniskirts.
If you’re the type of girl whose husband (or, if unmarried, father) goes aroud in jeans, you probably will wear wear jeans. If you’re the type of girl who doesn’t appreciate your husband in jeans, you wont wear jeans.
That is not remotely true.
Yes, it wasn’t exactly an LOL laugh, or even an ROTFL kind. More like a cackle. Perhaps the abbreviation is HHH.
before another motzai shabbos with the atypical troll comes along.
Hee hee hee.
Lets talk about board game strategies.
My strategy in Risk is to be suicidal. I announced one time that if anyone attacks me, I will focus all my attention on that player, and we will both lose. The next game, nobody attacked me.
Well, here is what I do think about this.
Men who are in yeshiva do not wear jeans, because learning torah is a very respectable occupation, and people who are doing it should dress in very respectable way.
Women don’t wear them because they like to think that they are the same as yeshiva guys- basically, it’s women lib.
Please still explain why Rabbonim don’t wear them.
How many Rabbanim (or Rebbetzins) wear hoodies?
Good point. We should mention that rabbonim don’t wear skirts at all.
On the other topic IBM loosened up its dress code in 1994.
Well, I don’t think we do thinks because IBM does. I still think yeshiva guys should not be wearing jeans.
Firstly, the commerce clause’s extension has been under the necessary and proper clause. Secondly, commerce clause has been broadened much more than anything else under necessary and proper.
Rabbonim dress in a different way than everyone else to distinguish themselves. They dress distinguished.
But, we certainly agree that we should not all be dressing like rabbonnim.
IBM executives might wear suits, I don’t know. If they do, it is probably only when they are meeting people. If they do, it is because people expect executives to look conservative also, and so expect to see them in suits.
But enough of me explaining things. If you think you understand why some men don’t wear jeans, you should explain it.
brother: do you think jeans have a “trashy look”?
The commerce clause is the part of the Constitution which allows the federal government to regulate “commerce among the several states”.
It has been read by the Court to mean basically anything, and all sorts of odd laws are passed under the commerce clause. Like the health care bill, and drug laws.
I think girls are sold a “bill of goods” about tznius.
I think it is a bad idea, because by making everything in the world part of tznius, we water down actual tznius. Perhaps that is why we have threads every day complaining about actual tznius issues.
canine:
Firstly, we should forget about rabbonim, since we can and should accept that rabbonim dress differently than non-rabbonim, and that that is proper.
Executives in Goldman Sachs wear suits while they are working, because nobody would do business with them if they wore black pants and white shirt like yeshiva guys.
I googled “why do bankers wear suits”, and the answer I got is that people like to think of bankers as risk averse, so they need to appear very conservative.
s2021:
I don’t think it is. Tznius is a very specific middah. You can’t just make anything have to do with tznius. It is not all middos blended into one.
It is not the commerce clause.
yeshivabochur123:
Ben torah/bas melech?
What is a ben torah? Is everyone a ben torah? So why don’t you just say everyone has to dress in “nice respectable clothes”?
Are all women a bas melech? So do all women have to dress better than men? (who are not all ben torah)
Canine:
That does not articulate a reason. We don’t do things because executives at Goldman Sachs do them. We also don’t dress the same as rabbonim.
canine: Can you articulate what is wrong with men wearing jeans?
Jean skirts are the perfect example of how tznius is the “commerce clause” of Judaism. (By which I mean that when you want to make something assur and have no basis, you just claim tznius.)
I have no idea if there is something wrong with wearing a jeans skirt, but I know it has nothing to do with tznius.
Daas: You don’t find it immodest for a Jewish man to view a photo of a woman wearing pants?
She was wearing a skirt in the photo.
It also says ??? ?????? ?????, but every time a guy mentions that we get screamed at.
Also, here is what is often stupid about yichus:
Anything which is more than 3-4 generations, is pretty meaningless.
If you go back 10 generations, you have 1024 ancestors at that level. Meaning you have 1024 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents.
Go back just a few more and it is totally viral. 30 generation is 1 Billion ancestors at that level.
Now look at the descendant side. Assuming 5 life kids per generation, someone 5 generations ago would have 3125 descendants. So you are one of them. Yay!!
So when someone tells you they are descended from the shach, don’t be too impressed. If they say from rashi, just say “me too, howdy cuz”.
80:
What I said is true in any culture.
I take no position (in this thread) on how much involvement the parents and the children should have ideally. I am simply stating that this question of involvement is the child’s choice.
I am certain that the Zhidichover’s grandson wanted his parents to be making the decision, or they wouldn’t have done so.
Here is the problem I have with this thread.
We can fairly discuss how much a person should be involved in getting married, and how much they should involve their parents.
But, it had better be the person himself’s decision of how much to involve his parents.
The OP, and others here seem to think the parents should be deciding how much to involve the child! That is crazy and abusive.
If your child wants you to do any amount, or all of it, that is fine, but it is his decision to involve you, not the other way. And if you make him feel as if he is supposed to involve you or he is disappointing you, then you are a bad parent.
(This all applies to “she”s also.)
Say that she is too fat.
If the problem is that they speak hebrew and you don’t know how, you say “??? ????? ?????”.
So I would have to say that Yichus is a plus only if the descendants have absorbed the traits of their ancestors.
That seems to be what many posters are saying.
The question therefore is, so then what does the yichus do? If all you are is what you are anyway, then what is the point of the yichus?
You could say it helped you get there, and that is fine and nice. But once you are meeting someone to marry them, you pretty much know who they are anyway.
Duty free cigarettes.
Charlie:
Does that make sense?
If there was no procedural or strategic reason to not file for parole, why wouldn’t he have done it?
claims that have been made by Pollard’s defenders
What do you mean “defenders”? Do you think I have a vested interest in seeing him pardoned as opposed to paroled? Who does?
What about him? Why would he not want to file for parole? Do you think he has some reason he wants to remain in jail?
Are his attorneys imbeciles? (besides the original one who clearly was.)
Admittedly I do not understand the issues, but don’t you think it is rather simplistic to think he can just file for parole and has simply forgotten to do so, and all of us fools are making a big deal for no good reason?
I’m annoyed that I made a perfectly bizarre post on this thread, and did not get even one response.
Guilty until proven innocent is never a just system.
What makes you think that is the system they have?
Here is the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan
im really struggling in trig. any advice?
A squared plus B squared equals C squared.
Did that help?
There are no such thing as silly threads.
Were you online last motzaei shabbos?
They come on boats?
but refuses to apply for parole.
I have not heard that before.
Tell us more about that.
Are there procedural problems with applying for parole that would hurt his other appeals? Do you need to admit guilt? What is the stated reason?